Animal morality: are humans merely animals?

[Fat middle]

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?

As I've said to BJ, you can see the difference analyzing the changes in animal groups and human societies. The differences speak clearly of a radical difference, that IMHO cannot be other than the existence or not of rationality (which includes not only intelligence, but also free will and sociability).

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

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".

But why stop at the surface. Whats behind “right� or “wrong�? How does the human (animal) determine this exactly? And whats behind the “beliefs�? There needs to be an infrustructure that is the genesis of what bubbles to the surface as “morals�. I think this is where we left it in the last page. That its either internal or external. Just because we use conscious thought does not mean there are not underlying equations leading to those conscious thoughts.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

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

well we do have a lot of data on this subject from actual "wild children" who grew up outside of other humans or so isolated that essentially they had no social connection to any other human. Generally what these cases show is that humans develop their morals and their social skills and their concepts of self and species through a complex system of social feeback poured over a basic genetic firmament of possibilities. certain things develop at very specific ages so depending on the age of the wild child, yes, things like language can be an alien concept. but other things can compensate and over develop in their place. making them almost savant like in some respects. But as "normal" humans if we were to observe their actions we would see them as sub human in many respects. as if they too (like the animals we are talking about here) are acting strictly on instinct. but they are human. so what does that tell you about how outward behavior manifests itself depending on the organisms genetics and environment? a lot i should think.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

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.

there are social aspects to animal societies... just not as grand, or at least not as understood as our own

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...

to me it shows how things in the animal world can go unchanged for a long time... then due to environmental or genetic factors that we don't quite understand, great changes can happen in a short time scale (short if you take the 5 billion years of the earth's existance into account)

i don't think it is inconceivable that an 'animal' like one of today's chimps could evolve in a way over the next 10,000 or 100,000 years to approach the level of intelligence that we enjoy today... and when i say gradation, i mean the time in between, where such a chimp might be smarter than any we see today, but far from debating philosophy... humans themselves were once at this point... and were in fact at this point for a long long time

a few hundred years ago many saw the tribal cultures of africa as 'animals'... they were seen as incapable of achieving the level of intelligence the western world enjoyed... though most would say that this was an incorrect assessment

people have a tendency to enjoy classifying themselves as 'special' and 'different'... many times for justification of actions (or morals )... you even see this between different groups of humans... it is hard to be as thoughless of other animals who are seen as close to us, or more like us... so we come up with lines in development that may not actually exist... just think of how differently you might react to a friend's dog, as compared to a wolf in the wild, who are both fairly similar on the intelligence scale

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.

my argument is not to say 'we are just the same as animals and need act no better'... but to say, 'animals are very similar to us and we should keep that in mind'

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

people have a tendency to enjoy classifying themselves as 'special' and 'different'... many times for justification of actions (or morals )... you even see this between different groups of humans... it is hard to be as thoughless of other animals who are seen as close to us, or more like us... so we come up with lines in development that may not actually exist... just think of how differently you might react to a friend's dog, as compared to a wolf in the wild, who are both fairly similar on the intelligence scale

excellently said. I think there are a number of people who find the idea that we arent super duper special and unique in the world of living things rather threatening. where as the idea that theres us and then there are animals makes them feel superior and more secure about their life and purpose. its like people who assume we dominate this earth and we have the power to control all other species with impunity if we wish. have a look at the earth from a solar system level and what do you see. you see a blue and green ball dominated by plant life and microscopic life of all sorts in every nook and crevice. then if you get close enough to earth you MIGHT see pink akward simian like things moving in and out of the trees feeling special about themselves because they are oh so smart. sometimes we just cant really see that forest for the trees it seems. Course the ONLY thing you can see from a solar system level (if it wasnt invisible to human eyes) that is a direct sign of our existance on earth is the hole in the ozone layer. hey look what we made! *proud* yeah we are sure smart and special aint we...

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

my argument is not to say 'we are just the same as animals and need act no better'... but to say, 'animals are very similar to us and we should keep that in mind'

*applause*

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think there are a number of people who find the idea that we arent super duper special and unique in the world of living things rather threatening.

I think there are a number of people who find the idea that we ARE super duper special and unique in the world of living things EXTREMELY threatening.

[Insidious Rex]

Why would it be threatening to be super duper special? Seems the safest way to play it.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But why stop at the surface. Whats behind “right� or “wrong�? How does the human (animal) determine this exactly? And whats behind the “beliefs�? There needs to be an infrustructure that is the genesis of what bubbles to the surface as “morals�. I think this is where we left it in the last page. That its either internal or external. Just because we use conscious thought does not mean there are not underlying equations leading to those conscious thoughts.

The mind is very complex. There are several different schools of thought with different theories; Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Functionalism, Gestalt psychology, Humanistic psychology, Psychoanalysis, Structuralism. All of them make some valid points.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Why would it be threatening to be super duper special? Seems the safest way to play it.

Does anyone have some thoughts on this before I share mine? (it's beddy-by time here...)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Does anyone have some thoughts on this before I share mine? (it's beddy-by time here...)

yeah... i think i agree with IR

[Nerdanel]

me too.

[Rían]

Good grief - am I the only one willing to analyze and discuss and support an opinion?

I look at all my long posts, and think "this is unbalanced!", and I try to get others to add their thoughts (I know you have them!), and I get 2 sentences from 2 people with a total of 9 words

Should I just shut up and add 3 words of my own ("I disagree with IRex") (whoops, 4 words), or should I explain my thoughts more thoroughly, and hope that I learn and that others learn in the process? (or at the very least we at least get to know each other better).

I was really hoping for more from other people ...

[Insidious Rex]

Well I already know you disagree rian. thats why i asked the question. because it seems to me (and others i guess) that being special is a better deal then just being out there and naked in nature. so it seemed counter to immediate logic. so i was looking for you to explain why it seemed the other way around to you. thats all.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Good grief - am I the only one willing to analyze and discuss and support an opinion?

I look at all my long posts, and think "this is unbalanced!", and I try to get others to add their thoughts (I know you have them!), and I get 2 sentences from 2 people with a total of 9 words

i think i spelled things out pretty well in post #64

[Rían]

I'm sorry, guys, I just got grumpy, I guess.

Someone just PM me and tell me to shut up if I talk too much...

Brownie, where's post number 64? (or is that a joke?) Oh wait *examines thread* - hey, that's sure handy! There's a post number on each post! Cool! The Vbulletin change was a shock at first, but now I like it.

Let me see if I can explain what I mean, IRex:

There's a line somewhere that I think is pretty profound. I think it's by C.S. Lewis, but I can't find it right now. It goes something like "there are no ordinary people ... aha! I just found it, and it's longer than I realized, so I'll start a new post.

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think there are a number of people who find the idea that we arent super duper special and unique in the world of living things rather threatening. where as the idea that theres us and then there are animals makes them feel superior and more secure about their life and purpose. its like people who assume we dominate this earth and we have the power to control all other species with impunity if we wish.

I, for one, don't think we have the right to control all other species with impunity, but I'm very interested in your reasons about why we don't have that right. When you speak of impunity, are you speaking in moral terms? and if so, are those moral terms absolute for all people or just for those who want to include in their moral code the respect to nature?

[Rían]

Here's an explanation why I think your view (that it's "safer" to think people are "super duper special" ) is wrong, and the opposite view is the correct one:

from The Weight of Glory by C. S. Lewis
... it may be asked what practical use there is in the speculations which I have been indulging. I can think of at least one such use. It may be possible for each to think too much of his own potential glory hereafter; it is hardly possible for him to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbor. The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbor's glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilization - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously - no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feelings for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner - no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses.

Quite a long quote, but I think very profound and true. Do you see why it's "scarier" to have a higher view of people now?

OTOH, if humans are just accidental products of a mindless process, and "mere" animals, then it's easy to excuse our own wrong behavior - after all, when we act in a brutish way, we just had a little slip back to a previous evolutionary stage, right? And the one we just harmed to get ourselves ahead is just an animal like us, right? So it's no big deal. And survival of the fittest has gotten us to where we are now, right? So if I can get an advantage over someone because I'm stronger, then go me! And when I die, I'll just go back to dust, and there's no long-term consequences to stealing from my friend, right? And if I want some more money to enjoy myself before I turn into dust, then there's certainly nothing wrong with helping my old dad out the door a little early, right? After all, he's in pain, and he only THINKS he wants to still live. I know better - and after all, once he's dead, he'll never know anything, right? And there's no God that grieves over when I do wrong, and is joyful when I do right, so why bother to strive to do what's right and beautiful, and grieve over sin, right? After all, it's just instinct that made me save my own skin at the expense of that child that I could have helped, right? And no one knew that I SAW that car coming and that the child was walking out into the street - everyone thought I DIDN'T see it coming, and COULDN'T have done anything to stop it, when in fact, I DID see it and COULD have done something ... good thing no one can see into my heart ... good thing I'm just another animal, and can't help my actions, and even if I could, there's no eternal consequences ...

Yet my heart keeps haunting me and telling me I could be wrong ...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

I, for one, don't think we have the right to control all other species with impunity, but I'm very interested in your reasons about why we don't have that right. When you speak of impunity, are you speaking in moral terms? and if so, are those moral terms absolute for all people or just for those who want to include in their moral code the respect to nature?

Well my point isnt that we have or dont have any right but that we CANT control life with impunity. What egotistical folly on our part. We are in no way that powerful. You see thats why I mentioned all that about when you look at our planet from far away you see a big blue and green ball teaming with plant life and algae growth and bacteria and microscopic organisms of every concievable variety. THEY dominate this earth not us. We are fools to think otherwise. And they will be here long after us. For we are fragile and few compared to them. And without them we would have no chance of survival. So its the simplest creatures that dominate this planet. not us. as the top of the food chain we are shackled to them like slaves. any variation in their ecology sends shock waves through our way of life. meet the champion of this world I say. a brainless ancient micro dot living and dieing and living in uncountable numbers all over the world. barely changed for the last billion years. plankton are more important then humans in this world. and ultimately its prokaryotic life that is the foundation upon which all higher life is allowed to stand on its hind legs and think itself so superior. no, humans dont even deserve a blip of notice compared to the ruling class of lower order animals.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

OTOH, if humans are just accidental products of a mindless process, and "mere" animals, then it's easy to excuse our own wrong behavior

as i said in post #64

it's not about humans being 'mere' animals... it's about animals not being 'mere' animals... and i think this may be the scary part... the idea that animals may have feelings and thought processes that we only attribute to fellow humans

anyone who studies nature knows that animals are much less likely to engage in activity that harms their overall society than humans are... makes you wonder about the advantage of intelligence over instinct... at least when one talks morals