Animal morality: are humans merely animals?

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

Yeah, the new version is pretty nifty. I especially like how you can post a link to one specific post (by clicking on the "post number"), for example, Brownjenkin's spangly post 64.

Rian, for many, this debate is far from new, and I know that I've been around the block a few times with this subject matter as well. Sometimes ya just don't feel like typing out a book. ::shrug::

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

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

I, for certain, wouldn't change my liberty for a more secure instinct. Perhaps you would, but not I.

... though of course you can take it as a disadvantage due to the use of my intelligence

Anyway, I look with perplexity how can you switch from one way of seeing animals to another. You speak about their instinct as opossed to intelligence and then you speak about morals

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

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.

Uh, okay. I can agree with you that we haven't the power to control the universe in the way we'd like (... or that some would like). Nature escapes from our total power, though it's obvious we have some "power" over it (medicine...).

When you say that plankton and other micosystems are more important in this world, in which sense are you speaking? I mean, "important" should be reffered to a determined ranking of values... Could you explicit it, please? Is the most important thing the survivance of the universe exactly like we have inherited it? Is that the most important thing for the human genre? Is that the most important thing for one particular person? I would agree it is an important think to try and preserve nature but perhaps it is not the most important thing. What is it for you that makes the plankton more important?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

It's not so much the idea that I find frightening but what it makes people do. I think that, as a species, humans are quite unique and perhaps special. But, and this is where most people take the wrong turn IMO, it makes people think that we're the only thing that's unique and special. And, newsflash, we're not. How is it that cats and dogs can have distinct personalities despite being raised in exactly the same environment? How is it that elephants can recognize bones of dead kin, remember and mourn them? Isn't it perhaps because they too are unique in their own way? Uniqueness and speciality are not qualities reserved for humanity only. But some think they are and use them as an argument to say that we have the undisputable right to do with this planet anything we darn well please. And that I find frightening.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

Anyway, I look with perplexity how can you switch from one way of seeing animals to another. You speak about their instinct as opossed to intelligence and then you speak about morals

mostly because i seem them as intertwined... we like to separate concepts like instinct, intelligence and morals, but i don't see them as quite so distinct... i think what we call morals in humans are based in instinct, at least in part... as i said, most animals do not kill there own kind, which is most likely an instinct which evolved very early on because of it's obvious evolutionary advantage

i think the human adversion to killing is similar... this is not to say that we can not and do not justify it for many more philosophical reasons (and thus these reasons become part of the equation)... but it's essence is still rooted in our animal past... which is in part why we take killing of those who might be closer to us in society as more serious, i.e. other people of the same country, or even more so, people we know personally... it is a refection of the old pack instinct, since on a purely philosophical level, one death should be just as important as another

what i'm trying to point out is the 'gray' nature of intelligence, morality and instinct... again, i don't think there is a sharp line between humans and animals on this issue

i'm curious if anyone would like to comment on my hypothesis (in the now-infamous #64) about one of today's current animals, i.e. chimps, microevolving in such a way as to develop intelligence similar to our own

do you think this is possible, given a long enough time frame?

if so, does it change the way we think about them now?

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

mostly because i seem them as intertwined... we like to separate concepts like instinct, intelligence and morals, but i don't see them as quite so distinct... i think what we call morals in humans are based in instinct, at least in part... as i said, most animals do not kill there own kind, which is most likely an instinct which evolved very early on because of it's obvious evolutionary advantage

i think the human adversion to killing is similar... this is not to say that we can not and do not justify it for many more philosophical reasons (and thus these reasons become part of the equation)... but it's essence is still rooted in our animal past... which is in part why we take killing of those who might be closer to us in society as more serious, i.e. other people of the same country, or even more so, people we know personally... it is a refection of the old pack instinct, since on a purely philosophical level, one death should be just as important as another

I think I can see your point. But for me, the difference between instinct and liberty is real. I know that I'm free to go after my tendencies (or instincts) or not. And I know that in the long run it'll be the use that I have made of my liberty what will give value or not to my life. That's the sense of morals.

You say that some experiments have proved that animals can follow their instincts or not. Perhaps it is simply that we do not know "all the equations", as you put it, that rule the instinct of those animals. Anyway, I don't think that an animal may feel itself frustrated and the end of its life because of the use it has given to its "liberty".

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'm curious if anyone would like to comment on my hypothesis (in the now-infamous #64) about one of today's current animals, i.e. chimps, microevolving in such a way as to develop intelligence similar to our own

do you think this is possible, given a long enough time frame?

if so, does it change the way we think about them now?

All is possible if only it is not contradictory. So, I think, it is of little use to comment on possibilities, especially when you put it in such a remote form.

But what I'll say is that for me there is a separation of grades in the evolution of men. Though we come from animals, we're not the same animals. I mean: humans began to exist when autoconscience first appeared (and with that I mean liberty, intelligence and love). How that came to appear I don't think there's natural science today that can explain it. But, until it be explained, I'll take that humans are different, with a qualified difference, of the "humanoid" from which we came.

[BeardofPants]

Chimps are not the only animals to use "tools". A kingfisher (the bird) once observed that when people fed the ducks at the duckpond with bread, that the fish would feed as well. The kingfisher adapted this method to suit his purposes, and utilised a piece of bread as "bait" in his beak, which he dangled in the water, waiting for fish to come and grab the bait. Unfortunately, kingfishers are solitary animals, so this information would never likely be passed on to offspring. Increasingly, we are beginning to realise that the things that were once considered to set us apart from animals, are increasinly hallmarks of the animal kingdom; eg, warfare, bipedalism, a propensity for language and communication, rape, tool usage, and so forth.

What does everyone think about that case of that monkey suffering from a brain defect, and adapting to bipedalism, that was in the news recently?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Chimps are not the only animals to use "tools".

And if I'm not mistaken some birds on the Galopagos islands (I think) use straws or twigs to poke insects out of treebark.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Rian, for many, this debate is far from new, and I know that I've been around the block a few times with this subject matter as well. Sometimes ya just don't feel like typing out a book. ::shrug::

Oh yeah, I forgot you're an old fart!

(That's ok, I think I'm done here, too - if people seriously believe we're either mere animals, or animals are on the same level as humans, well ... I must say I can't blame them, given the indoctrination they get nowdays ... )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'm curious if anyone would like to comment on my hypothesis (in the now-infamous #64) about one of today's current animals, i.e. chimps, microevolving in such a way as to develop intelligence similar to our own

My only comment is: you would call that MICROevolving?!?!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

When you say that plankton and other micosystems are more important in this world, in which sense are you speaking? I mean, "important" should be reffered to a determined ranking of values... Could you explicit it, please? Is the most important thing the survivance of the universe exactly like we have inherited it? Is that the most important thing for the human genre? Is that the most important thing for one particular person? I would agree it is an important think to try and preserve nature but perhaps it is not the most important thing. What is it for you that makes the plankton more important?

Good point about the meaning of the word "important".

[Lizra]

We're animals! And I believe I got "indoctrinated" before you Rian.....

[brownjenkins]

another interesting example i heard the other day was about certain birds who would nest inside home depot stores (large warehouse-like lumber stores, for those who are not familiar)... they had learned to circle around the optic movement detector in order to open the door and get in and out

on the rest, as i said, there is certainly a difference... but i think it is a mistake to draw the lines too sharp... one must remember that morality and intelligence are human 'concepts'... ways of expressing what we see in the world... but as is so often true with words, they do not always capture the full meaning of reality

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

When you say that plankton and other micosystems are more important in this world, in which sense are you speaking? I mean, "important" should be reffered to a determined ranking of values... Could you explicit it, please? Is the most important thing the survivance of the universe exactly like we have inherited it? Is that the most important thing for the human genre? Is that the most important thing for one particular person? I would agree it is an important think to try and preserve nature but perhaps it is not the most important thing. What is it for you that makes the plankton more important?

sorry forgot to get back to you on this.

When I say the word "important" i mean it in the sense of vitality. If an alien was to look at our planet and analyze the relationship of every creature on it they would immediatly conclude that the small buggers were the primary earthlings and everything else was essentially around because of them. In our global ecosystem plants and microorganisms are MUCH more important then us big brainy creatures. This is true of course because we rely on these creatures for our very existance. The reverse is not true. As the very bottom (and therefore the foundation) of the food chain, if they crumble then the whole thing comes down. Fortunately its not a huge worry. We can kill off species here and there but we cant even begin to make a dent in the countless numbers of little bitty creatures that support our ecosystem and ourselves. They feed us. They break all organic matter down so it can be reused by us. And they give us rather vital things like oxygen and fuel. And what do we do? We are aware of them? Well la dee da... You tell me who is more important after seeing how one sided it is.

[Lizra]

But it is a "special" awareness!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

We're animals!

You animal, you!

And I believe I got "indoctrinated" before you Rian.....

Are you saying you're older than I am?

(perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying - I meant that kids are taught to think that way in school.)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

... Fortunately its not a huge worry. We can kill off species here and there but we cant even begin to make a dent in the countless numbers of little bitty creatures that support our ecosystem and ourselves. They feed us. They break all organic matter down so it can be reused by us. And they give us rather vital things like oxygen and fuel. And what do we do? We are aware of them? Well la dee da... You tell me who is more important after seeing how one sided it is.

Gee, it sounds to me like they were specially created just to serve us ... like someone thinks we're very important or something ...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

another interesting example i heard the other day was about certain birds who would nest inside home depot stores (large warehouse-like lumber stores, for those who are not familiar)... they had learned to circle around the optic movement detector in order to open the door and get in and out

Oh, how interesting! It's fun seeing those birds in home depot stores.

on the rest, as i said, there is certainly a difference... but i think it is a mistake to draw the lines too sharp... one must remember that morality and intelligence are human 'concepts'... ways of expressing what we see in the world... but as is so often true with words, they do not always capture the full meaning of reality

I don't quite see your point here - if they aren't expressing "the full meaning of reality", what part of reality do you think they are NOT expressing?

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

sorry forgot to get back to you on this.

When I say the word "important" i mean it in the sense of vitality. If an alien was to look at our planet and analyze the relationship of every creature on it they would immediatly conclude that the small buggers were the primary earthlings and everything else was essentially around because of them. In our global ecosystem plants and microorganisms are MUCH more important then us big brainy creatures. This is true of course because we rely on these creatures for our very existance. The reverse is not true. As the very bottom (and therefore the foundation) of the food chain, if they crumble then the whole thing comes down. Fortunately its not a huge worry. We can kill off species here and there but we cant even begin to make a dent in the countless numbers of little bitty creatures that support our ecosystem and ourselves. They feed us. They break all organic matter down so it can be reused by us. And they give us rather vital things like oxygen and fuel. And what do we do? We are aware of them? Well la dee da... You tell me who is more important after seeing how one sided it is.

In short: plankton is more important for an alien. For me, humans are what's really important.