- Man is programmed not only with the desire for social living, but also with the characteristics required to establish a society, and thus certain basic ethical principals are common to all human societies and communities, as if they were all patterned after a single prototype. In a primitive society, these will simply be moral rules, while in a national alliance, these rules will be legislated laws. Thus, all human societies show concern for the weaker members of their society. This trait is common also among dolphins and even among far less developed creatures. Pigeons take turns watching over their eggs and they feed their fledglings until they learn how to fly. All human societies forbid murder and theft and expect their members to honor their promises. Man's right to life and to having promises made to him honored are universal rights, rights which by definition obligate all people not to murder and to keep their promises. Eradicating Emotion: Almost all modern Western philosophers rejected emotion as a correct or possible element of the moral systems they hoped to build. Warnuk rejected the notion of the centrality of emotion that is basic to the emotive movement in philosophy. Kant, similarly, seeks to purge morality of all natural inclinations and to deny man's emotions, establishing rational tools by which man can design moral principles. Since man is a 'rational creature, his actions have value, according to Kant, only if they are the product of his 'pure intelligence' and not of his personal inclinations and emotions. Thus instinctive behavior is virtually worthless. Behavior motivated by one's emotions similarly has no moral value, even if it is consistent with the principles of 'pure rationality'. Only pure rationality stripped of any hint of instincts and emotions will enable man to design moral principles that as products of man's autonomy, will be equal to laws of nature and as binding upon man. Rawls set up a similar system by which a society establishes principles of justice and morality through neutralizing all actual existing individual interests and all acquired differences of knowledge and skills, thereby creating a state of absolute impartiality regarding every individual or sectoral interest. Both Kant and Rawls, therefore, seek to create moral codes in a (unnatural) state untainted by "real" life. The exceptions to this school of thought in the modern Western world were philosophers from the Romantic period at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, adherents of the emotive movement of the 20th century, as well as three psychologists: -Sigmund Freud, Richard Lazarus, and Victor Frankel and the anthropologist Clifford Geertz. In their book, Emotion and Logic, Richard and Bernice Lazarus describe the deviation from logic's domination of Western philosophy that took place during the Age of Romanticism at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. The Lazarus couple, following in the footsteps of Spinoza who preferred that man's emotions, rather than his intellect guide him, denies the supremacy of logic over emotion and advocates instead a synthesis of the two. Geertz, too, in his anthropological perspective (in his book cited in footnote 1, pp. 82-84), views emotion as the key to human behavior, saying in accordance with Hobbes and Thomson, "Man is not only the most rational being but also the most emotional…man is incapable of functioning effectively, in the absence of a constant significant emotional force…mental activity is the primary force that determines the nature of our encounter with the world around us…our concern is no longer resolution of problems but rather clarification of emotions." This work will not examine the effect of the mind on emotions, as it seems clear that intuitive emotional responses that guide man - are emotions and should be related to as such. Emotion and Logic: The synthesis of logic and emotion, both of which are inherent to man, create human morality. When logic and emotion clash, then it is emotion that rules. For example: Can one logically persuade a mother that she should kill her child and eat his flesh, thus providing herself with meat, as well as saving herself the irrational burden of raising him? Conversely, can a person's love for his children impel him to give them all his possessions when they become adults, leaving nothing for himself? If that person does hold himself back from distributing his wealth, is it because logic dictates that it is unwise that he put himself in the position of needing to rely on his children's generosity in supporting him when he is old. It is logical to retain whatever one will need in old age so as not to become dependent on others, including his children. If his wealth runs out in old age, then he won't will any to his children. The view taken here, however, is that it is not logic that competes with his love for his children but rather an opposing emotion - his will for self survival, self sufficiency, and self dependence. In this situation when two emotions are in conflict, then logic will prevail. Consequently, despite the dominance of emotion, most of man's behavior is ultimately guided by reason since logic determines which of two conflicting emotions will triumph. For example, man has an emotional interest in making a living that goes beyond his practical-physical interest. The question of what is the most effective way of achieving this emotional goal will be determined by man's reason, assuming that several means of providing for his livelihood are compatible with his emotional desires. Logic will only select, however, an option that is in the running emotionally. Thus, if a certain means of making a living is emotionally oppressive to man, it is unlikely that he will choose it, even if logically it seems ideal. The existence of the driving forces of reason and emotion within every person, as well as the regular dominance of emotion are proof that these are not the products merely of nurture and education, but rather inherent forces within man, which came into being when he did. Further on, this book will examine other innate tendencies such as familial loyalty, a propensity for communal life, and a desire to organize details within the framework of general principles both in what man encounters in the reality about him, in nature, and within his family life and society, in his behavior within these frameworks. This section, however, will focus on the roles reason and emotion play. Man was blessed with these two guiding forces, as well as the inclination to use these forces in a 'humane' manner, and thus emotion will generally prevail over logic. Thus when man establishes moral principles, obligations and rights, emotion determines the guiding principles, while logic fills in the details. Emotion will resolve that it is imperative to help the weaker members of society; reason will determine what percentage of one's income one should contribute to this cause. Social communities and nations function in this respect just like the individual: dominant sentiments which reverberate within the nation will determine the nation's fundamental goals and positions. A country will organize as a social democratic state in accordance with their feelings, while reason will determine the details, how to reconcile social democratic principles with sometimes conflicting economic considerations. Moral principles are primarily the product of emotions, of a perspective that sees the forest more than the trees, while specific laws passed in a certain country's legislature are a product of reason and cold calculation. Basically, laws are rules of social behavior that come into existence over a relatively short period of time through a formal process. Moral principles, on the other hand, evolve through an informal prolonged process. Principles of law can be divided into two categories: rules of conduct and legal rights, and law enforcement, which include sanctions for infractions of the first category. Most laws will include both types, sometimes in separate sections, sometimes in one, with the legal sanctions generally enforced by or via the state. Moral principles, in contrast, are imposed through social rather than legal sanctions. The common denominator between moral and legal principles is that both seem to advance a higher cause. Yet there is a wide range of views on what defines a higher cause. Liberals who consider man's individual rights more important than the common interest will claim that these rights promote each individual's self fulfillment, the highest of values. Those who support social values and the interests of general society will describe communal goals as higher than narrow-individual ones. They will claim that since man is a social being he has no business protecting individual rights, without concern for their affect on the general interests, which ultimately serve also the individual. Religious people who consider their deity the supreme value, will speak about advancing the will of their God, or alternatively about developing man's spirit so that he will better comprehend his creator and the will of his creator, and be more capable of emulating his attributes. Man's Inclination to Devise Underlying Principles: Man's inclination both in the scientific as well as normative-societal behavior realms is to formulate overarching principles. In the scientific realm, scientists tie each natural phenomenon into the laws of nature Through discovery of the underlying laws, man establishes scientific laws that facilitate technological advancement. In the normative realm, man establishes principles of behavior, normative principles, which help him organize social-national life. Man's natural tendency to search for principles in both these fields promotes human progress, enriches man (physically and spiritually), and naturally creates rights and self-interests. These are self-interests that are linked to rights that were in practice acquired in the way depicted above, and rights - in potential - that man dreams of and achieves with the help of an imagination that is not possessed by other creatures. Therefore, rights, and benefits - are the products of the natural qualities with which man is programmed. It is not his interests which produce the principles, but the reverse. Geertz describes man's tendency to devise principles. He explains that man by nature cannot tolerate chaos. This was religion's hold on man - it offered him a system that explained the mysterious, that made sense and order out of his universe, and that offered him answers that gave meaning and reason to his life.