I did explain. That’s what all my subsequent posts were about. “Honour” involves living by an ethical code, which is what animals do. Maybe they didn’t consciously formulate the ethical code in the way a human would do but that just places them even higher yet than humans. Humans have to consciously think up a plan and then actively strive to live by it - animals do it without even needing to think about it.
You seem to think that honour and nobility require the use of language and maybe, strictly speaking, you’re right but if what they do looks exactly like honour and nobility then what’s the difference? If it walks like a duck etc…
Interesting how neither of you can actually think of any arguments against my reasoning though isn’t it? Doesn’t that mean I officially win the argument?
Yeah. But you say “learned behaviour” like it’s a bad thing. It’s only the same as what humans do when acting honourably - repeat what seems like the correct thing to do based on past experience and knowledge.
Nobody wins these arguments, dude. You’ll note there’s no mechanism for deciding a winner.
Upthread you wrote:
You appear to be confused as to the meaning of the word “code.” A code is a systematic statement of a body of law or principles. Such a thing implies the ability to use language and words. A creature without that ability cannot have any sort of code, ethical or otherwise.
You also appear to be confused as to the nature of animals. They steal from one another all the time; male lions, for instance, commonly take prey animals that have been killed by lionesses or by smaller predators of other species. Animals kill one another in ways that, if humans did the same thing, would be called murder or war; take the behaviors of chimpanzees alluded to above. Calling animals noble and honorable is foolish anthropomorphism; calling them more
noble and honest than humans indicates a detachment from reality to a degree usually seen only at the Institute for Creation Research.
Yeah. But you say “learned behaviour” like it’s a bad thing. It’s only the same as what humans do when acting honourably - repeat what seems like the correct thing to do based on past experience and knowledge.
[/QUOTE]
Not knowing the mental acumen of the human, I would probably shoot the bear, though I would shoot to wound. If I find out the person climbed in on purpose, I’d toss him back inside.
Human life has no greater intrinsic value to me than an animal’s. I simply protect it more fiercely, in general, than animals because not doing so would be a possible detriment to my life. In a situation where a human wants to die, I’d have no problems letting it happen. I guess my answer to the topic question would be that neither is more important to me, depending on the situation. Its hard for me to imagine how my life would be decreased in quality if a stranger gets mauled
Semantics. I’m not anthropomorphising, I’m just talking about well-studied animal behaviour.
Let me try this from a different angle.
There’s three levels - upward, lateral and downward. Take the snake as an example - a snake probably won’t go for a cow or something big because it can’t eat it. Lateral fights are over territory and mates and stuff so they don’t much fight over that - just displays, mock fights. Downward is creatures smaller than themselves - they only attack them if they wanna eat them, otherwise they don’t bother.
So let’s compare the snake to the human.
Snake:
Attack things bigger than yourself - no
Attack things the same size as yourself - no
Attack things smaller than yourself - check but only if I can eat them
Human:
Attack things bigger than yourself - check
Attack things the same size as yourself - check
Attack things smaller than yourself - check
So it seems like the snakes ethical code (whatever it is and however they came about it) is better than the human one because it results in less fights.
What about people like Steve-O and Chris Pontious? They knew perfectly well the dangers they were getting involved in when filming “Wild Boyz”… yet they did it for money, and their job was basically to put their selves in danger for the entertainment of millions.
I think the aforementioned duo deserve to be eaten more than the lady at the zoo who was attacked by the polar bear. Steve-O and Chris intentionally put their lives on the line around dangerous animals (although closely supervised by professionals, but even professionals, such as Steve Irwin, make mistakes) and then broadcast it to millions of adolescents who, in turn, will admire these men and strive to be like them. The lady who was mauled at the zoo simply wanted to be closer to the animal, foolishly disregarding the warnings posted, yes, but under the assumption that the bear had NO WAY to get to her because of the iron bars. So the same kid watches both of these things on TV, learning from Mandy that it is possible for a dangerous animal to still attack even while behind bars, and learning from “Wild Boyz” that in Africa if you run up behind a lion and grab it’s tail you are considered cool.
I believe, in terms of value, that one human life is infinitely worth more than all animal life combined.
What if the polar bear in question is widely considered amongst it’s peers to be a fuckwit too? And how exactly do you reconcile death being an appropriate punishment or remedy as the case may be, for stupidity?
Also arguably, if we’re going on your intelligence scale for whether something deserves to live or not, babies should be killed by polar bears. Plus, it would seem to me that even the most stupid adult human is rather more intelligent than most animals.
Why babies? I think babies are more intelligent than adults. If not more intelligent, then a baby’s intelligence is more pure than an adult’s, and therefore the more valuable intelligence because it’s mind can still develop into a more intelligent mind. Besides that, an adult would make a much more satisfying meal for a polar bear, regardless of intelligence. I doubt polar bears prefer the taste of fresh dumb kill to that of fresh intelligent kill.
I don’t support abortion at all… but you’ve got a great idea going on, Tales… If we’re going to kill a baby, we might as well feed it to a species of animal that’s on the verge of extinction… I mean, if aborting a baby is killing (and it is), there shouldn’t be any moral question about it. Now that’s what I call killing two birds with one stone… well… more like killing a helpless, flightless, baby bird with a stone and letting the second bird eat the fresh carcass.
…in fact… let’s change the death penalty and make it so all people who earn the death penalty are taken to Africa and dropped off in the middle of a pride of hungry lions. It could be broadcast to millions of homes world wide… “America’s funniest death sentences”… people would watch it… there’s no doubt about it.
I would have a tough time agreeing to wipe out an entire species to save one human but generally, I’m coming down on the side of saving the human.
I’m a hunter, I love animals. I like having elk, deer, bear, and a host of other wild critters around to observe, hunt, and eat. There’s a whole pile of humans out there that could just disappear and I wouldn’t give a rat crap.
That being said, I find it hard to conceive of a set of circumstances in which I could ethically choose animals over humans. Had I been at the Mandy scene with a rifle, I would have shot the bears* to save her despite the fact that she is a moron I wouldn’t mourn - I just wouldn’t feel right making a judgment about the worthiness of her life in such and emergency.
On the other hand, if rats were going to devour my child-molesting uncle, GO RATS GO!
I’m afraid I’m too mired in the grey area to give you an adequate answer.
*It’s cool that authorities managed to save her without killing the bears.
I am NOT a hunter, but I empathize with them and have many hunter friends. They really do love animals, most probably more than you do. The good hunters study animals; they come to understand their patterns, their needs, and their lives much more than you would expect. They are conservationists and devote thought and resources to healthy ecosystems so the animals (both as a population and as individuals) are healthy and strong. The hunters I know, IMHO, care and think more about animals and wilderness than all the hikers, backpackers, and rock climbers that I know, and I know many being a devoted hiker, backpacker and climber.
Unlikely. I couldn’t bring myself to shoot a magnificent beast like an elk in cold blood. I won’t even tread on a spider or swat a fly - I escort them out of the house.
And then shoot them.
Before shooting them.
Hikers, backpackers and climbers don’t necessarily know anything about animals. They’re mainly into walking, camping and climbing. I’ve done lots of voluntary work on nature reserves - the people who work there (or who visit) really do know about animals - but strangely don’t feel the need to shoot them. Merely observing them is enough.