) - 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.