Thread: Ethics & Morality in Family Tribal Pre-Historic Isolation.

What do you think were the domestic relationships at the very beginnings of the hunting and gathering small family groups? Their perception of right and wrong? As far as threaded Topic goes? Was this perceived by family members as something that mattered in the survival mode? Or was this perception of human behavior sorted out by exposier to killing members of each other's Tribal Family when encounters occurred over available limited resources? And the left over Family members so to speak developed new relationships? How did they get into a more substainable breeding programme? westwind.

They didn't need any "sustainable breeding programme".

Their biggest problem was getting any of their children to survive to adulthood. No vaccines, no antibiotics, no dental care, no medical knowledge. Along with no food storage, no cereal crops .... total reliance on seasonal success of fruits, nuts, roots and other vegetables and of hunting game. Bad season? Some fruit and root crops fail, fewer animals to hunt. Who starves first? The weakest. The children.

Along with technological development, humanity has gone through a process of social development.

In the most 'primitive' state, social values center round small groups - basically the family and the tribe. People outside that unit are considered "not human" and can be murdered, raped, enslaved without those actions being considered evil.

A slightly more developed state sees alliances between tribes, and these multi-tribal units share through mutual defense, exogamy, trade and mutual support. Going further, we get the "city state" with an overall government. Then the nation, which is where we are now. However, we often talk of the global village. I believe that the coming stage in social development (also called civilisation) is the global recognition that all humans are worthy, and should receive equal opportunity, regardless of nation, ethnicity, religion, creed etc.

What I am saying is that the degree to which a society is 'civilised' is the degree to which it includes others as human and worthy of support.

It was a bloody strange way to arrive at the killing grounds we have now. Don't mind me tonight. westwind.

Originally Posted by adelady

They didn't need any "sustainable breeding programme".

Their biggest problem was getting any of their children to survive to adulthood. No vaccines, no antibiotics, no dental care, no medical knowledge. Along with no food storage, no cereal crops .... total reliance on seasonal success of fruits, nuts, roots and other vegetables and of hunting game. Bad season? Some fruit and root crops fail, fewer animals to hunt. Who starves first? The weakest. The children.

and, yet
wow
here we are having survived feast and famine, evolutionary changes, volcanic winters and a lot of animals that wanted to eat us.
our ancestors musta been doing something right.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
current theory is that pre agriculture families/clans/tribes were matriarchal.
extrapolating backwards is always problematic
but studies of modern hunter gatherers and primitive agriculturalists suggests that The female line was dominant----mothers brother was/is more important than assumed father. And the "goddess" was dominant.
(interesting side note all the footprints found in the deep recesses of the painted caves are female)
also, while the women form the basis of community, men tend to be more "spiritual" (corpus callosum thing going on here?)
so
If morality and ethics are related to community and spirituality, and the community/ family/clan side switches to matriarchy,
then the balance would tilt toward tribalism

breeding doesn't ever seem to have been a problem
fertility rates are dependent on available food
women rule
and we just hang around
(waiting for one to "get in the mood"

You all have been Tactful, diplomatic, and historically factful--given what we know from what serves as evidence of the lives of small, isolated, pre0agricultural family tribal units. Thank you all for that.
As per my Thread---"" domestic family relationships--- how important I wonder was it that who slept where on any given night? There being no celebrants within mobile phone contact.? I'm not seeking nitty gritty answers here. But there is a strong likelihood that it wasn't a big deal if siblings kept out the cold of the night? westwind.

Not terribly sure, Westwind, but if you are discussing the likelihood of incest, I have an answer.

There was an article in New Scientist a few years back which looked at incest, and some research on the subject. Apparently, sexual attractiveness to the opposite gender is inversely proportional to the amount of time spent together as children. Since brothers and sisters spend an enormous amount of time together as kids, they are not physically attracted to each other post puberty.

Of course, incest still happens. But sexual activity between siblings is less likely than sexual activity between opposite gender individuals who have not spent time together as children.

Originally Posted by skeptic

. Apparently, sexual attractiveness to the opposite gender is inversely proportional to the amount of time spent together as children. Since brothers and sisters spend an enormous amount of time together as kids, they are not physically attracted to each other post puberty.

Of course, incest still happens. But sexual activity between siblings is less likely than sexual activity between opposite gender individuals who have not spent time together as children.

I had read that the same was true of early kibbutznicks, who, though unrelated were raised together, and, when mature, sought mates from outside the kibbutz.

so too, then likely the rule for close tribal ties?