Do animals have a coinsence?

Post Reply New Topic

I said the Aspie version, as instead of referencing Hitler you referenced another evil group to compare your opponent to. It is still the same association issue. The human being is biologically a type of animal but we usually use this definition of an animal: . 2. An animal organism other than a human being, especially a mammal
---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Human beings and animals are both things, the only question comes in about the capability of those things to act in certain manners. Moralism is not necessarily pack mentality given that humans may choose their morality in contradiction with what would benefit them in their current group or simply as a living being. The conscience is ultimately a reflection of this, as it is often understood from the individual's standpoint of universal right and wrong rather than the thoughts of the group or anything of that nature. Now the question ends up coming out to be: do animals understand higher ethics and morality, or are they at the psychological level of a group instinct? I would say that they lack the understanding required to connect higher levels of ethics and moralities and are stuck at the group instinct. After all, no animal matches are odd and diverse sense of ethics or even the sense of personal ethics that we often have and hold inspite of outside influences, after all, even your anti-anthropocentric beliefs are not exactly within most norms, nor do they have a utilitarian purpose and yet you haven't dropped them for something else. I suppose the question might end up coming down to either what defines conscience or morality or are we as complex as we think we are. I see morality and conscience as abstractions rather than mere pack thinking, and I see human beings as being unusually complex thinkers with abilities far exceeding our closest animal relation as I have not seen any chimps that do calculus.

Depends on what species we're talking about, and on the individual animal. Some animals are utterly shameless, but some are not. I saw a nature program on a particular species of monkey that always travels in groups. If any of the monkeys in the group find food, they are to call out to the others to tell them. If they don't and just eat it all themselves and are caught, then they may be killed. (I think. Either that or shunned out of the group. I forget which.) It's a harsh judicial system, but still a judicial system, and one that requires the monkeys to act with morality, thus acting with a superego.

Plus, I own dogs...and I've seen shame in their eyes. When they do something bad and are harshly scolded, some dogs may sometimes show visible guilt on their very faces.

Honestly, animals seem to have a more developed sense of morality than most people do. It's an incredibly rare animal who doesn't instinctively understand what to do, what not to do, and how best to live, given their species and personal aptitudes.

By contrast, most humans are completely clueless.

Morality is something invented by humans as a development of unwritten rules and taboos from the neolithic age and forward. Wolves, walrusses, gazelles and lions does also have a herd instinct and unwritten rules, which they - surprise surprise - could chose to follow or not. The same is even more true for apes.

Animals do have a herd instinct, however, the question still comes up on whether that is the same as morality. I can most certainly accept that animal herd instinct is likely the predecessor of morality, however, that does not mean it is the same as morality and it most certainly does not mean that they have a mechanism that is exactly the same as a conscience with every ambivalence and abstractness included in such. When a lion acts is there ever any question on whether it acts for a higher purpose or a just moral cause? Do lions really have the ability to sort out what is good or what is evil? To be honest, I think that the modern conscience probably developed with religion or some other form of abstract morality which is something that animals do not have. Frankly, I view the comparison of modern morality to the herd instinct to be the same as comparing an ape to a man, certainly there are similarities however one has higher complexity than the other.

mor-al (morl, mor-)adj. 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. 2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. 3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. 4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. 5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support. 6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

con-science (konshns)n. 1. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

I do not see animals as having the abstractness that is shown in the definition of moral, as they might have herd instincts however, there is not a question of higher truth, correctness, goodness, etc and I most certainly don't see them as having a conscience with the reflection of these abstract qualities, as well, how can it be a herd instinct if there are so many people within this herd who have moralities that run counter to the accepted beliefs within society? Truly the herd instinct is best seen today in manners and etiquette less than in morality as it is those forces that seek conformity more than morality necessarily does.

Is not the idea that morale is some sort of "higher value" not only abstract but also very much idealist and related to Neo-platonian and Christian objectivism? The objectivism which states that abstract ideas is the "real world" while the "real world" is a product of the mind? I do not at all believe that morale is something which is derived from any higher conciousness, but rather from the reality that our society is more complex than the society of the lions, and that we therefore needs unwritten, and written, codexes of how to behave so that we do not break the taboos and upset the social order. The reasons why we have formulated a morale for the first place is from a pragmatic viewpoint, so that some things which would be impossible in a tribal society should be conducted in a more advanced society [contracts for example].

You are attaching abstract ideas and behaving like they are real. Morale works as long as it is upheld by the social context, i.e the family, the community and the social atmosphere. If a person simply don't care or simply is'nt dependent on others, he or she could constantly violate the social code without effects. Laws are even more abstract, because they cannot be expected to be honoured unless the state intervenes and causes pain to the violator. The laws are not real, but the pain is. Laws are just abstract concepts.

Perhaps I do refer to such things, however, the idea of a conscience usually does not reference utilitarian morality which you seem to focus more on, but rather is more often seen as a part of the more abstract and idealist forms of morality which do involve good and evil or the "good shoulder angel" and the "evil shoulder devil" to show conscience and moral ambivalence, I am not even going to argue that all people necessarily have/use conscience. I am not behaving like anything is real, frankly, I am looking at morality from the individualist perspective as that is where conscience comes into play, I never said that good and evil were absolutes, one person's good can be another person's evil, however, I am stating that abstract accepted good and evil are necessities for having a conscience. Morality does not have to be the social contract, and an individual's morality and that commonly found in their greater group can often be very different and reflect ideas not accepted by that society or even ideas that come into conflict with the surrounding society. Law is less abstract than morality as law has more effect on the world, while morality is just where law often comes from, however, law and conscience do not necessarily coexist, one can follow the law without having much of a conscience and one can defy the law while having a great conscience or even defy it because of conscience.

Yes I agree that different dogmas could conflict with each-other, but that is just a proof that our society is composed of several different layers, where there could be a part for conflict. For example, I agree with making civil disobedience in order to shut down fur farms, even though that particular action is against the law, because I feel empathy for the animals involved. You may argue that empathy is something unique to humans, but we could clearly see that many of the advanced mammals do have empathy, mostly to their offspring, but also to non-related individuals and in particular cases even individuals from other species.

Human morale and laws are deducted both from the need of control [sexual, economical, political] and empathy [compassion], but they won't have been accepted in society if it did'nt corresponded to the interests of the social status quo. The [christian] idea to found the entire world-view from the individual, or rather, the "image" of the individual is actually quite simplicistic, and reduces the human individual to an actor in a pretentious non-changeable theatre [the society] where He [for according to Locke, Kant and Rand, it must always be a He] acts in a rational way governed by abstract rules of good [irrationalism is seen as evil] which are hypocritically enough deducted from assumptions about the general good. The only difference from more "collectivistic approaches" is that the human being is made static through privilegies, assumptions of good and wrong, rights and other abstractions which are treated as they in some way was an inherent part of our universe whereas they are formulated by the establishment.

The same conflicts, but more simplified, could be seen in the lives of all herd-dwelling animals. And don't claim that animals can't chose to change their ways. What do you otherwise think of natural selection? Animals are not machines, but beings which are simply focused on surviving.

I'm not sure whether animals have a conscience. If they always act in the interests of survival, perhaps they don't need one? The only exception I can think of is cats killing for fun rather than to eat.

Only humans seem to have the power of truly autonomous thought. This brings a hell of a lot of responsibility, and I don't think we're doing a very good job at the moment. People are very often thoughtless and sometimes deliberately cruel. It makes me ashamed.

Autonomous thoughts are defined by the ability to act upon a given situation. You are talking about animals as they were machines, and views the universe from an antropocentric viewpoint.

Humans still have very much primitive emotions, due to our evolutionary past. Maybe homo aspergiensis is the beginning of a new specie

Forgive me, I'm not very good with philosophical terminology. What I'm trying to say is that humans seem to be the only species who can look at the world from an abstract and non-egocentric point of view. We can 'step back' and ponder the repercussions of what we do. This is just as well given the power we hold over the environment of our planet and therefore the welfare of all of the creatures on it. Unfortunately this ability is also subject to abuse - humans can be horrendously cruel sometimes, for example. Plus the fact that we are aware also means that we are responsible, and capable of making moral decisions, whereas an animal obeying basic instincts of survival doesn't have to cope with concepts such as guilt.

I have seen my cats and dog react with a "Da**, now I'm going to be in trouble!" type of behavior, and when my cats make eachother mad they sometimes apear to be attempting to placate eachother.
I don't know if that is guilt or simply self-preservation. People seem like that, too, sometimes.

Or we simply believe that we can do it, just like president Bush actually only imagines that he is a president.

I believe they have a conscience. Why else would my pet frog have shown remorse after his seven-state hitchhiker killing spree?

That really ended this debate.

LOL!