This is mere childish anthropomorphizing. Even dogs and horses and other domesticated species that have been bred to respond to human training in behaviorally sophisticated ways don’t, as far as all the known evidence goes, “think” about this behavior in terms of conscious “morality”.
I have no idea, but you certainly seem to be missing some basic reading comprehension skills. I never said or implied the words you’re putting into my mouth. [On preview: as Miller noted.]
The accusation was right there in the post you quoted:
If you’re now conceding or clarifying that you do recognize that your personal ethical beliefs, like those of every other contemporary human being, are indeed entangled to some extent with historical socially constructed ethico-religious thought instead of starting from some kind of idealized tabula rasa of pure rationalism, I’ll withdraw the charge of hypocrisy. Otherwise, my accusation stands.
You won’t “define” what it is to “think” of morality.
Are you saying they won’t think about doing their actions or that they don’t act out of empathy?
I can’t debate about undefined terms…you will just hand wave them off with another excuse. So state you claim on what is UNIQUE. Chimpanzees, Elephants and several other animals have directly been shown to be empathetic, even when it costs them greatly. E.G. in one experiment they shocked other Chimpanzees when another pulled a chain that gave them food. A few wouldn’t pull the chain even after a week of starving after witnessing another chip be shocked.
If you are claiming some special human trait above that please explain what it is and quit the baseless claims that I am “anthropomorphizing” when the empirical evidence is on my side of the debate.
:rolleyes: More reading comprehension failure. I’m not saying that religion is responsible for morality. I’m just pointing out that the tendency to superstitious/supernatural/mystical/unempirical thinking appears to be innate in humans, or at least as innate as the conscious and social development of moral principles.
Maybe the potential ambiguity of this term is the source of the comprehension problems you’re having. How are you defining “religion”?
Sure I will, if you want. I had just figured that the difference between domesticated animals’ altruistic/submissive behaviors and humans’ consciously formulated concepts of moral principles was pretty obvious.
First and foremost, it seems likely that to emerge as a social construct, moral principles require language sophisticated enough to communicate abstract ideas. That concept of abstraction is also key: human morality includes not just good or bad feelings instinctively produced by certain behaviors, but a concept of “good” or “bad” independent of a specific action. Counterfactual and hypothetical thinking are also part of the moral-thinking process: humans are able to formulate the idea that a “bad” action would be wrong even if we got away with it.
As far as I know, there’s no evidence to indicate that dogs, horses or other non-human animals partake of any of these conscious and social cognitive aspects in developing or displaying altruistic behavior.
Empathy is certainly part of the emotional repertoire of non-human social animals, as far as I know: they are capable of feeling emotional distress or gratification based only on emotional cues from other animals about things that don’t affect them personally. But that doesn’t constitute morality per se.
As for “won’t think about doing their actions”, exactly what do you mean by dogs or horses, say, “thinking about doing their actions”?
Consider a soldier who throws is body across a line of barbed wire, creating a passage through which his buddies can pass, even though being caught in the wire almost certainly means being torn apart by machinegun fire. Nearly every moral system on Earth would consider this a heroic act.
Compare with the army ant, which will use its body as a link in a bridge that allows the hive to escape rising flood waters, even though it means the individual ant will lost certainly be killed in the flood. Is the ant acting heroically, or is it mechanisticaly carrying out a set of behaviors that have been selected for by millions of years of genetic pressure?
Altruism and morality are not the same concepts. While some animals may exhibit altruistic behavior, it is unlikely in the extreme that they are following a codified system of conscious behavioral decisions designed to arrive at a maximized beneficial outcome. That’s something only humans do, and the evidence suggests that as long as we’ve been doing that, we’ve been doing it in religious (or, at least, mystical) terms.
How in the bloody blue fuck did you manage to do that? I’d think the four or five times Kimstu explicitly described herself as a atheist would have tipped you off that you were dealing with a different person. And that’s to say nothing of the difference in rhetorical skill, which is so extreme, I’m not certain i can accurately describe it without breaking forum rules.
You are wrong and just uninformed in any of the research that has happened over the past century.
Chimpanzees, given the choice of getting a reward, or getting a reward and also letting another unrelated chip git a reward will tend to make the choice that rewards both.
The chimp that is acting gains nothing. If the other chip reacts negativity to a selfish choice the chance they will make the mutually beneficial choice the next time goes down.
You are making a lot of ad hominem attacks…but maybe it is you who should read literature that was written oh…some time on this side of the iron age?
Your special pleading is irreverent and you have given NO evidence to show any one of these traits is purely and uniquely human let alone that it was RESPONSIBLE for us developing morality as you claim.
Oh, I certainly have a definition of the concepts I’ve been talking about, which I’m calling “supernatural/mystical/unempirical suppositions” in general, and which you seem to be persistently misinterpreting as “religion” per se.
What I don’t understand is why you’re misinterpreting what I thought I’d described pretty clearly.
More wishful speculation on your part, I’m afraid. I’m not glossing over any of your questions, but I have to say you’re not always doing a good job of communicating what you intend by them.
Sigh. Please reread what I wrote earlier about the difference between evolved altruistic behaviors and conscious moral principles.
Nowhere am I claiming that chimpanzees or other animals (including not just primates but also raccoons and buffalo, by the way) don’t exhibit evolved altruistic behaviors. Or that such behaviors in themselves require complex human abilities such as language, which they clearly don’t.
The problem is not with my awareness of research on altruistic behavior in non-human animals: the problem is that you just are not understanding what I’m saying.
I am ASKING you you to define what the line is between “evolved altruistic behaviors and conscious moral principles.”
That is the whole point.
The fact that you can’t draw the line makes the debate worthless. Because you will just hand wave empirical evidence away.
What is the difference if an animal decides, through empathy to be altruistic vs. a “conscious moral principal”
You won’t define it because there is no real difference…because for the most part ones personal mythology really has a minimal effect on there “moral choices” it is the natural “morality” that tends to win out.
You know this special pleading is baseless is the only reason I assume you want to keep it so obtuse.
Give me a concrete example of a behavior that could only happen through religion that is “moral”
Oh Lordy, this is getting just sad. No, for about the fifth time, I’m pointing out the distinction between evolved selfless altruistic behavior in dogs, monkeys and chimps (and in other mammals and some species of birds, bats and possibly even insects as well, by the way) and the actual human abstract moral principles that according to all available evidence exist in the same context of human cognitive complexity in which we also find human supernatural/mystical/unempirical suppositions.
Once again, do look at what I actually wrote. I have stated more than once in this thread that I don’t believe a non-religious person can’t exhibit selfless altruistic behavior or other moral qualities (and as a non-religious atheist myself, I would be very loath to accept any such hypothesis).
If you can’t understand or won’t engage with what I’m actually saying, I’m afraid there’s no way I can get my meaning through to you.
Miller, do you want to take another shot at explaining my point to rat avatar, on the chance that it’s just my personal writing style that is confusing him? I write kind of clunky and dense sometimes, and maybe that’s the problem.
The accusation was right there in the post you quoted: