Animal morality: are humans merely animals?

[Rían]

[EDIT: This thread was split from the original Animal Rights/Dissection debate since it veered into a new direction that deserved its own thread. (And a perfect time for me to try out this splitting tool, yay.) The topic of this new thread is to discuss morals or morality in animals. -Eärniel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

... (which is what we are... whether rÃ*an thinks so or not )

In the sense of the merely physical, of course we are animals That's why animal research is so valuable. And our sense of morality, that we as humans have given to us by God, tells us that we need to think about what is right and wrong when conducting animal research, as this thread shows.

What I disagree with is the opinion that we are MERELY animals.

how do you know?

I don't, for sure, but from all indications, carnivores don't seem to hold seminars on moral issues like "10 ways to humanely kill a wildebeast", or "Grief management for carnivores", or "Should we really determine pride leadership by killing off rivals?", or even "Rainforest management - watch how much you eat!"

As I said, it's my OPINION that we are not merely animals, and I think the evidence points this way. I wanted to point out that it is also an OPINION that we ARE merely animals.

carnivores very rarely kill their own kind... why is this do you suppose?

Instinct.

Do you think it's because of moral issues?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What I disagree with is the opinion that we are MERELY animals.

humans are a more developed animal in terms of our intellectual capacity... but i don't draw a line between us and them... in fact, i don't see it as totally out of the question that one of today's existing non-human species might one day develop the level of intelligence we have

Instinct.

Do you think it's because of moral issues?

not exactly... i think what we humans call morals are rooted in our animal instincts

[Rían]

Then we have different opinions on both these points.

Oh well, at least we both like Tolkien!

[Master_Samwise]

Humans are animals, but I have to stand with Rian, that we have souls and other animal's (pigs, cows, lions est) do not. However, I would like to make the point that according to my religion we were put on this earth to take care of the animals and worship God. I don't think that if we were given a baby we would abuse it and kill it and send it off to a lab to be cut open and taken apart for students to look at, which, btw, the students are not doing scientific research, they are simpally doing an assighment. While we all say that it is okay to experament on animals to help the humans in some way, the question is still open: should we dissect? I think that in some cases we should, but I don't think that high school and below students should dissect, as the chances of them finding a cure to cancer while cutting open a pig is very slim. Anyways, about the baby, we wouldn't do that if it was a human baby, would we? And yet if it was a pig or cat then why not? We should value human life above animal life, yes of course, but why would we treat an animal in a way that if it were a human we would be calling abusive and cruel?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Master_Samwise

Anyways, about the baby, we wouldn't do that if it was a human baby, would we? And yet if it was a pig or cat then why not? We should value human life above animal life, yes of course, but why would we treat an animal in a way that if it were a human we would be calling abusive and cruel?

Medical students dissect cadavers all the time. Even baby cadavers when they are available. Its part of becoming a doctor.

[Master_Samwise]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Medical students dissect cadavers all the time. Even baby cadavers when they are available. Its part of becoming a doctor.

Yes, but are these bodys grown in mass, abused and murdered?

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I disagree with your opinion Here's my opinion - Humans, altho having a physical body similar to animals, are not just smarter animals. We are a whole different type of being - we are "soul-bearers". We have a soul, given to us by God, and a conscience, in addition to instinct. And our conscience often overrides our instincts, unlike animals, who don't contemplate whether it's morally right to kill something for dinner

..and i (obviously) disagree with yours.
i believe other animals than humans have souls too, and i believe there are other very intelligent animals too. there can be different kinds of intelligence. and if we are so very intelligent, then i'd rather see that we weren't. i do not admire the human species in any way.

well, no other animal has to think if it's morally right to kill something for dinner, or care about the rainforest management; they're not the ones exterminating plants and animals.

[Master_Samwise]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

..and i (obviously) disagree with yours.
i believe other animals than humans have souls too, and i believe there are other very intelligent animals too. there can be different kinds of intelligence. and if we are so very intelligent, then i'd rather see that we weren't. i do not admire the human species in any way.

well, no other animal has to think if it's morally right to kill something for dinner, or care about the rainforest management; they're not the ones exterminating plants and animals.

I have to disagree. Wouldn't they be holding meeting on how to stop the humans? Well, I havn't seen any going on.

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by Master_Samwise

I have to disagree. Wouldn't they be holding meeting on how to stop the humans? Well, I havn't seen any going on.

what do you disagree with?

i admit that it's difficult to say that other animals are intelligent, since intelligence is defined by humans.

EDIT: i love your sig, BoP!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Master_Samwise

I have to disagree. Wouldn't they be holding meeting on how to stop the humans?

Good point!! (and welcome back! )

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

No, one could not, unless one provides a clear definition of "man". Hominids were most likely scavengers up until Homo erectus. The austrolopithecines were primarily frugivores who subsisted on hard grains, nuts, and fruit.

Well what did they wear?, I hope they didn't run around naked. I'm not well educated on Hominids and the like. But I'm guessing they killed animals for the fur, bones , the hide to make shoes etc, and other uses as well.

[BeardofPants]

Scavenging animal remains would no doubt have turned up stuff to keep 'em warm, and don't forget, they were still quite hairy at that stage, and the climate was fairly forgiving pre-glacial maximum.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

... and don't forget, they were still quite hairy at that stage...

Is this an educated guess, or is there actual data in existence to support this?

[The Gaffer]

Just a comment on the instinct thing: IIRC, there have been studies that have recorded moral behaviour in animals. For example, if you put two chimps in adjacent cages and give food to one but not the other (this is the charming sort of study that psychologists like to do), the one without food will beg for food and the other one will give it.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Just a comment on the instinct thing: IIRC, there have been studies that have recorded moral behaviour in animals. For example, if you put two chimps in adjacent cages and give food to one but not the other (this is the charming sort of study that psychologists like to do), the one without food will beg for food and the other one will give it.

I wonder at what point will the one chimp NOT give the other food if there isn't enough food for both ... interesting study! IMO, this would be a highly developed "herd instinct".

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Is this an educated guess, or is there actual data in existence to support this?

It has to be conjectured, of course, since skin and hair don't survive the fossil record nearly so well as bone, etc. Doubtless, erectus would have had a significant loss of hair as compared to other earlier hominids, but it would still have had substantially more hair than homo sapiens. This conjecture is based on a couple of things:

The time-span of erectus extends back significantly to the earlier austrolopithecus genus, which would no doubt have had hair (being more closely linked to the divergence between apes and humans). Also, erectus in the earlier periods of their development had significant sexual dimorphic changes between sexes akin to other apes such as gorillas. Sexual dimorphism not only provides indirect evidence of characteristics such as hair, but also social dynamics, as sexual dimorphism is associated with the "alpha male" scenario. What is significant to note is that sexual dimorphism reduced significantly towards the end of the erectus period, with females being around 80% the size of males (more akin to humans). The temperature also became more tropical, so it's likely that along with the development of more human social behaviours (in line with the reduction of dimorphism), there may well have been the loss of hair, and the darkening of the pigment of the skin - since erectus was primarily based in the middle east, and africa. It may have been possible that erectus started predating on small animals as well, and also have practiced cannibalism. Erectus is interesting, because there are changes morphically to the skeletal structure that suggest a significant change both biologically and socially over the long period that they existed.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

It has to be conjectured, of course, since skin and hair don't survive the fossil record nearly so well as bone, etc. ... [interesting info supplied]

Thank you - I thought that was the case.

(why am I getting such, um, interesting thoughts while reading the nomenclature in your post? )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

No, one could not, unless one provides a clear definition of "man".

You know, that amazing being specially and wonderfully created by God with instincts AND a conscience, and the free will to choose behavior. (and as is evident from this thread, the behavior chosen is often wrong but there's a remedy ... )

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

i do not admire the human species in any way.

Note to self - cancel all donations to charities; turn the kids out of the house; kick the dog; ... WAIT - no, I choose to use my free will to NOT do these things, and to strive for good.

New Note to self - check to make sure husband's passport is valid for upcoming trip to Peru to establish new site for food and goods distribution thru Children's Hunger Fund, a charity that he is a board member on. Pick up extra socks for donation to homeless ministry. Get application in for writing letters to prisoners. Admire charitable things that other Mooters do. See if my dog wants to spend some time at the animal shelter helping out in the cat section ... um, nevermind ...

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Note to self - cancel all donations to charities; turn the kids out of the house; kick the dog; ... WAIT - no, I choose to use my free will to NOT do these things, and to strive for good.

New Note to self - check to make sure husband's passport is valid for upcoming trip to Peru to establish new site for food and goods distribution thru Children's Hunger Fund, a charity that he is a board member on. Pick up extra socks for donation to homeless ministry. Get application in for writing letters to prisoners. Admire charitable things that other Mooters do. See if my dog wants to spend some time at the animal shelter helping out in the cat section ... um, nevermind ...

so this is why we shoul admire ourselves?

[Rían]

Well, I was trying to make point in a somewhat funny manner - many of us contribute to charities and do things to help others, which, in my opinion, is something to admire. Of course, most of the world's misery is due to people's wrong choices, but there is still a lot of good things going on that can, and should be (IMO), admired.

And I was trying to remake a point that animals act only on instinct, and cannot override their instinct for "moral" reasons, while humans can. Humans are NOT merely animals, IMHO, and this opinion is strongly supported by what can be observed around us.

Do you really think the human species should not be admired "in any way", or was that just kind of a generalization?