Animal morality: are humans merely animals?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Can a materialist position help us with the question of rights?

Good point - can you please expand on that while I think about it some more?

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

Hmm, interesting - could you please elaborate? Why is it important? How do we attach meaning to things?

And what's on the telly tonight?


(AND ... any other news for us? )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

*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…)

*wanders off onto a philological rabbit trail - Visigoth, Visigoth - I just love that name!*

Now what did you just say?

*rereads post*

Oh, you stated your opinion that our actions are preconfigured from an inside source. I disagree. It's my opinion that God's moral standard is put into our hearts, and we have the ability to choose to go with it or against it. Also, of course, there are neutral actions, but those aren't as interesting to talk about!

*Visigoth! Visigoth!*

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it sure is to the other ants!

But do you see them having little ant funerals, and mourning, and composing memorials and requiems? It might be important in a sheerly physical sense, but it doesn't seem to be in any other sense.

As for the rest of the questions, and Nel's question about souls, and IRex's about the influence behind wrong choices, and brownies about chimps/humans compared to chimps/ants, etc., (whew! lots of good things to contemplate and discuss) - I think we need to find a mod to split this thread off into a new one called "are humans merely another type of animal", or something like that - the original topic seems to have been lost

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But hey you stick to your god thing.

ANd you stick to your evolution thing (but I hope to change your mind )

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Is this an educated guess, or is there actual data in existence to support this?

It has to be conjectured, of course, since skin and hair don't survive the fossil record nearly so well as bone, etc. Doubtless, erectus would have had a significant loss of hair as compared to other earlier hominids, but it would still have had substantially more hair than homo sapiens. This conjecture is based on a couple of things:

The time-span of erectus extends back significantly to the earlier austrolopithecus genus, which would no doubt have had hair (being more closely linked to the divergence between apes and humans). Also, erectus in the earlier periods of their development had significant sexual dimorphic changes between sexes akin to other apes such as gorillas. Sexual dimorphism not only provides indirect evidence of characteristics such as hair, but also social dynamics, as sexual dimorphism is associated with the "alpha male" scenario. What is significant to note is that sexual dimorphism reduced significantly towards the end of the erectus period, with females being around 80% the size of males (more akin to humans). The temperature also became more tropical, so it's likely that along with the development of more human social behaviours (in line with the reduction of dimorphism), there may well have been the loss of hair, and the darkening of the pigment of the skin - since erectus was primarily based in the middle east, and africa. It may have been possible that erectus started predating on small animals as well, and also have practiced cannibalism. Erectus is interesting, because there are changes morphically to the skeletal structure that suggest a significant change both biologically and socially over the long period that they existed.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Good point - can you please expand on that while I think about it some more?... Hmm, interesting - could you please elaborate? Why is it important? How do we attach meaning to things?

Damn! I was hoping to get away with a throwaway philosophical remark there.

I mean that I find that the materialist perspective is useful but does not adequately account for my experiences of life. We seem to have an instinct to impose meaning on the world, and IMO materialism is just an aspect of that meaning, not the other way around. It could well be that consciousness is just an illusion, love is just a type of hunger, etc, but I still prefer Van Gogh to Monet.

How does that meaning come about? Haven't the proverbial scooby. Isn't life grand?

Sorry, but I've got to quote Bill Hicks again:

Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed through a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, life is only a dream and we are the imaginations of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.

Sadly missed. Why do only the bad die young?

And what's on the telly tonight?

Really, a big pile of pants. Have even contemplated doing some work.

(AND ... any other news for us? )

Not yet. Due a week tomorrow. Rest assured, you'll be the first Tolkien-based discussion forum denizen to know All systems go, though, hot weather notwithstanding.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

It has to be conjectured, of course, since skin and hair don't survive the fossil record nearly so well as bone, etc. ... [interesting info supplied]

Thank you - I thought that was the case.

(why am I getting such, um, interesting thoughts while reading the nomenclature in your post? )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Damn! I was hoping to get away with a throwaway philosophical remark there.

hee hee! NoNoNo - I was getting downright embarassed by how many posts I had in a row there - someone else needs to talk some more!

I mean that I find that the materialist perspective is useful but does not adequately account for my experiences of life.

I agree with you here.

... but I still prefer Van Gogh to Monet.

*throws a sheet over the Monets on her wall*

How does that meaning come about? Haven't the proverbial scooby. Isn't life grand?

Yes, it is! Thank goodness we're not just animals!

Sorry, but I've got to quote Bill Hicks again:

Funny! Who is he?

Have even contemplated doing some work.

Whew, now THAT'S pretty bad!

I watched a few minutes of one of those "reality" shows last night - YUCK!!!! EWWW!! As one of my girlfriends said, it would be really yucky to have someone kiss you that you know just "swapped some spit" with some other girl!! Thank goodness for "Iron Chef"! and MORE thank goodness for good books!! (have you read "Paradise Lost"? I just finished it a few weeks ago - great stuff! Powerful writing - reminds me of Tolkien's Lays of Beleriand.)

Not yet. Due a week tomorrow. Rest assured, you'll be the first Tolkien-based discussion forum denizen to know All systems go, though, hot weather notwithstanding.

Be sure she gets an epidural early on (unless she wants to go it without painkillers - I've never understood those people, tho!) You're so much more rested and ready to take care of the baby if you don't have a lot of pain. Looking forward to the announcement

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Really, a big pile of pants.

*BoP's ears prick up*

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Thank you - I thought that was the case.

(why am I getting such, um, interesting thoughts while reading the nomenclature in your post? )

*hands on hips* Get yer mind out of the gutter!

[Master_Samwise]

"where to start? WHERE TO START???" *Runs around frantically.

BTW, thanks Rian, I'm glad to be back to Tolkien Land.

Lets see...... where to start? well, I geuss I'll start with, umm.... where was I going to start *returns to look at all that was said, relizes that she allready did, and wates for a new post to respond to*

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

*hands on hips* Get yer mind out of the gutter!

(ignore this text - I had to put it in because I can't do a post with just one smilie anymore!)

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

*BoP's ears prick up*

]
Now that WOULD be a reality show worth watching.

Just say no to reality TV, Rian. I haven't read Paradise Lost; will put it on my list of "must read before croaking".

Bill Hicks was an American comedian who died 10 years ago, aged 33 or so. He was incredibly funny, not to mention rude, leftwing, politically incorrect and rabidly anti-Bush (snr). Much of his best material was done at the time of the first Iraq War, and it's amazing how it is completely transferable to the current situation.

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

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 short run

I've bolded the crucial word of your argument. I think it's very important to clarify what do you understand for "understanding"

Understanding the long run requires a grade of consciousness that the animals don't have. You may say that we cannot know that for sure because we cannot get into a bear's "mind" to see if it's conscious of their conscience...

but I think that it is plain that animal "societies" (if we could call them in that humanish way) doesn't evolve the same as human society. They're quite the same in many many long centuries. Of course they're subject to evolution, but I think that’s beyond doubt that the human societies evolve in a very different manner, based on the free will and consciousness that the human person posess.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

I've bolded the crucial word of your argument. I think it's very important to clarify what do you understand for "understanding"

Understanding the long run requires a grade of consciousness that the animals don't have. You may say that we cannot know that for sure because we cannot get into a bear's "mind" to see if it's conscious of their conscience...

but I think that it is plain that animal "societies" (if we could call them in that humanish way) doesn't evolve the same as human society. They're quite the same in many many long centuries. Of course they're subject to evolution, but I think that’s beyond doubt that the human societies evolve in a very different manner, based on the free will and consciousness that the human person posess.

while i don't remember all the specifics... i do remember seeing a show on tv some years back about a certain group of chimpanzees in the wild who had learned to extract ants, or some other insect, by placing a stick into the hole and then pulling it out... not only that, but they were observed teaching this skill to their fellows, and effectively passing it down to future generations

much of what we call human understanding is this kind of 'social knowledge'... while one would never perform such an experiment outside the movies, it would be interesting to see how a human would end up if completely removed from society at birth... speech would be highly unlikely, as would many other signs of 'intelligence' we take for granted

i'm not saying that chimps are as smart as humans, or even close... but what i am saying is that it's a matter of gradation... and their societies due evolve, though at nowhere near our rate... and one must also remember that evidence shows human society to have been very static socially for tens of thousands of years before the present time

i don't believe there is any 'magic element' in humans that does not exist at all in animals

[Ragnarok]

I think animals act on instinct rather than morals. What seperates humans from animals is our intellectual capacity, a conscience/mind. Humans have developed complex languages and minds of our own. If an animal shares food with another animal who doesn't have any, I believe that is an act of instinct. If an animal attacks a stranger who is harming their master, I believe that is an act of instinct as well. Morals are basing one's actions, words and lifestyle to a set of beliefs one possesess. Furthermore, morals are based on what a person conceives as "right" or "wrong". While some animals have higher intellectual capacity than humans, I feel they lack a conscience or developed mind needed to base their actions on "right" or "wrong".

[BeardofPants]

Clearly it is not as simple as that, since we have no way of knowing the complexities of mammal vocalisation. Chimpanzees have warfare, rape, and murder - who's to say this is just mere instinct?

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Clearly it is not as simple as that, since we have no way of knowing the complexities of mammal vocalisation. Chimpanzees have warfare, rape, and murder - who's to say this is just mere instinct?

Good point, I made the mistake of generalizing my statement.

My Aunt's dog attacked my niece who was 7 years old at the time. She aggitated the dog and the dog felt threatened. It was the dog's natural instinct to defend himself when he felt threatened. The dog didn't think that it was wrong to attack the child, he was acting on instinct.

My cat likes to jump up on the table during the dinner meal. It is the cat's natural instinct to try and get food when he is hungry. He doesn't see it as wrong to beg and jump on the table during meal time.

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

while i don't remember all the specifics... i do remember seeing a show on tv some years back about a certain group of chimpanzees in the wild [...]

much of what we call human understanding is this kind of 'social knowledge' [...]

i'm not saying that chimps are as smart as humans, or even close... but what i am saying is that it's a matter of gradation... and their societies due evolve, though at nowhere near our rate... and one must also remember that evidence shows human society to have been very static socially for tens of thousands of years before the present time

I want to comment two things:

First: I disagree (although I see and respect your opinion ) about it being only a matter of gradation: as I said above, the change in animal groups is due to "evolution" while the development of human societies is due to the free will of their members.

Second: it's vey interesting what you say about our "social knowlegde" and about the "experiment" with a wild man. Here i must agree: a simple man would never develop in the way we have done within societies. In fact, for me, the sociability is an esential part of the human rationality and one of the things that make humans esentially different to animals.

You cannot take apart sociability and intelligence: they're two sides of a coin.

Third: (I know I said two things... ) I don't see why the initial slowness of the development of human socities makes us more similar to animals. They've been here all the same time...

i don't believe there is any 'magic element' in humans that does not exist at all in animals

Neither do I Nothing that people would call magical, "though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem also to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy"

But I do think that we're able of some operations that are above the animal kingdom and that places us in a different position that requires from us a different way of living. We can be conscious of ourselves and of the consequences of our actions in the long run... THEN... we must act in a way that takes that into account: we must have a moral refference for our actions.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Clearly it is not as simple as that, since we have no way of knowing the complexities of mammal vocalisation. Chimpanzees have warfare, rape, and murder - who's to say this is just mere instinct?

very true... and who's to say what we humans do is not 'instinct'... either genetic or social

the problem may be the concept of instinct in and of itself... i don't think it's a black or white situation where animals only do what was ingrained in their genetic patterns and humans only act according to thought and reason... we often act purely on instinct... and animals sometimes act against instinct

i would say that animals in general are more closely tied to their instincts... but it is not the totality of their existance