Animal morality: are humans merely animals?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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

how very narcissistic of you. sounds more to me like the logical progression in nature from simple abundant life to more complex "higher order" life that evolves to utilize the simple life. thats exactly how you would expect things to be.

we are perfectly fitted into nature. we dont stand out at all. we flow very well from the ancient continuum of life as it is. but i can understand your point that everything that works just proves god all the more because why would he make things that didnt have a purpose for us. thats the genius of having omnipotent centered logic foundation to your thinking. everything can work because thats how he wanted the design to be.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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?

what i mean is concepts like morality and intelligence are just that... they are names we give to behavior in an attempt to define it... we make the initial assumption that human and animal behavior are two completely different things, so we define our terminology that way... a human protecting her son is exercising her free will and love, while a dog or cat is just acting on instinct... the actions and feelings may very well be the same, but we choose to call one free will and another instinct just because we see the source behind the human action more personally

who's to say whether or not both cases are 'free will'?

or maybe there is a lot more 'instinct' in the human behavior than we are willing to admit

[Janny]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

or maybe there is a lot more 'instinct' in the human behavior than we are willing to admit

*Hits self over head*
Ow!

Hmm, that wasn't instinctive.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Janny

*Hits self over head*
Ow!

Hmm, that wasn't instinctive.

actually confinement in small areas (i.e. zoos) has been know to induce self-mutilation among animals... maybe you should go for a walk

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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

that's frightening..

but ir's reply is better.

Originally Posted by Fat Middle

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

of course! for ants, ants are most important. for monkeys, monkeys are most important, for tigers, tigers are most important. that's how nature has made it; we're here to make sure our species will survive and multiplies.

but if we go to the basics, our species couldn't exist without plankton, but they can, and have, survive(d) without us.

[Janny]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

we're here to make sure our species will survive and multiplies.

'Go forth and multiply', you say?

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

or maybe there is a lot more 'instinct' in the human behavior than we are willing to admit

I don't think it makes sense to say that Shakespare wrote Hamlet by instinct... Free will is obvious not only as that personal perception that you reffer to, but also for the type of actions that humans do. Never seen a monkey wrting literature.

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

of course! for ants, ants are most important. for monkeys, monkeys are most important, for tigers, tigers are most important. that's how nature has made it; we're here to make sure our species will survive and multiplies.

Sorry, but not me. You can make of your life a crussade for the survivance of our specie. For me there are things more important than the survivance of my specie. I cannot look so far into the future.

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Janny

'Go forth and multiply', you say?

that's what our instinct tells us to do. that's why we're having sex, that's why we're having relationships.
i'm not gonna give this world any babies, but that's because i'm 'unnatural'.
lol

Originally Posted by Fat middle

Sorry, but not me. You can make of your life a crussade for the survivance of our specie. For me there are things more important than the survivance of my specie. I cannot look so far into the future.

i don't want our species to survive, actually. but that's not up to me to decide. though i can make that decision, i will still have sex. i will still have relationships. why? that's the only way we can survive, it's in our genes.

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

i don't want our species to survive, actually. but that's not up to me to decide. though i can make that decision, i will still have sex. i will still have relationships. why? that's the only way we can survive, it's in our genes.

I find that you, believers of the religion of the all-knowing-nature, have a very low sense of your own liberty...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

I don't think it makes sense to say that Shakespare wrote Hamlet by instinct... Never seen a monkey wrting literature.

oh, oh - that reminded me of something really funny I just read. Really, this should go over on the creationism thread, but I'll put it here. It's in reference to that totally nonsensical (IMHO ) and without regard to the science of statistics line that evolutionists feed us about how if you get enough monkeys typing on enough typewriters, that eventually they'll produce a work of Shakespeare.

by Robert Wilensky, whoever he is
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

[Nerdanel]

maybe so. i didn't choose to be homosexual.

but do you think mankind has the right to control other species? do we have the knowledge to do so, or has some god given us the right? should we decide whether a species can survive or not?
will it not affect us in a negative way later on?

[Nerdanel]

nonononono! now i can see this new smiley too!! it's taking over the world!






*spamspamspam*

[Fat middle]

LOL Funny quote, RÃ*an!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

that's frightening..

Why? Could you please explain?

but ir's reply is better.

Why IRex thinks he has the right to speak for aliens (if any even exist) mystifies me. IMHO, I think it's incredibly obvious that an observant, visiting alien would correctly conclude that mankind is the most "important" being on the planet.

but if we go to the basics, our species couldn't exist without plankton, ...

That's why God created plankton

but they can, and have, survive(d) without us.

Mere existence without meaning is not very important, IMO.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

LOL Funny quote, RÃ*an!

Glad you liked it! I just busted up when I read that!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

but do you think mankind has the right to control other species? do we have the knowledge to do so, or has some god given us the right?

I think God has given us the assignment of lovingly and carefully and respectfully managing our environment. This is waaay different from "the right to control other species". The former is the picture of loving stewardship for mutual benefit; the latter is a picture of selfish manipulation.

[azalea]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

we dont stand out at all.

I think humans stand out very clearly -- like a sore thumb in fact. None of the animals I've seen around the neighborhood have a garage on their house!

Hey, guys, I don't mean to be an admin or anything, but I do notice that some of the posts are veering off the topic of ***Animal Morality***

I think the topic was created (well, split) to debate whether or not animals are creatures capable of having moral standards, using evidence/ observations to support or disprove such. I'm not spanking anyone, I just want everyone to be careful about keeping their posts here on that topic and reserving others for the appropriate thread. Thanks!

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

but do you think mankind has the right to control other species? do we have the knowledge to do so, or has some god given us the right? should we decide whether a species can survive or not?
will it not affect us in a negative way later on?

Well, this thread was about "animal morality". The rights of humans should go to other thread *hey! wait a minute, don't split it now!! * You speak about knowlegde and God as sources of morals. Interesting.

If we knew we should? I don't think so. Morals, IMHO, has nothing to do with that kind of utilitarism (is that a word?) that seeks to control nature.

Morals have more to do with trying to do what's good, and that leads to deal respectfully with every being, according to the inner dignity of each one.

[Rían]

Actually, azalea, I was going to ask Earniel to change the title of the split thread, because it was, um, ME who started the rabbit trail. I wanted to change it to something like "are humans merely animals?", because that was the original direction of the original rabbit trail. The issue of animal morals was merely secondary. But then I thought that a title change after a split would be too confusing ... is it ok if we stay on this topic?