The human animal : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » The human animal » The human animal

The human animal
Why do we seperate ourselves?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The human animal

unenlightened
psychobabble

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1596

Posted 08/13/08 - 12:56 AM:	#11
the traditional western answer is that it is moral knowledge that separates human from animal; animals are 'innocent', even when they are violent or cruel, because they do not have the reflexive self-consciousness of being aware of themselves as being seen by the other. This awareness of the awareness of the other produces the possibility of shame, whereby the opinion of the neighbours begins to operate on the individual not merely as an external pressure, but internally, as the force of conscience. In short the difference is that animals would be neither capable nor interested in having this kind of discussion - even if they could talk - because the idea of others thinking about them is of no interest, it does not enter their self-conception - they do not have in that sense a self-conception. How does this then feed into answering the substantive questions of what our relationships to animals 'should' be? That remains open for debate, but only by humans; animals can have no opinion beyond what they like or dislike.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

yiming
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 310

Posted 08/13/08 - 05:33 AM:	#12
unenlightened wrote: How does this then feed into answering the substantive questions of what our relationships to animals 'should' be? That remains open for debate, but only by humans; animals can have no opinion beyond what they like or dislike. You are talking like mom treating animals like kids to be fed and put to bed whether they like it or not because their opinions don't count even if they have any. Condescending.

unenlightened
psychobabble

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1596

Posted 08/13/08 - 06:46 AM:	#13
yiming wrote: You are talking like mom treating animals like kids to be fed and put to bed whether they like it or not because their opinions don't count even if they have any. Condescending. Dr Dolittle can talk to the animals, and then present their views to us on this forum. Are you Dr Dolittle? if so I yield to you the right to speak for other species. If not, then it's about time you started paying attention to your mum, you silly little animal. Arguments ad muminem have no rhetorical force to my mind.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2150

Posted 08/13/08 - 06:10 PM:	#14
I think arguing for uniqueness due to "morality" is a bit archaic. Morality has been pretty much disassembled into a simple negotiation for relative cost over benefit and cooperation over competition. To continue my "nature's nerd" analogy, morality is humanity's "role playing game", (a game which is really just a communal exercise in introvert fantasy). Humans make up arbitrary rules, rankings and values and get emotionally involved with rule breakers, cheaters and exploiters. But animals play similar games. A pack of wolves know better than to go near the alpha male's mates or they suffer the consequences and the argument over whether their experience is anything like ours is about as useful as arguing whether "chutes and ladders" is a valid role playing game. It is just a way of fitting definitions around the apriori premise that the human "game" has to be somehow different than all other games ... but in the end, they are all just games. Even insects have games that they can play or play, but with simpler rules and fewer decision points.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Epicurean Delight
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 09, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 40

Posted 08/13/08 - 06:50 PM:	#15
Well I would have responded with the same answer as swstephe, but it has already been said. However, I would like to add another example. There have been observations that some animals will sacrifice themselves in order to save another animal of the same species, could that not be seen as some kind of morality?

Siegfried
Eternal Change

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Location: Wherever my senses place me.
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 08/13/08 - 10:15 PM:	#16
BLibralesso wrote: Well I would have responded with the same answer as swstephe, but it has already been said. However, I would like to add another example. There have been observations that some animals will sacrifice themselves in order to save another animal of the same species, could that not be seen as some kind of morality? I don't think saving someone by sacrificing yourself can be seen as proof of morality. These types of events occur on the spur of the moment when you sense danger targeting someone you care about or (the moral proof) someone you have no relation with. Well i don't think there were any cases when animals saved a total stranger (same race with them). Animals act purely on emotions and instincts, and when a hive , pack leader or a cub is in danger, their emotions and instincts dictate if they should help or run. Let's look at bees for example, when they sense danger they immediately attack and sting. Well if a bee stings then it's over for it, but do you actually think they stung that "enemy" because it thought it was saving thousands of bee lives by killing/repelling it? I believe it is purely instinct and no morality what so ever.
If you want to fly i will walk, If you want to walk i will crawl, but i will always be one step ahead of you. "Me"

unenlightened
psychobabble

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1596

Posted 08/13/08 - 11:05 PM:	#17
I'm not sure the criticism from archaism is much of an improvement on that from mumsiness. I would be interested if someone would criticise the substance of my post rather than fixating on the word 'morality.' The claim is very specific in giving a cognitive capacity which 'makes a difference'. I wrote: ...they (animals) do not have the reflexive self-consciousness of being aware of themselves as being seen by the other. This awareness of the awareness of the other produces the possibility of shame... One could argue that there are animals that have this capacity, or that humans don't have it, or that it is not a significant difference. I don't know why arguing over animal experience is fruitless - unless it is fundementally different from human experience. I am not focusing on particular games, altruistic acts, or other social behaviours. If you want to obsess on one word, obsess on 'shame' Humans are the ashamed animal, the self-covering animal, the animal that only really exists in the eyes of another, and has to invent an all seeing God to see into their internal lives in order to be really real.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

The Escapist
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 504

Posted 08/14/08 - 04:27 AM:	#18
BLibralesso wrote: I think some animals are just as intelligent as humans. Then you have no idea what you have. You are massively more intelligent than any other animal.

The Escapist
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 504

Posted 08/14/08 - 04:31 AM:	#19
yiming wrote: You are right. The distinction is as baseless as racism - distinction between humans and it is all in the mind. Foolish nonsense. Our capabilities make us like gods compared to any other animal, and the evidence is everywhere you look.

The Escapist
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 504

Posted 08/14/08 - 04:34 AM:	#20
Siegfried wrote: As for non-theists I really don't know, I myself don't consider humans greater than animals at some points of view but the "Human spirit" has more potential than the "Animal spirit" in this moment of time. Superstitious nonsense. What's "the human spirit"?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.