The Ethical Dog
I'm only going to give you a short piece of this article but I recommend you read the whole thing. This article brings up lots of interesting questions such as, Is human morality learned or is it instinctual? Are animals capable of things that we've always considered to be only human traits - reasoning, morality, understanding right & wrong? If so, what does that mean?
The Ethical Dog
Looking for the roots of human morality in the animal kingdom? Focus on canines, who know how to play fair
By MARC BEKOFF and Jessica Pierce
Every dog owner knows a pooch can learn the house rules—and when she breaks one, her subsequent groveling is usually ingratiating enough to ensure quick forgiveness. But few people have stopped to ask why dogs have such a keen sense of right and wrong. Chimpanzees and other nonhuman primates regularly make the news when researchers, logically looking to our closest relatives for traits similar to our own, uncover evidence of their instinct for fairness. But our work has suggested that wild canine societies may be even better analogues for early hominid groups—and when we study dogs, wolves and coyotes, we discover behaviors that hint at the roots of human morality.
Morality, as we define it in our book Wild Justice, is a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate social interactions. These behaviors, including altruism, tolerance, forgiveness, reciprocity and fairness, are readily evident in the egalitarian way wolves and coyotes play with one another. Canids (animals in the dog family) follow a strict code of conduct when they play, which teaches pups the rules of social engagement that allow their societies to succeed. Play also builds trusting relationships among pack members, which enables divisions of labor, dominance hierarchies and cooperation in hunting, raising young, and defending food and territory. Because this social organization closely resembles that of early humans (as anthropologists and other experts believe it existed), studying canid play may offer a glimpse of the moral code that allowed our ancestral societies to grow and flourish.
Source:
- A study Conducted by FriedUnicorn - Vol I (September,1999)
"Resident Attention Seeker"
gorillas are not tree-dwellers. They stay on the ground amongst their families.
You sure about gorillas, and you're not talking about, maybe, the chimps? Yes they're cousins but the chimps are the more violent ones. Chimps they kill each other and some of them eat their own.
Here's an excerpt I got from a site: "...silverbacks may kill young not sired by them, but otherwise, gorilla family life is mostly peaceful. Bloody battles sometimes occur between silverbacks when they square off to compete over female groups or home ranges". Here's the link: http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/Primates/Facts/FactSheets/Gorillas/default.cfm.
if a group of gorillas team up and wait on tree tops for the opponent to approach and then attack him with all their might sometimes even with sticks and stones. It might be in response to the survival instinct but it is definately murder.
Source:
- A study Conducted by FriedUnicorn - Vol I (September,1999)
"Resident Attention Seeker"
Its all about either innate instincts or learning behavior patterns conditioned more or less by rationality, depending if we are talking about rational or irrational animals.
And if dogs 'think' about such a word, they should somewhat also 'think' about 'guilt' for committing an act.
"Everything in this book may be wrong." Illusions: The Adventures of The Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach
Would love to read Diane Fossey and perchance learn more about gorillas. But am curious on the word you used- 'plot'. Plot, as in, device ways on how to kill an enemy? Was there ever an instant that Silverbacks used a weapon to kill? I already stated my take about murder- that it has to have that element of premeditation for it to qualify as such. Killing yes, but murder? Humans are excused from the crime of murder if they are proven to be 'insane' in that moment. Hence, murder would constitute a thought or a plot, and an act by a fully conscious and rational human for it to be considered murder, right? Killing is not always murder, or, immoral. Killing by self-defense is not immoral. But murder is always killing, right? And it's always immoral by any standards.
But when you say that alpha male gorillas "plot and commit murder", what 'motivates' them to do it if not by pure instinct? What could be that factor beyond instinct? Intimidate you said. Killing his apparent threat to his position is simply acting out his survival instinct. Murder in the moral sense, however flimsy it may be, has malice in it. Are animals capable of this concept: Killing with malice? But intimidation is instinct too. Where is morality?
Silverbacks are known to plot and commit murders for reasons ranging from territorial supremacy to fight for food. Some Mountain Gorillas are know to gang up against their enemies,kill them and eat them in order to intimidate. Animals do exhibit a range of moralities.
Source:
- A study Conducted by FriedUnicorn - Vol I (September,1999)
"Resident Attention Seeker"
may it be from an anthropological point of view. Debatable yes, but I think it's trying to push the limit a little bit.
You really think animals are capable of that? Color is an abstract concept. It doesn't exist by its own except only when it is attached to something or a substance, e.g., red apple, red mustang, etc etc.. In short, the essence of 'redness' exist only in the mind as an abstract concept. It has no essence outside of the mind. You don't see an object in real time simply as the color 'red' by its own. Have you?
So, the thesis that morality may exist with the canid's, is suspect, to say the least. Their characteristic pattern of behavior having a semblance of 'morality' is merely their instinct for survival and not an outcome of some 'rational' behavior.
Well if you read the article there are animals (especially pack animals) that break the law and they are punished. So morals may be instinctive for some and not for others
"We submit to the majority because we have to. But we are not compelled to call our attitude of subjection a posture of respect." Ambrose Bierce
we all know that they can't formulate anything beyond what their DNA has programmed them to do. Morals, by the way, are not instinctive, otherwise we'd be a lot more nicer world to live in. And it's not even relative as some would posit.
Who knows. We can't read animals minds. We're not trying to attribute more intelligence to animals then are due them, simply saying that morals are instinctual and not taught, despite what religion says.
"We submit to the majority because we have to. But we are not compelled to call our attitude of subjection a posture of respect." Ambrose Bierce
between killing and murder, but murder presupposes premeditation(not to be legalese about it). Animals kill to survive. Men kill or murder for the flimsiest of reasons. Murder has malice written all over it. Does malice exist in the minds of animals when they kill?
If ethical means:
Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.
UkEngQatar
I will live with it as long as I feel it is comfortable for me and it will not ruin my life.
I have patience and tolerance, but what about those who does not have tolerance and patience.
Straight Arrow,
Alleluia ;)
...But by feeling it. That's why it's probably called animal instinct. If dogs feel comfortable with their masters they will do what is right as probably dogs know the rewards. Notice why dogs run away from their masters if they were not treated as best friends or are just busy lately. They're trying to find untrained comfort outside and sometimes die because they don't instinctly know what to do.
Notice also why wild dogs in the wilderness only has the same pattern of movement for survival. Nobody instinctly trained them the somewhat human-type basics of survival. And there's not even a sound 'question' of right and wrong on both types of dogs. Surival is probably the only possible 'right' for them, no matter how different their methods can be.
"Everything in this book may be wrong." Illusions: The Adventures of The Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach
I am interested.. But can your answer one question please.
Are you ethical? lol
-----------------
Can We Fix It?
Yes We Can!
wanna have friends plz anyone interested
pig is an unethical dog?..:)
-----------------
Can We Fix It?
Yes We Can!
which God created.
Straight Arrow ,
The pig, i asked, what do you think about the pig?
Nic we as Muslims say that God created every thing, and these Muslims who say that God did not create every thing they are contradicting with what is there in the holy Quran.
Straight Arrow,
If God created all animals, including the pig, why some muslims despise such god's creation?
Actually if a wolf kills a member of it's pack in a fight it's expelled from the pack. Is that not murder?
"We submit to the majority because we have to. But we are not compelled to call our attitude of subjection a posture of respect." Ambrose Bierce
animals are mainly driven by survival instinct. There is no such thing as morally right or wrong for them. Their instinct for 'right' and 'wrong' is merely their instinctive response. A simple example that animals don't have any 'moral' dimension is their inability to commit murder. Killing, yes, to perpetuate and protect their species, but murder?
Aren't you curious why animals don't and can't commit murder? Animals, which has a brain and a heart like humans, and yet. What would that 'thing' be that could think and scheme a most foul deed? A deed that any society deem as immoral, may you be a believer or non-believer, of a creator.
and please go through the link it will give you more explaination and other useful links.
Have a nice day Nic.
Straight Arrow,
Will that include an animal created by god called The Pig?
It is worth reading it for those who are intersted to know more about animals from our point of view
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah%2FLSELayout&cid=1159951472830
please tell me what do you think?
Maybe they do question heero, who knows I can't read dogs minds.
"We submit to the majority because we have to. But we are not compelled to call our attitude of subjection a posture of respect." Ambrose Bierce
They just instinctly do it.
"Everything in this book may be wrong." Illusions: The Adventures of The Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach
So have I. Which is why I didn't respond.
"We submit to the majority because we have to. But we are not compelled to call our attitude of subjection a posture of respect." Ambrose Bierce
Sorry I totally lost the plot.
Why I say this?
Because no body replied, answer for question 1 No I will not take XXXXX direction, answer for question 2 yes I will take YYYYY direction.
people tends to forget things and if there is a law which rewards the person doing good things then the normal people will do the things which will bring them closer to the reward, on the other hand careless people will do things which do not bring them closer to the rewards, and at the same time if there is a law which punish the people when doing illegal things (e.g. car stealing, hurting your neighbours, abuse,...., etc.) the normal people will stay away from doing these bad things.
Conclusion laws are a must because laws put boundaries.
Some few questions to think:
1. If you know that if you take XXXXX direction you will die will you take XXXXX direction?
2. If you know that YYYYY direction will let you reach your destination safely would you take it?
Direction can be friends, countries, works, ....etc.
One last comment in my opinion morality is a mixture of feelings which some of these feelings can be shown by some acts due to some brain and heart reactions for certain things we face in our life.
LOL Uk, There are only two ways non-Muslims can get married in Doha, and that is by the British embassy in a civil ceremony (if one of you is British) or by one particular Revered here. Let's just say my reversion will be brief and I can see a return to my old atheistic ways in...oh...a little over 2 months. :)
"We submit to the majority because we have to. But we are not compelled to call our attitude of subjection a posture of respect." Ambrose Bierce
Olive.. I thought you had reverted to your religion.. Rumours are going around Doha that yer is going see a Preist soon?..lol
So is this true then that yer is religious now?..:) I can see that you are agreeing with Striaght arrow..lol
-----------------
Can We Fix It?
Yes We Can!
thanks Olive.
that's exactly what those you mentioned will never admit, as it would put in cause much of what they want to believe in ;)
Oh bugger. I forgot the link. I guess I need more coffee today.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-ethical-dog
But yes, I understand where Straight Arrow's coming from. My point in posting this is that religion (and those who follow them) try to teach us that the only thing giving us morality is religion, whereas this research shows that that isn't true.
"We submit to the majority because we have to. But we are not compelled to call our attitude of subjection a posture of respect." Ambrose Bierce
Olive,
Straight arrow is severely conditioned to understand certain things.
Only things that fit his box can be interpreted by him.
By the way, it’s an interesting article. I am curious to read the remaining, could you let me know the link.
Thanks
There was more to the documentary about reasoning. Especially how some animals can learn to pick locks on their own.
"We submit to the majority because we have to. But we are not compelled to call our attitude of subjection a posture of respect." Ambrose Bierce
thats what im talking about Olive, they just copy what they see or do what they are told to do and not look for any reason to do it. :)
.
.
.
"What they see and say about me does not define who I am in reality. What’s perceived is a mere surface, what’s said is mere opinion; for what’s inevitable is hidden within the depths of my soul. Only I can tell my own authenticity."
I watched a documentary yesterday on this topic and the head zoologist of the San Francisco zoo explained how some of the zoologists like to play American football outside the penguin pen, and the penguins used to watch them all the time, one day they went by the pen and the penguins had all lined up and were busy running into each other, as if they were playing football.
"We submit to the majority because we have to. But we are not compelled to call our attitude of subjection a posture of respect." Ambrose Bierce
em straight arrow, the chick survives inside the egg by eating the yolk and there is exchange of oxygen and carbon di oxide through the shell. It's not due to some divine miracle.
Anyway ofcourse animals pick up traits from their owners. My tomcat is just as lazy as me and loves to sleep all the time :P
Reasoning is what helps us get a reward. It's the same for both animals and humans.
"We submit to the majority because we have to. But we are not compelled to call our attitude of subjection a posture of respect." Ambrose Bierce
for the above questions.. i believe human morality is both. instinct and learned. the basic morals we have are infused in us (like a baby knowing how to suck after he comes out of the womb) but it is further developed by our parents and even further by the environment we're living in.
for animals is the same too, IMO, the only thing that separates us is reasoning. its like "reward theory" (or something like that :P) their motivation is fueled by reward not by reasoning.
.
.
.
"What they see and say about me does not define who I am in reality. What’s perceived is a mere surface, what’s said is mere opinion; for what’s inevitable is hidden within the depths of my soul. Only I can tell my own authenticity."
You've obviously never had pets if you don't think that animals don't learn from humans Straight Arrow.
"We submit to the majority because we have to. But we are not compelled to call our attitude of subjection a posture of respect." Ambrose Bierce
Morality and humans don't go well together these days. Ethics look good only on paper.
"Live with passion, Die with style"
why? Because it will guide me.
Now back to the post article, no doubt that we as human learn things from animals, but animals does not learn from humans.
There are many stories which shows that some people succeeded by looking at some animals.
Look guys I do not want to offend any one of you
What does it mean when these animals share the same morality (which is defined here in the article) with humans?
For me it means that we are created by one creator.
Just a curious question we know that the pragnant woman her not born baby receives food from her by some way, but what about the chicken when when the chicken puts an egg, how the small twinky inside the egg stays for 21 days and receiving all the needs while the twinky is inside the egg?
No wonder the saying is that a Dog is mans best friend, but it can not be said the other way round.
-----------------
Can We Fix It?
Yes We Can!