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.

[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.

[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! )

[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 ...

[Janny]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

However, the movement as a whole is thwarting medical progress in name of an extremist interpretation of what exactly these rights are.

At the moment here in Oxford there is a project to build a new science research centre which has been halted because the animal rights brigade have started threatening the contractors. There are lots of things which enrage me about this, but here are the top three:

1) Animal research is an essential component of basic scientific progress. New drug treatments, for example, cannot be licensed until they have been shown to be safe in animals (as well as a whole bunch of other things). You cannot simulate this kind of study with computer models and such like.

2) There is far more cruelty going on day in, day out in the abattoirs and factory farms around the country. Why, then, target science? (Hint: farmers have shotguns and tanks for spraying silage)

Don't comment on point three, don't comment on point three, don't comment on point three... When was the last time you called Mr Blair to tell him you were going home from work? *hits self* Don't comment on point three.

I thoroughly agree with you on points one and two. I would like to express my disgust for the militant activists. Perspectiveless; are their emotions equally evoked by the scenes of Darfur as by watching a fly being squashed against a wall? I would sincerely hope not.
It should be noted too, as so aptly was by The Now Show (God bless Radio 4), the premise taken by extremists that scientists and their families, who themselves may oppose testing, and that pensioner who was attacked for holding shares in the construction company at that Oxford site, somehow forfeit their rights is perverse. The programme correctly went on to say that the notion of people forfeiting rights as a means for the activists to circumnavigate the overt hypocrisy of their stance is typical of all terrorist organisations. Let's not pretend that the extremists are anything but terrorists. And let's not pretend that laws to grant, as I understand it, protection not available under current law but protection which is necessary, is a law which errodes civil liberties. Damn them, take my civil liberty to illegally protest, sabotage and intimidate!

I particularly enjoyed the irony of a protestor outside the Huntingdon Life Sciences who had an asthma attack and had to be saved by a policeman using an inhaler which had been tested at, yes, Huntingdon Life Sciences.

[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?

[Nerdanel]

i don't know why humanity should be admired. i think the world would be a lot better without us.

and i wasn't saying humanity shouldn't be admired in any way. i just say that i don't.

imo, humans are animals. there's nothing 'merely' about that. i believe it's hard for us to tell, too, if we are 'only' animals; we can't see it from another pov than ours.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

i think the world would be a lot better without us.

I'm sorry you think that. Personally, I think the world is better because you, and my other friends, are in it.

imo, humans are animals. there's nothing 'merely' about that. i believe it's hard for us to tell, too, if we are 'only' animals; we can't see it from another pov than ours.

I think the mere fact that we are contemplating the question shows that we are NOT mere animals.

[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.