Animal morality: are humans merely animals?

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm sorry you think that. Personally, I think the world is better because you, and my other friends, are in it.


I think the mere fact that we are contemplating the question shows that we are NOT mere animals.

of course it better for us that we are here (or is it?), what i was saying is that the rest of the world (there is a lot more than us here too) would be much better without us. we kill a huge amount of individuals of our own species, we exterminate other species, both animals and plants, and we destroy our own surroundings.

and maybe helping each other is an instinct. wales and dolphins help sick individuals to the surface to get air. is that more than an instinct? is that morality?

[Insidious Rex]

Morality is, of course, whatever you want to call it. We would not be "moral" however if it didnt accrue some benefit in the long run. Never confuse “positive� actions with high minded selflessness for no purpose other than to be "moral". There is always a reason and a rhyme to our actions.

[The Gaffer]

Quite so. If anything, it's our ability to understand that reason which sets us apart from animals, not the morality itself.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

and maybe helping each other is an instinct. wales and dolphins help sick individuals to the surface to get air. is that more than an instinct? is that morality?

my point exactly... and RÃ*an, just because we do not understand how animals communicate, does not mean they do not... there are many other forms of communication other than speech

i don't see us as 'set apart' at all... we've just developed more effective ways of expressing our intelligence

how can we know that a chimp does not look to the stars and think about his day or ponder what those lights really are?

[Janny]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Morality is, of course, whatever you want to call it. We would not be "moral" however if it didnt accrue some benefit in the long run. Never confuse “positive� actions with high minded selflessness for no purpose other than to be "moral". There is always a reason and a rhyme to our actions.

Thanks for destroying my childhood illusions.

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Morality is, of course, whatever you want to call it. We would not be "moral" however if it didnt accrue some benefit in the long run. Never confuse “positive� actions with high minded selflessness for no purpose other than to be "moral". There is always a reason and a rhyme to our actions.

I haven't been following the thread, so sorry if I jump into .

Of course all our actions have a reason. Also the animals' actions. But that doesn't make them moral actions.

An action is morally good when it is ordered to achieve that "benefit in the long run" you mention. I'd add "the highest benefit you can achieve in the long run". If you do something that reports you a benefit, but that you know that strays you of the way to your own perfection you're not acting well. If you do something that reports a benefit for you but that brings evil consequences to others, that action surely is not leading you to your own perfection in the long run.

Of course, if animals hasn't a notion of their perfection in the long run, then it is difficult to qualify their actions from a moral POV.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

Of course, if animals hasn't a notion of their perfection in the long run, then it is difficult to qualify their actions from a moral POV.

if

and one would have to think that actions like not killing their own kind do show some kind of understanding of 'the long run'

another example is that pack animals usually leave an injured member to die... and action made for the good of the pack, eventhough some might see it as cruel in the shortrun

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

Of course all our actions have a reason. Also the animals' actions. But that doesn't make them moral actions.

An action is morally good when it is ordered to achieve that "benefit in the long run" you mention. I'd add "the highest benefit you can achieve in the long run". If you do something that reports you a benefit, but that you know that strays you of the way to your own perfection you're not acting well. If you do something that reports a benefit for you but that brings evil consequences to others, that action surely is not leading you to your own perfection in the long run.

Of course, if animals hasn't a notion of their perfection in the long run, then it is difficult to qualify their actions from a moral POV.

well when i said "benefit" I was speaking strictly biologically here. Im not sure if you are so I just wanted to mention that. And basically what i was getting at was that ANY action we perform ("moral" or not) is done for a reason that’s ultimately tied to what we are on a biological level. Theres a motivation either conscious or subsconscious behind it. And that simply because we happen to do something "morally" good (according to our particular definition of morality… and good) doesnt mean its simply a 100% selfless act. Perfect one sided altruism doesn’t exist in nature. And yes we are a part of nature.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Janny

Thanks for destroying my childhood illusions.

Hey just wait till i tell you about Santa Claus.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Just a comment on the instinct thing: IIRC, there have been studies that have recorded moral behaviour in animals. For example, if you put two chimps in adjacent cages and give food to one but not the other (this is the charming sort of study that psychologists like to do), the one without food will beg for food and the other one will give it.

I wonder at what point will the one chimp NOT give the other food if there isn't enough food for both ... interesting study! IMO, this would be a highly developed "herd instinct".

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

of course it better for us that we are here (or is it?), what i was saying is that the rest of the world (there is a lot more than us here too) would be much better without us. we kill a huge amount of individuals of our own species, we exterminate other species, both animals and plants, and we destroy our own surroundings.

I respect your opinion, but I still disagree with it (sorry!) - I think that altho humans have done grievous harm, they have also done many, many brave, courageous, beautiful things, and overall, the world is better for humans being here.

and maybe helping each other is an instinct. wales and dolphins help sick individuals to the surface to get air. is that more than an instinct? is that morality?

I think in the case of animals, it's instinct. That's MHO, for what it's worth.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Morality is, of course, whatever you want to call it.

OK, then - I want to call it the little urging in your heart that calls you to do what you know to be right.

Seriously, though, I hope people (including IRex) realize that IRex's statement is merely his opinion; it may NOT be true. One day, I think we will all find out, very definitely, that morality is NOT "whatever you want to call it"; it is what I described (which is what is described in the Bible). IOW, my opinion is right and his is wrong. (not that I'm always right or even smarter; I think that I am right in this area, tho.)

We would not be "moral" however if it didnt accrue some benefit in the long run.

Again, this is an opinion, based on his worldview. However, this time I happen to agree with him, but not in the sense he means. IMO, morality accrues benefits BECAUSE God is good and therefore his moral code is good. I imagine IRex believes it accrues good because of his beliefs about evolution.

Never confuse “positive� actions with high minded selflessness for no purpose other than to be "moral".

Again, it is his opinion here. And my opinion is that people make moral choices because they know the choices are right, and know that "right" choices are "positive", altho sometimes in a complex way (e.g., I know that if I shelter a Jew in Nazi Germany, that I might be killed; however, I think it is right to do so, so I will do it.) I don't confuse the two.

There is always a reason and a rhyme to our actions.

Absolutely. We make deliberate choices, based on thought.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

my point exactly... and RÃ*an, just because we do not understand how animals communicate, does not mean they do not... there are many other forms of communication other than speech

Yes, I know - that's why I worded it the way I did (I think I used some qualifiers like "appear" and "seem"). To me, the evidence seems to support that animals and humans are "a breed apart", and animals do not have a soul like humans do (altho animals are amazing and wonderful and should be treasured and taken care of.)

i don't see us as 'set apart' at all... we've just developed more effective ways of expressing our intelligence

So it's an equal loss (or an equal non-loss) when an ant gets stepped on and when a human gets killed?

how can we know that a chimp does not look to the stars and think about his day or ponder what those lights really are?

We can't know for sure (at least right now). But IMO, the evidence points to humans being a different type of animal from all other animals.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Janny

Thanks for destroying my childhood illusions.

C'mon, Janny, fight back!! Use that little plastic brain! If you think there's an error in these statements, don't just complain - examine, evaluate, analyze, and go for it!

(I know you were just being funny here, but c'mon! Jump in!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Perfect one sided altruism doesn’t exist in nature.

But that doesn't mean that the IDEAL doesn't exist.

And yes we are a part of nature.

I agree. The Nature that God created. And part of human nature, that He created, is that we have instincts AND a soul with God's morality imprinted on it, and a mind/consciousness that lets us evaluate and choose our actions, which sometimes will go against our instincts for things like self-preservation. And animals don't seem to go against their instincts.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And basically what i was getting at was that ANY action we perform ("moral" or not) is done for a reason that’s ultimately tied to what we are on a biological level.

Can a materialist position help us with the question of rights? Since we are biological entities, it is, in the end, a tautology to say that everything we do has a biological basis. It's like saying that everything on TV has an electromagnetic basis. It doesn't help me to tell what's on the telly tonight is a load of crap so I think I'll go online instead.

What's important is the meaning we attribute to things.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So it's an equal loss (or an equal non-loss) when an ant gets stepped on and when a human gets killed?

it sure is to the other ants!

just because i say that some forms of animals may have 'morals' in the same way we do, does not mean that they are the same morals... after all, all morals are relative

We can't know for sure (at least right now). But IMO, the evidence points to humans being a different type of animal from all other animals.

what do you mean by 'different type', and what evidence?

if you mean, 'a human is not exactly the same as a chimp', sure... but it has an awful lot of simularities... many more than there are between chimps and ants

And animals don't seem to go against their instincts.

they sometimes will when they are personally threatened, or their children are

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Seriously, though, I hope people (including IRex) realize that IRex's statement is merely his opinion; it may NOT be true. One day, I think we will all find out, very definitely, that morality is NOT "whatever you want to call it"; it is what I described (which is what is described in the Bible). IOW, my opinion is right and his is wrong. (not that I'm always right or even smarter; I think that I am right in this area, tho.)

well that makes one of us.

I imagine IRex believes it accrues good because of his beliefs about evolution.

well… evolution sure. And genetics. And population dynamics. And psychology. And sociology. And physiology. But hey you stick to your god thing. more power to ya.

my opinion is that people make moral choices because they know the choices are right, and know that "right" choices are "positive

so whats the logic behind making neutral choices? And im assuming wrong choices are made because of the influence of satan on us? (legitimate question here)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Can a materialist position help us with the question of rights? Since we are biological entities, it is, in the end, a tautology to say that everything we do has a biological basis.

*squint * ok but I guess I was simply making the distinction that the general scope of our actions (moral or not) are not injected from an outside source but preconfigured from an inside one. And that what we call morals (here and today) can be quite variable. Remember the Visigoth example from the good and evil thread. (I think it was Visigoths… I think it was the good and evil thread for that matter… I think I have alzteimers…)

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it sure is to the other ants!

exactly!

btw, RÃ*an;
what does having a soul mean?