Animal morality: are humans merely animals?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

What I meant is that almost everyone have denied the existance of morals in animals: some because we think that moral are related to free will and that's only in humans, others because you don't think that morals exist at all: neither in animals nor in humans.

woah! lots of stuff here... and people say i get off-topic

there seems to be a kind of absolutism in the above statement and many others that is exactly what i was trying to address... the idea that somehow you're governed completely by free will or completely by instinct, with no space in between

if for the moment we accept the basic concepts (which is the best we can do, though the concepts may be imperfect) that instinct is an ingrained action that you have little control over, while free will is the ability to act according to thought processes only, and then look at the real world...

many examples have already been given of animal actions that seem to be at least in part due to thought processes, and maybe even a certain amount of trial and error and deduction

how about some human actions that seem to defy thought processes? i mentioned the fact earlier that mothers (and fathers) always protect their offspring... not only that, but there is an almost universal tendency for this to happen even if that offspring has done something truely terrible to society... one would think that if we were governed totally by free will, logic would allow someone to see this situation more objectively, but time and time again humans do not... this is just one of many examples... there are many other involving love or anger where human reactions become extremely predictable (almost instinctual), even among the most intelligent

i see this as a kind of reversion to what we call instinct... so if humans still have some instinct intermixed with their 'free will', whats to say that some animals do not have a bit of 'free will' mixed in with their instinct?

You cannot deny the validity of the concept of morals and also claim it for animals...

sure i can, any concept is our best guess at reality, but at the same time... it is just that, a guess... so it 'is true to the best of our knowledge'

i however was not denying the concepts of morals, free will and instinct... i was saying that maybe the division between these concepts is not as absolute as some of us like to think

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by Lizra

If the other creatures of planet earth suddenly developed human style communication, I'm would really be surprised if they believed humans were created to "set over" everything as you say.

And you speak about choosing evidence?

it seems you choose to believe in remote possibilities...

[Lizra]

That was just a question to ponder FM ...not "evidence" Evidence is the fossil record, the age of the earth and all the other things discussed in depth in the "Should evolution br taught in schools" and "the evidence for creationisn" thread. I would run and hide if that remote possibilty could be true! "payback" would be gruesome!

[brownjenkins]

interesting question lizra... kind of what i was thinking earlier when i spoke of early development of mankind... if you believe we evolved from animals (and i know all to well that not all of us do ), at what point did we become this 'special' free-will oriented animal? some might attribute it to tools, but we see animals that use these... other's speech or some other form of complex communication... but many scientists believe that homo sapiens had the ability to speak long before they actually did... where did we cross the line... or is there even a line at all?

[HOBBIT]

Saying that we are set above animals because they cant talk or "build garages" and whatnot does seem rascist reminiscent.

Remember when the Europeans thought that they were "set above" Africas, Native Americans, and other indigenous peoples?

I mean, the Europeans sure had a ton more technology and were much more developed at the time, so they had to be set above them right?

Those native peoples didn't seem to have any civilized language to the ears of the Europeans and they saw their huts and stone tools as inferior to their paved woods, carriages, glasses, wooden houses, brick houses, metal tools, etc.

Point is: They weren't inferior than Europeans and they certainly were not set above them.

They just happened to be a little more advanced technology speaking at that time in history.

Of course, these peoples were also Human. But it is a similar thing with animals.

Just something to ponder, i'm all for eating animals

[Insidious Rex]

Oh my dear Rian. I haven’t seen a tantrum like this from you in a while. I feared we have all been growing a bit too soft and cuddly here for that. Good to see we can still inspire some passion even if its highly misguided.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Oh, get off your high horse, stop going on what you THINK I believe and please actually READ my post. You quoted it - please actually read it, and do NOT substitute "this is what I think she believes". READ it.

whether or not you believe that a god rules over all creation or whatever is irrelevant to the fact that THE STATEMENT YOU MADE was quite narcissistic. No wriggling around or blowing your top or ridiculous displays of indignation can avoid that. If you want to say you are part of a formally narcissistic system so as to pass the blame on then be my guest. But anyone who says

Gee, it sounds to me like they were specially created just to serve us

is being narcissistic and/or egocentric. It doesn’t matter that you choose to buy into that theory rather then came up with it yourself. As lizra said, 200 years ago slave owners could have said the exact same thing about their slaves. That they are given to us by god to serve us. Its gods way. And therefore doesn’t make the slave owners mistaken or bad people. Well how convenient that is. And yer doing the same thing here.

If someone asked Queen Elizabeth, "do you think you are the queen of England?", is it narcisisstic for her to say, "yes, I am"?!? Of course not! It's just simply a fact that she's the Queen of England!

what does being the queen of England have to do with thinking all life on earth is here to serve me?

Personally, and I say this as gently and lovingly as is possible for typing-talk, I think YOU are the conceited one when it comes to opinions. Please review your last few posts on this thread, and tell me if you see any of the qualifiers that I often use in my posts ("if", "believe", "indicates").

as you know Im never one to be into the whole silly language dance when arguing a point nor do I get upset when you state your thoughts about the world no matter how out of touch and no matter how emphatic you are about their truth. That’s to be expected. I wouldn’t bother with you if you were one of these people who was constantly second guessing and qualifying their thoughts with “im not sure but� or “well it might be that� or “I don’t really know much about this but�. No you are rather forceful and often boastful in your ideas about the world and existence. So sue me if I lay reality on the line with no qualifiers. Yes we MIGHT be on top of giant turtles but do I really need to say that every time I talk about evolution or psychology?

YOU are the one that assumes your worldview is correct and mine is wrong, in no uncertain terms.

guilty. Although Ill remind you that I certainly don’t discount in whole form the idea of a god creating something or even guiding events somehow which many people do. On many occasions ive in fact stated that this could certainly be possible. Quite frankly, Im surprised you act like I don’t hold this opinion rian. But oh well.

But when we get into your ideas on creationism and such which you insist are ALL based on evidence *snort * you seem so out of touch to me that its almost impossible for me to see you as anything else but in major denial (since you have already pegged me with this term ) because of your massive need to cling to your particular Christian foundation about the world and yourself. Understandable of course but don’t expect me to humor you because of it.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I agree.

I haven't said that.

No one here has said that, IIRC.

Can you show otherwise?

Ok. Once again…

Gee, it sounds to me like they were specially created just to serve us

and don’t you dare try to wriggle out of that by saying oh well I never said ALL matter now did I or that you didn’t use the word “me� or something. The concept is very much the same.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm sad to hear you say this. It's entirely untrue. YOU are the one that states your opinions so positively. At least I use "if" and words like that. Why can I have an opinion and you have an opinion, and I'm somehow unable to see outside my "shell of religion", and you're not?!?! Unfair and illogical.

completely fair and logical actually. if you can sit there and call me in denial when talking about nature then certainly expect me to respond back to such an incredible accusation. and frankly from the likes of you such a statement just seems the height of irony to me. sorry.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Please provide names and quotes to support your claim, esp. the part about "slaves".

I don't think you'll be able to.

You want me to provide you with quotes for monkeys not having indoor plumbing? Have you ever heard of crystallizing a concept with an example? It was stated that humans are better and fundamentally different from all other life forms because only we can build garages. I followed that thinking by bringing up monkeys not having indoor plumbing. I could have used garages but I mean whats the difference? The idea is the same. You stated that all living creatures on earth are here to serve us. I paralleled this concept by saying they should be our slaves. If you don’t like the word slaves that’s understandable. But I think you miss my point which is to EMPHASIZE your words to a ridiculous level so you can see how dangerous the fundamental concept behind that thinking really is. This is quite a normal way of making a point. Are you saying you’ve never heard of this before?

EDIT: and now that I think about it, you are in fact a master of this very concept. I see you do it all the time with evolutionary terms and concepts that you twist and bend to your own bidding for the very reason of making them look ridiculous. and no matter how many times someone patiently corrects you you continue using the same language. meanwhile ALL i did was equate "serving" with "slavery". not much of a stretch really if you think about it. you were created by god to serve me no matter what. you were created by god to be my slave no matter what. pretty similar.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Janny

That is absurd reasoning. 2 + 2 = 4 is only an absolute to the extent that everyone accepts it. If I were to create new arithmatic axioms and say 2 + 2 = 3 then we would reach the same situation where we are now.

wait wait are you going to create a new universe where 2 units doubled equals 3 units? If the FUNDAMENTALS of mathematics aren’t an absolute then what is? Mathematics is a means of coding how reality works. Not an opinion. You can use any words you want. That’s not the point. You can even use different concepts for counting. Different base systems. But the underlying fundamentals are what are represented in the language of mathematics.

Study your own truths before attacking others'.

Study the difference between philosophy and science before you contradict yourself with statements like this.

[Janny]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

wait wait are you going to create a new universe where 2 units doubled equals 3 units?

Sorry, we have to stick to the same example here. 2 units doubled is very different to 2 +2

If the FUNDAMENTALS of mathematics aren’t an absolute then what is? Mathematics is a means of coding how reality works. Not an opinion. You can use any words you want. That’s not the point. You can even use different concepts for counting. Different base systems. But the underlying fundamentals are what are represented in the language of mathematics.

It is an absolute, but an absolute created by man. I was explaining to someone that axiom 1 of arithmetic (that any number m or n, m+n = n+m) but they kept asking me why is that so? And there is no answer. It is because it is - "it's the law of maths". It's a human creation, a conceit if you will.

Study the difference between philosophy and science before you contradict yourself with statements like this.

Explain the contradiction, please (I thought there were no absolutes? )

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But I think you miss my point which is to EMPHASIZE your words to a ridiculous level so you can see how dangerous the fundamental concept behind that thinking really is. This is quite a normal way of making a point. Are you saying you’ve never heard of this before?

Would that be satire?.. I've only written one piece of satire before. I know your suppose to take the standpoint of something you oppose and bring it to a ridiculous level. That way people can see the folly or dangers with holding that fundamental concept.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Would that be satire?.. I've only written one piece of satire before. I know your suppose to take the standpoint of something you oppose and bring it to a ridiculous level. That way people can see the folly or dangers with holding that fundamental concept.

correct! kind of like 'life of brian' (not knocking religion btw, but blind devotion)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Janny

That is absurd reasoning. 2 + 2 = 4 is only an absolute to the extent that everyone accepts it.

I strongly disagree with you here, Janny.

I think IRex puts it well:

Originally Posted by IRex

Mathematics is a means of coding how reality works. Not an opinion. You can use any words you want. That’s not the point. You can even use different concepts for counting. Different base systems. But the underlying fundamentals are what are represented in the language of mathematics.

Quite a good explanation, IMO, esp. the different base systems concept. In base 3, 2 + 2 would be 11; however, 11 base 3 translated into decimal is 4. Base systems are a construct, but they fit on a reality. If we use stones or marbles, 2 + 2 always equals 4.

If I were to create new arithmatic axioms and say 2 + 2 = 3 then we would reach the same situation where we are now.

But axioms aren't "created" in the sense you're using. They're a statement about a reality on this planet. So for 2 + 2 to be 3, I think we would have to be living in a different reality, and we'd have to start all over on this topic!

Study your own truths before attacking others'.

Good advice in general, tho, and major points for correct use of an apostrophe on a plural.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

there seems to be a kind of absolutism in the above statement and many others that is exactly what i was trying to address... the idea that somehow you're governed completely by free will or completely by instinct, with no space in between

I think humans have instincts, which definitely affect their free will decisions, some more than others.

if you believe we evolved from animals (and i know all to well that not all of us do ), at what point did we become this 'special' free-will oriented animal? some might attribute it to tools, but we see animals that use these... other's speech or some other form of complex communication... but many scientists believe that homo sapiens had the ability to speak long before they actually did... where did we cross the line... or is there even a line at all?

Good question. I don't think free will is something that can be "developed".
__________________

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Oh my dear Rian. I haven’t seen a tantrum like this from you in a while.

Tantrum? Why do you continue to insult me like this, IRex?

Good to see we can still inspire some passion even if its highly misguided.

"passion" I agree with; tantrum is insulting and also wrong, IMO. There is passion in love and passion in lust, but love and lust are very different. There is passion in a tantrum and passion in strongly and rightly and courteously defending yourself against insults and falsehoods, but the two things are very different.

Again, you're speaking as if you're the final authority on everything. "even if its highly misguided"?! Come on, IRex, stop insulting me. Who made YOU the authority on everything? No one but you, and I don't accept it. Why can YOU have an opinion and state it like it's a fact, and not let me state an opinion as an opinion without insulting me and flat out telling me I'm wrong? What happened to the open-minded agnostic? Let's have a passionate discussion - I like those - but please keep it considerate.

Your posts are characterized by making statements like that, like you're the final authority and know everything, and frankly, I can only take it so long before I have to comment strongly on it, mainly because it might mislead other people into thinking you actually know facts when you don't (and I don't know facts in these areas, either - no one does, because they are in the realm of conjecture and not science). It gets annoying and boring to continually quote your sentences and say "of course, that's only your OPINION." I think it would be much nicer of you, and more considerate of others, and more truthful, if you would try to rephrase your posts.

Now I have posted with you for quite awhile now, and I know you're quite a nice guy, and I think this is mainly just your style, but I think I need to tell you that it's a pretty insulting style to anyone who has a different opinion from you. I'm able to overlook it quite often, because I know your kind heart behind the style, but it was just getting to the point here where I really needed to make a comment, IMO. I mean, speaking like you KNOW what an imaginary alien would conclude about humanity, and everyone else is wrong? I think it would have been much better to say "IMO, I think an alien would conclude ..." or "I think an alien would conclude ... " or something like that. That language, IMO, shows a consideration to other people and their opinions.

No wriggling around or blowing your top or ridiculous displays of indignation can avoid that.

This is insulting "ridiculous displays of indignation"? That makes me very sad.

If you want to say you are part of a formally narcissistic system so as to pass the blame on then be my guest.

I don't think it's narcisisstic. I talk over and over about how we are set over creation to take care of it, NOT to selfishly use it. Haven't you heard me?

As lizra said, 200 years ago slave owners could have said the exact same thing about their slaves. That they are given to us by god to serve us. Its gods way. And therefore doesn’t make the slave owners mistaken or bad people. Well how convenient that is. And yer doing the same thing here.

Just because people made an error with slaves doesn't necessarily mean they are making an error here. Let's evaluate each unique case individually. Isn't that the right way to do things?

what does being the queen of England have to do with thinking all life on earth is here to serve me?

OK, you did find where I used the word "serve" (NOT "slave"). I'm glad you quoted the whole sentence, and I'd like to point out that it was made in a humorous way (please note the "Gee"). But as I said above, all my serious comments on the subject have been to say that we are stewards of creation to take care of it. Don't you remember any of those statements?

And the queen of England thing was to point out that if it is a FACT that someone is a queen of England, then it is not narcisisstic of her to believe in a fact. Do you see what I mean?

So sue me if I lay reality on the line with no qualifiers.

I don't mind when it's a FACT that you're talking about. As I said, your comment on math was excellent. However, when you present your OPINION as a fact on things that CANNOT be proven as facts, like the alien example, it really seems rude to me, and intolerant of others' opinions.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

However, I find that much less plausible than Humans simply evolving from Apes or whatever.

*BoP puts her hands on her hips*

I KNOW that you did a unit on evolution, so you should know better! Humans did NOT descend from apes, they share a common ancestor with them.

*gives tristan a wedgie*

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I strongly disagree with you here, Janny.

*Jumps on the "disagree with Janny" bandwagon*

Numbers are a construct defined by humans to make sense of the world, that is true, but at the heart of it, maths is one of the most absolute languages we have.

[Lizra]

Nice wedgie!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an (to IR)

Who made YOU the authority on everything?

yeah! this thread started with a badly truncated quote from one of my posts... so i'm the final authority!

on the IMO business, i know you like to use it RÃ*an, but i think it kind of goes without saying... i don't qualify my views much, if at all, either

any answers to my "good question?" RÃ*an

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Tantrum? Why do you continue to insult me like this, IRex?

what else would you call it? You blew up at me because of what was essentially a throw away comment I originally made with a winkie smiley. Now I know in the past sometimes when you do that its because of stresses outside of the moot and such and usually you reply right after and say so, so I could only assume this was a similar case. And honestly thicken thy skin. You take many things as harmful insults that aren’t meant as such. And you often dish out things that you get indignant about receiving back ive noticed. At least with me.

Again, you're speaking as if you're the final authority on everything. "even if its highly misguided"?! Come on, IRex, stop insulting me. Who made YOU the authority on everything? No one but you, and I don't accept it. Why can YOU have an opinion and state it like it's a fact, and not let me state an opinion as an opinion without insulting me and flat out telling me I'm wrong? What happened to the open-minded agnostic? Let's have a passionate discussion - I like those - but please keep it considerate.

Your posts are characterized by making statements like that, like you're the final authority and know everything, and frankly, I can only take it so long before I have to comment strongly on it, mainly because it might mislead other people into thinking you actually know facts when you don't (and I don't know facts in these areas, either - no one does, because they are in the realm of conjecture and not science). It gets annoying and boring to continually quote your sentences and say "of course, that's only your OPINION." I think it would be much nicer of you, and more considerate of others, and more truthful, if you would try to rephrase your posts.

Now I have posted with you for quite awhile now, and I know you're quite a nice guy, and I think this is mainly just your style, but I think I need to tell you that it's a pretty insulting style to anyone who has a different opinion from you. I'm able to overlook it quite often, because I know your kind heart behind the style, but it was just getting to the point here where I really needed to make a comment, IMO.

Ok so this is like one of those rants where we talk about how everyone should put “in my opinion� before everything they say then?

I mean, speaking like you KNOW what an imaginary alien would conclude about humanity, and everyone else is wrong? I think it would have been much better to say "IMO, I think an alien would conclude ..." or "I think an alien would conclude ... " or something like that. That language, IMO, shows a consideration to other people and their opinions.

oh ok this is all about the alien comment. Well here was my thinking on that: when I said “alien� I meant “non native outsider� who knew absolutely nothing about the earth or any of the creatures on it. I think its logical that such an alien would immediately conclude that humans certainly are NOT the most important creatures on the earth IN A GLOBAL ECOSYSTEM SENSE but in fact we are almost insignificant compared to the microorganisms and plant life that dominates the earth. They would see by sheer numbers, by density of population, by age of existence, by variation and adaptability, and by dependence on them by other creatures that they WITHOUT DOUBT were the basic foundation and therefore the most important living creatures on earth. I mean doesn’t that make elementary sense to you? Why is this such a stretch to accept? How could they conclude that 6 billion humans were the most important life forms on earth?

I don't think it's narcisisstic. I talk over and over about how we are set over creation to take care of it, NOT to selfishly use it. Haven't you heard me?

sure but you haven’t really stressed that here. Just about being lord over other creatures. your words were “…created to serve us.� What am I to take from this if not narcissism?

Just because people made an error with slaves doesn't necessarily mean they are making an error here. Let's evaluate each unique case individually. Isn't that the right way to do things?

fair enough. I was simply using the example because its almost a mirror image of what you were saying about animals.

And the queen of England thing was to point out that if it is a FACT that someone is a queen of England, then it is not narcisisstic of her to believe in a fact. Do you see what I mean?

so… are you saying that humans are like high nobility compared to the animal kingdom? (or within the animal kingdom? Did you ever agree that we ARE animals?). And that because of this we have the right to do what we will with animals? As long as we “take care of them�?

[HOBBIT]

You didn't see my bio grades I miss-spoke

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

yeah! this thread started with a badly truncated quote from one of my posts... so i'm the final authority!

*bows to brownie*

on the IMO business, i know you like to use it RÃ*an, but i think it kind of goes without saying... i don't qualify my views much, if at all, either

Maybe I use it too much - I don't "like" to use it, but I know internet typing talk is sometimes hard to understand, so I use it on purpose to indicate respect of other people's opinions. You don't usually use it, but you phrase your posts in such a way that I feel that altho you disagree with people, you respect their opinions and the possibility that they might be right.

any answers to my "good question?" RÃ*an

If it's what I think you're referring to, I pretty much answered it, I thought - I was questioning your use of the term "microevolution" to refer to the potential change from ape to human. If you'd like, I'll attempt a more detailed answer (if that is indeed the question you're referring to)