“Good” and “evil” are moral concepts, having nothing to do with what is “good” and “bad” in terms of evolution.
I’m not religious in a conventional sense and so I do not believe in supernatural concepts such as a “soul” which has traditionally been used as the justification for why animals are different than humans. I do not believe that there is any huge divide between humans and animals; or rather, that it is conciousness which defines what is (generally speaking) different. To the extent that animals have conciousness, they are “human”; to the extent that humans act on instinct, they are “animal”.
I believe that humans have more developed conciousness than animals; but I would not deny that some animals have some level of conciousness. To the extent that they do, they are capable of deliberately making choices that are good or evil in a purely moral sense.
Nor do I believe that the fundamentals of morality are different between different species; to all beings everywhere, the Golden Rule would apply - do unto others as you would be done by (“others” of course meaning others possessing conciousness, or the capacity for conciousness; lesser duties apply to animals without conciousness - essentially, not to treat them with capricious cruelty). This is the bedrock basis of “human” morality and I have no reason to doubt it would apply equally well to any other animal. Naturally, this would be meaningless to an automoton operating on instinct alone.
In nature, organism sacrifice their own interests to those of others for no gain in their own reproductive fitness. You’ve pointed out that there is a gain in reproductive fitness for someone–i.e., usually relatives or at least co-speciates of the altrustic individual. But this does not mean it’s not “true altruism.” The altruistic individual itself gains zero benefit–quite the opposite–in an act of altruism.
As moral concepts, they are human constructs and thus completely irrelevant to animals.
Explain why, exactly, the Golden Rule should apply to animals. The Golden Rule is something devised by humans to formalize reciprocal altruism, which is a form of altruism speculated to be present in some highly developed social animals. If you want to judge animals as “good” or “evil” according to human standards, I suppose you can. But this really has no more real significance than deciding whether they are “beautiful” or “ugly.” It is not something intrinsic to the animal, but rather something that depends on human judgement and standards.
You’re not understanding the concept here (which admittedly I did not explain in detail). In kin selection, the “altruistic” individual gains because it shares genes with its relatives. Since the “objective” of evolution is to propagate your own genes, it doesn’t matter whether you propagate them through your own descendents or those of your close relatives. (These genes are the same by descent.) In evolutionary terms, it is not at all atruistic to sacrifice your own interests in order to benefit your own offspring. Depending on the degree of relatedness, it may also not be altruistic to sacrifice your interests on behalf of your siblings or their offspring or even more distant relatives.
Human altruism may have originated through kin selection or reciprocal altruism. Now it may also be maintained through cultural selection via memes such as the “Golden Rule.”
(pointing to the tip of my nose) And to deny that human behavior is NOT on a continuum that also includes canine and bovine behavior comes perilously close to a belief that humans are some sort of special creation. We are animals, pure and simple, and, if some of us, through a surplus of brain power, managed to come up with some sort of “Theory of Mind” when other mammals apparently have not, it does not necessarily speak that well of us. Try explaining any theory of mind to an innocent, young child, the closest we have to dogs that can talk, and he’ll tell you it’s the dumbest thing he’s ever heard, and I’d cede the point. But I consider philosophy mental masturbation, so I’d think like that, wouldn’t I?
Yes, by the standards of that society they would be bad.
Yeah, and I’d love to throw it out of this discussion. It is an American Tourister word; it doesn’t just HAVE baggage, it IS baggage and it pollutes any discussion in which it is used. Or is that the sort of request a moral relativist would make?
I agree completely. And, to go back to the disgust factor, of course dogs don’t find their droppings disgusting and use them for communication. In fact, when I’m told that one shouldn’t scold a dog too long after he soiled the carpet because he will have forgotten he had done it, I laugh and say, “That dog may not understand higher math, but he knows more about who did that, when he did it, and his frame of mind when he did it than we can imagine.” And sometimes they did it as a challenge because they knew it pissed me off. Animals generally know who they can challenge with some hope of victory and they learn quickly, if they don’t realize it from the first, that challenging an adult human is unwise. Most of my dogs understood all along that they live because I allow them to live. A couple needed the occasional reminder, spoken in language they understand (a quick tackle and shake them by the throat while I growled my displeasure), not to displease me.
What, pray tell, is the huge overwhelming difference between a person and an animal - assuming you are not religious and so do not believe in concepts such as a “soul” endowed by smoe sort of creator?
Again, you appear to posit some sort of major difference between animals and humans. Of what does it consist?
In my opinion, the difference between animals and humans is one of degree and not, of necessity, of kind - namely, that humans have more conciousness and its atributes than an animal - they have better cognitive functions, more clarity and precision of communications, are more social, and the like.
The Golden Rule is not, I think, about “reciprocal altruism” merely; I do not of necessity expect others to treat me altruistically, and I do not of necessity treat others altruistically. It is definitely an ethic of reciproicity - meaning that its inherent meaning is that of putting yourself, the actor, into another’s shoes and attempting to see things from their point of view - and as such, I do not believe it is any less applicable to (say) a dog than it is to a person - other than the obvious fact that a person is better able to understand such things.
However, there is no doubt that even a dog is capable of understanding reciprocity to a certain extent. A dog can understand when it is being treated kindly and when it is not, and of responding in kind. Cross-species communication in terms of reciprocity actually works pretty well, because these matters have a pretty solid objective basis - a dog understands being patted and being beaten; it would, I believe, to the extent it is capable of concious thought, think of unearned beatings as morally “bad” - and unearned biting of humans within its social circle as morally “bad” as well.
These things have, I submit, a very objective basis to them; they are understood by creatures exactly as much as those creatures are capable of “understanding” anything. If you don’t belive an animal knows the difference between right and wrong - then wrong one and see what happens.
Determined can be used too rigidly - as I think you may be doing here. Society (working on the individual) doesn’t perfectly determine morality, it heavily influences it. Across bigger numbers, society usually has its way. If it didn’t, it’d be changing so fast you couldn’t discern a culture. But societies are not homogeneous and do change over time. There’s always going to be the interplay between the group and the individuals. The guy who is in the minority can change minds. He can awaken those who haven’t considered the question (and by their silence fed the status quo). If he’s successful we call him a reformer. Otherwise he might get labelled a loon or deviant.
The relative/objective question is about the ultimate validity of morality. And I’ve got to say, we seem to be so close on how morality works. We both say it’s defined, in actual practice, by us. Where you list logic and personal belief I add in culture and biology. It all comes down to nature and nurture. You and I might have the exact same morality. It’s just that you feel there’s also this other, unrelated, objective morality out there somehow. My position is that no such thing exists. But even if you convinced me that it did, I’d have to ask why it matters since it doesn’t inform our morality.
dropzone We have two little cats that we’ve been at war with for two years. When they are displeased they like to piss on the things. Dogs are easier to cow than cats. Cats plot their revenge, and if you get them down and growl at them then they just learn to fear you, and will run away when you aren’t even chasing them. I like fucking with them with the tools, pulling out the blanket from under them, or shooting them with a squirt gun. They definitely understand the social cues. I don’t know if ‘evil’ is the appropriate word.
I said this above in a previous post, but to reiterate: animal consciousness is not guided by temporal thought as it is with humans. From what I’ve been taught, animals live in an eternal Now sense, and do not comprehend finer distinction in what humans see as moral choices. I have no problem at all with seeing animals as sentient beings: and in fact see that in my own choice to be a vegetarian.
But, the consciousness is different, and should be appreciated as that. If you look at the goings on of Nature in an everyday sense, all aspects of human morality very much pale and fall aside; you will go simply crazy if you go by those dicates. Young snakes eat spiders…saw that today…, and spiders pounce on their prey, and then praying mantids chomp, then birds chomp on them…on and on, up the food chain.
It’s really a free for all out there. So, on up to mammals, and the same thing; hungry
critters looking for food. Kill, eat, rinse, repeat. It’s not a choice, but an instinctive behavior.
With domestic animals, often it’s the case of the human not knowing what the animal requires. Ms Was, gotta say I see that in your case. From what you’ve said, you are being a bit disruptive with your cats. Cats don’t like to be “fucked with”, it makes them really nervous. They like to be cultivated, and have a secure space. They are very much creatures of habit, and with that, flourish into nice intricate fellas.
The thing is, cats have been domesticated a far shorter time than dogs, and are, by nature, solitary creatures. For all intents, dogs and modern humans evolved together, as well as starting with similar pack societies. That “domestic” cats became as successfully socialized is a credit to their intelligence and perception. They quickly realized which side of the bread was buttered, so to speak, and, liking butter as only a cat can, they play by enough of the rules to ensure a continuing supply of butter. And the creme inside Twinkies. And Vaseline–God, mine loved Vaseline!
I had a lot more in my original draft, but when I got down to this part I can see that we’re not going to get anywhere. I’m afraid you’ve left the realm of the ethical relativist and have entered the realm of the ethical subjectivist. I am a moral objectivist, and believe me when I say that we’re miles apart in how we think morality works.
I’m going to cut bait at this point. It’s been an interesting conversation and I thank you for it.
Why should a human cultural construct have any relevance to animals? Morality isn’t even consistant between human cultures; if it isn’t an absolute even among humans how can it be applied to different species?
Define morality (a general, objective definition). Explain what obligates humans to act in a moral fashion. Explain what exactly obligates animals to act in a moral fashion.
In my opinion, the difference between animals and humans is one of degree and not, of necessity, of kind - namely, that humans have more conciousness and its atributes than an animal - they have better cognitive functions, more clarity and precision of communications, are more social, and the like.
[/quote]
No, I agree there is no absolute difference between humans and animals. However, as a biologist I tend to see human behavior more in terms of animal behavior, rather than extending human behavior to animals.
“Morality” in many human societies is largely a formalization and codification of principles of reciprocal altruism. However, it sometimes goes beyond that. For example, the dictum of “turning the other cheeck” - of behaving the same way towards another no matter what the other does - is something that cannot be understood easily in terms of reciprocal altruism. Such behavior is in biological terms maladaptive, and persists not through selection but by propagation as a cultural meme. (However, I would say this principle is honored more in the breach than the observance. Although expressed as an ideal, very few humans behave this way in actual practice.)
You still fail to explain why a dog should behave in such a manner. What makes the Golden Rule applicable to the dog?
If a dog gets a beating for which it doesn’t understand the reason it becomes upset because it is confused, not because of a sense of moral outrage. If it is punished for jumping on the couch when it has jumped on the couch, it probably has no conception that that is “fair,” only that it is a consistent sequence of cause and effect. If it is punished when it has not jumped on the couch or done something else which is forbidden, it doesn’t understand the cause of the punishment, and so may become more distressed than if it can associate it with a cause.
As for thinking that “dogs within its social circle are morally bad” for biting humans unfairly, that’s just a fantasy on your part. How can you tell which dogs are thought by other dogs to be “morally bad”? Do they ostracize them, perhaps? Dogs may shun others that are unpredicable, to be sure, but that’s because they fear being bitten themselves, not because they are morally outraged.
Certainly a dog can understand reciprocal behavior. It will friendly to those that behave in a friendly fashion, and hostile to those that are hostile. But there is no need to invoke morality to understand this behavior.
Again, such behavior can be understood in terms of reciprocal altruism or in the expectation of cause and effect. There is absolutely no need to invoke morality to explain them.
In many animal societies, behavior we would consider “immoral” is the norm. A couple of examples:
Ravens are highly intelligent (possibly as intelligent as some primates) and recognize each others as individuals. When they find more food than they can eat, they cache it for later. Other individuals watch carefully for this, and will steal it if they have any opportunity. All ravens are habitual thieves from other ravens; does this make them “immoral.” Do they have an “evil” society? If not, why not?
Female orangutans prefer to mate with fully adult males, which hace large facial pads. Young males, which are unable to get females to mate with them voluntarily, typically engage in rape in order to mate. Virtually all male orangs are thus rapists at some stage in their lives. Are they “immoral”? Do they have an “evil” social system? If not, why not?
(This also highlights the fallacy of describing atypical behavior for a species as “immoral.” Is a non-thieving raven, or a non-raping orangutan, “immoral” because it does not conform to the social norms of its species?)
You’re still not understanding this. The important thing for any individual, in evolutionary terms, is that its own genes, or genes that are identical to its own genes because they came from a recent ancestor, are propagated. For genes I possess, it makes no difference to them whether I propagate them through my own offspring, or through the offspring of my brother. (Many of these genes will be identical because both I and my brother got them from our parents.)
I share more genes with my own offspring (50%, because half are from the mother) than I do with my nephews (25%, because I share 50% with my brother, and his offspring share 50% with him). Therefore it’s preferable to raise my own offspring, but I still gain reproductive benefit in evolutionary terms if I provide support to my nephews as well. Neither of these cases is true altruism, since I procure reproductive benefit from them.
Well, I’m hardly likely to draft a PhD in moral philosophy to respond to a post here. However, I will try my best to respond to your barrage of questions.
You have stated that “Morality isn’t even consistant between human cultures; if it isn’t an absolute even among humans how can it be applied to different species?”. Are you now advancing the thesis that human morality ‘doesn’t exist’ any more than animal morality does? Because that appears to be the logic of your position.
To my mind, you are onto something - either morality exists or it doesn’t; the issue is not whether animals possess it or not, but whether any being, animal or not, possesses it.
I am of the opinion that morality exists, that there is a difference between acts good and evil, that this difference exists for humans and for animals (that possess conciousness) as well.
Morality defined - in general, objective terms: “morality”, at base, is an ethic or reciprocity in which the subject strives to treat other concious beings as subjects in their own right and not as objects for exploitation. At least, that’s what I’ve always understood it to mean.
This definition applies across cultures and, in my opinion, across species as well.
What obligates humans (and animals) to act in a moral manner: why, nothing at all; in fact, many don’t.
What motivates humans (and animals) - I believe it is inherent in the very nature of conciousness itself; part of what it means to be concious is to be curious about others, and this curiousity leads to empathy - which leads to reciprocity and thus morality; the fact that this is an engine of cultural evolution is I think of interest to anthropologists (and I would assert to behavioral scientists).
This makes no sense. Either the two are similar or they are different. What exactly is unique “human behaviour” you are unwilling to extend to animals?
I’m not fully understanding your point here. Are you saying that the essence of morality is to behave in a manner that is not adaptive? I don’t think that is the case (and indeed, I thought you were tending towards the opinion morality doesn’t exist at all - something non-existant can’t be maladaptive).
Or perhaps you are saying that morality is something specific to culture, and animals don’t have culture - yet that isn’t the case: many social animals have culture of a sort - for example, pods of dolphins.
Answered above.
Seems to me you are claiming to know what subjectively motivates a dog. How do you know a dog doesn’t have any concept of fairness?
My own experience with dogs tends to contradict this.
I never claimed that dogs are thought by other dogs to be morally bad for biting people. I do not think that communication between dogs is sufficiently advanced to be able to make distinctions of this sort.
As for “understanding reciprocal behaviour” - well, that is at base one of the very bases of morality.
Now I’m confused again. What is the difference in your mind between “reciprocal altruism” and “morality”?
Nonsense. Humans habitually behave in ways that are “immoral”; whole human societies do. That doesn’t to my mind mean morality doesn’t exist for humans. This is why I’m no cultural relativist when it comes to matters of basic morality - the fact that Mongol culture of the middle ages considered rape and murder of non-Mongols to be acceptable doesn’t make it acceptable.
Colibri, like the old joke says, “First you have to get their attention.” And attention is best gotten when spoken in the inattentive’s native language. In a fight for pack position a superior dog will roll another on its back and grab hold of the other’s throat and give it a shake, demonstrating that it could kill it if he chose. A dog that knows it’s the scum of the earth and accepts it (for now) will assume a submissive position by rolling over and offering its throat to be ripped. We may have grown up together as species but they are still not people. A dog owner and his dog need to be bilingual. Sometimes trilingual; even dogs that weren’t trained in German sometimes respond better when bossed around in it. Probably because its gutteral sounds sound like growling.
It’s kinda hard to talk about moral relativism to a moral objectivist without using subjectivist concepts. At least it is for me. Anyway, I do agree that it has been an interesting conversation. Thank you.
Pit bulls are not evil. Even if they deserved all of the overblown hysteria directed against them they would not be evil. Evil is entirely a human construct, and can only be applied to human beings.
However, I will try my best to respond to your barrage of questions.