Animals and Ethics

[UNODRAGONE]

this brings up a lot of interesting points, though in all honesty this one really annoyed me:

Another reason to deny that animals deserve direct concern arises from the belief that animals are not conscious, and therefore have no interests or well-being to take into consideration when considering the effects of our actions. Someone that holds this position might agree that if animals were conscious then we would be required to consider their interests to be directly relevant to the assessment of actions that affect them. However, since they lack a welfare, there is nothing to take directly into account when acting.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/anim-eth.htm


Animals and Ethics (intro to article)

The issue of animals and ethics is a philosophical issue mainly due to the fact that common sense thinking is deeply divided on it. Animals exist on the borderline of our moral concepts; the result is that we sometimes find ourselves according them a strong moral status, while at others denying them any kind of moral status at all. For example, public outrage is strong when knowledge of such operations as puppy mills is made available; the thought here is that dogs deserve much more consideration than the operators of such places give them. However, when it is pointed out that the conditions in a factory farm are as bad as, if not much worse than, the conditions in a puppy mill, the usual response is that those affected are "just animals" after all, and do not merit our concern. This disparity of thought gives rise to a philosophical question: what place should animals have in an acceptable moral system?

[Vendetta]

A more important question is are animals the moral equivalent of people, and are ALL animals the moral equivalent of each-other (i.e. an ant holding the same moral value as say... a rabbit.)

[UNODRAGONE]

A more important question is are animals the moral equivalent of people, and are ALL animals the moral equivalent of each-other (i.e. an ant holding the same moral value as say... a rabbit.)

I honestly think it's not a question that can be easily answered. Not every person has the same set of morals which is the same with animals (some are monogamous and some are not). If I had to give an answer, I honestly think animals have a better understanding of love, and are 'morally' superior to humans, but thats just me :shrug: they do not judge and they accept you for you.

[Vendetta]

If I had to give an answer, I honestly think animals have a better understanding of love, and are 'morally' superior to humans, but thats just me :shrug: they do not judge and they accept you for you.
The majority of animals don't "judge" you because they can't. They can't reason, no matter what anthropomorphic traits you want to give them.

[BlasphemousHeart]

they may not "judge" people, but they do have an understanding of what kind of people could be a threat to them or the ones they love. My chocolate lab has to check out anyone before they can get near me... loving and protective....

[GhostBat]

they may not "judge" people, but they do have an understanding of what kind of people could be a threat to them or the ones they love. My chocolate lab has to check out anyone before they can get near me... loving and protective....

It's called instinct, and is related to their wolf ancestry.

I'm sorry to say, but dogs love and respect you because you're the alpha of their "pack".

[BlasphemousHeart]

I'm sorry to say, but dogs love and respect you because you're the alpha of their "pack".

Ha I'm far from alpha. my mom's chihuahua is....

[UNODRAGONE]

I think the 'judging' feature can be viewed as instinct, but that whole alpha thing, I am 'alpha' in my house but my dog respects and obeys all my family members, he just favors me

[Klark]

I think the 'judging' feature can be viewed as instinct, but that whole alpha thing, I am 'alpha' in my house but my dog respects and obeys all my family members, he just favors me

They have proven that to a dog, it's all about pack. For your dog to do that, it means he thinks he's the lowest rank among the family members. The main problem with out-of-control dogs is that the dog has been raised believing he/she is alpha of the pack.

[UNODRAGONE]

They have proven that to a dog, it's all about pack. For your dog to do that, it means he thinks he's the lowest rank among the family members. The main problem with out-of-control dogs is that the dog has been raised believing he/she is alpha of the pack.


I knew there was an article on this some where. I am actually on the line with this, my vet (the one whose mentoring me) doesn't believe in the alpha role, but I have for a long time and the vet I interned with before did as well believe in the alpha roles. I am still up in the air about it.

http://dogs.about.com/cs/basictraining/a/alpha_roll.htm





http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/alpha-roll-or-alpha-role

[Wolf-Bone]

I love how people say they "don't believe in" something like animal psychology or genetics or what have you as if that negates it by sheer will of their nonexistent omnipotence.

*goes back to the virtual peanut gallery*

[Vendetta]

Uhh, I hate to break it to you guys but most animals don't "love" either. At least not in the same nuerochemical way humans do. All those "thoughts" you are attributing to animals are mostly simple instinct or survival behaviors.

Like I said, stop anthropomorphizing animals.

[LV426]

Uhh, I hate to break it to you guys but most animals don't "love" either. At least not in the same nuerochemical way humans do. All those "thoughts" you are attributing to animals are mostly simple instinct or survival behaviors.

Like I said, stop anthropomorphizing animals.

Trouble loves me. Especially when I open the can of tuna. ;)

[UNODRAGONE]

I am just curious Vendetta if you own a pet and how you view the relationship you have with that pet or why you do not have one if you don't

[Vendetta]

I am just curious Vendetta if you own a pet and how you view the relationship you have with that pet or why you do not have one if you don't
When I've had a pet I certainly loved the animal. However, once I was older than like 14, I didn't harbour any delusions that my pet actually "loved" me back. My pets relied on me for food, shelter, protection, et al.

Seriously if you are trying to tell me that animals (with the exception of a good number of primates and some aquatic mammals) feel emotions the same way people do, you're nuts. I'm sorry guys, animal brains just aren't built the same way humans brains are.

[UNODRAGONE]

When I've had a pet I certainly loved the animal. However, once I was older than like 14, I didn't harbour any delusions that my pet actually "loved" me back. My pets relied on me for food, shelter, protection, et al.

Seriously if you are trying to tell me that animals (with the exception of a good number of primates and some aquatic mammals) feel emotions the same way people do, you're nuts. I'm sorry guys, animal brains just aren't built the same way humans brains are.


no I honestly was just curious, my nieghbor has a dog and he uses the dog as a guard dog, he has no love for the animal and you can tell the animal isn't crazy about him either and I was just wondering how you were with your pets, if you thought or were along the same line as him. He said to me, they're just there to do a job, I have a wife as a companion, animals aren't companions. I was just curious if you agree to that thinking

[Tempest]

Seriously if you are trying to tell me that animals (with the exception of a good number of primates and some aquatic mammals) feel emotions the same way people do, you're nuts. I'm sorry guys, animal brains just aren't built the same way humans brains are.

We don't know much about emotions in animals, actually. There's not a lot scientific evidence about it because it's so hard to study (without anthropomorphizing). I can't help but laugh to myself when you say dogs don't feel emotions like humans do. My dog seems to understand my emotions pretty well, which to my understanding requires some knowledge of human-like emotions. Dogs also can display very obvious fear and excitement (though this I guess requires some amount of anthropomorphizing).

More research needs to be done to say that animals do or do not have emotions and how they compare to human emotions. Personally, I am a firm believer that all animals have at least basic emotions, and to say they don't is just a convenient way to justify mistreating them (much like UNO's article said). You can call me delusional if you want, but you don't have any more evidence to support your opinion than I do.

[Vendetta]

We don't know much about emotions in animals, actually. There's not a lot scientific evidence about it because it's so hard to study (without anthropomorphizing). I can't help but laugh to myself when you say dogs don't feel emotions like humans do. My dog seems to understand my emotions pretty well, which to my understanding requires some knowledge of human-like emotions. Dogs also can display very obvious fear and excitement (though this I guess requires some amount of anthropomorphizing).
Except that those fear and excitement "emotions" are based on instincts NOT rational thought or free will. A dog who has been trained can't HELP but feel "excited" when it sees a ball. An pet is probably "happy" to see you or acts like it loves you because it understands that you provide it food.

More research needs to be done to say that animals do or do not have emotions and how they compare to human emotions. Personally, I am a firm believer that all animals have at least basic emotions, and to say they don't is just a convenient way to justify mistreating them (much like UNO's article said). You can call me delusional if you want, but you don't have any more evidence to support your opinion than I do.
I never said that animals are emotionless creatures, just that they don't have, nor are they capable of, the same emotional complexity that humans have (and that people keep ascribing to them.) I'm sorry, but no "lack of evidence" makes me believe that a dog brain can process emotional data the same way a human brain can.

Also, as morals relate to animals, the question becomes if animals ARE capable of emotions, then I'm guessing they are mostly pretty immoral by our own standards.

And if we can't even understand animals emotions, I guess trying to ascribe MORALS to animals becomes pointless.

[Tempest]

Except that those fear and excitement "emotions" are based on instincts NOT rational thought or free will. A dog who has been trained can't HELP but feel "excited" when it sees a ball. An pet is probably "happy" to see you or acts like it loves you because it understands that you provide it food.

Much like humans? Human emotions are thought to have an evolutionary purpose behind them and can even be considered instincts. Babies are born with the capacity to be happy, afraid, angry and can recognize and mimic the emotion in parents' faces from a very young age.

Also, I'd like to know what our moral standards are. How can we say that animals are immoral compared to our standards when it seems every human being, every human society, has different moral standards (well, with the exception of things like incest is bad, which from what I've read also has an evolutionary background and animals share this same "moral")?

[Klark]

(well, with the exception of things like incest is bad, which from what I've read also has an evolutionary background and animals share this same "moral")?

I don't know about that. I've seen some pretty incestuous cats with moms having son's litter, sisters having brother's litter and fathers with daughters. I am speaking of domestic cats, of course.

[Tempest]

I don't know about that. I've seen some pretty incestuous cats with moms having son's litter, sisters having brother's litter and fathers with daughters. I am speaking of domestic cats, of course.

This article (http://www.livescience.com/health/080116-incest-science.html) explains the basics of the incest taboo. No, among animals it's not perfect, but it's not perfect in human society either. I don't know the situations of these incestuous cats of yours, but it could have been that there weren't many other options for mating, or it could have just been an exception to the rule.

If you don't have the time/inclination to read the article, the incest taboo is thought to have a genetic component and may even be linked to scent. I've read about how having a male in the house can affect when a girl gets her first period. Girls with a present male get their periods significantly later than girls with no father in the house. The current theory is that the scent of the father delays puberty. There's also been research that shows daughters are averse to their own father's scent. No, really I'm not making this up (http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/scent_of_family_guides_girls_maturation/).

[Vendetta]

Much like humans? Human emotions are thought to have an evolutionary purpose behind them and can even be considered instincts. Babies are born with the capacity to be happy, afraid, angry and can recognize and mimic the emotion in parents' faces from a very young age.
You're ignoring my point of complexity. Also, can a human NOT be in a situation that would normally cause fear, but override it through will and reason?

Also, I'd like to know what our moral standards are. How can we say that animals are immoral compared to our standards when it seems every human being, every human society, has different moral standards (well, with the exception of things like incest is bad, which from what I've read also has an evolutionary background and animals share this same "moral")?
Do you think rape is morally OK? Do you think the majority of humans feel the same way?

Fact: most animals do NOT have nearly the same cognitive capacity that humans do. Without that cognitive capacity how can they reason? And without reason how can they moralize?

C'mon now kids this isn't rocket science. Just because you think Fluffy wuvs you just because they lick your hand doesn't make it so. Not matter how much you WANT to believe that it's true.

[Klark]

Fact: most animals do NOT have nearly the same cognitive capacity that humans do. Without that cognitive capacity how can they reason? And without reason how can they moralize?

C'mon now kids this isn't rocket science. Just because you think Fluffy wuvs you just because they lick your hand doesn't make it so. Not matter how much you WANT to believe that it's true.

Just a quick question, but what about those studies where humans were the pet such as going and living with the apes? Certainly they displayed some actions that could be called love, yet they didn't depend on the human for anything at all.

I have noted that you said MOST animals, and it's been determined that apes have the same cognitive skills as a young human, so perhaps they are an exception.

[Vendetta]

Just a quick question, but what about those studies where humans were the pet such as going and living with the apes? Certainly they displayed some actions that could be called love, yet they didn't depend on the human for anything at all.

I have noted that you said MOST animals, and it's been determined that apes have the same cognitive skills as a young human, so perhaps they are an exception.
Yeah excluding most primates and some aquatic mammals.

[NeonLightChild]

I am just curious Vendetta if you own a pet and how you view the relationship you have with that pet or why you do not have one if you don't

I understand you're trying to play Devil's Advocate here, but I find the better pet owners are people who see their pets for what they truly are: animals, with animal instincts and the capacity to be, well, animals. I would love for my dog to be human, but unfortunately she is not, and I have to respect that as sweet-tempered as she is, if the right thing happens to her, she has the capacity to hurt someone really bad. It's nothing personal, but she IS a dog and dogs have teeth that they use in defense. When we rough-house, she shows me respect as her Alpha by NOT biting me and also immediately stopping when I say the game is over.

The horses I work around show respect toward me as their Alpha, because I cannot tolerate any shenanigans from a 1000+ lb animal that really has the capacity to hurt me by even stepping on my foot. Those "games" you see from Pat Parelli and whatnot are NOT 'love' in any way, they are the horse responding to near-invisible cues.

And not to be a killjoy, but
My chocolate lab has to check out anyone before they can get near me... loving and protective....
Make sure it's 'protection' and not 'possession.' There IS a difference, and technically you should call the shots as to who comes near you, not her, and even if I have a trained personal protection dog, it must attack on command and NEVER make the choice itself unless it SEES the person turn on me. 'Possession' is a big problem in smaller dogs :)

/off my soapbox now...mmm, soap...

(By the way UNO, the Alpha roll thing...unless it's a young puppy who's committed a serious crime, I advise against it. The potential for a bite is just too great and I'm generally not a fan of 'forcing' a dog to submit like that, especially one who's willing to fight back and cause damage.)

[Shaun]

I understand you're trying to play Devil's Advocate here, but I find the better pet owners are people who see their pets for what they truly are: animals, with animal instincts and the capacity to be, well, animals. I would love for my dog to be human, but unfortunately she is not, and I have to respect that as sweet-tempered as she is, if the right thing happens to her, she has the capacity to hurt someone really bad. It's nothing personal, but she IS a dog and dogs have teeth that they use in defense. When we rough-house, she shows me respect as her Alpha by NOT biting me and also immediately stopping when I say the game is over.

The horses I work around show respect toward me as their Alpha, because I cannot tolerate any shenanigans from a 1000+ lb animal that really has the capacity to hurt me by even stepping on my foot. Those "games" you see from Pat Parelli and whatnot are NOT 'love' in any way, they are the horse responding to near-invisible cues.

And not to be a killjoy, but

Make sure it's 'protection' and not 'possession.' There IS a difference, and technically you should call the shots as to who comes near you, not her, and even if I have a trained personal protection dog, it must attack on command and NEVER make the choice itself unless it SEES the person turn on me. 'Possession' is a big problem in smaller dogs :)

/off my soapbox now...mmm, soap...

(By the way UNO, the Alpha roll thing...unless it's a young puppy who's committed a serious crime, I advise against it. The potential for a bite is just too great and I'm generally not a fan of 'forcing' a dog to submit like that, especially one who's willing to fight back and cause damage.)

I agree with you 100% on this. I love my dog Axle, but I don't sit here and dress him up or treat him like a person. I respect and understand he is a dog, when he digs I don't scowl him cause that is in his nature as well as when he barks at cats, same thing it's in his nature. I do talk to him but it's not one of those scenarios were I am spilling the beans to him and expect him to look at me a certain way to show he understands me. I talk to him for two reasons: One, I live alone and it feels good to have company in the house and talk to someone even if they can't talk back. Two, to give him attention. He has no freakin clue what I am saying to him, but I know having my eyes on him and talking to him in a calm voice makes him feel important. I don't do that whole alpha bullshit, I don't hit my dog or make him submit to me, I give him respect and he gives it to me. Look a dog who has been abused in the eyes and tell me they don't have emotions or feel, I agree it is probably not on our level, but I am thinking thats a good thing.

[BlackRosePhantom]

Except that those fear and excitement "emotions" are based on instincts NOT rational thought or free will. A dog who has been trained can't HELP but feel "excited" when it sees a ball. An pet is probably "happy" to see you or acts like it loves you because it understands that you provide it food.
Except, are human emotions instinctual too? When I formed a crush on my classmate, I can tell you it was not because I wanted to. Heck, I tried to fight my crush, but I couldn't bring myself to not like him in such a manner. It's just the way that he is that naturally makes me happy. I'm naturally protective of my friends because I've previously associated happiness with them and impulsively don't want them hurt.

Yes, humans can, and do sometimes overwrite their instincts, as well as make rational thoughts that can influence our emotions, but we can't think up of new emotions. Emotions and thoughts are emotions are controlled by different parts of the brain that are in constant communication with each other. Our thoughts allow us to manually change our perspective on the reality around us and emotionally respond to it accordingly, while our instincts our are auto - physical and emotional - responses to reality.
I never said that animals are emotionless creatures, just that they don't have, nor are they capable of, the same emotional complexity that humans have (and that people keep ascribing to them.) I'm sorry, but no "lack of evidence" makes me believe that a dog brain can process emotional data the same way a human brain can.
I agree. Humans have a large cerebral cortex ratio which allows us to process through information we gather through our senses, and make second thoughts and "rationally" about things. Most other animals can't rationalize as well as us or at all.

Mice are a good example of "rational" thinkers. It's been proven that they can rewind and replay events in their head in accurate detail and make decisions on what to do based on that. They still aren't as intellectual as humans, but they don't really need to be since we've made environments that are quite suitable for them to live in.

Of course, our current debate is about the ability to feel love. And what is love? Is it not the emotional instinct to be kind to and care for those who protect us, provide for us, and/or make us feel safe and worth something? Do we only fall in love for those that we rationalize to be suitable life partners? No, and this can be seen culturally when women love their husbands who treat them as lesser beings. The husband still provides food, shelter, and a degree of protection and the social security of not being shunned by society, and, if gradually, the woman will come to "love" her husband?

One of the key chemical in our brain for love is dopamine. Some others include, testosterone, estrogen, and serotonin. There are a few more, though I can't recall them, but I do know that not just humans have these chemicals, as studies with rodents have shown. In these studies, dopamine is pinpointed as the key factor for animals to be in monogamous relationships, or mate for life, and wolves do regularly mate for life. Do they feel love in the same way we, humans, do? Most likely not. Do humans have a wider range of love than other animals (aka difference between love of family, friends and significant others)? Yes. Are there animals that could be argued to monogamously feel love more than we do? Yes.
Also, as morals relate to animals, the question becomes if animals ARE capable of emotions, then I'm guessing they are mostly pretty immoral by our own standards.

And if we can't even understand animals emotions, I guess trying to ascribe MORALS to animals becomes pointless.
Heck, we don't even fully understand our own emotions, yet we ascribe tons of morals to them, so why no ascribe some morals to animals what we observe are common in their species?
I don't know about that. I've seen some pretty incestuous cats with moms having son's litter, sisters having brother's litter and fathers with daughters. I am speaking of domestic cats, of course.
That would most likely be a genetic fault do to breeding, since purebreds tend to be related to each other and breeders wanting to keep the purebreds pure.
Do you think rape is morally OK? Do you think the majority of humans feel the same way?
No I do not, but unfortunately others, and entire cultures, don't feel the same. Look at the Middle East for an example. I've read numerous articles retelling tales for women being sexually assaulted, raped, abused, and dehumanized in countries such as Darfur and Iran, without the men fearing any social or legal repercussions of any kind. Heck, in a few of those countries, the women are even pitied, but rather be expected to commit suicide or suffer being shunned by their society.
Fact: most animals do NOT have nearly the same cognitive capacity that humans do. Without that cognitive capacity how can they reason? And without reason how can they moralize?
Well, most of our morals are rationally thought out and based on our emotions. Incest, for example, has been proven to be instinctively immoral because leads to birth defect and they also have similar immune systems. Many people find rape is immoral because they feel empathy toward the people who have been raped, and they don't wish to be raped themselves or have their loved ones raped. In many cases however, if you don't have personal relations to someone and don't depend on them in any way, then you care less if they're raped or not.

I think that animals have the same right to live free just as humans do. Yes, it's clearly arguable if they are "morally" on the same plane as us, and it's clear that physically and mentally animals widely differ, but we do all share on thing in common: we are as equally alive as any other animal on this planet, and no one animal (including humans) is completely superior than another. Deer can injure wolves with their antlers. Insects can outnumber and out-power creatures over a thousand times their size. An individual parasite can literally control another creature's brain and slowly kill that creature. A calf can run into and seriously injure if not kill a full grown human being. Humans don't have the inherent right to say what animals can live freely and which can't. Many of us give ourselves that "right" because we can "rationalize" our actions, but that doesn't actually mean it is right.

[Tempest]

Also, can a human NOT be in a situation that would normally cause fear, but override it through will and reason?

If I'm understanding your point, that has to do with controlling your emotions, not with the capacity for emotion.

Do you think rape is morally OK? Do you think the majority of humans feel the same way?

I've never taken a poll of the entire human population. I should hope not, but then again, there are people who rape, just like there are animals who rape. Plus, rape used to be socially acceptable, so I'm not seeing how humans are innately more moral due to our reasoning capacity.

Fact: most animals do NOT have nearly the same cognitive capacity that humans do. Without that cognitive capacity how can they reason? And without reason how can they moralize?

Uh, animals do reason. Ever heard of the crows who drop nuts onto roads so the cars drive over them and break the shells? Or how about this entire article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314681,00.html) ? Or how about the dolphin who was rewarded for picking up litter? She figured out that if she hoarded paper out of the trainer's view and ripped off tiny pieces of it to give the trainer, she'd get more fish per piece of litter. I could go on and on about these stories. Animals are smarter than we think.

[Vendetta]

If I'm understanding your point, that has to do with controlling your emotions, not with the capacity for emotion.
So then by extension animals are just unchecked emotion?

I've never taken a poll of the entire human population. I should hope not, but then again, there are people who rape, just like there are animals who rape. Plus, rape used to be socially acceptable, so I'm not seeing how humans are innately more moral due to our reasoning capacity.
Uh what?! Morality DEPENDS on reasoning. You cannot form a moral code if you cannot reason.

Uh, animals do reason. Ever heard of the crows who drop nuts onto roads so the cars drive over them and break the shells? Or how about this entire article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314681,00.html) ? Or how about the dolphin who was rewarded for picking up litter? She figured out that if she hoarded paper out of the trainer's view and ripped off tiny pieces of it to give the trainer, she'd get more fish per piece of litter. I could go on and on about these stories. Animals are smarter than we think.
Ahahaha!! You've just given examples of EXACTLY my point. NONE of those are examples of complex cognition. They are examples of "hey if I do this I get food!" And since most animals have an instinctual desire for food, this isn't really reasoning, more than it is accidental discovery. What if cows started getting HIT by cars as they went to retrieve their cracked nuts?

You guys are seeing this as a black and white issue, and I'm saying it's all kind of shades, but that humans are by-and-large several orders of magnitude more complex in our reasoning and emotional capacity.

Except, are human emotions instinctual too? When I formed a crush on my classmate, I can tell you it was not because I wanted to. Heck, I tried to fight my crush, but I couldn't bring myself to not like him in such a manner.
Uhh this has little to do with emotions being instinctual or not, and more to do with your age kiddo.

I'm naturally protective of my friends because I've previously associated happiness with them and impulsively don't want them hurt.
Uhhh, I have never argued against this. How would them being hurt, hurt you?

Of course, our current debate is about the ability to feel love.
Actually it's not, it's about the morality of animals.

Yes. Are there animals that could be argued to monogamously feel love more than we do? Yes.
Monogamy and love are NOT interrelated. Also, do you have ANY evidence to support this claim? And NO, I do not mean the fact that wolves mate for life, as again this doesn't show ANY evidence of love.

Heck, we don't even fully understand our own emotions, yet we ascribe tons of morals to them, so why no ascribe some morals to animals what we observe are common in their species?
I'm not quite understanding what you're saying here. Emotions aren't directly associated with morality.

Many of us give ourselves that "right" because we can "rationalize" our actions, but that doesn't actually mean it is right.
This is about the only interesting thing you've said. So what IS right? Should we let animals that can't engage in higher cognition determine what is "right"?

[Tempest]

So then by extension animals are just unchecked emotion?

Now you're the one seeing things in black and white.

Uh what?! Morality DEPENDS on reasoning. You cannot form a moral code if you cannot reason.

I said that we aren't innately more moral just because of our "superior" reasoning abilities. And, leading into your next argument...

Ahahaha!! You've just given examples of EXACTLY my point. NONE of those are examples of complex cognition. They are examples of "hey if I do this I get food!" And since most animals have an instinctual desire for food, this isn't really reasoning, more than it is accidental discovery. What if cows started getting HIT by cars as they went to retrieve their cracked nuts?

...the examples I gave were of animals using reason to achieve a desire. Do you know what reasoning is or are you just pulling things out of thin air? I thought that, at the very least, the dolphin example is clearly an animal thinking about how to achieve a desire more effectively.

I don't see this as black and white. I don't think that an earthworm, who can survive without a brain IIRC, has the ability to reason on par with a human (if at all). But to say that animals don't reason at all is just silly. And if animals can reason, and we're unsure of how complex their thoughts really are, maybe they do contemplate morals. We don't know because we can't communicate with them. Maybe Rudyard Kipling was right and there's such a thing as the law of the jungle. :p

[Vendetta]

Now you're the one seeing things in black and white.
No, I'm trying to understand your logic here.

...the examples I gave were of animals using reason to achieve a desire. Do you know what reasoning is or are you just pulling things out of thin air?
I didn't see those animals using reason, I saw an accidental occurence that the animals continued because they knew there would be a "reward". A cow didn't drop nuts on the road because it REASONED that passing cars would crack it open.

I thought that, at the very least, the dolphin example is clearly an animal thinking about how to achieve a desire more effectively.
As I have already excepted in this thread NUMEROUS times, I am exluding primates and a number of aquatic mammals because it has been shown that they DO have higher cognitive functions. Also, in the dolphin example it was once again an example of an accident, not reasoning. The dolphin didn't FIRST reason that it would get more fish by shredding the paper, it did it and THEN got more fish, and then repeated the act.

But to say that animals don't reason at all is just silly.
Why do I continually have to repeat myself? First I never said that ALL animals can't reason. Second, I have only stated that they can't reason to the extent that humans (and primates, doplhins, etc.) can.

And if animals can reason, and we're unsure of how complex their thoughts really are, maybe they do contemplate morals.
That's a whole bunch of "maybes" and really not supported by ANY evidence.

Also, since we're talking about morality and ethics, and by extension now reasoning, and since you questioned by comprehension of the word, here is the accepted philosophical definition:
"The faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument."

[NeonLightChild]

So, aside from all this reasoning and emotions, what about the use of animals in various areas of research? I don't mean just cosmetics, I mean behavioral, genetic, medical as well as for general science. What about dissections in the science classroom?

I've got a pretty long opinion about this, but I'll type out a response later. Just wanted to bring up the subject.

(I know I'm not the threadstarter here, but I'd like to make a rule with this subject that if you can't mention PeTA and their ilk, including but not limited to the ALK and HSUS, in a mature conversational manner, then just don't mention them. We all know they're nutjobs anyway, so let's just get that out of the way. PETA AND ALL THEIR ASSOCIATED ILK ARE NUTJOBS.)

[Tux]

Ethics are more flexible, more confusing and are larger in number than a Russian contortionist on LSD with multiple personality syndrome. That’s all I have to say about animals and ethics.

[GhostBat]

So, aside from all this reasoning and emotions, what about the use of animals in various areas of research? I don't mean just cosmetics, I mean behavioral, genetic, medical as well as for general science. What about dissections in the science classroom?

I actually think this would make a good thread on its own. My senior thesis was on the subject of animal testing.

As for animals being able to have morals/ethics and reason, etc...

Even individual humans vary greatly in how they think and feel, due to upraising and genetics (biochemical and structural differences). It is distinctively difficult to put yourself in someone else's shoes, especially if their culture is completely different from your own. If we can't even understand how other human beings think, how are we possibly going to comprehend the way other animals think? They have entirely different brain structures, biochemical pathways, and so on. Even if they come to the same conclusions as humans on certain topics, they got there through a different pathway.

I'm not sure if we'll ever be able to say for certain whether or not animals have morals/ethics or reason unless they evolve the ability to communicate in a similar way to us, so we can ask them. In the meantime, we can study their behavior and spoil the hell out of our pets for our own personal satisfaction.

[UNODRAGONE]

So, aside from all this reasoning and emotions, what about the use of animals in various areas of research? I don't mean just cosmetics, I mean behavioral, genetic, medical as well as for general science. What about dissections in the science classroom?

I've got a pretty long opinion about this, but I'll type out a response later. Just wanted to bring up the subject.

(I know I'm not the threadstarter here, but I'd like to make a rule with this subject that if you can't mention PeTA and their ilk, including but not limited to the ALK and HSUS, in a mature conversational manner, then just don't mention them. We all know they're nutjobs anyway, so let's just get that out of the way. PETA AND ALL THEIR ASSOCIATED ILK ARE NUTJOBS.)


I think animal testing as far as behavioral if it serves a purpose that can be utilized now and is done in a humane way would be extremley beneficial. What I do not agree with is doing testing on animals simply because you have a itch that needs to be scratched like the way some scientist simply test on animals out of curiosity without any real purpose or it benefiting anyone. I honestly never understood dissecting in high school, it's not like that was something I was going to jump out and do in the real world and I would have gotten just as good of an education with a model then from killing an animal. Also I say no talking about PETA or any other group if it can't be done in a calm manner.

[Klark]

I think animal testing as far as behavioral if it serves a purpose that can be utilized now and is done in a humane way would be extremley beneficial. What I do not agree with is doing testing on animals simply because you have a itch that needs to be scratched like the way some scientist simply test on animals out of curiosity without any real purpose or it benefiting anyone. I honestly never understood dissecting in high school, it's not like that was something I was going to jump out and do in the real world and I would have gotten just as good of an education with a model then from killing an animal. Also I say no talking about PETA or any other group if it can't be done in a calm manner.

I think it might be a hard case to prove that a scientist did some animal testing for shits and giggles. I don't believe I've ever heard of such a thing happening, though I could be wrong. I would like to see an example, if you can please furnish one.

As for dissection in high school, when I was in high school, students were allowed to "opt out" of the dissection if they felt they were going to be sick or if it was against their ethics. I did not opt out for the first one, but I also only completed one dissection. Once I was done, I decided it wasn't for me and I opted out.

Dissection in high school is intended to raise interest in biology and anatomy. Many students who really enjoy dissection go on to seek biology degrees or can become the doctor that will cut you open to save your life. So, though I didn't enjoy it, I see the benefit in offering it to students.

[UNODRAGONE]

I think it might be a hard case to prove that a scientist did some animal testing for shits and giggles. I don't believe I've ever heard of such a thing happening, though I could be wrong. I would like to see an example, if you can please furnish one.

As for dissection in high school, when I was in high school, students were allowed to "opt out" of the dissection if they felt they were going to be sick or if it was against their ethics. I did not opt out for the first one, but I also only completed one dissection. Once I was done, I decided it wasn't for me and I opted out.

Dissection in high school is intended to raise interest in biology and anatomy. Many students who really enjoy dissection go on to seek biology degrees or can become the doctor that will cut you open to save your life. So, though I didn't enjoy it, I see the benefit in offering it to students.

At my college, there was a teacher who conducted a test on lab rats by making a small slit on the animals tail and providing no food for it to see if it would eat its own tail. That was conducted by one of our science professors who had a masters degree and conducted similar experiments from what he told the class. I fail to see were this will benefit us. Outside of that experience, I honestly couldn't tell you if it is being done or not but this document gives ethical guidlines that makes me believe it use to be or is still done.

http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/ethical_principles_exp_animals.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-137181-0

[Klark]

At my college, there was a teacher who conducted a test on lab rats by making a small slit on the animals tail and providing no food for it to see if it would eat its own tail. That was conducted by one of our science professors who had a masters degree and conducted similar experiments from what he told the class. I fail to see were this will benefit us. Outside of that experience, I honestly couldn't tell you if it is being done or not but this document gives ethical guidlines that makes me believe it use to be or is still done.

http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/ethical_principles_exp_animals.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-137181-0

There is a law in many states that says you cannot walk around with an chocolate ice cream in your back pocket, but I do not believe it is on the books because people today really walk around with chocolate ice cream in their back pocket.

Yes, there is animal cruelty that happens, even in the scientific world, but those guidelines were created to prevent it. So unless that professor was conducting a sanctioned experiment, he was performing an act that could be deemed animal cruelty, for which he could lose his job.

I will agree that there possibly are many animal experiments that do not at first make sense to us lay-people.

[UNODRAGONE]

There is a law in many states that says you cannot walk around with an chocolate ice cream in your back pocket, but I do not believe it is on the books because people today really walk around with chocolate ice cream in their back pocket.

Yes, there is animal cruelty that happens, even in the scientific world, but those guidelines were created to prevent it. So unless that professor was conducting a sanctioned experiment, he was performing an act that could be deemed animal cruelty, for which he could lose his job.

I will agree that there possibly are many animal experiments that do not at first make sense to us lay-people.

I agree with you completely. I'll be the first to say a lot of experiments I have read about that are done on animals outside of medical purposes make no sense to me and in all honesty I am ignorant to it because I just judge it and cast it aside without fully understanding or trying to research it. Thats my error, but I am far from naive. If someone tells me this scientist or lab is doing this that and the other, and it doesn't make sense or they don't have proof, yeah I am letting it in one ear and out the other. If I didn't witness this case with the lab rats tail, I'd probably still believe that kind of stuff doesn't happen and I am sure it doesn't happen a lot, but we are curious creatures so I put nothing past anyone

[Tempest]

I think high school dissection is pretty pointless. Virtual dissections can be just as helpful, which is what I had to do when I opted out of dissecting a fetal pig. Plus, high school students usually dissect things like starfish and earthworms, which have very uninteresting innards. College dissection is much better, more educational because at that point one generally can appreciate the experience more, and is relevant to the student's life instead of a pitiful attempt to generate interest through relatively sadistic measures. In my opinion, dissections in high school should be replaced with online dissections, which are free, or videos.

[Klark]

I think high school dissection is pretty pointless. Virtual dissections can be just as helpful, which is what I had to do when I opted out of dissecting a fetal pig. Plus, high school students usually dissect things like starfish and earthworms, which have very uninteresting innards. College dissection is much better, more educational because at that point one generally can appreciate the experience more, and is relevant to the student's life instead of a pitiful attempt to generate interest through relatively sadistic measures. In my opinion, dissections in high school should be replaced with online dissections, which are free, or videos.

There is something to be said of tactile sensations that virtual dissection cannot come close to producing. You are fortunate that you got virtual dissection. I took biology my sophomore year in 1996. Virtual dissection was not an option.

Yes, the high school dissections are very general using uninteresting organisms, but the same can be said of high school math, which uses uninteresting geometry and algebra. College physics was a blast, however, without my boring high school classes of geometry, algebra and calculus, I wouldn't have the basics of what I needed to learn physics. Physics was not more relevant to my life then as it is now. I discovered that I just happen to enjoy math.

Perhaps when we start privatizing high schools we can begin to determine what is uninteresting and what is interesting and we can tailor class schedules to meet the student's exact needs. At that point, we can determine in kindergarten who will become a doctor and who will become a plumber and give them classes appropriate to their life styles. For as long as they remain on the public dollar, they will give a public learning experience, which can only be generalized.

What I would think would be a better suggestion is to pre-determine the amount of students who will actually "opt in" for the dissection and order only that many specimens (plus one or two in case something happens to one) instead of placing a generic-sized order and having students "opt out" thereby leaving specimens that were killed for no purpose.

[LucimOfTheMoon]

Honestly this leads to a huge, "right and wrong" discussion. And this is all opinion. What is right to one person may be a moral crime to another. Personally I am a huge dog person and I love my pet, whether he can love me back or no.

[Tempest]

Klark: Yes, that's one good thing about living in the computer age. There's some advantage to physically dissecting something and being able to feel the texture of certain organs, and I'm sure it helps tactile learners. I'm not too enthusiastic about killing animals for those advantages though--and to learn what? That a worm is basically one long tube? Of course, pretty much everything in high school was uninteresting (to me at least), but at least nothing was killed in order to bore me to tears with basic geometry. With math you build on the basic skills learned in high school, but if you were to dissect something in college, it wouldn't be necessary to have experience dissecting anything before.

Not to get too off-topic, but I'm not very keen on specialized learning. From the time I read my first book to when I was a junior in high school, I wanted to write books for a living. Now I'm a health major. I'm kinda glad I took all those generalized classes in high school. :p

Anyway, your suggestion is a comprimise between my position and the current situation and probably is more likely to happen than what I'm proposing.

[Vendetta]

Wow highschool really has changed since my day. In HS Bio we dissected frogs and pigs. In AP Bio I believe they did a cat, but I'm not sure. I DO know they went to a teaching hospital and saw actual partially dissected cadavers.

And Tempest, your issue is with dissection in highschool, but not college, right? Why do feel that way?

[Tempest]

And Tempest, your issue is with dissection in highschool, but not college, right? Why do feel that way?

In college, the dissection deals with your major and your career. In college I've done a sheep's brain, a cat, and I examined a pre-dissected cadaver. I learned something from all of those dissections and they served to help me understand the material. In junior high/high school, I dissected a dozen or so different things and I can't say I remember what half of them looked like inside. They held no relevance to my life back then and I didn't appreciate the experience.

I feel the animals died for nothing, especially seeing as some of my classmates did idiotic things like throwing animal parts across the room and smuggling them out of the classroom to hide in someone's locker (that was due to a bad teacher, but still). So I don't think most of my classmates benefited either. It just seemed like a waste to me, especially comparing the high school environment to the college one.

[Vendetta]

In college, the dissection deals with your major and your career. In college I've done a sheep's brain, a cat, and I examined a pre-dissected cadaver. I learned something from all of those dissections and they served to help me understand the material. In junior high/high school, I dissected a dozen or so different things and I can't say I remember what half of them looked like inside. They held no relevance to my life back then and I didn't appreciate the experience.

I feel the animals died for nothing, especially seeing as some of my classmates did idiotic things like throwing animal parts across the room and smuggling them out of the classroom to hide in someone's locker (that was due to a bad teacher, but still). So I don't think most of my classmates benefited either. It just seemed like a waste to me, especially comparing the high school environment to the college one.
What about those kids who will never get hands-on dissection experience and think they are ready to be biologists or physicians when they go to college and find they can't deal with the actual hands-on dissection?

As for tomfoolery, that same shit goes on in most med schools, albeit in a generally less puerile way than in HS.

Also, I'm sorry, I would be VERY hard-pressed to be interested in looking at the virtual innards and organs as opposed to actually doing it myself. I think it teaches you a lot about yourself.

[Tempest]

What about those kids who will never get hands-on dissection experience and think they are ready to be biologists or physicians when they go to college and find they can't deal with the actual hands-on dissection?

That happens even with kids who have dissected though. A lot of people--ok a lot of girls--in my class were disgusted by the cadaver. But they still passed the class and, as far as I'm concerned, are continuing with their major. Seriously, if they didn't drop out of their programs, I have a hard time thinking a simple earthworm dissection is going to discourage a budding physician.

As for tomfoolery, that same shit goes on in most med schools, albeit in a generally less puerile way than in HS.Yes, it didn't happen in my class but I heard of about some stuff happening in one of my friend's classes. I think most of that was a coping mechanism though. After all, you're looking at naked, dissected man who has been in formaldehyde for however long and used to be someone's father, grandpa, husband.

Also, I'm sorry, I would be VERY hard-pressed to be interested in looking at the virtual innards and organs as opposed to actually doing it myself. I think it teaches you a lot about yourself.I found it interesting and was able to get more into it because I wasn't disgusted by it. Yeah, I was a lot more squeamish back then. As for it teaching things about yourself, I think that's just going to be one of those things we have to agree to disagree on.

[Shaun]

In high school I remember in our Biology class we got to dissect a baby pig. I opted out as soon as the teacher brought in the little guys. I maybe a big meat head I guess and I sure the hell ain't squeamish, but I am an animal lover and I believe in I guess you would call it the natural balance of nature, eat what you kill and what not. I'm sorry, you can call me ignorant or biased all you want for what I am about to say but high school kids (teenagers) just cannot appreciate and fully take in the experience and knowledge dissecting an animal brings or fully respect it.

[UNODRAGONE]

In high school I remember in our Biology class we got to dissect a baby pig. I opted out as soon as the teacher brought in the little guys. I maybe a big meat head I guess and I sure the hell ain't squeamish, but I am an animal lover and I believe in I guess you would call it the natural balance of nature, eat what you kill and what not. I'm sorry, you can call me ignorant or biased all you want for what I am about to say but high school kids (teenagers) just cannot appreciate and fully take in the experience and knowledge dissecting an animal brings or fully respect it.

I honestly think it depends on a persons maturity level and whether or not it will be part of the profession they are thinking of getting into (doctors, vets). But I see what you are saying, I honestly had more respect for it in college then in high school.

[LucimOfTheMoon]

I remeber in sixth grade I was in an advanced placement class. They were dissecting lambs brains while we learned about the human brain and how it worked. Later in the year, we began on sharks. I had no problem with this yet I lacked the morbid humor my friends did when dissecting the animals. I respect all life, animal or not, and while I do not condone eating meat or scientific experiments, we should balance our use of animals for such purposes so as not to harm the overall balance of the environment.

[J.L.R.]

I'm not against scientific experiements or animal dissection, because both serve a purpose to help preserve our own survival. In reality if you were in the wild and came across a pack of hungry wolves, and if their survival depended on eating you, they would, without question or debate. That is the order of nature. Having family, of whom work in various scientific fields, most scientists that I know of don't take morbid pleasure out of using animals as test subjects. While PETA finds the extreme crazy few to legitimize their lunacy, this is not the norm. Each mouse, cat, dog, that dies could and usually does, insure that a few thousands of our race will survive. That animal's death wasn't in vain, it had a purpose. Of course this is a WHOLE lot different than, let's say, Cock Fights, Dog Fights, and such of which are both cruel and unneeded.

Ultimately we have a right to survive just like any other animal in this world. Are blessed position on the evolutionary latter gives us that right, but with that right also comes responsibility.

As far as animals and emotions... Can a dog feel love or not? If we are unable to truly understand our own emotions, how can we rightly conclude that a non-human creature, such as a dog, is unable to? The greater question then comes as to what is love in the first place? How do we define it. So much of what we believe our emotions are, stim from instinctual behavorisms, that we've just given names to. This should come at no surprise as it wasn't too long ago on the evolutionary latter that we were instinct based beasts, no different than any other beast of the field.

I believe, most mammals, have the ability to feel emotions, while not at the same level as humans can. I believe the big difference with us over them, is that we have the ability to analyze those emotions.

There is a great book called "Valley of Creation". It was written by the late, Edmond Hamilton in 1948. The book follows the story of Eric Nelson, who is a mercenary. He and his comrads are hiding out in the newly created Red China and get hired to help a group of citizens called, "Humanites" of whom live in a mysterious region of upper China called L'Lan. The Humanites want the mercenaries to drive out a cult, they call the "Brotherhood".

In short the Brotherhood is made up of 5 species of animals of whom coexist in much of the same way as humans. These animals were given the ability to reason just like humans were, and the Humanites want to get rid of them, believing that all beasts should be made in subjection to human will.

Eric Nelson gets caught up in this crazy war, and is eventually captured by the Brotherhood. They teach him the ultimate lesson by ripping his consciousness from his body and placing it into the body of a wolf.

What he learns while being a wolf is that, even though there was profound differences between wolves and men, there were many things that were the same.

[McKitty]

I'm late to the first half of the discussion, but here's my two cents anywho.

I do not believe that animals can experience love the way humanity can.

I do believe that animals understand compassion, happiness, and the desire to be around someone/another animal. I've come to this conclusion with cats.

I have three cats who I've owned(served is more like it) for the past eight years. We recently moved into a house where there was a tomcat who the landlord would feed/pet.

The tomcat comes up, does his whole "Hi, pet me a bit so you'll want to feed me" routine and after that, he's gone. No hanging around. No wanting to stay by my side as a read. Nope, he's outta there and lounging on someone else's yard.

Whereas my three little terrors will more often-than-not (and this is after dinner, so they're stuffed) come up to lounge by me, or curl up near me, and generally want to be close by. They have no reason to, they've been fed and watered, and there's how many other rooms in the house, but they'll stick close by when they feel like it.

That's animal-love. It's a compassion and a desire to be near someone.

Onto the animal-testing ethics, whee

I worked at an animal lab for three months as a part-time summer job last year. My personal beliefs are if the research is generally sound (looking for a cure/vaccine) and if the animals are treated with respect and compassion (well-kept, clean cages, socialized, fed well) then I have no major issue with it. Heck, I had to give shots to guneia pigs, and I own three of my own!

I don't believe when it's research/testing based for cosmetics because then you're putting the animal through needless tests for human vanity and that's, in my opinion, not ethical.

What's really ironic is one of the top PETA officals needs insulin, and y'know where that comes from? Animals*

*I think they're going into synthetic insulin now but for the longest time it came from cows.

[Klark]

I thought the insulin came from pigs though I could be mistaken.

[MorganaFang]

I thought the insulin came from pigs though I could be mistaken.

It has come from both, most of the time it is pigs.

Even though they're working on making insulin synthetic we would have never gotten to that point without the animal aspect first.

[Klark]

It has come from both, most of the time it is pigs.

Even though they're working on making insulin synthetic we would have never gotten to that point without the animal aspect first.

Yeah, I see in this Q&A that beef insulin was discontinued. While it used to be pigs, it's apparently human now. You're right though about the animal involvment.

Q&A here. (http://www.childrenwithdiabetes.com/d_0n_110.htm)

[McKitty]

Yeah, I forgot the Pig part, but I know it used to come from cows.

[Sunday]

Okay, I'm a bit late for the animal emotion bit, but I'd still like to say something...

A few years ago, we had two dogs. One came down with cancer and had to be euthenized, and the vet came out to our house (we lived in the country, and thought it would be alot less stressful for the dog to be able to stay there than have to make a trip to the vet's office, which was a good 40 min. drive away.) to do the honours. Our other dog, a sight hound/german shepard mix, was kept in the house while the other dog, a collie, was being put down. It was very emotianal for all present, and when the vet was done, he left. We were going to bury the corpse on our property instead of having it cremated, but we let our sight hound out first to "say good bye." The dogs had only known each other for about a year and a half, but our sight hound lay down next to the collie's body, sniffed it for a bit, and then refused to leave or let any of us touch it. Eventually we called my uncle and managed to get the corpse away from the sight hound. Our sight hound was very obviously greiving for nearly two months after that. After seeing the dog's display of emotion, I strongly believe that animals do have the ability to love and to grieve and feel certain emotions much as humans do.

Also something similar happened to my friend's parakeet, who's companian was killed by a cat.

[Vendetta]

Also something similar happened to my friend's parakeet, who's companian was killed by a cat.
But apparently the cat didn't have any of those same "emotions".

[Tempest]

But apparently the cat didn't have any of those same "emotions".

Kind of like how human hunters don't have emotions toward the game they kill? Come on, V, you can do better than this.

[Vendetta]

Kind of like how human hunters don't have emotions toward the game they kill? Come on, V, you can do better than this.
Uhh actually they are nothing alike. One CHOSE to hunt game, the other does it by instinct. Human beings can MAKE a moral choice that killing other animals is "wrong", whereas cats do not.

[Tempest]

Uhh actually they are nothing alike. One CHOSE to hunt game, the other does it by instinct. Human beings can MAKE a moral choice that killing other animals is "wrong", whereas cats do not.

Actually, they're similar in that human hunters generally don't cry over the loss of a deer or turkey. Just like a cat would not. You're completely ignoring the fact that Sunday just gave two good examples of emotions in animals, and you're instead focusing on the fact that the cat did not seem to be sad or remorseful. I'm saying this happens in human, too, and it's a bad argument. Nice try though.

[Vendetta]

I'm saying this happens in human, too, and it's a bad argument. Nice try though.
Sigh, let me try again. It happens in SOME humans, humans that MAKE a moral CHOICE. With me so far? Cats, they don't MAKE a moral choice to hunt.

Also, once again, interpretations of behaviours that LOOK like emotions are NOT emotions.

[Tempest]

Sigh, let me try again. It happens in SOME humans, humans that MAKE a moral CHOICE. With me so far? Cats, they don't MAKE a moral choice to hunt.

Our diet is much more diverse than a cat's. We actually have the option not to hunt. Not to mention that many people get their meat from a supermarket, not feeling any remorse or sadness for the animal that was killed to provide that meat. Why would a cat even make the decision not to hunt if that's what their diet consists of? All humans have the same instinct to prosper (eros, according to Freud), just like every other living thing on the planet. If we had to hunt again in order to stay alive, we would be just like the cat.

Also, once again, interpretations of behaviours that LOOK like emotions are NOT emotions.And again, how can you say they aren't emotions? Yeah, this is starting to look like the same old dance we've already done, so I think I'm out.

[Chiron Jackal]

About the cat not being sad over eating a bird; humans tend to care much more about the death of someone they know personally rather than some random stranger. Would it really be such a stretch to think that this tendency might carry over to animals?

[McKitty]

My cats don't have the instinct to hunt, they run away from our guinea pigs.

But Vendetta, you're grasping at straws here. The story wasn't about the ruddy cat, it was about the animals who were experiencing grief, and they can experience grief.

Of course a cat wouldn't care about hunting, it's either to hunt or to starve for them. They would be poorly designed if they fretted over killing that baby bird so their own kittens could survive the week.

[JoshtheWolf]

I say that other animals are equal to humans; I also say, however, that since we're diseasing this planet, the survival of other animals is a higher priority than the survival of humans.

[Klark]

I say that other animals are equal to humans; I also say, however, that since we're diseasing this planet, the survival of other animals is a higher priority than the survival of humans.

As much as we disease this planet, we also can turn around do quite the opposite. Remember, we once caused a hole in the ozone and we closed it.

If you say other animals are equal to humans, then by your statement, the animals also equally disease this planet and their survival priority cannot be greater than that of the humans.

[Vendetta]

But Vendetta, you're grasping at straws here. The story wasn't about the ruddy cat, it was about the animals who were experiencing grief, and they can experience grief.
Proof? Also, how does anyone know these birds were experiencing grief? Did they ASK them? Oh right, you CAN'T. Once again we're anthropomorphizing animals; applying our own human traits and understanding to an animal that, I'm sorry, but quite frankly has a brain the size of a peanut.

It's like you people are trying to use the God argument. :banghead:

[JoshtheWolf]

As much as we disease this planet, we also can turn around do quite the opposite. Remember, we once caused a hole in the ozone and we closed it.

If you say other animals are equal to humans, then by your statement, the animals also equally disease this planet and their survival priority cannot be greater than that of the humans.

I merely meant that other animals have the same rights to this planet as humans do. We, however, are the ones who overabuse our rights.

[Chiron Jackal]

I say that other animals are equal to humans; I also say, however, that since we're diseasing this planet, the survival of other animals is a higher priority than the survival of humans.
I suggest you look up what "equal" means.

Proof? Also, how does anyone know these birds were experiencing grief? Did they ASK them? Oh right, you CAN'T.
Vendetta, if you see someone grieving are you able to make an observation and say, "gee, I think she's grieving!" or must you go up to this person and ask her?

[Shaun]

I can grasp what Vendetta is saying, we interpret what they are doing as grieving because that is what we would obviously do, we compare the animals to our emotions or how we would react to the situation. But at the same time, honestly, you can't convince me my dog is emotionless. Like I said before look into the eyes of an abused or abandoned animal and tell me there is no real emotion behind those pain-filled eyes.

[Vendetta]

Vendetta, if you see someone grieving are you able to make an observation and say, "gee, I think she's grieving!" or must you go up to this person and ask her?
Sure, because we're both human, and it's pretty easy to find common ground. I think it's the height of arrogance to suppose we KNOW what animals are feeling or not feeling. We like to impose our own emotional values on things that quite obviously do NOT share our cognition, reasoning or behaviours.

I'm sorry, but I don't see animal funerals, animal art, animal cities, or hell animal parties (John Belushi aside.) You're going to have to come up with better evidence for animal "emotions" or morality than what I've seen so far.

[JoshtheWolf]

I suggest you look up what "equal" means.

I know what equal means; let me explain more thoroughly what I'm saying. I'm saying that other animals have the same rights as humans; BUT, I'm saying that BECAUSE humans are so parasitic and harmful to other animals, that they are actually a higher priority than us.

So, actually I'm saying that other animals are a higher priority than humans.

[MorganaFang]

I know what equal means; let me explain more thoroughly what I'm saying. I'm saying that other animals have the same rights as humans; BUT, I'm saying that BECAUSE humans are so parasitic and harmful to other animals, that they are actually a higher priority than us.

So, actually I'm saying that other animals are a higher priority than humans.

Ok ok baaaack up. You are human right? Are you parasitic and harmful to other animals? Probably just as much as animal else if you've benefited from medicine, clothing, food, etc... I mean even if you're vegan you're not saving yourself from the codependent relationship humans have had with other animals for thousands of years.

It's not so much parasitic because to an extent humanity's "use" of animals has also come to benefit the animals. Today we have people working on saving animals, giving them cushier homes at zoos, attempting to bring them back from extinction? This is harmful?

Sure there has been a big upset in animals becoming extinct but that happens in nature too when any animal has a boom in population giving them definite advantage over other animals.

Other animals also can have an advantage over people. Doesn't happen often but it can. Animals can just as rightly kill people as people kill animals.

I don't understand what gives animals a priority over people? You were closer saying animals and people are equal, but that cannot honestly be true either. Humans and other animals are in a constant state of trying to balance. Right now there is a heavy lean in humanity's favor because we have the kind of cognition that allows us to use and develop tools. A lot of these tools that have been used to help animals.

So what's the problem? Self hating humans, who instead of recognizing some of the good in their species just look down on them and spending too much time in fantasy land pretending to be another species. They don't even realize that as humans they could offer more help to other animals than the critters could help themselves (in some cases). The kind of help that requires spending several days *gasp* off the computer or out of the fur suit.

[Klark]

I know what equal means; let me explain more thoroughly what I'm saying. I'm saying that other animals have the same rights as humans; BUT, I'm saying that BECAUSE humans are so parasitic and harmful to other animals, that they are actually a higher priority than us.

So, actually I'm saying that other animals are a higher priority than humans.

As for the parasitic part, I think you're referring to the food chain, which means nearly every animal is parasitic to the planet or other species. Have you ever seen the destructive force of a full buffalo herd on an area's vegetation? Perhaps you've glanced at The Discovery Channel and watched a lion eat a zebra? Nearly every species depends upon another for it's survival.

[Chiron Jackal]

I know what equal means; let me explain more thoroughly what I'm saying. I'm saying that other animals have the same rights as humans; BUT, I'm saying that BECAUSE humans are so parasitic and harmful to other animals, that they are actually a higher priority than us.

So, actually I'm saying that other animals are a higher priority than humans.

... Once again you have said we are equal and deserve equal rights and then explained how we are so unequal and do not deserve equal treatment.

My original statement that you need to look up "equal" still stands.

- 93/93

[McKitty]

I'm going to ignore JoshtheWolf's posts because he has no clue what the hell he's talking about.

Vendetta, I don't know if you're being dense on purpose but there are things animals can express that do not need talking. Grief over the loss of something close is one of those things. Animals can also experience depression: ie listlessness, not eating, mopey, no interest in anything.

I am not suggesting that animals can feel exactly everything the way humanity can, but I am saying that they're not cardboard cut-outs that go through life just eating/drinking/breeding/dying.

Can I say that the people of the Middle East have no emotions because they can't speak my language? What about Africans? The French? How about Japan. I can't really communicate with them at first glance and according to you we need to ask someone if they're grieving/depressed before we can say "Yeah, I think he's sad."

[Chiron Jackal]

There are also humans with brain damage or other mental handicaps. Do humans who don't function very high still have emotions? What if they have cognitive skills equal to that of some animal or another?

[Klark]

Alright, I'm going to try and make sense of this. Hopefully this post will not be gigantor in size, but I will attempt to tackle some of the animal/emotion/moral discussion with this post.

First, we'll start with animal emotions, since this is where it seemed to stem from. Do animals have emotions?

Vendetta has said that he doesn't say animals are emotionless, just that they aren't capable of the complex emotions found in humans. He argues that animals only show us behaviors that we interpret to be emotions because we house them, feed them and keep them safe.

It is my opinion that animals do have emotions, though they are the basic emotions, and they lack the ability to think about the emotion. Is that linked to instinct? It certainly is, as it is in humans.

A family pet that you've had for 6 months is put in the kennel while you leave for a month. Someone else has cared for this pet, fed it, sheltered it and took it out to poop. Yet, when you walk into that vet clinic, the dog gets so excited it pisses on the floor.

While a 4-year-old you drop off at daycare may not piss the floor, the same type of excitement is and can be displayed by the child when Mommy comes to pick it up.

Can dogs love? Certainly. If they could not, there would need to be a statistical equal in the amount of dogs who are fed by a person to show what we would believe is thanks or love by biting and growling and those who lick and nuzzle. Most dogs learn what love is from their mother. Their mother cleaned them with her tongue and kept them warm and safe with nuzzling. At some point, it becomes hardwired in the dogs head that love equals lick and nuzzle.

Does a dog lick face to get a treat? I certainly hope not. I've never rewarded a dog for licking my face with food, yet all family dogs have loved to lick my face.

You cannot convince me that a dog does not feel fear. If it did not, it wouldn't whine when it's afraid. Fear is an emotion. Sure, the dog may not think "I'm afraid, I should whimper." It instinctively whimpers out of fear, but fear is there. Or sadness. A dog whines out of sadness as well.

I don't believe that dog emotions are because of it's pack mentality, but in order for us to get many of those positive reactions from our canines, we need to assert the pack life onto it, i.e. become the alpha.

I also believe that dogs are more emotionally open than cats. Due to personal experience, I can positively say that cats experience emotion, however they seem to not be as open with them. This could be because it lacks the pack mentality. Humans are still very much pack creatures, and as such, I see us as being open with our emotions. Every now and again you come across a non-pack type human, and they seem to guard their emotions more than the big-family human.

I'll move on.

Do animals have morals? Some might, but they are incapable of having our morals. Why is that?

The Stanford definition of morality: The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
1. some other group, such as a religion, or
2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Morals are a societal construct. In some cultures it's morally okay to kill your enemy, in others it is not. Those are both human societal morals. Animals don't experience grief over a kill because it's not in their moral code. There is nothing to grieve. (Grief might be a little much for an animal to experience anyway. To me Grief is the prolonged sadness brought about by contemplating a loss. Most animals are 'out of sight, out of mind' and therefore to me lack the ability to grieve. However I do believe they can be sad.) Going back to the incest example, they aren't morally bound not to engage in incest if the lack of incest is based off a scent. That's a chemical response, not a rationalized, moral one.

So any discussion on animal morals needs to be thrown out the window because you're doing nothing more than comparing apples to oranges. You cannot expect any other animal to conform to any human moral construct, any more than you can expect a human to live by a buffalo moral construct.

In short for those of you who skipped from the top, dogs and cats, among other animals, have emotions though they are the basic ones derived from instinct - just like humans. Humans have the unique ability to mix and match emotions, much like mixing the primary colors, to form more complex emotions. It would be arrogant to assume that no other animal could ever do that, but I do believe it isn't the norm.

[Vaultdweller]

I think the ecologist would say to you that all of them are of equal value because each plays an important role in a very large and complex web, and removal of any one species would be cause for concern. Protecting each individual organism is worthwile because if we accept the killing of even one, where then, might we draw the line?

[Vendetta]

I think the ecologist would say to you that all of them are of equal value because each plays an important role in a very large and complex web, and removal of any one species would be cause for concern. Protecting each individual organism is worthwile because if we accept the killing of even one, where then, might we draw the line?
First off well done at reviving a thread over 8 months old without sticking to the topic (philosophy/ethics of animals, not the ethics of killing animals.)

Also, it seems like somehow you are equating the killing of a single animal to eradication of a species. I'm pretty sure we've all stepped on or squished ants, spiders, roaches, flies, etc. Also, someone HAD to kill the cow for this delicious steak. So unless you're a hardcore vegan, you've been (at least indirectly) responsible for the death of an animal. Also, LOTS of species have been removed from the planet either from natural selection or through man's actions. We, and the planet are still here.

Care to try again?

[Vaultdweller]

First off well done at reviving a thread over 8 months old without sticking to the topic (philosophy/ethics of animals, not the ethics of killing animals.)

Also, it seems like somehow you are equating the killing of a single animal to eradication of a species. I'm pretty sure we've all stepped on or squished ants, spiders, roaches, flies, etc. Also, someone HAD to kill the cow for this delicious steak. So unless you're a hardcore vegan, you've been (at least indirectly) responsible for the death of an animal. Also, LOTS of species have been removed from the planet either from natural selection or through man's actions. We, and the planet are still here.

Care to try again?

The planet is still here, but the majority of its species are going extinct at an unprecedented rate, its global temperature has increased each year for the last fifty years or so, and we are also losing a number of ecosystems that may well have predated the rise of our species.

I had thought we were talking about testing on animals, which usually does seem to result in death, or worse. And yes, I am a vegan.

[Vendetta]

The planet is still here, but the majority of its species are going extinct at an unprecedented rate, its global temperature has increased each year for the last fifty years or so, and we are also losing a number of ecosystems that may well have predated the rise of our species.
OK, so? What's called the Holocene extinction has been going on since the 1500s, and so far the world hasn't collapsed.

I had thought we were talking about testing on animals, which usually does seem to result in death, or worse.
The original discussion was about assigning animals a moral status, and whether animals themselves do in fact, have emotions, etc. to justify their moral status.

And yes, I am a vegan.
Well this certainly goes a long way in explaining some things.

[GhostBat]

And yes, I am a vegan.

Do you use chapstick with beeswax?

[NeonLightChild]

I had thought we were talking about testing on animals, which usually does seem to result in death, or worse.

This is a large thread.

It's assumed (wrongly, it seems) that one might read the thread before posting, so one knows the exact topic of said thread before shooting off one's mouth by talking about something completely unrelated to the original topic.

Sure, the title is a little misleading and could have been a little more descriptive. Say, something such as "Can animals have ethics or morals?" or the like. So I'll give you a SMALL FRACTION of a sympathy point for not quite knowing that whole spiel. Sadly, that small fraction is lost amidst the major facepalm that constitutes "reviving a thread over 8 months old without sticking to the topic" (thank you, V).

But come on. If you want a thread about animal rights, start a new one rather than threadjacking this one. Of course, we all know how mature THAT discussion will be within a few pages... :rolleyes:

[Vaultdweller]

OK, so? What's called the Holocene extinction has been going on since the 1500s, and so far the world hasn't collapsed.

I don't think it's particularly wise to wait until some massive cataclysm occurs to start showing some concern. I make that statement generally, and not just in reference to what I was talking about with the loss of biological diversity.


The original discussion was about assigning animals a moral status, and whether animals themselves do in fact, have emotions, etc. to justify their moral status.
Oh, I see. Well, I would suppose that would depend upon which parts of the kingdom of Animalia we were talking about. Anything with a central nervous system that involves the interaction of various neuro-chemicals probably experience something akin to what we humans call emotions, I would think. Still, I don't know whether or not that makes them 'moral.'

@Ghostbat - I don't really use chapstick, no.

And Neon-whatever: chill. The day I made that post was the first day I signed up, which was notlong before before I had to leave the computer for an appointment. I was just quickly browsing the forums because I had an extra fifteen minutes or so. I glanced at the first page, and it seemed kind of ambiguous, so I came up with a rather slight (really, it wasn't that far-off) misinterpretation.

No matter what, I'm sure everyone will come out of this alive. :D

[Tempest]

You know, the forums aren't exactly hopping right now, so I think we can ease off on the 8 month old zombie thread business. After all, this was still on the front page. And hassling someone because he is vegan is not any closer to the actual topic than Vault's post. Granted, it's generally a good idea to at least read the first few pages of a thread before posting anything, but it's not worth getting your hanky panky in a knot. :rolleyes: