@click here,
I'd like to try and answer your questions. But I'll start with a disclaimer:
This is how I see this process and these concepts within the context of my understanding of your questions. I, like you, am a flawed being. So take this for what you think its worth - I have no illusions of Ultimate Knowledge (being no smarter nor any dumber than anyone else here).
click here wrote:So are ethics then just merely opinions that are passed on to offspring?
I suppose you
could call them "opinions"; but this would be only half the story. Saying this minimalizes what they are and what they're for.
Its important to now that cannot remove ethics from its context (except to, perhaps, try and postulate a universal ethic in some way). Chances are you have your own set; think about it. Whenever you've said "That's just wrong..." you are stating your opinion, but that opinion's based on
your ideas of what's not right.
click here wrote:Why do animals not have morals?
In order to have morals (and be able to rightly call it a "moral"), I believe there needs to be a conscious or subconscious mental process that forms subscription to a principle; a notion of "wrong or right". Without such principles, the word "Moral" wouldn't apply (thus there'd be no "ethics" per say).
Animals, insomuch as we know, aren't self-ware nor intelligent enough for the necessary mental-processes; not the least of which is the ability to conceptually use "reason". In a sense, I suppose, you could say that the things they "won't" or "will" do could be construed as a moral, in a broad and vague sort of way, but that seems to be something different all together. My cat won't eat lettuce, but that's not a "moral", it's what he isn't hungry for. I've taught him to not jump onto the kitchen counter and now he doesn't. That's not my kitty's "moral", it's what he's developed a negative association with (with my help, of course).
click here wrote:Why is it wrong to rape? (excluding murder after rape, just speaking of rape itself right now) If we are no different then animals then all rape is is merely procreating. When a female dog is in heat the male dog has an immense desire to mate with the said female dog. The female does not get a say in the matter. If she can't get away or fight back, and an egg was successfully fertilized, then she will give birth. Why is that wrong for us humans?
You're incorrect in saying, "... we are no different than animals". Yes, we
are animals, but we just a wee bit different mentally. This difference drastically changes our behavior. Yes we have instincts just like animals; our bodies are extremely similar in how they work,
but we're comparatively much more intelligent, self-aware animals - and this changes everything (in regards to ethics and morals).
In the society in which I live both of these are considered wrong (and are just so in most cultures, to my knowledge) for the same reason and based on the same principle:
Mutual coexistence. The overwhelming majority of people want to live and would prefer we not be done violence. They have this trait because (as someone replied earlier)
those that didn't have a desire to live, didn't... and thus there was a decreased chance to procreate and pass on that propensity to their offspring.
It is a trust issue for individuals within a community (of any kind): We can work together to live peacefully if we agree not to hurt each other. In so doing, we "set up" our own ethic. Now, for both offenses you mention, it's important to note again that Ethics is dependent on Context; what community, tribe, country, state, enclave, hovel, province or clan are we talking about? Ethical notions are developed, flourished, redefined, dictated and enforced at multiple levels throughout humanity. Many of these can have vastly-different notions of what's ethical. I believe; however, that by-and-large most are similar with regards to what they're striving to achieve: freedom from pain and death and some measure of respect (either for the individual, the community, a deity or some combination of the three).
You could apply this same concept as your answer to the 'why is it wrong to steal'-question.
click here wrote:...Torturing someone and then setting them free. That doesn't make life chaotically spin out of control and down the drain.
Actually it does. Over time, allowing this (i.e., not removing folks who do this and giving no deterrent to this kind of behavior) would, over time, lead to a breakdown of any kind of mutual-coexistence. In this setting, people would have no reason to trust or support; pain, death and assaults erode any semblance of trust. What lies at the basis of this, and is the reason underpinning this is this central principle:
Human Beings need Each Other. We, by ourselves in the solitary state, are not much more than zip-locks filled with sticks and jello. By and large, We don't prosper, flourish or even very-well survive without the cooperation of others.
Even the smallest of communities throughout the world; these too are "communities" that need each other. One person, along in the wild, can perhaps survive a great deal of time, as long as they have the tools that were made when people *did* cooperate. Of course, these wouldn't last. Similarly, place yourselves back in the earliest days of our species' existence (say, 12,000 years ago); you might survive for a time, but you're not going to flourish and you're certainly not going to procreate; step back and imagine everyone going off on their own - not cooperating - and you'll see the human race not lasting very long at all.
Our instincts to survive drive our need for cooperation; much of this cooperative need is enforced by various levels of "ethical" standards.
When you think about the morals that do exist, many of them (I believe) can be traced back to this idea: How can we best get-along?. In that, you'll find many of the answers to your questions.
Now, a couple of clarifications if I might:
- I believe that one almost cannot avoid developing their own morals; even if completely out-of-whack. Its part of how we order our worlds and dictate our own behavior.
- Many ethical ideas don't have any direct relation to survival or cooperation. What I've talked about at length above centers on this, but tradition, religion, concepts of roles, economic considerations, notions of the family, gender and much more can all form "ethics" of all types. Depending on what's being discussed, it's also quite likely that in the eye of the perceiver these may also lead back to survival, cooperation and peaceful coo existence.
- A central formative concept to ethics, in my opinion, is compassion or empathy. If you don't feel anything for the "hurt" or if you have no concept what it's like to have been hurt, pained, tortured or rape (and you haven't the ability to envision how badly these might feel), you're not likely to appreciate the "human impact" of such actions. From what I understand, many animals have what could be termed "compassionate behavior" (even possessing some measure of emotion). Lacking the necessary mental processes; however, I think it's inaccurate to call this animal's behavior "moral" or "ethical".
In any case, I've droned on enough. Your questions are basic and probative; they hit right to the heart of what ethics really are - an aspect I fear most of us really haven't much thought through.
Thanks