Nature & Social Rules

K

Kumar

Registered Senior Member
Hello,

I just want to understand in reality that: suppose, when a person breaks any society's rule or law but not the Nature's rule or law-- Is it justified to punish him or not? Is it not like a suppression to control against the nature's rules or laws?

Best wishes.
 
Kumar said:
Hello,

I just want to understand in reality that: suppose, when a person breaks any society's rule or law but not the Nature's rule or law-- Is it justified to punish him or not? Is it not like a suppression to control against the nature's rules or laws?

Best wishes.
Click to expand...
I guess so, but most of the laws are made by looking at the natural laws. The Bible say that we should follow societies laws, cause God has some kind of influence over them. A law will not be passed saying "Kill everyone" for example. Though there are more subtle laws that are hard to see if they are naturally right or wrong. But if we don't see if they are naturally right or wrong then people usually overlook mistakes made by breaking them, cause the laws are so loosily defined anyway (and could also potentially lead to good things by breaking them, if they are broken the right way).
 
Kumar said:
I just want to understand in reality that: suppose, when a person breaks any society's rule or law but not the Nature's rule or law-- Is it justified to punish him or not? Is it not like a suppression to control against the nature's rules or laws?
Click to expand...
Uh...nature has no 'rules'. Rules are artificial human constructions that are designed to help society run better. The only real 'rules' of nature are scientific natural laws, and these are by definition impossible for anyone to break.
 
Nasor said:
Uh...nature has no 'rules'. Rules are artificial human constructions that are designed to help society run better. The only real 'rules' of nature are scientific natural laws, and these are by definition impossible for anyone to break.
Click to expand...
I think he means by "natural laws" laws that have evolved together with us. Like that we shouldn't kill, moral laws and so on.
 
I think he meant 'natural law' in the cosmic sense, as if we could figure out good moral behavior by observing how things happen in nature. I suppose we won't know until he comes back and clarifies.
 
Hey, all I know is that according to natures law, if you don't get off my damn lawn I'm going to kill you. Huray for the law of men!
 
I'd have to reiterate the fact that nature has no law, it's nothing but the repeating patters we observe which have arisen from billions and billions of years of evolution. The closest things to law that nature has are the laws of Physics, and I don't think we need to worry about men breaking those any time soon (perhaps finding better ways to define them or perceive them, but not breaking them).
 
Like that we shouldn't kill
Click to expand...

Few follow that one. I doubt we've evolved far enough to have a law like that. More like, we evolved out of it. :p

What are the natural laws, besides the obvious ones like eating and reproduction? As in, by breaking a society's law but not the natural one, is it meant that such a law is not listed in nature thus it is not broken? We have way too many of those, such as a law that prohibits theft.
 
Hi all, By nature rules/law I mean that which nature insist us to do for the survival & for nature's balance. Suppose a man rapes--- it can be considered as violance/vigour/drive/exittment/enthusiasm/force/natural urge for sex. Since it exist in all or most species, it may be having some technical & natural reasons-- may be for the 'survival of the fittest' for better reproduction or otherwise. Rape may be a name given by society for all these natural gift or curse. What do you say-- should it be a punishable offence in society? When to a person-- natural forces overpowers the society resistances and a person tends to voilate the society's resistances unintentionally--- can it be an offense in true/natural/God's sense? Do all other species practice it regularily without punishments (may be with rewards) & are they better justified naturally & really? All other natural urges resisted by society--can be think like that.
 
whitewolf said:
Few follow that one. I doubt we've evolved far enough to have a law like that. More like, we evolved out of it. :p

What are the natural laws, besides the obvious ones like eating and reproduction? As in, by breaking a society's law but not the natural one, is it meant that such a law is not listed in nature thus it is not broken? We have way too many of those, such as a law that prohibits theft.
Click to expand...
Just think in real sense, not for the luxuaries but for the health & survival in accordance with the nature's balance. What do you say-- is it important to maintain nature's laws & its balance or not? Two laws of nature are-- ' surrvival of the fittest' & ' Live & let live'---do we follow these or not? Can you list some other nature's laws? I don't know if ' might is right' is a nature's law. Just look at this: a hungry person if snatches/steal the food for his survival is an offense in society but not in nature. On the other side not eating the food may lead to say death or like suicide & it is also somewhat, an offense in nature as well as in society(suicide). What do you say--what is right or wrong?
 
Last edited:
Kumar said:
Just think in real sense, not for the luxuaries but for the health & survival in accordance with the nature's balance. What do you say-- is it important to maintain nature's laws & its balance or not? Two laws of nature are-- ' surrvival of the fittest' & ' Live & let live'---do we follow these or not? Can you list some other nature's laws? I don't know if ' might is right' is a nature's law. Just look at this: a hungry person if snatches/steal the food for his survival is an offense in society but not in nature. On the other side not eating the food may lead to say death or like suicide & it is also somewhat, an offense in nature as well as in society(suicide). What do you say--what is right or wrong?
Click to expand...
Eat or get eaten.

But there are more civilian laws in nature too, apes have a social order and I guess all of the animals have some internal rules. This is not only concerning the individual but the profit for the whole. Because of that each animal (as far as I can tell) follow rules that are "above" them, and animals should by that standard be able to see a higher order. Which may in fact make them evolve better, cause they allways will have a order higher than themselves to evolve "into".

So, the point is, follow the law. If you are smart. Otherwize, follow the law and get smart.
 
Kumar said:
Just think in real sense, not for the luxuaries but for the health & survival in accordance with the nature's balance. What do you say-- is it important to maintain nature's laws & its balance or not? Two laws of nature are-- ' surrvival of the fittest' & ' Live & let live'---do we follow these or not?
Click to expand...
Again, I have to point out that nature has no rules other than natural laws, which are impossible for anyone to break. You can't look at nature and figure out how humans should behave. Should we live like monkey? Wolves? Grasshoppers? Pine trees?

'Nature' is just a lot of stuff that happens. There isn't any deep significance to it.
 
Nasor said:
Again, I have to point out that nature has no rules other than natural laws, which are impossible for anyone to break. .
Click to expand...

If natural laws are impossible for anyone to break-- should we contradict or go against those laws? A person who is alcoholic may find it difficult to discontinue it. He may also feel that it gives him lot of enjoyment & vigour. But since he takes alcohol more than the natural recommendations-- he will have to suffer at one day. Most of the civil amenities which go against the nature, may be for the luxuaries, not for the necessacities. I feel that while making or accepting civil rules/laws we should not contradict or go against the natural laws for the benefit in real sense.
 
It can then be unnatural so not a reality. Most of the sentiments may not be natural.

Btw, If we count in percentage-- how much we can think for the nature & to society-- who kept us alive & healthy uptill now?
 
A lot of our morality is genetic.

We don't protect children because someone said it is moral to do so. It is an instinct.

Instincts can be overridden though.
 
Nature law insist on protection of our children but upto a certain age/development--not for their whole life. Nature allows making love for reproduction but not for luxuary. Anything done for necessasity may inspite be a social crime, but will not be a crime in nature. On the opposite-anything done for luxuary but not for the necessasity may not be a crime in society but can be in nature.
 
Nature allows snatching/stealing/killing or otherwise for real need of food but society do not allow it.
On two extremes, nature may allow 'might is right for survival of the fittest' on one side & ' Live & let live ' on the other side.
 
Kumar said:
Nature allows snatching/stealing/killing or otherwise for real need of food but society do not allow it.
On two extremes, nature may allow 'might is right for survival of the fittest' on one side & ' Live & let live ' on the other side.
Click to expand...

Nature doesn't either. Cheaters in nature are punished more severly than loss of resources dictate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top