To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 11358
11357  |  11359
Subject: 
Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 3 Jul 2001 19:25:42 GMT
Viewed: 
783 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:

The tricky part is defining where the line gets drawn. Not to pull back
evolution as a topic, but how about the Ancient Egyptians? How about
cavemen? How about Cro-magnon man? How about monkeys? Etc. At what *specific
point* (and yes there must be one to say that animals don't and we do,
unless you don't accept evolution) does morality come into the picture?

  You're creating a false dichotomy between a la "it must happen at specific
point X, or else it cannot happen at all."  This is simply untrue.  I would
assert that, far from occuring at a single, threshhold point, morality is a
system of values and behaviors that is imprinted upon the individual by
culture through a lifetime of exposure.  That is not to say that the old are
"more" moral than the young, nor vice versa, but the processes by which
humans acquire their morality are certainly dependent on time and society.
  Having said that, it is without question that the framework on which
morality is based has arisen through evolution.  That is, the structure of
our brains that enables us to reason abstractly and to weigh the
consequences of our actions on a scale of "right" and "wrong" certainly has
developed through countless generations.
  In addition, Dan asserted in another post that most of our behaviors are
hard wired, suggesting a "nature over nuture" theory of development.  While
this may distress some people, the recent Genome project has demonstrated
that the vastly overwhelming majority (some 99.95%) of human DNA is for all
intents and purposes identical.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/Nightline/nl_genome_010413.html

  Further, though it's not essential, I would assert self-awareness as a
good precursor of "morality" in the "human" sense.  Most mammals do not
recognize their own reflection, instead regarding it as another creature.
Higher primates (such as chimps and us) and dolphins are able to identify
the reflection with their own bodies in real time, such that chimps examine
the insides of their own mouths, and dolphins inspect their body markings
that are ordinarily out of their line of sight.  The reason, to me, that
this is significant, is that morality (for my interests) entails an
awareness of the behavior of the individual as it pertains to the whole
(pack, tribe, society, whatever).  If an animal is not able to identify
itself as a discrete entity, then it is not capable of human-like morality.
This is not to say that non-self-aware dogs have *no* morality, but it is
not human morality.
  Before someone jumps on me for it, I'll admit that a mirror's reflection
is by definition dependent on sight for matters of self-identification, and
an animal with a less-developed sense of sight will be at a disadvantage in
such a test.  So stipulated.  In addition, it is possible that "lesser"
animals are able to identify themselves as individuals through scent, touch,
or sound, but that's an issue beyond the scope of this debate, since I'm not
aware of any conclusive experiment to date that has identified these senses
with the awareness of self in animals (though I'd be interested to read such
a study!)

At what *MOMENT* do humans posess morality? When we're a 2-celled organism?
3-months? 12? 2 years? What has to happen to merit being called moral?
Selecting the dolphin isn't really any better of a choice than a tortoise,
except that as humans, we feel that we are closer to dolphins.

  Why, ultimately, does there have to be "a" moment at which morality
occurs?  Is it some Rubicon of humanity, crossing which one becomes human
but prior to which one is a dumb beast?  Is there any behavior in humanity
that occurs in a single stroke, rather than as an ongoing spectrum of learning?

     Dave!



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
 
(...) I whole-heartedly agree. However, in order to argue that animals do *NOT* have it and that humans *DO*, something must be different. But I don't argue that. Accepting the premise that animals *DON'T*, I hold that at some *point*, morality (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
 
(...) The question is, what constitutes proof of morality? Prove to me that *you* have a concept of morality. Perhaps morality itself is instinctive, even? Once you can draw the hard line between instinct and intelligence you've made a tremendous (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR