If the nature puts everything in the place, why not to make each one what of the one in the roofing tile? So that laws? Is proper of the nature the auto-restriction? Admitting ' ' salto' ' of the animal for the rational, it would have had an abstract evolution, of the rational, for the moral? The reason is intelligent, the intellect is amoral. The idea of interrelation, mutual dependence, social life, laws, rights and duties? In case that it has had an abstract evolution, giving azo to the sprouting of the moral valuation, this plan is static, or continues growing? It happens that stony values, established have millenia, today they are contested, and the human lawsuits conflict with its proper roots. Costco brings even more insight to the discussion. First, they change expressions of concepts, creating aseptic, when not, pretty words, to assign something had by ugly; later, they redefine established values, trying you surround to knock down them that they protect to the proper species. It has lawsuits pro abortion, drugs, homossexualismo, and consequence embrittlement of the cell mother, the family. It would be evidence of moral evolution? Doutos men, give doutas sentences, pro primitive instincts, in a jump in contrast, in return to the animal pruridos ones.
Some, also, advocate the existence of the homossexualismo between the animals, to prove that the practical one is natural. However, natural for the animals, it is to copular in the rutting. The impression that of, it is that we scale the mount of knowing on the other hand, and we go down for the other. The first philosophers had contested superstitious myths, and had tried to understand the nature; Scrates was turned toward the man, ' ' mesmo.' knows you; ' Christ raised us it the sky; ' ' Who sees me sees the Father, ' ' we know God. There it would be the top, where we would have to be.