In what way do animals benefit from humans assigning an ethical/unethical status to their behavior?
3 Likes
If we go the âspherical cow in a vacuumâ route: in some far-off utopian future that will not be achievable within my lifetime and may or may not be achievable at all, to somehow unnaturally alter the ecosystem in a way that eliminates all physical/emotional distress for all conscious entities without causing more problems than it solves.
If we donât go that route: it doesnât matter for normal practical intents and purposes because that far-off utopia isnât currently buildable.
Even though it seems to gives me no practical benefit I just wished to argue for the hell of it that as far as I can tell the defaultily painful state of nature is simultaneously unethical (under at least some valid definitions of ethics), beautiful, and not currently evitable.
I donât even know where to begin to put such a comment in context! I find comfort in the workings of those very laws of physics that you loath. The energy flow and the complexities of the pathways obeying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are fascinating to me, both in the biological realm and physical (read: geology, weather) world.
6 Likes
Done, but fair warning, things here may now be a bit out of context or out of sequence, so everyone interpret accordingly please.
1 Like
Ethics is, by definition, about obligation and accountability. If non-humans are not moral agents then they cannot be ethical or unethical and there is no rationale for holding them accountable for their actions beyond some basic utilitarian considerations.
Animal welfare is about human ethical obligations to other living things; it is not about obligations of animals. It is important to differentiate between animal welfare arguments and animal rights arguments. Animal rights advocates argue that animals have something akin to human rights, which raises a whole bunch of questions about the relationship between rights and obligations.
1 Like
What is the point of animal welfare? The point is that we are better humans when we treat other animals (and plants!) with respect.
That doesnât mean we donât eat them; it means we value them and treat them as well as we can consistent with our needs. (Kill them as humanely as possible, and not to excess.)
1 Like
I would argue that ethical arguments do not apply to any actions of non-human animals, because even if they do feel compassion and other traits that we may associate with a higher sense of emotional sensitivity, their motives and normal behavior would still likely not coincide with what humans call ethical and unethical. Even in past human civilizations, we see large differences in the cultural norms that today we would highly punish. I donât argue against these modern views in any way, but that doesnât change that different hypothetical cultures would produce different expectations of behavior. We shouldnât hold non-human animals, no matter how intelligent, to the same expectations as humans unless we can be sure that these animals are innately aware of and seen as more or less a citizen under our human cultural laws and norms.
What Iâm saying is no matter how much we outlaw something, it wonât stop those unfamiliar with these laws to stop doing it. I donât think that would classify them as guilty.
And in a realistic sense, these scenarios are almost all hypothetical because we donât have a lot of real-world examples to work off of (although the few we do have certainly justify my and everyone elseâs long arguments on this topic). Which is why I think the wide variety of opinions here is ok - itâs unlikely weâll need to serve as the jury for a dolphin or bonobo any time soon.
Of course ethical arguments do not apply to non-human animals, for one simple reason: non-human animals, although capable of communication, lack a complete language and its foundational requirement of symbolic thought. A conception of ethical action requires a complete language, which is capable of expressing concepts of good and evil and of ethical propositions that can be expressed in language so that their truth and falsity can be assessed and communicated. This, in turn, requires a social world bound by language conventions that support the possibility of the communication of ethical norms.
1 Like
I refuse to comment further on this post.
If âallâ of you are going to continue to straw-man-fallacy at me and claim that the issue is whether itâs the animalsâ fault that they act like that, then whatâs even the point of saying anything? From the very beginning I made my best effort to clarify that they cannot be held responsible for their actions.
Oh, for the record: I donât just hate physics for abstract nonhuman animal philosophy reasons. I grew up in an abusive household and could do literally nothing about it because I was physically unable to escape. But thatâs not a story for this thread.
Goodbye!
1 Like
While thatâs true, many animals, especially the ones we consider to be exceptionally âintelligentâ (eg. primated and elephants, but not limited to them), do seem to be keenly aware of the concept of fairness and something that we view as similar to our own sense of âmoralityâ. He and others view this as being an argument for some level of ethics and morality being deeply ingrained in our evolutionary ancestry.
At its most basic level experiments seem to point to it revolving around issues of âfair playâ and âfairnessâ in access to resources (especially food), so limited in scope compared to what mist humans mean when they talk of âethicsâ and âmoralityâ, but still linked quite closely.
Frans de Waal has done extensive research on this topic. His Ted Talk is a good introduction and overview, but digging into his papers is where it gets really interesting.
Itâs a stretch to e.g. say that if crow checks if you will steal its food it means that the next day when it will be eating the corpse of a bird of same species itâs involved is a terrifying immoral act of violence and total lack of empathy to the dead.
âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ
To the original question, humans do the same basic things, we just made up our own rules for society and live by them (while also trying to prove that some of them donât exist), I understand how this logic sticks to us and is then upplied to nature forces or organismsâ relationships, but itâs not rising to a law level (not in a legal way of law), thereâs nothing to gain by using that system to anything but humans and itâs kinda pacifying most of us agree on that. To add, what about death of one is a tragedy and death of thousands is statistics? Even within out human lives far from every death is seen by everybody as a horrible event and itâs a huge topic of itself.
A specific person shouldnât feel cornered, it also didnât worth it to start argumentation with how others percieved nature in a wrong way⌠Any organism is described as taking ourside matter and growing, that means killing things is an optimal way of life. Iâm also sure that if humans were immortal they wouldnât care a second about such questions, fear of death rules our actions and thoughts.
Ethics are ultimately a human construct
soâŚ
No.
2 Likes
Absolutely not. I am disgusted by the amount of people who hate animals like cuckoos, seagulls, and herons for doing animal things and preying on animals which they think are cute, and cheering on when they either get preyed on or killed in disgusting and pathetic ways by people
1 Like
I kinda think that went sideways. There wasnât anything in the comment or reply that went into killing/death/murder/etc.
The discussion of âfairnessâ is about several individuals performing the same action, receiving unequal reward, and their reaction to it. Itâs not about cannibalism or âlawsâ, but it does approach the issue of empathy, the understanding that you and others should not receive preferential treatment.
The idea of âethicsâ is absolutely a cultural issue, one that varies by culture and over time, sometimes enormously, but that absolutely does not mean that the deep root of it is not more widespread than hominins.
The specifics of it absolutely are different, between individuals, not just cultures or species, but research into the topic does seem to indicate that there is something that underlies it. Something that is akin to empathy, or at least understanding.
The topic of death is, to my mind, somewhat irrelevant in this context. Death is quite literally the one thing that is unavoidable, inevitable, and that everyone/every living thing will experience both intimately and via proxy as members of their social groups die of a variety of causes. The level of abstract thinking to take that to the, âdeath of one is a tragedy and death of thousands is statistics,â is on a wildly different level than most non-humans (depending on where you draw the line⌠are Neanderthals human? What about Homo erectus?) are capable of and therefore isnât really relevant. I donât think otters are particularly aware of the details behind the mass killings for their fur.
The fundamental idea is that some concept of âfairnessâ seems to be widespread (even if it is mainly an expression of some form of selfishness) and from that an extrapolation is made that ideas of âethicsâ or âmoralityâ may have ancient foundations in this idea of âfairnessâ.
The idea of morality, controversially, is less about how someone treats others than it is about how they are treated by others. As a species most of us (including ideas of 'cheaters in game theory) have come to recognize at a fundamental level that is evolutionarily driven (experiments with infants back this up) that itâs better for everyone if people treat each other decently (the level and value of âdecencyâ varies by age and culture, as well as other factors). Rather than the âselfish geneâ itâs the âselfish memeâ.
As a species some level of âethical behaviorâ (culturally mediated, of course) is fundamental. The basics of this seem to be shared with other species, but that does not ain any way mean that our ideas of what constitutes âethical behaviorâ would be 100% shared with other species if they were to reach our level of abstract reasoning, and it most certainly does not mean that our ideas of âethical argumentsâ apply to other species, other than maybe some level of âfairnessâ (which again, will be dependent on the social structure of the species in question).
I think the answer is a simple no.
If you take away the humans, who is there to make these ethical arguments?
Ethical arguments are always in the context of humans and their interactions, unless someone has demonstrated (not just presumed) a non-human capability specifically for ethical reasoning?
2 Likes
weâve got enough problems with the behavior of our own species, harming each other and devastating ecosystems, especially given the cultural context and the fact that some cultural and economic systems do this more so than others. the last thing we need to worry about is whether other species are ethical.
4 Likes
Many of the more complex and social animals have a basic sense of fairness. True. I suspect thatâs the evolutionary basis of our morality, though weâve made it much more complex.
I donât think that knowledge that we die is a cause for our system of ethics. How many young people really believe we die? Even I, who am getting closer to it, believe that only in brief glimpses before I turn away. (I personally donât plan to die, all evidence be damned.) Itâs true that Christianity and Islam offer us eternal life (in some other condition) if we life moral lives plus have the right belief system, but not all religions do. However, all societies have moral systems.
What do you mean, the death is absolutely in the comments I referred to, my answer to you is my first paragraph only.
I recommend you to watch a video of chimpanzees sharing food with friends, there are many.
1 Like