Animal morality: are humans merely animals?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

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 You blew up at me because of what was essentially a throw away comment I originally made with a winkie smiley.

I told you what I would call it, but it doesn't matter now. And I think you didn't realize what I blew up at you over - it was NOT a comment with a winkie smilie. But I'm too weary to backtrack and trace it down now. I'll just leave it at: I'm very sorry if I offended you in any way. Altho your manner of speaking often (unintentionally, on your part, I'm sure) hurts me, I really see and treasure your kind heart, and would be honored to be counted as your friend. I know whenever I see a post from a hurting person on the Venting thread that you'll be there giving comfort and advice, and I honor you for that.

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.

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

And honestly thicken thy skin. You take many things as harmful insults that aren’t meant as such.

But do you consider things like (roughly) "can't see outside of her religious shell" to NOT be an insult?

And you often dish out things that you get indignant about receiving back ive noticed. At least with me.

IMO, I dish back to you what YOU dish out FIRST (and apparently don't realize you dish out). Funny that we see it opposite!

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?

My comments about my feeling don't need an "IMO" in front of them, because I know first-hand that they are facts. Comments like (for an easy example) an alien concluding whatever you think he/she/it will conclude should have an IMO or an "I think" in front of them, IMO

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 disagree with your opinion. I think FM's comment about the definition of "important" is the sticking point here.

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?

As I said, that was in humor, as I thought was evident by the "Gee" at the beginning, and all my serious replies were that we are to treasure and take care of creation. If it is indeed a fact that we are created in the hierarchy that is stated in the Bible (note - "If") then how can it be narcisisstic to believe that we should carry out the job that God designed us for? (taking care of creation). If the Bible is true, it's not by any of MY merit that I am who I am; it's just the way God made me. Just like Elizabeth is not Queen of England by her OWN merit; it's just that she was born into that family.

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�?

No, I'm not saying that at all - see above for explanation of the Queen thing. As for the rest, I'm out of time - got to take son #1 to his guitar lesson.

I'm sorry I hurt you, if I did (I'm really not sure if I did or not - I don't know how to read you sometimes.)

[Rían]

(ok, guys, it's safe to come out!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

so… are you saying that humans are like high nobility compared to the animal kingdom? (or within the animal kingdom?

No - see explanation of Queen E above.

Did you ever agree that we ARE animals?).

I think we certainly share characteristics with animals, mainly physical, because we're physical beings in a physical world. Or perhaps another way of saying it is that humans have animal components, and that's why animal research is helpful to humans, btw.

Here's an analogy that might help to express my opinion: Look at a wagon and a fighter jet (say the F-15, my personal favorite). They both are vehicles. They both have wheels. Their most important structural parts are both made primarily out of metal, altho they also contain other materials. Their primary purpose is to move people/things from one place to another. They are similar in many ways. However, the jet contains additional systems that are NOT present on the wagon. And most importantly, the person sitting in the wagon is pulled by another (representing instinct), while the person sitting in the jet is a pilot that, altho somewhat constrained by the mechanics of the jet, can make it fly wherever he wishes.

You may not agree with my viewpoint, but do you see what I'm trying to express? IMO, humans, while sharing many characteristics of animals, have additional things in their make-up that make them entirely different creatures. And the most important difference is that humans have free-will to "fly" where they choose, based upon moral evaluations.

And that because of this we have the right to do what we will with animals? As long as we “take care of them�?

I don't look at it that way - I don't see it as a matter of doing "what we will with animals". I see it as more of a job description to take care of creation, not as a matter of doing what we want to. We don't have the "right" to do what we want with creation; we have the responsibility to love it and take care of it. And IF the Bible account is right, THEN it only makes sense that a being that was purposefully designed to take care of creation (humans) should do just that, because creation was designed to be taken care OF. It's no slur on creation; it's just the way things were created. As I said earlier to Lizra, it's no slur on her son that she took care of him when he was a baby. It was her DUTY to do this, and it is RIGHT and SENSIBLE for her to do this, and she does it out of love.

[azalea]

I want it known that I never said humans are above animals because we have garages. I said we stick out like sore thumbs because of it. Much different.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You may not agree with my viewpoint, but do you see what I'm trying to express? IMO, humans, while sharing many characteristics of animals, have additional things in their make-up that make them entirely different creatures. And the most important difference is that humans have free-will to "fly" where they choose, based upon moral evaluations.

Youre right. I dont agree with your view point.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by azalea

I want it known that I never said humans are above animals because we have garages. I said we stick out like sore thumbs because of it. Much different.

how do garages make us stick out any more then say damns make beavers stick out? or mounds make termites stick out? or webs make spiders stick out? (id say spider webs are much more unique biologically then making a structure out of bits of things from our environment which is essentially what building a garage is. hundreds of thousands of animal species do the same thing).

[Lizra]

Mother and young child...humans and the rest of the planet.... these are apples and oranges. I grew and birthed my son. He is one half me. My husband and I are soley responsible for him being here. Someone has to take care of him or he will die.
Humans did not make the rest of the world...and animal and plant life would for the most part go on fine without us, so I really don't see the correlation.
You are saying that we are "above" (translates to "better than" IMO) the rest of the living creatures of this world, and we are supposed to "take care" (hoo boy, and who defines what THAT means! ) of it!? Fairy tales. Sorry!
And I still don't buy this whole free will business. Pretty story...but you have no idea if homo sapiens is the only creature possessing the fabulous "free will", since you don't REALLY know what it's like to be another type of animal, a plant, or an insect. The whole free will thing is getting on my nerves. I'm really sick of hearing about it!

Of course, I absolutely do not believe the bible account (imo that is just a bunch of old stories created by humans of ancient times, wondering the same things we wonder today. ), or the creation story (no evidence) , or this whole "God gave us this earth so have at it" mentality. (another woman told me that when I mentioned to her that I felt sorry for the fish and wasn't into fishing anymore ) so....I do not agree also. There! I feel better.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

And I still don't buy this whole free will business. Pretty story...but you have no idea if homo sapiens is the only creature possessing the fabulous "free will", since you don't REALLY know what it's like to be another type of animal, a plant, or an insect. The whole free will thing is getting on my nerves. I'm really sick of hearing about it!

No, I don't know for sure if humans are the only ones with free will (and neither do YOU, of course! ) but I think from what we CAN see, that it sure looks like humans have something that animals don't, as far as making choices. And really, it doesn't even matter if animals have free will or not; the important thing is that I know that I have free will, and what am I going to do with it? And I repeat that I think it's far more uncomfortable having free will than thinking you don't have free will - there's that responsibility factor. Is that why it's getting on your nerves?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

how do garages make us stick out any more then say damns make beavers stick out? or mounds make termites stick out? or webs make spiders stick out? (id say spider webs are much more unique biologically then making a structure out of bits of things from our environment which is essentially what building a garage is. hundreds of thousands of animal species do the same thing).

But which beaverfamily builds cities that would take them over a day to cross, which spiderweb can be seen from outer space? I think azalea is referring more to the size and visibilty of our constructions and how little they're often integrated in the environment.

[Jonathan]

Animals adapt themselves to nature. Humans on the other hand adapt nature to our needs. Just as Eärniel says, our buildings and cities usually stand out a lot from the surrounding environment.

[Janny]

Originally Posted by azalea

I want it known that I never said humans are above animals because we have garages. I said we stick out like sore thumbs because of it. Much different.

I would have said we stuck out like sore thumbs because of our opposable thumbs... or is that cliche confusion and word association?

[azalea]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

how little they're often integrated in the environment.

That's right, and because of its purpose: To house a car. Very unusual thing in the animal kingdom.

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

...... but I think from what we CAN see, that it sure looks like humans have something that animals don't, as far as making choices....

......but I think from what WE can see, that it sure looks like humans have something that animals don't, as far as making choices....

Fixed.

The mention of "free will" is getting on my nerves because of repetition. Repetition starts to bug me after awhile.

[brownjenkins]

maybe someone should split this off into a 'free will' thread

i have a different take on 'free will'... i don't think we have it per se... i think everything in our universe is ultimately a result of cause and effect... however, and this is a very important however, the causes and effects are so interwoven and complex so that no sentient being could ever hope to understand these causes and effects, and like the tree falling in the forest that no one hears, perception is reality... so if no one can decipher the cause and effect, 'free will' exists... at least as far as we are concerned

btw, animals using tools is just one way they adapt nature to their needs... they're just not as good at it as us

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

But which beaverfamily builds cities that would take them over a day to cross, which spiderweb can be seen from outer space? I think azalea is referring more to the size and visibilty of our constructions and how little they're often integrated in the environment.

size and visibility make us fundamentally different? Let me introduce you to the great barrier reef. It far pales anything we meager humans have ever created in the history of our species. And it was created by “mindless inferior beings� with no super specialness or free will (apparently). And yes it CAN be seen from outer space. Its certainly larger then ANY city we ever created. The only man made object that can be seen from space is the great wall of china so Im told. Oh and the ozone hole of course…

And whats this integrated into the environment talk? We ARE the environment people. Come AWAY form the high minded concept that we are somehow artificial because we can make cars and split atoms and stuff. EVERYTHING we make comes from THE ENVIRONMENT. Your much vaunted garages are made from materials we pulled out of the earth or cut from other living creatures and knocked together to make a little nest we call a garage. Every stone block and steel girder originally came from this earth. We didn’t create them artificially in whole form. EVEN plastics are a manipulation of the natural environment. Just like spider webs. By definition everything is “integrated� into the environment. Lets get away from the idea that everything we do is nothing like what animals do. At best you can say we do exactly what animals do only more so.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Animals adapt themselves to nature. Humans on the other hand adapt nature to our needs. Just as Eärniel says, our buildings and cities usually stand out a lot from the surrounding environment.

to US maybe (and not even to all of us. Do Eskimos make huge buildings that stand out from the surrounding environment? Or do their igloos meld in quite nicely even to our eyes?). But to a termite living in the wood of your house it doesn’t. it flows in perfectly with the “surrounding environment�. And perhaps to those same termites their termite mounds constructed purposefully and carefully from a special type of clay (FROM THE EARTH) and some chewed up wood pulp (FROM WOOD) and a little bit of their saliva, also seem quite different from anything surrounding them. Why wouldn’t it? Its no different from how we do things. Same raw resources. Same ingenuity. Im sure you are focusing on nice neat lines and great architecture and all that but when it comes down to it its all the same form. Don’t try to define life by its dwellings. That’s incredibly arbitrary and misleading to say the least.

Perspective people perspective…

[Rían]

I think Chesterton's point is a good one (from that long quote) - I think what is unique is that a bird will build a nest, and all nests will look similar for a species, for they build by instinct; but humans will build houses (and whatever else) and make them individual and unique. We have the urge for art for the sake of art, not because it serves some biological purpose that would help us reproduce our species, that I just don't see in animals. That famous line about why people climb mountains, for example, is another example - why do they climb? "Because it's there!". I think that's another example of the way humans are different from animals in a significant way.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

but humans will build houses (and whatever else) and make them individual

ever been to florida

i'd have to repeat myself again and say that, yes humans are very different... but it's a matter of degree... why does a dog fetch the ball? because it's there!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Mother and young child...humans and the rest of the planet.... these are apples and oranges. I grew and birthed my son. He is one half me. My husband and I are soley responsible for him being here. Someone has to take care of him or he will die.

But my point had nothing to do with how your son got here, or how creation got here. My point was that if one thing is better suited to take care of another thing, that needs care, for WHATEVER reason, than it is only logical that the one that is better suited to take care of the other should do so, and it has nothing to do with being conceited. It's merely a fact.

You are saying that we are "above" (translates to "better than" IMO) the rest of the living creatures of this world, and we are supposed to "take care" (hoo boy, and who defines what THAT means! ) of it!? Fairy tales. Sorry!

Hey, Liz, I saw your web page - your pictures were lovely! Now why didn't you exhibit the pages that you doodled during that boring meeting? Because the ones you chose were designed and created on purpose, and perhaps even with the exhibition in mind. If your favorite picture and a doodle on the back of a shopping list were able to talk, and you informed them that you, as their creator, made one for fun in a matter of seconds, and made the other much more beautiful and important and took a long time over it, it would not be narcisisstic of the picture to recognize that it is better than the doodle. Now it would be narcisisstic of it to try to make the doodle feel bad over being just a doodle, but it would NOT be narcisisstic (boy am I getting tired of typing that word!) of it to try to hang nicely when it's on display, if the attitude was "I know Lizra my creator took a lot of time and trouble over me, and I will do my best to live up to her desires."

A silly story, maybe, but I really want to get rid of the idea that this aspect of Christianity is necessarily narcisisstic. It can be if one takes it with the wrong attitude, but taken with the right attitude, it is in NO way narcisisstic. IF it is indeed a fact that God made humans a higher order, and we are told this by the One who created us, then it is NOT narcisisstic to believe it.

(and please remember that if anyone is going to criticize a concept, then they must first understand it correctly before the criticism can be valid. IOW, for non-Christians to call this narcisisstic, they must be willing to be corrected by a Christian if the Christian finds an error in their underlying assumption. The same goes for me, of course, if I criticize a non-Christian concept; I'm fully willing, and indeed hope, that a non-Christian would correct me if I have an underlying assumption wrong. Otherwise my criticism would not be valid.)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

ever been to florida

But the insides are different. The buyers don't make the outsides.

i'd have to repeat myself again and say that, yes humans are very different... but it's a matter of degree... why does a dog fetch the ball? because it's there!

But wouldn't you agree that a dog has a "fetching" instinct in a way that a cat, for example, doesn't? (a cat has more of a stalking instinct). I can semi-agree with your degree idea - but I think there is also a "ceiling" past which the animals can never go. And that is a HUGE difference.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But wouldn't you agree that a dog has a "fetching" instinct in a way that a cat, for example, doesn't? (a cat has more of a stalking instinct). I can semi-agree with your degree idea - but I think there is also a "ceiling" past which the animals can never go. And that is a HUGE difference.

i actually had a friend who had taught his cat to fetch small stuffed cat toys, and did it amazingly well... it was some kind of egyptian breed

as far as the 'ceiling' goes, time will tell if nothing else