As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Separating "Man" from "Animals"
Rufus_Shinra
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I got to thinking about how we distinguish humans as unique over the last few days, and I happened upon this article in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/25/AR2008072502792.html
I tend to view the attitude of humans as separate from animals as a dangerous and morally bankrupt view. The emotional and physical pain that a chimpanzee goes through is probably on the same degree as a three-year-old human child. The desire to mate and survive is just as strong in humans as it is in a lion or a rat. When we ignore these facts, we get a distorted view of humanity.
A few quick applications of this humans are not animals worldview:
1) Chimpanzees are still infected with HIV and hepatatis for scientific research. They can offer no consent, and they suffer as emotionally and physically as any young child would. How is this moral?
2) We try and stop 17-year-olds from all sexual behavior when they're hard-wired for it, its in their instincts.
One quick aside:
I use chimpanzees because we share the most in common with them, and thus owe the most to them from a familial sense. But I do not mean to discount other animals as discounted from consideration.
EDIT: The overall point of this thread is to foster discussion on both animal rights and the appreciation humans should show for their most basic instincts.
the defender of fundamentalism in the 1925 Scopes "monkey trial," Williams Jennings Bryan, was motivated by his conclusion that Darwinism taught "the law of the jungle" and had led to World War I by subverting the morality of the Germans. More recently, "the Wedge," an infamous leaked strategy document of intelligent design proponents, suggests that advocates are not as concerned about the truth of evolution as they are about the underlying values they think it teaches. The paper concludes that teaching evolution leads to moral relativism. As one contemporary supporter of intelligent design put it, "Darwinian evolution tells us not only where we came from but also what behavior is natural and normative for humans. . . . Teach kids they are animals, and they'll act like animals."
I tend to view the attitude of humans as separate from animals as a dangerous and morally bankrupt view. The emotional and physical pain that a chimpanzee goes through is probably on the same degree as a three-year-old human child. The desire to mate and survive is just as strong in humans as it is in a lion or a rat. When we ignore these facts, we get a distorted view of humanity.
A few quick applications of this humans are not animals worldview:
1) Chimpanzees are still infected with HIV and hepatatis for scientific research. They can offer no consent, and they suffer as emotionally and physically as any young child would. How is this moral?
2) We try and stop 17-year-olds from all sexual behavior when they're hard-wired for it, its in their instincts.
One quick aside:
They did a study where two chimpanzees were placed in a room with a glass wall separating the two. One chimpanzee was in a room with a button. This chimpanzee had the option of pressing the button, and they would be rewarded with food, but the chimpanzee on the other side of the glass wall would be given a painful shock. The chimpanzee who had the choice of pressing the button opted to starve himself rather than press the button.
I bring this story up because I think it goes to show how humans have no monopoly on what we call "humanity". Instead, our moral actions are based largely on our biological heritage.
I bring this story up because I think it goes to show how humans have no monopoly on what we call "humanity". Instead, our moral actions are based largely on our biological heritage.
I use chimpanzees because we share the most in common with them, and thus owe the most to them from a familial sense. But I do not mean to discount other animals as discounted from consideration.
EDIT: The overall point of this thread is to foster discussion on both animal rights and the appreciation humans should show for their most basic instincts.
Rufus_Shinra on
0
Posts
We try and keep teenagers from having sex because, due to the structure and reality of modern life, it can ruin their chances of survival.
The thing with civilized living is it requires a hell of a lot more work than hunting and gathering, so you can't risk getting knocked up early.
Yes we share a lot of basic traits but when it comes right down to it is it more humane to test a possible cure to a disease that is devestating our population on an animal or on another human? Don't get me wrong there are some very fucked up people out there and I'm not saying that we are entitled to destroy nature or anything of that sort we can learn a lot through mutual respect of animals and coexistance but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that sacrifices have to be made so we can continue to thrive.
Any other animal would do the same thing.
This is something people should really consider, because for the most part its true.
Humans are not especially cruel, we're just exceptionally capable and creative.
--
Also: You know that chimps kill and eat chimp babies from other tribes right.
Or a dog, or a horse, or a rat.
You made me do this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0xRrtS-_Wk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at_UYBcnmJ4
aw hell now I can't stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D85yrIgA4Nk
I'm just being a dick here but everyone knows that there are always outliers. Man I want a crow to hang out with.
But, to get to this point: "Humans are not especially cruel, we're just exceptionally capable and creative.".
If you've seen the recent War of the Worlds movie, that perfectly fits the bill for the alien invaders. They're simply much more capable than us, and are systematically enslaving humanity with superior technology. Their intention is to further their species, with no regard for our emotions because they consider themselves superior. Yet, the movie-goer views the alien's actions as profoundly immoral because the aliens have the choice not to engage in such destruction. The viewer sees the aliens as monsters because they have so much intelligence, but refuse to acknowledge the pain and suffering that they are causing to humans. The aliens in this movie are no more cruel to humans than we are to pigs, yet we offer no empathy for pigs, and shame the aliens for feeling no empathy for us. How is this justifiable?
Humans don't wipe species of animal off the face of the Earth on purpose.
Those aliens were super dicks and did it purposefully, we're just kinda retarded as well as smart.
Wait, what?
Seriously it's rather natural to fear all of humanity being destroyed. I'm not even sure how that relates to this topic. . .
Many people care about the suffering of others, whatever their species; personally I focus on suffering more than life vs. death as a logistical matter. Thing is, most people have very limited compassion, most of it being from guilt and social pressure rather than genuine empathy.
--
Human treatment of livestock is much more complex than War of the Worlds, and also less silly.
Yes... of course we haven't purposefully hunted wolves and predators because we fear them. Hell, in Norway they've decided to exterminate an entire pack of wolves. There are two packs of wolves left there; soon there will only be one.
If I've gotten it completely wrong, please ignore the point about War of the Worlds.
I'll go with a generic example instead: Why would it be immoral for vastly more intelligent aliens to come down to earth and use humans as test subjects for alien diseases? What makes our leg-up on chimpanzees so much more justifiable than the aliens leg-up on us?
http://hackvan.com/pub/stig/etext/psychology/morals-apes-and-us.txt
I believe in animal rights,
but I also believe it can go too far
wait wait, don't get mad, I'm against testing/etc when possible
though I do eat meat (I'm a pretty serious cyclist I need the protein)
But,
I do think there is a difference, and I think people are more likely to ABUSE animals when they DO NOT see that difference
The difference is in long term planning & investment
An animal in a trap will chew it's arm off, no matter what.
A human will wait at least some time, hoping for a rescue with no arm removed.
If a human has cancer, they can make an informed decision about the treatment & the risks & the pain
An animal simply experiences horrible pain as it's idiot human puts it through agressive treatments that prolong it's life for 3 months to give the human pleasure in it's company
If a human comes in and pees on the floor, it's mad at you, or trying to communicate
Sometimes, animals just pee. When a human assumes the animal is "mad" or "getting revenge for being left alone" they are more likely to become agressive and violent
The reality is that animals & humans are different--we make informed decisions with a mind toward the long-term. At least, those of us above 25 typically do ;-) Teenagers are notorious for making 5 minute decisions.
as for war of the worlds, aliens:
Who cares? It's not a moral issue (testing on animals) but a choice we make for continuation of our species
this is perfectly natural & part of the urge to survive
Not that I wouldn't try to stop an alien from killing me, I respect an animals right to fight back too, we just are better fighters with our technology. I hope if aliens do attack we can fight better against them too.
But at the same time, we are creating preserves for endagered species of wolves and such.
A pack of wolves =/= removal of a species.
It's not like a dog is incapable of being an asshole, it's just not a guarantee with certain behavior patterns that would indicate it with humans.
How could we possibly judge a species like that using a basis of morality created by interactions with humans alone? They should be examined on a seperate scale. Also, nah how could we blame them? Of course that's no reason to accept it or not be upset with them for killing off millions of people but in the end it's just nature being nature on a very advanced level.
They did basically seem like vampires.
I refuse to acknowledge the movie you are referencing.
Fuck you Dakota Fanning, you loud annoying twat.
Well I plan on going into coorporate law where i'll have to destroy all notions of integrity and goodwill while crushing the souls and purses of all those who oppose me.
Being objective tends to lead to unpleasant conclusions.
Welcome to the universe.
Fail.
You saying morality isn't relative?
All I'm hearing here is 'might makes right,' which is a pretty shitty philosophy. It's not the case that humans' ability to farm and eat other animals justifies their action of farming and eating other animals any more than Hitler's ability to order men put in gas chambers justified his action of putting men in gas chambers. Instead, the action needs to be examined in terms of its morally relevant characteristics: in the case of the Holocaust, we judge it as morally abhorrent because it violated the rights of millions and because it caused such intense suffering. In the case of humans farming and eating other animals, the conclusion will hinge on whether one thinks that other animals have rights (and to what extent) or are capable of suffering (and to what extent).
Who cares what's 'nature being nature?' Lots of things are 'natural'--for instance, rape, murder, and child abuse. The subordination of men to women. Regardless, these things are morally abhorrent and should be stopped. There's no get out of jail free card when it comes to the 'natural.'
Similarly, who cares if animals generally do not follow moral codes? The fact that lions don't care about your suffering doesn't excuse you from not caring about lions suffering. For instance, imagine that you're holding a gun, and you pass a guy in a dark alley at night. You know this guy is a shiftless no-good, and that if he had the gun and you didn't then he would probably kill you and steal your wallet. That nonetheless doesn't justify you shooting him and taking his wallet. Similarly, the fact that lions generally would love to maul your face off doesn't mean that it's okay for you to torture or eat them, especially given that lions are most likely incapable of the sorts of thought that constitute moral behavior.
So many shitty rationalizations.
Despite its popularity on these boards, relativism is shitty philosophy.
I'm sorry... but are you then saying there is an absolute morality that is unchangeable no matter what happens?
Just want to know, so we're clear.
I'd put forward that the human brain is what differentiates man from animals. The human brain has evolved in such a way as to allow incredibly abstract thinking.
I'm saying that moral disagreements--for instance, disagreements over whether it's morally permissible to eat meat--have a correct answer, even in those cases where people have deep disagreements. Furthermore, the correct answer is not constituted by reference to prevailing social attitudes, nor is it "right-for-you" but "wrong-for-me" because of the cultures we were raised in. Instead, its rightness or wrongness hinges on some natural fact, like the amount of suffering it causes or the rights of the participants.
Um... you are aware that "rights" are not natural facts. They're an invention of humans (we don't actually have a right to live etc, we just find it much more agreeable and feel better about ourselves if we have these basic rules).
Where would you derive your natural facts? A natural fact is that the energy required to heat 1 gram of liquid water 1 degree is 4.18 joules (number is rounded).
A natural fact is that there is one proton in an atom of hydrogen.
Suffering is also relative, I see no way you could possibly quantify pain or suffering.
Oh, don't even suggest such a thing: vegetarians and vegans would start bitching the second someone proposed a mechanism for creating something like that. Even though it's meant to remove pain from the meat industry...
Some people believe plants feel pain as well. I haven't got a clue what they live off of, sunlight?
I am also curious as to how this moral imperative for all feelings translates to what we do on the global scale. Civilization has fucked up a lot of things for a lot of creatures, and will continue to do so for a long time to come. Yet, certainly, the advancement of civilization has benefited newer generations of man. I realize I'm just beating around the bush framed in the OP; is the betterment of mankind worth the pain of the beast? I find it queer that there are people who propose to hold some kind of algebra of pain, whereupon we would be able to learn the hard, cold natural truth of the matter. I am interested in seeing where this goes!
Oh god no, I meant the actual people that believe plants feel pain. I know how photosynthesis works :P ...in far too great detail. Oh god I hate you Calvin cycle.
If we could measure "level of activation" of the part of the brain that registers physical pain then I guess we could quantify physical pain endured by animals or people. However this doesn't account for psychological or emotional suffering. Generally speaking I'd say we can impossibly measure pain.