Re: "Morality?" - Composite Reply (To G. Lloyd)

Gary Lloyd (
Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:23:15 -0400 (EDT)

At 05:51 PM 10/14/97 -0400, Delmar England wrote:
>At 03:40 PM 10/12/97 -0400, you (Gary Lloyd) wrote:

>>Overriding does not alter, nor eliminate instinct. Choice has nothing to do
>>with the definition of instinct, one way or the other.
>>Volition has nothing to do with the definition of instinct, one way or the
>>other. You seek to define instinct by its effects (in specific instances),
>>rather than by its true nature.
>Take another look. Instinct is defined as non volitional reaction in ALL
>instances. That's what gives the term, instinct, definitive meaning. If this
>definition is not the "true nature" of instinct, what is? By what objective
>reference and rationale do you establish and hold this conclusion? It
>appears that you are saying that every urge is an instinctive urge. The
>instinctive part is not the urge itself, but whether the urge directs non
>volitional reaction, or whether the effect of the urge is subject to
>volition. Isn't this really the case and what really differentiates
>instinctive from non instinctive? If differentiation is not a principle of
>actual definition, why is there more than one word in a language system?
>To be sure, if you feel the need, you can arbitrarily call all urges
>instinctive to support the belief, "instinctive objective values" if you
>wish, but it disregards the objective differention that actually exists.
>The definition I gave of the term, instinct, which excluded volition, is
>consistent with the principles I explained as required for actual
>definition. You did not challenge this criteria, but simply dismissed it out
>of hand with the word, "irrelevant". You have aroused my curiousity. Do you
>see any need to connect your word arrangements to objective reality? If not,
>why not? If so, by what reference criteria do you presume to do so?

Your definition, while consistent with differentiation, is not accurately
descriptive of the phenomenon of instinct. In defining instinct as
non-volitional reaction, you are not defining instinct; you are defining
non-volitional reaction. You choose to select a definition that does not
describe the actual phenomenon, because it tends to support your position.
Word games.

Instinct is inborn knowledge, skills, and values.

We feed, protect, and nurture our offspring because we instinctively feel
that the alternative would be morally wrong. That is the true nature of the
phenomenon that virtually everyone but you calls instinct.

When the boot of government is on your neck,
it doesn't matter if it's left or right.