Polycarp,

Boazy, as a student of North Indian clans, you might be aware that, historically, some clans would allow widows to initiate youths in sexcraft. Is that immoral, or, is moral relativity, in this instance?

- I suspect these actions, though alien to our society, had practical value to those involved.

"Genetic modules in the mind are intrinsic to being human, we would never fall in love and have children,"

We can actually learn a great deal from other species, about all this.

Pairbonding and feeding the offspring, is fairly common in a number
of species. An interesting example is the prairie vole. I read the
paper some years ago and it made for fascinating reading, undertaken
at a University in the US.

Tests were done with prairie voles, who are loyal little critters.
They tend to pairbond and that's it, they are loyal. Much as the
males were tempted, with other cute little females, they stuck
by their partners and did not fool around.

The Kansas vole on the other hand, showed no such loyalty and
given the chance of a fling, they would grab it.

The difference in the end came down to vasopressin acting on
certain parts of the limbic system, in other words, a genetic
difference.

To establish the results, radioactive substances were used, so
sadly the experiment can't be tested on humans.

So the question then arises, are men who are loyal and faithfull
husbands, as distinct from those who fool around, doing so because
they decide to, or because of a gene which they carry, which
compels them to act in certain ways? In my experience, some
people just can't help themselves, in behaving in one way or
another. Genetics clearly plays a role in all this, much as we
sometimes kid ourselves, that it is all so called "free will".

Interesting argument, Mr Ness. I'm not sure Dawkins (the selfish gene) would agree with some of your statements.
I'm interested in all the posts which refer to changing moralities, to suit changing times and situations.
The Golden Rule, "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you", has been around for thousands of years. It is mentioned somewhere in every major religion -although, as you rightly point out, this is not necessarily a ringing endorsement.
I find myself wondering, in what possible predicament would I deliberately allow my child -son or daughter- to be nailed to a cross and left to hang, hour after hour, until finally dead; all to prove I'm loving, caring and compassionate.
This concept of some bizarre nobility in sacrifice opens many doors; sacrificing -perhaps not your own- children to war for some higher -political- purpose...
I agree, morality and ethics should never be confused with religion.

Oliver and others
The other problem with discussions like this is that many think in absolutes “either or” scenario.
My some what eclectic life thus far has revealed that absolutes are few and far between (matters of opinion). Therefore I am often bothered by emphatic answers to abstract questions as though they know THE universal truth. Reality has as many faces as there are opinions.

Jesuit (nurturist) boast “Give me the child until puberty and I’ll give you the adult” is informative as it has some real scientific basis. The cultural made morals (like the VILIFICATION of paedophilia) have their limitations/modifiers that must be factored in. The question is then “How well and why?”

Genetics (nature) has a myriad of variations that influences the person’s ABILITY to adopt both initial and subsequent morals. This can range from a genetic miscopy, a bad gene, or conditions invitro etc or a combination.

I have noted that late conversions, “Born Again (anythings)” TEND to be the more intractably dogmatic and defensive about their chosen religion as to prove their bona fides while emotionally confirming the righteousness of their decision, a psychological/emotional conflict with previous beliefs. A factor well know to the Ottomans when recruiting their feared Janissaries.

It is at the emotional/psychological level that most conversions (excluding opportunistic ones) tend to take place. (In my case at 7ish I joined the Salvos at Boroko to gain the favour of a cute girl, Sandra… Alas it failed). Today I’m a Secular Humanist.
Much depends on the neural pathways set pre adolescent. (My cross cultural early upbringing I believe allows me to appreciate both sides).
I have seen two historically peaceful tribes (PNG) one Catholic influenced the other Adventist go to war over the day of worship. The added factors were the imperfect message imposed by biased preachers on to a culture that neither understood nor valued (Heathen principal). Clearly each tribe interpreted the word though their own existing cultural moral filter. As true Christians each believed they had to convert the other tribe to the truth. Clearly are formed by both Nature and Nature.

Oliver,

I was actually after John Ness's bio, as you seem to know of him. Just a link or something. But thank you for your reply, and in particular the clarification.

I don't fly at quite the same lofty heights as you, I am afraid. I was once a computer programmer, perhaps I might of been called a computer architect at one stage or engineering manager or some such at one stage - but I am not big on titles. I have now semi-retired into a system admin role. Semi-retired refers to the stress levels, not the hours. I still designing and writing software, but open source everything I do nowadays. I have always tried to stay away from big firms and big bureaucracies - such as IBM and Uni's. The politics gives me the willies. I didn't really like managing people for the same reason.

Like you I prefer to remain anonymous, at least I am at working. I don't want any illconsidered comment I might make here to attract unwanted attention to the firm I work for. Once I retire I will happily come out of the closet.

rsuart,

No, unfortunately, I don't know John Ness.

Agree. The bigger the organization, the more politics to avoid.

Sorry, I was vague. Some treatments, I have had lately have made me a little foggy minded.

Take care.