3 ms·

Are you implying that if animals treated each other better, we would be obliged to do so as well? Are animals now our role models? I thought it was the other wa

by ewzimm 11y ago

Are you implying that if animals treated each other better, we would be obliged to do so as well? Are animals now our role models? I thought it was the other way around, that we valued our unique human cultures with our ideas of ethics and reciprocity over our primitive instincts for survival. If it's the case that we should be emulating animals, maybe we should rethink this whole civilization thing.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Reciprocity requires, well, reciprocity, a two-sided relationship. Only some animals have shown themselves capable of any moral relations with humans. Just pointing out.
- ewzimm 11y ago
  Yes, you're right. To clarify, I was talking about the injection of ethics into relationships. The concept here is that animals treat each other in a certain way, a lack of reciprocity, and so we should follow their lead and act the same way. The implication is that if no reciprocity is offered initially, we should never take the initiative to create that kind of mutually beneficial relationship, the "Eye for an Eye" mentality. However, we have thousands of years of development of ideas of ethical behavior, and while there are many different takes on it, the majority have some version of the "Golden Rule," that we should take the initiative to create a symbiotic relationship rather than meet every hostile action with an equally hostile action. This is motivated not just by blind obedience to a moral principle but also the kind of environment it creates. If we always opt for hostility, we create a hostile and unlivable environment, not just toward the object of our hostility but in our mindset and culture. If we choose to nurture a symbiotic relationship with others and everything in our environment, we at least take the first steps toward a better situation for everyone involved, especially us. Although most animals might not show reciprocity now, we can look at extreme examples like dogs to show that it is possible over generations.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    >Although most animals might not show reciprocity now, we can look at extreme examples like dogs to show that it is possible over generations. Wolves are social mammals in the first place. The creation of dogs amounted to deliberately taming and selectively breeding wolves who would understand ever-more-slightly humanoid social structures in place of their previous wolf social structures. Even now, a dog does not carry a fully human sense of reciprocity and equality, merely a very nurturing and cooperative concept of pack-structure. (Actually, even now, most humans don't carry a fully human sense of reciprocity and equality. Most humans are more like the dogs than we care to admit in terms of which social structures we've trained them to understand: hierarchy and one-way domination over reciprocity and equality remain the human norm when we leave our armchairs.) Since many animals are not even social mammals, I think it would take radical measures to instill them with a humanoid moral sense capable of reciprocity, and that brings on its own ethical issues.
    - meric 11y ago
      I don't even think they were "created by deliberately taming and selectively breeding" in the beginning. There were wolves, who voluntarily hung around human camps in a friendly manner, and those wolves being close to each other were more likely to mate. Same with cats. It's voluntary reciprocation. If the animals would rather stay away, then I think we should not approach them on purpose with the intention of taming them, with the exception where they or their homes being targeted by other humans, for example pandas, and they have nowhere to go.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- meric 11y ago
  Good point - Now I know why I wouldn't eat certain animals but is perfectly content to eat beef. I've seen bulls, and they wouldn't mind knocking my eyes out with their horns if I stood next to their grass. But with, say, cats, even when I was messing with her petting her fur the wrong way, she'd retaliate by making a noise and scratching me only lightly and mostly unharmed. The same gesture is not extended to guests. Once during a chess game, she was watching us moving chess pieces move by move, and my cat, with her paw, moved a pawn side ways one step, matching the squares and lines of the board perfectly, even if the pawn could not legally move there. I'd look into her eyes pet her fur, and she'd look back into mine, and pet my cheeks back. I'd talk to her and she'd meow back at me, sentence for sentence. Oh and sometimes when she was trapped inside the house, she takes her dump in the shower. There was a mind behind her eyes.
kazinator 11y ago
Also, which animals are our role models? For any behavior that you want to rationalize, you can cherry-pick the animal to be your role model.
zardo 11y ago
Absolutelty, if you encounter carebears, it is your moral obligation to treat them as you would want to be treated yourself. And we would be wise to try to emulate their society.

by ewzimm 11y ago

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

Reciprocity requires, well, reciprocity, a two-sided relationship. Only some animals have shown themselves capable of any moral relations with humans. Just pointing out.

ewzimm 11y ago
Yes, you're right. To clarify, I was talking about the injection of ethics into relationships. The concept here is that animals treat each other in a certain way, a lack of reciprocity, and so we should follow their lead and act the same way. The implication is that if no reciprocity is offered initially, we should never take the initiative to create that kind of mutually beneficial relationship, the "Eye for an Eye" mentality. However, we have thousands of years of development of ideas of ethical behavior, and while there are many different takes on it, the majority have some version of the "Golden Rule," that we should take the initiative to create a symbiotic relationship rather than meet every hostile action with an equally hostile action. This is motivated not just by blind obedience to a moral principle but also the kind of environment it creates. If we always opt for hostility, we create a hostile and unlivable environment, not just toward the object of our hostility but in our mindset and culture. If we choose to nurture a symbiotic relationship with others and everything in our environment, we at least take the first steps toward a better situation for everyone involved, especially us. Although most animals might not show reciprocity now, we can look at extreme examples like dogs to show that it is possible over generations.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  >Although most animals might not show reciprocity now, we can look at extreme examples like dogs to show that it is possible over generations. Wolves are social mammals in the first place. The creation of dogs amounted to deliberately taming and selectively breeding wolves who would understand ever-more-slightly humanoid social structures in place of their previous wolf social structures. Even now, a dog does not carry a fully human sense of reciprocity and equality, merely a very nurturing and cooperative concept of pack-structure. (Actually, even now, most humans don't carry a fully human sense of reciprocity and equality. Most humans are more like the dogs than we care to admit in terms of which social structures we've trained them to understand: hierarchy and one-way domination over reciprocity and equality remain the human norm when we leave our armchairs.) Since many animals are not even social mammals, I think it would take radical measures to instill them with a humanoid moral sense capable of reciprocity, and that brings on its own ethical issues.
  - meric 11y ago
    I don't even think they were "created by deliberately taming and selectively breeding" in the beginning. There were wolves, who voluntarily hung around human camps in a friendly manner, and those wolves being close to each other were more likely to mate. Same with cats. It's voluntary reciprocation. If the animals would rather stay away, then I think we should not approach them on purpose with the intention of taming them, with the exception where they or their homes being targeted by other humans, for example pandas, and they have nowhere to go.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
meric 11y ago
Good point - Now I know why I wouldn't eat certain animals but is perfectly content to eat beef. I've seen bulls, and they wouldn't mind knocking my eyes out with their horns if I stood next to their grass. But with, say, cats, even when I was messing with her petting her fur the wrong way, she'd retaliate by making a noise and scratching me only lightly and mostly unharmed. The same gesture is not extended to guests. Once during a chess game, she was watching us moving chess pieces move by move, and my cat, with her paw, moved a pawn side ways one step, matching the squares and lines of the board perfectly, even if the pawn could not legally move there. I'd look into her eyes pet her fur, and she'd look back into mine, and pet my cheeks back. I'd talk to her and she'd meow back at me, sentence for sentence. Oh and sometimes when she was trapped inside the house, she takes her dump in the shower. There was a mind behind her eyes.

kazinator 11y ago

Also, which animals are our role models? For any behavior that you want to rationalize, you can cherry-pick the animal to be your role model.

zardo 11y ago

Absolutelty, if you encounter carebears, it is your moral obligation to treat them as you would want to be treated yourself. And we would be wise to try to emulate their society.