coffeesippin

Has science failed to recognize morality as lifesaving?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That's about ethics, not morals.

How is science being able to address a moral dilemma (at some future date) relevant? That doesn't imply science currently has an approach to morality. It implies that it currently has no identifiable overlap. 

.

"What is the difference between ethics morals and values?
A person who knows the difference between right and wrong and chooses right ismoral. A person whose morality is reflected in his willingness to do the right thing – even if it is hard or dangerous – is ethical. Ethics are moral values in action." 
 
 In another definition ethics are described as rules imposed on someone by someone else whose morals are setting the rules, as ethics are said to be always considerate of right action over wrong .. though murder is considered ethical by some people in positions of great power, for instance democratic power.  So it is a big discussion, the difference between ethics and morals, if there is one.
 
The writer of the Scientific American article is ONE person only expressing his or her opinion but writing in the tricky 'Royal We' to give strength to his or her argument, which is NOT against the idea of scientific morality.  ("Just because we cannot yet think of how science might resolve this or that)  There are other writers who express that science CAN be used to measure morality.  Whether they are right or wrong is also a large topic of discussion.           
I don't think science has failed, by the way, as statistical science shows certain actions are much more likely to lead to death than other certain actions .. and as I think a good definition of morality is that which leads to life. 
 
5 hours ago, studiot said:

Have you seen the film 'Spotlight'  ?

Which is more immoral

Many men of the Church abusing young boys

or

Those in authority who knew about it

or

The 'God" that allowed it to happen?

 

What figures can you offer that Science ever worked like this?

I haven't watched that film, but as a boy and very young and naive man I was sexually molested three times by men, not in a religious setting though, so I know the trauma. 

 You call the organization in which those assaults happened the Church, but in my opinion it was/is not a church, as the bible says if authority commands not to marry they have departed from the faith, so it is not a church, as what is defined in the bible as a church is the gathering of believers in Jesus Christ, as as the Roman organization departed from the faith of Christ when they commanded their priests not to marry.  

We can't know all of God's plans and purposes.  Perhaps he allowed the Boston incidents to happen and to be publicized to show that his will was NOT being done, that that organization is NOT his church.  Why did he allow the U.S. to drop nuclear bombs on Japan?  Why does he allow a man to lose his mind and murder his wife?  One answer is that we are not puppets or robots, that God allows us freedom, though he tries to guide us closely, whether we use freedom for good or evil appears to be our decision.  

I hope I'm not admonished for preaching .. I'm merely answering your question the best way I can.

Your last question I don't think I understand fully.    But part of the history of science is that philosophers became the first scientists in the relatively modern history of Europe. " Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."     I think it's easy to consider values as morals.  

In this list, Einstein and his contemporaries of quantum physics are considered philosopher scientists.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_of_science

 

6 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Why does religion tie into it?

I said I don't see why saying we should kill Babies increases the transfer rate of STI's, as per the OP. Not what the religious position is on it.

You're right .. a group that opposes abortions might simply be businessmen who have seen forecasts for births and deaths and believe that either increased births are necessary to fulfill the number of employees necessary to fulfill their employee needs 20 years down the road, or immigration into the nation is necessary, immigration which may not be popular..  It doesn't have to have anything to do with religion.   

    I try to remove the following 'Abstract' etc from this post as I wanted it to show as a stand alone post .. but the automatic system doesn't seem to allow me to do that ... SO ..... 

"Abstract

Proposes a particular ground for moral formulation that is consistent with the consensually based scientific ethic. ................................................... but it can be scientific in the sense of impartially submitting all formulations to the full reality of people's moral consensuses and interactions in everyday life."   I hope this doesn't violate this forum's rules on copyright violations.   

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1983-22367-001

Edited by coffeesippin
To remove a merge not intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:
"What is the difference between ethics morals and values?
A person who knows the difference between right and wrong and chooses right ismoral. A person whose morality is reflected in his willingness to do the right thing – even if it is hard or dangerous – is ethical. Ethics are moral values in action." 
 
 In another definition ethics are described as rules imposed on someone by someone else whose morals are setting the rules, as ethics are said to be always considerate of right action over wrong .. though murder is considered ethical by some people in positions of great power, for instance democratic power.  So it is a big discussion, the difference between ethics and morals, if there is one.
 
The writer of the Scientific American article is ONE person only expressing his or her opinion but writing in the tricky 'Royal We' to give strength to his or her argument, which is NOT against the idea of scientific morality.  ("Just because we cannot yet think of how science might resolve this or that)  There are other writers who express that science CAN be used to measure morality.  Whether they are right or wrong is also a large topic of discussion.           
I don't think science has failed, by the way, as statistical science shows certain actions are much more likely to lead to death than other certain actions .. and as I think a good definition of morality is that which leads to life. 
 

I haven't watched that film, but as a boy and very young and naive man I was sexually molested three times by men, not in a religious setting though, so I know the trauma. 

 You call the organization in which those assaults happened the Church, but in my opinion it was/is not a church, as the bible says if authority commands not to marry they have departed from the faith, so it is not a church, as what is defined in the bible as a church is the gathering of believers in Jesus Christ, as as the Roman organization departed from the faith of Christ when they commanded their priests not to marry.  

We can't know all of God's plans and purposes.  Perhaps he allowed the Boston incidents to happen and to be publicized to show that his will was NOT being done, that that organization is NOT his church.  Why did he allow the U.S. to drop nuclear bombs on Japan?  Why does he allow a man to lose his mind and murder his wife?  One answer is that we are not puppets or robots, that God allows us freedom, though he tries to guide us closely, whether we use freedom for good or evil appears to be our decision.  

I hope I'm not admonished for preaching .. I'm merely answering your question the best way I can.

Your last question I don't think I understand fully.    But part of the history of science is that philosophers became the first scientists in the relatively modern history of Europe. " Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."     I think it's easy to consider values as morals.  

In this list, Einstein and his contemporaries of quantum physics are considered philosopher scientists.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_of_science

 

You're right .. a group that opposes abortions might simply be businessmen who have seen forecasts for births and deaths and believe that either increased births are necessary to fulfill the number of employees necessary to fulfill their employee needs 20 years down the road, or immigration into the nation is necessary, immigration which may not be popular..  It doesn't have to have anything to do with religion.   

    I try to remove the following 'Abstract' etc from this post as I wanted it to show as a stand alone post .. but the automatic system doesn't seem to allow me to do that ... SO ..... 

"Abstract

Proposes a particular ground for moral formulation that is consistent with the consensually based scientific ethic. ................................................... but it can be scientific in the sense of impartially submitting all formulations to the full reality of people's moral consensuses and interactions in everyday life."   I hope this doesn't violate this forum's rules on copyright violations.   

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1983-22367-001

Ethics is what society says is right or wrong, and morals are what you think is right or wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Ethics is what society says is right or wrong, and morals are what you think is right or wrong.

So if society says I should join the army and go overseas and invade another nation and kill their citizens and steal their natural resources that is ethical?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

So if society says I should join the army and go overseas and invade another nation and kill their citizens and steal their natural resources that is ethical?  

Yes but your moral compass may diverge from that. Ethics are a matter of consensus whereas morals are personal.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes but your moral compass may diverge from that.

What causes you to say it is ethical?    

eth·ics
/ˈeTHiks/
noun
 
  1. 1.
    moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
    "medical ethics also enter into the question"
    synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, standards (of behavior), value system, virtues, dictates of conscience
    "your so-called newspaper is clearly not burdened by a sense of ethics"
    •  
       
  2. 2.
    the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
Morals:
"a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do."
 
So the persons with the biggest guns, the fastest draws, the most accurate aim, and the resources to use those to victory over another group are morally right.   At least that's what history tells us, right?  Because as we know, history is written by the winners.  It's all so simple, really.
Edited by coffeesippin
clarification .. additional thought .. probable conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethics - The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group or culture.

Morals - Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. While morals also prescribe dos and don'ts, morality is ultimately a personal compass of right and wrong.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

Your source just conflates the two. We don''t have 'committees of morals', we have 'ethics committees'... do we not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Ethics - The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group or culture.

Morals - Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. While morals also prescribe dos and don'ts, morality is ultimately a personal compass of right and wrong.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

Your source just conflates the two. We don''t have 'committees of morals', we have 'ethics committees'... do we not?

It seems we do not have ethics committees, only empowerment committees, to decide what moral codes must be rewritten to allow the expansion of empire.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Ethics is what society says is right or wrong, and morals are what you think is right or wrong.

Often, ethics are from a smaller subset of society, and are usually tied in with professional behavior (rather than private, personal conduct). You have codes of ethics for doctors, lawyers, etc. that are irrelevant or not followed by other professions, and sometimes make no sense for a person not in the group.

One entry from a listing:

"An attorney shall not use his or her previous job or office to attract clients, nor shall an attorney, in any way, encourage a client to believe that because of such job or office, the needed legal service will be more effective."

I can think of a few professions that don't live by this. It's not immoral to do this, but the legal profession deems it unethical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

I haven't watched that film, but as a boy and very young and naive man I was sexually molested three times by men, not in a religious setting though, so I know the trauma. 

 You call the organization in which those assaults happened the Church, but in my opinion it was/is not a church, as the bible says if authority commands not to marry they have departed from the faith, so it is not a church, as what is defined in the bible as a church is the gathering of believers in Jesus Christ, as as the Roman organization departed from the faith of Christ when they commanded their priests not to marry.  

We can't know all of God's plans and purposes.  Perhaps he allowed the Boston incidents to happen and to be publicized to show that his will was NOT being done, that that organization is NOT his church.  Why did he allow the U.S. to drop nuclear bombs on Japan?  Why does he allow a man to lose his mind and murder his wife?  One answer is that we are not puppets or robots, that God allows us freedom, though he tries to guide us closely, whether we use freedom for good or evil appears to be our decision.  

I hope I'm not admonished for preaching .. I'm merely answering your question the best way I can.

Your last question I don't think I understand fully.    But part of the history of science is that philosophers became the first scientists in the relatively modern history of Europe. " Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."     I think it's easy to consider values as morals.  

In this list, Einstein and his contemporaries of quantum physics are considered philosopher scientists.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_of_science

 

Thank you for your reply.

I didn't specify which Church; Catholic and Protestant churches have all been implicated in such undesirable behaviour, right around the globe.

Of course this also applies to secular organisations, both private and state.

 

Yes, many Scientists, some famous, have also offered wise and penetrating thoughts on other subjects such as Philosophy and Morality.

But the point of my question was that I do not know of any evidence of systematic abuse and cover up on the scale that applies to Churches in general, although, of course, there have been individual rogue scientists in history - they are human after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, swansont said:

Often, ethics are from a smaller subset of society, and are usually tied in with professional behavior (rather than private, personal conduct). You have codes of ethics for doctors, lawyers, etc. that are irrelevant or not followed by other professions, and sometimes make no sense for a person not in the group.

One entry from a listing:

"An attorney shall not use his or her previous job or office to attract clients, nor shall an attorney, in any way, encourage a client to believe that because of such job or office, the needed legal service will be more effective."

I can think of a few professions that don't live by this. It's not immoral to do this, but the legal profession deems it unethical. 

Yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morals are an evolved trait, as far as I'm concerned. We humans put our morals into words, and argue them out on forums, but in essence, it's how you FEEL about something. The reason that we have more moral feelings than other animals, is our evolved ability to mentally put ourselves in the place of others. Other apes have this too, but we've taken it a lot further.

One moral norm that is fairly common throughout the animal world is a dislike of cannibalism. I remember watching a documentary on lions some years ago. They were hit by a severe drought, and the game disappeared altogether. There was nothing for them to eat, and they were dying off one by one. The pride were nothing but skin and bones, but they were  still very reluctant to turn cannibal. One of the sisters of the pride died, and her body lay around for days. Three hundred pounds of meat, but the starving lions did't want to eat it. They did eventually, but you could see from their faces that it took a huge effort, even though the smell of lion was probably overpowered by the smell of meat going off. 

Of course, there are sound evolutionary reasons for not eating your fellow pride members. But it manifests itself as a feeling that it's wrong, in lions just the same as us. Lions couldn't DESCRIBE it that way, but the reluctance is the same for them as us. The only difference is that we can put it into words, and we have morals about a hundred times more things than lions do. 

Apes and monkeys have lots of moral feelings, especially when it comes to babies. A big aggressive male won't attack a perceived rival, if he's holding a baby. It's a common strategy for self protection to pick up a baby, in stressed circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

It seems we do not have ethics committees, only empowerment committees, to decide what moral codes must be rewritten to allow the expansion of empire.  

1

What religion hasn't fallen for that? 

Science hasn't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Morals are an evolved trait, as far as I'm concerned.

There’s potential merit in this point, but I think it needs to be made more precisely. Instead, one might say that...

We evolved a predisposition toward following the norms of the group and avoiding behaviors that would cast us out of the group or result in our ostricization, but the mores, morals, and expected norms of each culture are very much learned and differ from one tribe to another (despite some obvious overlap).

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Apes and monkeys have lots of moral feelings, especially when it comes to babies. A big aggressive male won't attack a perceived rival, if he's holding a baby. It's a common strategy for self protection to pick up a baby, in stressed circumstances.

I don’t think this is true and have seen male primates kill babies from other fathers. Do you have a citation I can review to correct my thinking if I am indeed wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, iNow said:

We evolved a predisposition toward following the norms of the group and avoiding behaviors that would cast us out of the group or result in our ostricization, but the mores, morals, and expected norms of each culture are very much learned and differ from one tribe to another (despite some obvious overlap).

1

Indeed, based on fairness/reciprocity, an overlarge group muddies the waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Thank you for your reply.

I didn't specify which Church; Catholic and Protestant churches have all been implicated in such undesirable behaviour, right around the globe.

Of course this also applies to secular organisations, both private and state.

 

Yes, many Scientists, some famous, have also offered wise and penetrating thoughts on other subjects such as Philosophy and Morality.

But the point of my question was that I do not know of any evidence of systematic abuse and cover up on the scale that applies to Churches in general, although, of course, there have been individual rogue scientists in history - they are human after all.

Keep your mind open that they may not be churches.  The bible Revelation describes the anti-Christ beast Babylon that is destroying the world and the description includes a lamb with horns .. symbolic to me of the organizations that use the cross (or Crescent for that matter) as a symbol of faith, yet ignore the most basic teaching of love and non-violence .. warmongers in pulpits licensed by the governments of nations which go to war for expansion of wealth and empire.   In my opinion scientific consensus is such a cover up as you describe .. it relegates new ideas to the trash bin almost automatically, it replaces the ultimate goal of science which is discovery with that of status for those controlling the consensus.   That opinion will be extremely unpopular with certain scientists, but acknowledged by others as having foundation in reality.  I'm not expressing it to start a war, I'm expressing it because I believe it to be fact comparable to your statements about the abuse cover up, not that the two are in the same league of evil of course.   And I'm not condemning the consensus, I see it as a part of human nature, and it doesn't bother me nearly as much as it did 10 years ago when I began hanging out in these forums, because I see science needs to progress gradually to find acceptance.

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

There’s potential merit in this point, but I think it needs to be made more precisely. Instead, one might say that...

We evolved a predisposition toward following the norms of the group and avoiding behaviors that would cast us out of the group or result in our ostricization, but the mores, morals, and expected norms of each culture are very much learned and differ from one tribe to another (despite some obvious overlap).

I don’t think this is true and have seen male primates kill babies from other fathers. Do you have a citation I can review to correct my thinking if I am indeed wrong?

It seems to be a part of animal behaviour including human and I believe it's one reason wars are so popular .. the older human males send the younger males off where they can't infringe on their territories.  Seemingly cute and innocent male Red Squirrels (don't we just love how they shake their bushy tails and scold us) in times of food abundance have been observed killing litters of rivals, seemingly so they will be able to have sex again with the now unburdened mother, and of course increasing their empire with recruits loyal to them (the new litter.)   https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/03/15/news/red-squirrels-kill-offspring-male-rivals-when-food-abundant-study

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

The bible Revelation describes the anti-Christ

i.e.

11 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

It seems we do not have ethics committees, only empowerment committees, to decide what moral codes must be rewritten to allow the expansion of empire.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

In my opinion scientific consensus is such a cover up as you describe ..

 

Yes scientists, including some very famous ones, have covered up matters in the past and I don't doubt they will do so again in the future.

But, to my knowledge, all these matters have been purely scientific, there has been no moral dimension, particularly resulting in death, and we are supposed to be discussing the question

Quote

Has science failed to recognize morality as lifesaving?

 

But the antimoral coverups I described have resulted in subsequent suicides and other harm.

I really don't care what you call a 'church'.
Enough billions in this world accept and use the definition I am employing.

I did also note that other non church organisations have also been implicated.
Why did you ignore this?

 

So your continual introduction of off topic religous material in answer to all comment ammounts to preaching in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iNow said:

I don’t think this is true and have seen male primates kill babies from other fathers. Do you have a citation I can review to correct my thinking if I am indeed wrong?

It was on a documentary, so I can't search for it specifically. They filmed baboons actually doing it, I think it was Jeladas but I've heard of it in other primates too. I vaguely remember chimps doing something similar. But there are plenty of other examples. 

Chimps kill and eat monkeys, including babies. Why don't they kill and eat other chimps? It's a moral choice. It may seem obvious, because we take it for granted, but that's what it is. I saw a documentary where one chimp was suspected of killing baby chimps by the film makers. The rest of the group were shunning him, turning their backs on him, not wanting to even look at him. It seems obvious and understandable but it's morals in action. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Yes scientists, including some very famous ones, have covered up matters in the past and I don't doubt they will do so again in the future.

But, to my knowledge, all these matters have been purely scientific, there has been no moral dimension, particularly resulting in death, and we are supposed to be discussing the question

 

But the antimoral coverups I described have resulted in subsequent suicides and other harm.

I really don't care what you call a 'church'.
Enough billions in this world accept and use the definition I am employing.

I did also note that other non church organisations have also been implicated.
Why did you ignore this?

 

So your continual introduction of off topic religous material in answer to all comment ammounts to preaching in my opinion.

"I did also note that other non church organisations have also been implicated.
Why did you ignore this?"

                Am I supposed to provide an answer for every question you have? 

"I really don't care what you call a 'church'.
Enough billions in this world accept and use the definition I am employing."

               Perhaps it's time to dispel ignorance, if that's what it is, one person at a time? 

"So your continual introduction of off topic religous material in answer to all comment ammounts to preaching in my opinion."

              You not only exaggerate greatly you ignore the fact that others introduce the question of biblical or religious involvement.                  I feel obligated to respond to aid the conversation with information.  I know preaching here is not allowed, that it will lead                  to banishment, so I try to respect the rules.   Is it my doing that many people can only think of morality in terms of religion?

              You began the conversation of the Boston coverups .. almost everyone knows the coverups involved and were hidden by                    the RC institution.  You mentioned the Church. Are you preaching against the idea of a true church?  If so you are                                  preaching according to the definition of the word.  I tried to show you that what you call the Church may not be the church               . . is that preaching?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is your best reply?

 

I systematically went through your previous reply to me and commented on your every point.

Some I agreed with some I did not, all politely.

That is normal and natural.

Looking up at your subsequent reply

Quote

Studiot

"I did also note that other non church organisations have also been implicated.
Why did you ignore this?"

coffeesippin

Am I supposed to provide an answer for every question you have? 

I was being kind and gentle in my comment

With this sort of slap in the face I will be blunt instead.

I do not take kindly to those who twist my words to appear to mean something different by selection/deselection.

Since your entire post by selection/deselection process enhances everything (christian) religous and obscures any agreement with your valid points (yes I have already said you make them) or additional points you may not have considered I regard that as preaching.

 

Yes I introduced Spotlight, (gosh that little word 'yes' - did you miss it?)

But in response to already too much Christian stuff in this thread.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

It seems to be a part of animal behaviour including human and I believe it's one reason wars are so popular

I blame the designer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I blame the designer...

The set of instructions included with the final goods were very clear, they were considered folly by the goodees.   YukYuk.   Goodees.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coffeesippin said:

The set of instructions included with the final goods were very clear

I never saw those.
The ones I saw had stacks of problems + inconsistencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, studiot said:

 

This is your best reply?

 

I systematically went through your previous reply to me and commented on your every point.

Some I agreed with some I did not, all politely.

That is normal and natural.

Looking up at your subsequent reply

I was being kind and gentle in my comment

With this sort of slap in the face I will be blunt instead.

I do not take kindly to those who twist my words to appear to mean something different by selection/deselection.

Since your entire post by selection/deselection process enhances everything (christian) religous and obscures any agreement with your valid points (yes I have already said you make them) or additional points you may not have considered I regard that as preaching.

Yes I introduced Spotlight, (gosh that little word 'yes' - did you miss it?)

But in response to already too much Christian stuff in this thread.

 

 

 

 

Studiot .. As you admit YOU brought up Spotlight no I did not miss your `yes.`   You also brought up the Church.  Yet you accuse me of being the one to promote religion hereÉ  (question mark not functional at this time.)     My response Àm I supposed to answer all your questionsé  was not meant to be antagonistic.  We all have other things to do and because I did not hide my faith in the bible here I`m under frequent attack as if I am trying to put all scientists in the dungeon despite my great respect for science, my nickname since childhood till now at 71 is Sputnick because of my interest in cosmology.  In my opinion the tone of your comments to me is not kind and gentle, but is harsh and accusatory, in wanting to get away from that tone I made a long explanation a short question.  I may have failed you, but it was not a slight.

9 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I never saw those.
The ones I saw had stacks of problems + inconsistencies.

All was perfect.  The designer told them it would stay that way forever unless they ate that fruit.  The serpent persuaded them to eat it, resulting in lots of problems, including the end of perfection on earth .. problems and inconsistencies arose.  However, we`re not to discuss religion here, I understand though there is a place for that in this forum.  If you want to go there and open a topic, notify me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, iNow said:

I don’t think this is true

I just had a little look and found this : 

A controversial aspect of male relations with infants- Triadic interactions

This is when there are three parties involved; two adult males and one baby. When there is a conflict between two males, sometimes one of them will pick up an infant.

This was first documented in barbary macaques. They're noted for males doing a lot of infant carrying and holding, but it was particularly Deag and Crook who noticed that males were particularly likely to pick up and carry a baby when they were in a conflict with another male. There are two hypotheses to explain this behavior..........       

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/socadinf.html   

This isn't what I remember seeing, but it's an example of it.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now