Curiousity makes me wonder...

[Fiona]

No I don't agree, Lestat. I am not talking about the species in the abstract, because this discussion hinges on the justifications for ways of treating people and animals. Those are individuals first. And many of the justifications are about specific characteristics which are held to differentiate man from animals. So long as we do not bring it down to the individual level it looks relatively easy. But it is not.

We are as unique as a species as any other, no more and no less. All animals which exist are "fittest" by definition. It is an absurdity, but T H White was right when he suggested that if you asked a cat what is the most important characteristic it would say claws and agility - not for example intelligence ( and I know that even if a lion spoke to me in perfect english I would not understand what it had to say. This is not anthropomorphism)

As I said, I am partisan. I am not persuaded it is rational and I do not see why it should be really. Very little is

[Lestat]

Then we must agree to disagree.

I feel one has to make laws & rules (in this case lets say rules of behaviour to other living beings) on general principles and cases and only then refine towards the individual cases. If rules are hand taloired to each individual case the system becomes complex and inconsistent (even more so than it is already).

So on general principles and until proof of the contrary, I say there is a difference between humans and animals, in that humans as a species have shown a remarkable combination of self-awareness, abstract thought and conceptualising that they communicate amongst each other, which is not present in other species.

And on this basis I think you can argue that as there is a difference between humans & animals, you can argue for different rules system where animals and humans are compared.

It remains a fact that "speciesloyalty" is a factor of course; but it is also a fact that rules of behaviour towards humans can be discussed with the eventual recipients of rights (sometimes only in simple terms, such as with young children and mentally impaired people) and thus the responsibilities that go along with them can also be imparted. This is impossible with animals. The furthest we get is "training". Or in other words: human rights and the rules of behaviour amongst humans are something we agree upon. The rights of other specieses and the rules of behaviour towards other specieses have to be decided upon without any input from them. And after that their enforcement and control is uniquely in the hands of mankind. That is what gives us our unique position.

[Magrus]

Originally Posted by ch85us2001

@ Mag: There is a difference between humans and animals. No matter how you try to ... classify them with us, theyre different. Where I was raised, we had a mutt tied up on a chain in the back yard. That being said, my Chiauaua wants to sit on my lap at the moment . . .

Not in my mind, and let me do a little creative exercise for you. Let's replace the word "mutt" with "teenager" and see what you think of your phrase?

1. Where I was raised, we had a mutt tied up on a chain in the back yard.
2. Where I was raised, we had a teenager tied up on a chain in the back yard.

Now, most people have nothing wrong with #1 and find it to be perfectly acceptable. However, if you said #2, most people would freak out and consider you to be a horribly cruel, demented person, yes? Why is it that people view the situations different based solely on the difference of what species is chained up?

Originally Posted by Chimaera182

Not that an IQ test really determines one's intelligence. But that's neither here nor there.

Granted, it is a simple measurement of how a person processes specific types of information in a specific manner at what speed. It was simply made to be used as in my hypothetical example which came after that, and you left out.

@Magrus
Attention americans: Don't be offended about the next. It's just the icecold truth. It has been researched.

Do you think it's a great achievement to be smarter in an IQ test than most of americans? Maybe you haven't heard but americans are not the smartest people in the world. Why do you think there are so many laws and so many lists with any item you buy of what not do with it?(there are also numerous other things that americans have done which are not so smart,
like putting a cat in to a micro) But I'm not here to insult americans.

No, I don't. I have heard, people are idiots. *shrugs* I was born with this brain, everything was incredibly easy for me in school until I ran into my problems with insomnia.

And again you're twisting and turning my words upside down, I mean do you just want to create conflict and conversation deliberately or do you honestly think I am an awful and disgusting human being?

Hmm, yes, and yes again. The purpose of this thread was to discuss things, hence the conversation. Differing views cause conflict of interest and an argumentative discusses ensues. Also, I do so hope my personal feelings for you don't offend you too greatly.

From what you wrote I'm beginning to think that you honestly believe we're not so much different from animals and humans and animals should be (almost?)considered as equals. I presume you also believe in evolution theory.

*nods* You're a quick one!

Look despite what you're trying to tell me humans and animals are incomparable. Animals can't tell right from wrong, humans have free will, Animals act on instinct. Animals, with few exceptions, notably cetaceans and simians, do not have a sense of self as do humans, humans have the ability to conceptualize, animals do not as evidenced time and time again. Humans have sex for pleasure, animals do not with the exception of dolphins and Pygmy chimpanzees. This has been proven time and time again. Animals don't murder out of lust or greed, but in defense of young and territory, and on instinct alone, not premeditation. The differences go on and on.

You may think that you can be born as an animal, well I don't, I believe animals don't have a soul.
At least not the kind of soul that humans have. We aren't just brain, heart and body.

That's your viewpoint. However, animals do know right from wrong. They just don't see "right" and "wrong" in the same manner as we do. Placing your personal view of the world as the only view to be accepted by each and every species doesn't quite work well. For example, I am fairly certain the majority of species of animals feel is incredibly wrong for one species to claim huge areas of land as their own and kill off anything else that comes onto it. Yet, humans think it is perfectly acceptable. Just because you are incapable of understanding and communicating with another species does not make it incapable of basic intellectual reasoning and making judgement calls based on wants, needs and instincts.

As far as humans having the freedom of choice and animals not, who informed you of this? From what I've noticed, birds fly wherever the hell they wish to, not where I tell them.

I do believe they have a soul yes, why wouldn't it be possible for them to have one if you believe humans have one? Because a book told you so? Did anyone take the time to learn to communicate with a goat and ask him whether or not he had a soul? Or was it just assumed because the goat can't speak the same language as the person who founded that belief, they didn't have one?

Humans stand above and apart from the animal world, which “we enter as lords of the earth bearing strange powers of terror and mercy alike.” - Matthew Scully

Did you just qoute an X-Files character as a source in a serious discusson?

Lets put it this way if an animal is afraid of a dungeon it would never go there, but if a human is afraid of a dungeon he can decide to there anyway.
Humans can control themselves despite instincs but animals are controlled by their instincs. To animals there is just breeding and surviving but to humans there's much more to it.

That is nonsensical garbage. Have you ever actually taken the time to pay attention to what animals do? I have a cat, who is deathly afraid of the vacuum my mother owns. She runs away from it when it is being moved about the house. However...if it is sitting in the closet and not moving for an extended period of time, she slowly works up the nerve to go up to it and inspect it. This shows the capability for my cat to use reason in order to avoid something she feels is threatening when it is moving as well as notice that it is not moving and to ignore her fears in an attempt to better understand what it is.

You seem to believe that humans are some sort of magical beings who naturally know better than other species. YOU didn't know crap about reality until you were instructed on what each and everything you do know is. You didn't know how to go to the bathroom without making a mess all over yourself, feed yourself, dress yourself, or walk without someone to teach you. You couldn't read or communicate effectively until someone taught you. If I took a human baby and simply fed and washed it, and taught it nothing until it was an adult, that person would be unable to talk, read, walk, dress himself, feed himself, or support himself in any manner. He would simply lay there on the floor, scream for food, mutter incomprehensibly, mess himself, and attempt to seek out attention from someone else in order to find comfort and amusement. Which...is about the same as a dog, right?

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Lestat

Then we must agree to disagree.

I feel one has to make laws & rules (in this case lets say rules of behaviour to other living beings) on general principles and cases and only then refine towards the individual cases. If rules are hand taloired to each individual case the system becomes complex and inconsistent (even more so than it is already).

I do not disagree, exactly. Rules must be based on general principles, as you say. However in determining general principles we must start with the individual, and consider the effects of those rules on real people (and perhaps animals) and review them on that basis. We are not very good at foreseeing the consequences of the rules we make, I think.

And words matter. If we say that people are to be viewed as special for the kinds of reasons we have seen put forward here, then there are dangers which are not abstract. The cases I have mentioned - those who show no intelligence, or lack speech - are vulnerable. In a good society their rights are recognised and safeguarded,as you say. But if we depend on such reasoning then there are people who will use the argument to withdraw those rights from the disabled and ultimately from the morally reprehensible (by their lights). For me it is better to recognise the irrational element in such ethical systems. It makes it more robust, paradoxically. So I think

So on general principles and until proof of the contrary, I say there is a difference between humans and animals, in that humans as a species have shown a remarkable combination of self-awareness, abstract thought and conceptualising that they communicate amongst each other, which is not present in other species.

There is no argument about whether we have our special abilities and talents. Of course we do. Elevate them to special status? I think largely because they are ours, as I said above

And on this basis I think you can argue that as there is a difference between humans & animals, you can argue for different rules system where animals and humans are compared.

It remains a fact that "speciesloyalty" is a factor of course; but it is also a fact that rules of behaviour towards humans can be discussed with the eventual recipients of rights (sometimes only in simple terms, such as with young children and mentally impaired people) and thus the responsibilities that go along with them can also be imparted. This is impossible with animals. The furthest we get is "training". Or in other words: human rights and the rules of behaviour amongst humans are something we agree upon. The rights of other specieses and the rules of behaviour towards other specieses have to be decided upon without any input from them. And after that their enforcement and control is uniquely in the hands of mankind. That is what gives us our unique position.

There is a difference but I do not think it is as clear cut as you imply. You again describe the ideal society, but the fact remains that we cannot devise rules for babies or the profoundly impaired with their input: and we do not. The difference in power is real, and of course we have the ultimate control over our relationship with animals, at least for now and possibly for as long as we exist. And in the past we have not always negotiated in the way you describe even with fully functioning adult human beings. Physical power has always been important alongside moral thinking.

I am not arguing for equality of status, as you realise. I am partisan, but unlike you I think it is due to species loyalty. That may not be the whole story. But I am not persuaded your postion is wholly logical, and I hope that does not offend you

[Darzog]

Originally Posted by Magrus

Did you just qoute an X-Files character as a source in a serious discusson?

You're thinking of Dana Scully.

Matthew Scully is an author.

[Lestat]

Originally Posted by Magrus

For example, I am fairly certain the majority of species of animals feel is incredibly wrong for one species to claim huge areas of land as their own and kill off anything else that comes onto it. Yet, humans think it is perfectly acceptable. Just because you are incapable of understanding and communicating with another species does not make it incapable of basic intellectual reasoning and making judgement calls based on wants, needs and instincts.

On what do you base this?

Originally Posted by Magrus

You seem to believe that humans are some sort of magical beings who naturally know better than other species. YOU didn't know crap about reality until you were instructed on what each and everything you do know is. You didn't know how to go to the bathroom without making a mess all over yourself, feed yourself, dress yourself, or walk without someone to teach you. You couldn't read or communicate effectively until someone taught you. If I took a human baby and simply fed and washed it, and taught it nothing until it was an adult, that person would be unable to talk, read, walk, dress himself, feed himself, or support himself in any manner. He would simply lay there on the floor, scream for food, mutter incomprehensibly, mess himself, and attempt to seek out attention from someone else in order to find comfort and amusement. Which...is about the same as a dog, right?

But the human could have been taught how to dress, how to communicate, how to play music, how to do maths, and to some degree, even after that little experiment of yours. Try to do that with the dog.

Again the fallacy of comparing extremely exceptional cases amongst humans with run of the mill animals. If I cut of the legs and arms of a human, and damage his brain good so he can only eat and digest food, he will have to crawl & feed like a worm, does that mean I should consider worms as equal to man?

Plus in the rest of the post groundless projecting of human-equivalent feelings and reasoning upon animals. As in many places in this thread.

[Magrus]

Originally Posted by Darzog

You're thinking of Dana Scully.

Matthew Scully is an author.

Ah, well, I've never heard of him.

Originally Posted by Lestat

On what do you base this?

Observing other species in my free time. A flock of birds will stake out an area which they are presently occupying. They will defend it, yes. They will defend their nests. They do not however attack and kill the squirrel who occupies the tree 20 feet away from their nest because it is within a certain radius of it's presence. Animals tolerate each other within a given area. I have yet to see a squirrel maul another animal for coming near the forest it lives in. However, humans have been known to throughout history kill any other species which comes near their food source.

But the human could have been taught how to dress, how to communicate, how to play music, how to do maths, and to some degree, even after that little experiment of yours. Try to do that with the dog.

Dogs don't need to dress themselves, and don't wolves howl at night for the simple fact they want to howl? This implies the ability to communicate for the simple reason they wish to communicate, does it not? Dogs may not be able to do accounting and trigonomitry, but they have no need for it, do they? They are capable of assessing a pack of animals and noting that the group has more numbers than the one dog and can reason out a course of action that is best for it's safety based on that. That...entails a basic reasoning ability, and the ability to count. This is all instinct, humans have to be taught.

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Lestat

Again the fallacy of comparing extremely exceptional cases amongst humans with run of the mill animals. If I cut of the legs and arms of a human, and damage his brain good so he can only eat and digest food, he will have to crawl & feed like a worm, does that mean I should consider worms as equal to man?

I do not think that is a fair characterisation of the argument, at least as far as I understand it. The thrust and the danger runs in the other direction. In those circumstances it is not a question of whether you should consider worms as equal to man: it is that in some states the society will consider such a person as equal to a worm. The status of worms is important in such circumstances, and the reasons for granting human rights on an irrational but absolutist basis lie there too

[Lestat]

Observing other species in my free time. A flock of birds will stake out an area which they are presently occupying. They will defend it, yes. They will defend their nests. They do not however attack and kill the squirrel who occupies the tree 20 feet away from their nest because it is within a certain radius of it's presence. Animals tolerate each other within a given area. I have yet to see a squirrel maul another animal for coming near the forest it lives in. However, humans have been known to throughout history kill any other species which comes near their food source.

And what makes you think there is some reflection on right and wrong on the part of the animals behind that behaviour.

Dogs don't need to dress themselves,

Neither can they be taught to do so.
Man can "descend" to the level of a dog-like life. Dog cannot be "elevated" to man-like life.

[Magrus]

Originally Posted by Lestat

And what makes you think there is some reflection on right and wrong on the part of the animals behind that behaviour.

Neither can they be taught to do so.
Man can "descend" to the level of a dog-like life. Dog cannot be "elevated" to man-like life.

*shrugs* Why should I believe there isn't? Is there any evidence that they are incapable of deciding between right and wrong? Just because I view something as right doesn't mean another person will, "right" and "wrong" are purely personal judgement calls on any given situation that might occur. Given that animals are capable of making judgement calls in order to keep themselves and their young alive, why shouldn't they be capable of doing so for other reasons?

Dogs don't need to be "elevated" to man-like life. They survived without humans, didn't they? They are born with or grow every physical thing they will ever need aside from shelter and food. They do not need tools to catch food, nor do they need tools in order to create shelter. Humans indulge in their 'wants' to the point of destroying nature around them. That is the difference I see between humanity and the other species in nature. I do not in any way view this as "superior".

If an animal can feel fullfillment, happiness, contentment, and achievement in finding a mate, raising offspring and surviving, who am I to judge it as a lesser being because it doesn't want a BMW, 6 bedroom house, CD-stereo with surround sound and silk sheets? Being content with a simple life doesn't mean inferior.

[Darzog]

Originally Posted by Magrus

Dogs don't need to be "elevated" to man-like life. They survived without humans, didn't they? They are born with or grow every physical thing they will ever need aside from shelter and food. They do not need tools to catch food, nor do they need tools in order to create shelter. Humans indulge in their 'wants' to the point of destroying nature around them. That is the difference I see between humanity and the other species in nature. I do not in any way view this as "superior".

If an animal can feel fullfillment, happiness, contentment, and achievement in finding a mate, raising offspring and surviving, who am I to judge it as a lesser being because it doesn't want a BMW, 6 bedroom house, CD-stereo with surround sound and silk sheets? Being content with a simple life doesn't mean inferior.

I don't think you are addressing the point that Lestat is making. He's not saying that humans are a higher being because they WANT to do these things, but because they can. Whether a dog wants to dress itself, or a human wants to dress themselves is irrelevant. Can you teach a human to dress themself, with matching colors, etc? Yes. Can you teach a dog to do the same? No. Can you teach a human to do geometry? Yes (some middle school teachers may argue). Can you teach a dog to do geometry? No.

Whether they want to or need to is not the point. The point is that humans (in general) are mentaly capable of higher learning. Animals in general are not (although apes can be taught some basic sign language, dolphins can learn abstract language skills not involving vocals, etc). The point is capability not desire.

[Magrus]

I was, although perhaps not in the way I was expected to do so. My point was that that capability in no way proves superiority in my mind. I'll concede the fact that humans are inherantly capable of processing information at a higher level than other species, however, that makes them different in my eyes, not better. Smarter or not, a tiger could still tear me limb from limb if it wanted to. A squirrel or cat or dog could outrun me. A fish can outswim me, a bird can fly where I am fully unable to do so. Each of these creatures has something they are good at, or multiple things. In fact, every species is capable of doing something which it is better at than all others.

[Chimaera182]

Originally Posted by Masa

Well that last quote was supposed to lighten the mood a bit.

Lets put it this way if an animal is afraid of a dungeon it would never go there, but if a human is afraid of a dungeon he can decide to there anyway.
Humans can control themselves despite instincs but animals are controlled by their instincs. To animals there is just breeding and surviving but to humans there's much more to it.

And chimaera182 don't you think that there's right and wrong?
Do you think that murdering a small child in some level couldn't be wrong?

If the small child was going to grow up to be Hitler? Would you seriously not consider killing him?

The idea of murdering a child is one of those universal wrongs I mentioned. Some cultures might believe that murdering a child is right. In fact, in some eastern cultures (if I'm wrong, please correct me) it is considered bad to give birth to a girl. And there are many ways to "deal" with that kind of problem.

[Lestat]

Originally Posted by Magrus

I was, although perhaps not in the way I was expected to do so. My point was that that capability in no way proves superiority in my mind. I'll concede the fact that humans are inherantly capable of processing information at a higher level than other species, however, that makes them different in my eyes, not better. Smarter or not, a tiger could still tear me limb from limb if it wanted to. A squirrel or cat or dog could outrun me. A fish can outswim me, a bird can fly where I am fully unable to do so. Each of these creatures has something they are good at, or multiple things. In fact, every species is capable of doing something which it is better at than all others.

But that tiger, as a species, now depends in a large measure on humans for its survival. So in the confrontation between specieses it clearly lost out.
And in this hypothetical confrontation between man and tiger you deny man the use of its inherent advantages (being a social, highly intelligent, tool-using species) while the tiger can use its inherent advantages (physical prowess & size). Man will gang up on the tiger and use weapons or other tools (nets) to defeat it. That is what man is.
And we have tools that can make us go faster than either bird or fish or cat or dog. And tool using is part of what we are as a species.
Just as it is for certain other specieses, like a type of finch that uses a little stick to get insect out of bark: instead of developing a longer finer beak it has developed the use of a tool. Both options are inherent qualities of a species, even if one is not a physical characteristic.

[Aztaroth]

Aye, Lestat is right. As you said, Mag, all different animals have something which they are better at than any other animal, and we humans have our ability to create tools. And this ability, along with it's herald, our intelligence, has allowed us to spread to every corner of the world and quickly adapting to these new environments. That is another ability of ours, we adapt extremely quickly compared to many animals. Utilizing these advantages and even abusing them has allowed us to ascend to the level of dominant species on the Earth. Of course, that title is self-proclaimed. :P