Is Anthropocentrism Justified?

[Eddie French]

Originally posted by Rader
OK I will, is this romantic and artistic enough?

The beauty of creation is in its diversity and its strife for perfection. Rader

It certainly seems to be so. But it was creation and the quest for perfection which set us out on the path to arrive where we are now. it has not been the guiding hand on that journey. There is perfection in the successful kill of the hungry lion, but as I said before, where is the compassion in that?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Eddie French
It certainly seems to be so. But it was creation and the quest for perfection which set us out on the path to arrive where we are now. it has not been the guiding hand on that journey. There is perfection in the successful kill of the hungry lion, but as I said before, where is the compassion in that?

The "Quest for Perfection" is an entirely Human notion, the Universe itself is perfect, from it's creation.

The "Compassion" of the lion, is in it's ability to feed it's cubs, where you been?

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Eddie French
It certainly seems to be so. But it was creation and the quest for perfection which set us out on the path to arrive where we are now. it has not been the guiding hand on that journey. There is perfection in the successful kill of the hungry lion, but as I said before, where is the compassion in that?

Creation is the work, perfection is the quest, the CREATOR is the moving force that imbeded in the work his image and likeness.

The compassion is > the end justifies the means if the parameter is perfection.

 

[Eddie French]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
The "Quest for Perfection" is an entirely Human notion, the Universe itself is perfect, from it's creation.

I've been around.
You agree with me, though it seems that you do not fully see it.

The "Compassion" of the lion, is in it's ability to feed it's cubs, where you been?

You Anthropomorphise here. The lion does not 'feel' compassion in its ability to feed its cubs. It is merely a survival trait; instinctive, as when it kills cubs belonging to a vanquished ex alpha male.

 

[Eddie French]

I think I'm going to 'Drop' the lion now. It seems to be taking on a life of its own. I never meant it to

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eddie French
My my,
Let's all just forget the most important attribute of all.
What we have that 'Lifts' us above the animal kingdom (Let's not even talk about opposable thumbs or articulated elbows) is compassion!
Did you ever hear about a lion that paused for even a second before suffocating a wilderbeast with a well positionded fang?

No?

This is what makes us human

No amount of advanced physiology can come close to explaining this 'difference'

We are human because we feel. That is all there is to it.

Ever heard of the dolphin that pushes a sick dolphin up for air as the latter dies. Why is ours not just an evolved form of that? (Note: I'm not saying it is, compassion may indeed set us above all the rest of animals, and we may indeed be special; I'm arguing this side for other reasons).

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Eddie French
(SNIP) You Anthropomorphise here. The lion does not 'feel' compassion in its ability to feed its cubs. It is merely a survival trait; instinctive, as when it kills cubs belonging to a vanquished ex alpha male. (SNoP)

You attribute different event situations, as having identical origins, 'sans' emotion, when you cannot prove that they don't feel compassion, just as I cannot prove (to you) that they do, so why is it you decide, for the lion, what it feels?

(The answer is the first thing you state, in the quote of you, above)

 

[mikelus]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
All the animals that can eat people still manage to do it in this day and age. In India and Southast Asia, people still get eaten by tigers. Divers and snorkelers disappear when there are great whites around. Grizzley bears have killed and eaten humans. Anyone who dies without being embalmed or cremated gets eaten by insects and bacteria.

I don't think the food chain is a good representation of people's superior power. More important is our ability to seize and control huge amounts of territory for our own purposes. The main difference still boils down to our use of language: Gorillas still don't use the internet.

but what about the chickens and the cows and the bulls and all the species we control for our own food with the tools of the present such as fences and guns. wouldn't that prove humans have more power in the sense of the overall. Did gorillas what to use the internet?

 

[Eddie French]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You attribute different event situations, as having identical origins, 'sans' emotion, when you cannot prove that they don't feel compassion, just as I cannot prove (to you) that they do, so why is it you decide, for the lion, what it feels?

(The answer is the first thing you state, in the quote of you, above)

I don't believe I do. If we combine the power of choice with the emotion of compassion then we begin to enter that unique realm of humanity.
We can choose to show compassion.. or not as the case may be. No animal has yet demonstrated the ability to do this, not even the other higher primates. To attribute higher emotions to these animals is to Anthropomorphosise and in doing so demean our own place in creation. I am an animal lover and I despise abuse or cruelty to animals, I am certainly not advocating any such thing, merely stating my opinion.
More important than this, in the longer term, is the question of how we should treat each other as sentient beings. This is surely the yardstick by which to measure humanity's intellectual/evolutionary progress. If it turns out that we, the shapers of the destiny of this small planet are truly alone in this galaxy, or within a large enough space that it makes no difference, (A question to which I am sure we will have a statistical answer to quite soon) then we had better get these questions regarding sentience and compassion sorted out pretty darn soon. [b(]

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Eddie French
I don't believe I do. If we combine the power of choice with the emotion of compassion then we begin to enter that unique realm of humanity.
We can choose to show compassion.. or not as the case may be. No animal has yet demonstrated the ability to do this, not even the other higher primates. To attribute higher emotions to these animals is to Anthropomorphosise and in doing so demean our own place in creation.

Isn't that exactly what you have done with your Alpha male and the killing of the cubs, ascribed an emotionallity to it, "Alpha" male.

Aside fomr that, animals choose, just they have less choices, and cannot express choice in anything other the acitions. As that goes I have witnessed a cat and a dog laying together, cuddling, the cat purring, the god moving it's paw over the cat, and the cat snuggling into the dogs belly, purrrring.

Compassion is an expressed emotion, verbally expressed is waaaay easier to recognize whereas "acted out" compassion is much more difficult to adjudicate, and animals can really only 'speak' through actions, not words, not ideals, so, at best it is difficult to make a solid assertion of fact upon whether, or not, they are compassionate.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Eddie French
My my,
Let's all just forget the most important attribute of all.
What we have that 'Lifts' us above the animal kingdom (Let's not even talk about opposable thumbs or articulated elbows) is compassion!
Did you ever hear about a lion that paused for even a second before suffocating a wilderbeast with a well positionded fang?

No?

This is what makes us human

No amount of advanced physiology can come close to explaining this 'difference'

We are human because we feel. That is all there is to it.

I think that this is yet another example of someone conveniently ignoring the evidence out there in an attempt to find a characteristic to justify his bigotry.

Check out the following quote from Dr. Sagan adn Dr. Druyan:

"In the annals of primate ethics, there are some accounts that have the ring of parable. In a laboratory setting, macaques were fed if they were willing to pull a chain and electrically shock an unrelated macaque whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. Otherwise, they starved. After learning the ropes, the monkeys frequently refused to pull the chain; in one experiment only 13% would do so - 87% preferred to go hungry. One macaque went without food for nearly two weeks rather than hurt its fellow. Macaques who had themselves been shocked in previous experiments were even less willing to pull the chain. The relative social status or gender of the macaques had little bearing on their reluctance to hurt others.

"If asked to choose between the human experimenters offering the macaques this Faustian bargain and the macaques themselves - suffering from real hunger rather than causing pain to others-our own moral sympathies do not lie with the scientists. But their experiments permit us to glimpse in non-humans a saintly willingness to make sacrifices in order to save others - even those who are not close kin. By conventional human standards, these macaques - who have never gone to Sunday school, never heard of the Ten Commandments, never squirmed through a single junior high school civics lesson - seem exemplary in their moral grounding and their courageous resistance to evil. Among these macaques, at least in this case, heroism is the norm.

If that is not compassion, I do not know what is.

Eddie French:

Did you ever hear about a lion that paused for even a second before suffocating a wilderbeast with a well positionded fang?

No?

And how many humans kill other peaceful creatures to satiate their tongues? And it's not even a necessity of survival for us, whereas it is a necessity for lions.

 

[Dissident Dan]

It is not a demonstration of an ego, but a demonstration of victory or supremacy. There's a difference (in case you can't see it on your own, the difference is that an ego is a conscious choice, while declarations of supremacy can occur without an sentience on the part of the animal).

I completely disagree with the statement that no other animal has an ego. Firstly, the idea that the gorilla does not make a conscious choice does a tremendous injustice to gorillas and other animals. The idea that other animals are just unconscious robots and that humans somehow magically evolved concsiousness as a lone evolutionary anomoly is something that I continually have to fight.

Even looking at examples in my own dog's behavior, I can see egoism. My dog is submissive to my mother, but it will often defy my brother. It seems that she considers herself lower in the hierarchy of authority than my mother, but higher than my brother (especially when it comes to food). She appears to be thinking that in relation to one person, she has certain liberties, but not in relation to another, signifying a boosted ego in relation to the former.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I completely disagree with the statement that no other animal has an ego. Firstly, the idea that the gorilla does not make a conscious choice does a tremendous injustice to gorillas and other animals. The idea that other animals are just unconscious robots and that humans somehow magically evolved concsiousness as a lone evolutionary anomoly is something that I continually have to fight.

I didn't mean to imply that at all. I do feel, however, that I stepped slightly in the wrong direction, so I take that part back. An ape can indeed make a conscious choice (for all we know, anyway) to show supremacy, and it does, in fact, make more sense to believe that that is the case.

I realize now that what I said could have been interpreted as exactly the kind of anthropocentricism that I, too, am trying to fight. It's just plain wrong to consider us "better" than the other animals, or to assume that they are "robots" and we are the only conscious animals. Daniel Dennett's view, which I agree with (currently), seems to also combat such anthropocentric views. Have you read anything by him?

 

[Royce]

For one thing the characteristic to think that others outside of our group are less than we are or are to be feared is a suvival technigue that can be traced back quite a ways. Wolf packs will fright with an other over territory or drive off an outsider. Groups of apes often do the same.
It makes sense if we think that our group, tribe, pack, race, species, nation, etc must survive for us or more importantly our children (genes) to survive. If our survival is dependant on the killing or harming of others outside our group so be it. Too often it is either them or us and I usually vote for us.
We are not so different from other animals. We are too soon down out of the trees to think that we are so special or unique. Far too maney of our human traits can be traced back or compared to traits of simplier animals. Our morals and ethics are based on survival more than anything else just as is the behaviour of so many other animals.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
For one thing the characteristic to think that others outside of our group are less than we are or are to be feared is a suvival technigue that can be traced back quite a ways. Wolf packs will fright with an other over territory or drive off an outsider. Groups of apes often do the same.
It makes sense if we think that our group, tribe, pack, race, species, nation, etc must survive for us or more importantly our children (genes) to survive. If our survival is dependant on the killing or harming of others outside our group so be it. Too often it is either them or us and I usually vote for us.
We are not so different from other animals. We are too soon down out of the trees to think that we are so special or unique. Far too maney of our human traits can be traced back or compared to traits of simplier animals. Our morals and ethics are based on survival more than anything else just as is the behaviour of so many other animals.

Listen to my good buddy here, he knows what he's talkin' about. Seriously, I completely agree with you, Royce, and I don't know how anthropocentrics justify their belief, when (as you said) we can trace so many of our traits back to other animals.

I also don't like the implication that evolution has made us "superior". This is not the case, as we are quite the opposite (as I pointed out in another thread), we are the banes of the Earth, destroying and consuming natural resources at a dangerous rate and posing the biggest threat to the Earth's - and to our own - survival.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
(SNIP) We are not so different from other animals. We are too soon down out of the trees to think that we are so special or unique. Far too maney of our human traits can be traced back or compared to traits of simplier animals. Our morals and ethics are based on survival more than anything else just as is the behaviour of so many other animals. (SNoP)

Prove this will you, explain it to any other animal on the planet and get them to understand it!

BTW the rest of the animals have NO "Morals" or "Ethics" as both of those are as a result of established linguistic codes...case you forgot, they don't have that!

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons

BTW the rest of the animals have NO "Morals" or "Ethics" as both of those are as a result of established linguistic codes...case you forgot, they don't have that!

Did you not read my quote from Sagan about the macaques? Ethics do not need to be written down or linguistically communicated to guide one's actions.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat
Listen to my good buddy here, he knows what he's talkin' about. Seriously, I completely agree with you, Royce, and I don't know how anthropocentrics justify their belief, when (as you said) we can trace so many of our traits back to other animals.

Thanks, Mentat, for the vote of confidence...I guess. I find it hard to accept that we agree once more. There may be hope for ou yet.

I also don't like the implication that evolution has made us "superior". This is not the case, as we are quite the opposite (as I pointed out in another thread), we are the banes of the Earth, destroying and consuming natural resources at a dangerous rate and posing the biggest threat to the Earth's - and to our own - survival.

We are not the banes of the Earth just another species undergoing a population explosion. It is a self limiting problem. Either Mankind does something about it and improve our stewardship of the Earth or Nature will do something about us. We will reach and equalibrium and our population will stabalize even if it is ZERO.

We are destroying nothing nor using anything up. We are merely converting forms of matter from one form to another. It isn't lost nor used up. It is still here on Earth in another form.

The Earth and nature and life have experienced much more drastic cataclysms than mere Man and survived and recovered. Remember the span of time in which mankind had been so populous and so destuctive has been but a blink in time and as destructive and wasteful as we may seem to us we are rather puny and ineffective when compared to an ice age, meteor or super volcano. This too is a form of anthropocentrics and arrogance. We are as far as the Earth is concerned a rather minor temporary rash not worth doing anything about yet. Bothersome maybe. No more.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Did you not read my quote from Sagan about the macaques? Ethics do not need to be written down or linguistically communicated to guide one's actions.

So then it isn't a moral 'code' or ethical 'process' but simply instinctual reactions, according to you, right?

If they are not written down, then they cannot be passed on, (by any animal other then a human) in any manner other then as "demonstrated"/"actions" and speaking nothing but the truth.

See, animals cannot lie...we can!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
(SNIP) The Earth and nature and life have experienced much more drastic cataclysms than mere Man and survived and recovered. Remember the span of time in which mankind had been so populous and so destuctive has been but a blink in time and as destructive and wasteful as we may seem to us we are rather puny and ineffective when compared to an ice age, meteor or super volcano. This too is a form of anthropocentrics and arrogance. We are as far as the Earth is concerned a rather minor temporary rash not worth doing anything about yet. Bothersome maybe. No more. (SNoP)

WOW, talk about someone anthropomorphisizing, your making nature out to be an entity that has concern about how we humans, act upon the face of the planet, how anthropocentric of you!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Thanks, Mentat, for the vote of confidence...I guess. I find it hard to accept that we agree once more. There may be hope for ou yet.

Hmm...so there's only hope for me if I agree with you?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
WOW, talk about someone anthropomorphisizing, your making nature out to be an entity that has concern about how we humans, act upon the face of the planet, how anthropocentric of you!

First off, there is a huge difference between anthropomorphisizing and anthropocentricism.

Secondly, I agree that it was rather anthropomorphic of Royce to have referred to the Earth as "tolerating" us, and all that.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So then it isn't a moral 'code' or ethical 'process' but simply instinctual reactions, according to you, right?

If they are not written down, then they cannot be passed on, (by any animal other then a human) in any manner other then as "demonstrated"/"actions" and speaking nothing but the truth.

But they are still passed. How this happens is irrelevant, but ethical memes are being propogated.

I also wish you'd remember that Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a very new innovation, compared to those animals that we have been referring to, since all of humanity's ancestors are extinct. Each of them was "better" at certain things than the previous one, but we are still not so far separated as you (for some reason) wish to believe.

See, animals cannot lie...we can!

There are lots of other animals that can decieve. The chimp is one, but that's no surprise, since it's 98% identical to us genetically; but a dog is another; so is a cat. I've seen them do it. To avoid impending punishment, a dog or cat can beg, snuggle up to you to make sure there's no way you could get mad at them, and they can even decieve you into thinking that something else was responsible for whatever they did, or into thinking that nothing happened at all.

I can name specific instances where my pets have done exactly these things, if you want; but, if you've ever owned a dog or cat, you already know I'm right.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
But they are still passed. How this happens is irrelevant, but ethical memes are being propogated. So, assert something as a fact and therefore it is?? HUH??

I also wish you'd remember that Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a very new innovation, compared to those animals that we have been referring to, since all of humanity's ancestors are extinct. Each of them was "better" at certain things than the previous one, but we are still not so far separated as you (for some reason) wish to believe.
Genetically, no, in ability YUP!...Huge>>>Language!

There are lots of other animals that can decieve. The chimp is one, but that's no surprise, since it's 98% identical to us genetically; but a dog is another; so is a cat. I've seen them do it. To avoid impending punishment, a dog or cat can beg, snuggle up to you to make sure there's no way you could get mad at them, and they can even decieve you into thinking that something else was responsible for whatever they did, or into thinking that nothing happened at all.
Ahem, you are fooling yourself, the animals are not the ones fooling you, they only use action to make "exhibition of communication" and action ALWAYS speaks truly.

I can name specific instances where my pets have done exactly these things, if you want; but, if you've ever owned a dog or cat, you already know I'm right.

In my lifetime there have been many a pets that have been a part of that time, that is why I can figure out, that you have not yet figured out, not to fool yourself, when attempting to read the communications of other types of animals, because anthropomorphisizing is a very common occurance in such attempts, a very quick, and un-obvious pitfall.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So, assert something as a fact and therefore it is?? HUH??

What are you talking about? If Dissedent Dan's reference indicates that ethical memes are being propogated among macaques, then I'm not stating anything as fact...Dan's source may be, but I'm not.

Genetically, no, in ability YUP!...Huge>>>Language!

And yet, there are so many studies (not just the one that Dan referenced) that show that other animals have many of the necessary abilities, which would build toward full-blown "language". As it is, there are no perfect languages, and humans still, often, find themselves "without words" to describe what they are feeling.

Ahem, you are fooling yourself, the animals are not the ones fooling you, they only use action to make "exhibition of communication" and action ALWAYS speaks truly.

Again, what are you talking about? When the dog uses a piece of paper to cover up the large pile of crap these he's just dropped on the carpet, I don't know how you could interpret it as anything but deciept.

In my lifetime there have been many a pets that have been a part of that time, that is why I can figure out, that you have not yet figured out, not to fool yourself, when attempting to read the communications of other types of animals, because anthropomorphisizing is a very common occurance in such attempts, a very quick, and un-obvious pitfall.

But there is a difference between "anthropomorphizing" and detecting the actual motives of a certain action. My cat hated me, she wouldn't come within 5 feet of me, if she could help it. But, when she coughed up a hair-ball on my bed, she just loved me. She snuggled up to me, she licked my face, etc, etc. How else can you explain this?

BTW, I don't think the term "anthropomorphizing" has nearly as much meaning as you're trying to give it. To anthropomorphize is to attribute "human traits" to something non-human. That very definition is anthropocentric (or anthro-egotistical; a word I used to use a lot, but I think I made it up ), as almost every single human trait (when dealing generically, and not in specifics) was exhibited by other animals long before a human exhibited them.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
What are you talking about? If Dissedent Dan's reference indicates that ethical memes are being propogated among macaques, then I'm not stating anything as fact...Dan's source may be, but I'm not.
You State "you state nothing" as fact, but below you state the emboldened as fact, only problem is that, it is relevant how!, as it is demonstrated learning, ergo NOT a "Moral Code", bit a situational reaction, 'empathy' for another member of the troupe.

But they are still passed. How this happens is irrelevant, but ethical memes are being propogated.

Originally posted by Mentat
Again, what are you talking about? When the dog uses a piece of paper to cover up the large pile of crap these he's just dropped on the carpet, I don't know how you could interpret it as anything but deciept.

Please tell me where is the lie?? did the dog fool you??

Originally posted by Mentat
But there is a difference between "anthropomorphizing" and detecting the actual motives of a certain action. My cat hated me, she wouldn't come within 5 feet of me, if she could help it. But, when she coughed up a hair-ball on my bed, she just loved me. She snuggled up to me, she licked my face, etc, etc. How else can you explain this?

How do you know the cat hated you, did it tell you that??
Aside from that, the cat might think it just gave you a great present, to line your bed with, as represented by the fur ball, and the purring that ensued is simply indicative of the fact that it is expressing "its contentment" for knowing that it has been nice towards you...it's all subjective interpretation, hence your answer is no more correct then mine, BUT the Animal did NOT lie, it cannot, it can only speak with its actions, and actions cannot lie.

Originally posted by Mentat
BTW, I don't think the term "anthropomorphizing" has nearly as much meaning as you're trying to give it. To anthropomorphize is to attribute "human traits" to something non-human. That very definition is anthropocentric (or anthro-egotistical; a word I used to use a lot, but I think I made it up ), as almost every single human trait (when dealing generically, and not in specifics) was exhibited by other animals long before a human exhibited them.

Now this is just downright condescencing, aside from that, you miss completely how that one little differentiation, that permits us language, makes the hugest difference, and your so accustomed to it you take it sooooooo for granted, you don't even realize just how special it is to be able to do it, "speak", speak some more, cause every word you use, counts against you, and for the "we are special" side, keep typing it out, and you Keep proving it/(me) right!