Labcoat Samurai said:
From a purely utilitarian perspective, a *thing* could have more value than an individual human. If you have a group of people stranded in the desert and you have to save either a person or the sole means of transport from falling off a cliff, you let the person die. But that doesn't make a car worth more than a person. It is only worth more in the sense that it enables more human life to survive.
Exactly. But nobody could possibly defend the idea of saving a vehicle over a human being. Therefore, the purpose of a creature is not enough and ?you need to add another perspective?.
Labcoat Samurai said:
Potentially, humans might only care about the ecosystem as far as it is of benefit to them, and with that philosophy, it is not enough to be more important to the ecosystem than an individual human. The ecosystem itself must *also* be more important.
I don?t really understand what you mean here. Humans care about the eco-system because it is essential to their survival, along with any other species on this planet.
Labcoat Samurai said:
Indeed, though I would take issue with the notion that they are as *sophisticated* as humans.
Animals are not as sophisticated as humans, no certainly not. But as I tried to prove in my previous posts, many animals are extremely close. Dolphins, gorillas, elephants etc. So I?m against the ancient philosophy that states that the human being holds some kind of sacred merit.
Labcoat Samurai said:
To go off topic for a moment, which animals have been shown to have "fears for the future"? And how would you go about establishing that
Off topic? I thought we were discussing whether the life of a human being is always more worth than that of an animal. I answered the question whether I would save the OP or my dog quite a few posts ago.
Anyway, that depends on how you define ?fears for the future?. I should definitely have used a better formulation. But practically all animals can feel stress and discomfort when exposed to a stimulus that remains them of a tragic event, and given those premises, conclude that they should fear being put through similar treatment in the future. (Hence, they fear the future) It could be called a complex form of classical conditioning and various tests have been done to prove that, for example dogs, do indeed develop this type of reaction, ever since the days of Pavlov.
But this type of reaction requires a stimulus so many scientists argue that this doesn?t actually prove that animals can ponder and reflect with fears for the future. However, obviously gorillas like ?Michael? and ?Koko? have been able to express emotions, ask questions and even retell memories from their childhood. The former, Michael, was able to tell his workers how his mother was killed by poachers when he was still an infant. If these intelligent apes are able to reflect over memories, is there any reason to believe that they cannot reflect over the future? This far, Koko has leant over 2000 words of spoken English and c:a 1000 signs of sign language, and she is still learning. Assuming that Koko will soon be dead, and began developing these abilities rather late life, I think we can assume that the next generations of Gorillas will be able to tell us even more. Dolphins also display fears of the future, often fears that surpass their fears of death which is uncommon amongst animals. There are various reports of dolphins committing suicide because they cannot stand the life in captivity. There was even made an academy award winning movie about it, The Cove, in which Richard O'Barry told the story of how his dolphin committed suicide in his arms by simply choosing not to breath anymore.
Also, both Michael and Koko enjoyed painting to express their emotions. Michael even kept a pet dog.
And you must also remember that the area of animal intelligence is a new, growing field and much of what we know today has been proven during the latest 10 years. This scientific community is also met with much cynicism and criticism from traditionalist and the mainstream community who opposes the idea of complex animal intelligence because of their own philosophy. For example, today we know that birds, a species that generations of scientists has written-off as dumb, are capable of using tools to an extent that scientists has began to ponder on their self-awareness. And it also dismantles the ancient misconception that intelligence is relative to the size of brains. And to the best of my knowledge, the fact that the brain of a dolphin is slightly smaller than that of a human being has been the only scientific reason to believe that they are less intelligent than we are.
( BBC have a pretty interesting article about birds btw, should you be interested http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8023295.stm )
Labcoat Samurai said:
Are you certain of that? I don't have a link at the ready, but I'd be awfully surprised if this were true. Certainly some apes have shown an impressive capacity for this sort of thinking, but that's impressive compared to other animals.
The only limit in our understanding of the cognitive abilities of gorillas is the language border. And as this border will gradually disappear (see the section about gorillas and sign language above) we will learn more about their intelligence, and we will with all probability conclude that our differences in intelligence are very small. We already know that human DNA and chimpanzee DNA is 98 percent identical.
Labcoat Samurai said:
Or dolphins for that matter. These intelligent animals seem to have practically the same, if not exactly the same, ability to ponder on questions regarding the future and the past, and reflect over memories.
I'd like a source for that. I find that hard to believe.
What exactly do you want a source of? That dolphins are capable of reflecting over their feature or reflect over memories? We have already established that apes can reflect over memories, do you want a source to prove that dolphins can do that too? As to the future, well as I wrote before: dolphins have committed suicide to escape from this world. Surely, this must mean that they have thought about the future and decided what it has to offer them. This is not some reaction to an extremely stressful situation. This is a conscious choice taken by a dolphin that realized it will never be happy living in captivity.
Labcoat Samurai said:
Indeed. Any estimation of human worth that hinges *entirely* on intellectual merit leads us to this dilemma. Furthermore, it potentially leads to elitism or meritocracy. Should the hyper-intelligent get multiple votes or have some sort of elite citizenship?
No. And I say no, not because I have any logical or scientifically founded reason to say no, but because that sounds like something a fascist or a race hygienist would say.
Labcoat Samurai said:
Not exactly. I mean, "worth" is subjective. It was subjective to base worth on emotional depth, intelligence, or any of these other factors. It's equally subjective to place worth on being genetically human.
Well, no I wouldn?t call it subjective to base worth on intelligence. This is about suffering. In my equation, the greater the intelligence ? the greater is the suffering. We are not discussing intelligence because it?s a virtue. I wouldn?t even call it a virtue.
Labcoat Samurai said:
On the other hand, this conversation often comes up in AI and machine intelligence. You probably wouldn't think it was ethically wrong for someone to smash his laptop, but if instead of a laptop, he was smashing a true AI that could demonstrate human-quality thinking, reasoning, and emotion, you'd probably feel it was wrong to destroy it.
I certainly would, and the day that machines can demonstrate ?human-quality thinking?, ill be amongst the first to demonstrate. But I don?t think this issue is something that I will have to worry about anytime soon.
Labcoat Samurai said:
No, I?m just indifferent to species when judging. I do, however, take the above perspectives into account (intelligence, feelings). So if I was to choose between the death of a rat and a gorilla, I would probably choose for the rat to die.
Over a mentally handicapped gorilla?
That would definitely make the situation more complicated. But after all, this entire conversation really borders to philosophy and ethics. We will never have to choice between saving a dog and a human being (probably). However, if you keep in mind that many animals have similar emotions and fears as human beings should probably raise other ethical questions regarding how we treat animals.
Labcoat Samurai said:
They require little training. They are dogs, and they seem to have an inherent will to help.
Which we genetically engineered in them through generations of selective breeding. Also, they require little training? Says you. I guess it's all relative, but I'm pretty sure I couldn't train a puppy to do that job.
Well that depends on what we are talking about. Rescue dogs require training, of course, and the training can be quite expensive too. However, therapy dogs basically just need to be dogs. They are there to be cuddled with. They sense depression and sadness in humans and are quite good at cheering them up.
Labcoat Samurai said:
Hold on there. There's no question that dogs are loyal and devoted to their tasks, but let's not start unfairly comparing them to humans. Dogs are bred for these traits. They are self-sacrificing to a fault. A dog is simply behaving according to its nature when it does this, while a human is actually being moral when it selflessly helps others. There's a huge difference.
Well this is just my respective, but no, I don?t think there is any such difference at all. Humans, just like animals, are controlled almost exclusively by impulses and instincts. But if you argue that humans have the ability to make moral decisions, than that is only a huge moral argument against our entire species because our western society is founded on the suffering of others. (The idea of humans being a ?successful? species is a huge misconception. A majority of us lives in poverty. )
I know that many like to think that humans have some kind of moral guidance, and when animals display these traits, it is suddenly just a question of instincts. What exactly is that founded on? If a mother rescues her child from a burning building, isn?t that just as much as result of instincts as when a dog rescues a human (any human) from a burning building?
A moral decision is seldom a result of a conscious valuation of the situation, it?s an impulse. And this impulse is the same both when it comes to dogs and humans. If humans were able to make moral decision out of given premises, facts and logics, there would be no meat industry, and there would be trafficking or tobacco industry.
If you ask me, and again this is just me, if a dog is less intelligent, less self-awareness, but more like to act in a way that, given human standards, could be considered moral, then the dog is a better species than humans.
Labcoat Samurai said:
Did they have this loyalty when they were wolves? Man *made* dogs. Perhaps people have been inspired by their loyalty, but they are as loyal as they are because we bred them to be.
No, they are loyal because they are pack animals. Wolves were pack animals, and the qualities they already had, as wolves, allowed them to approach humans and humans to welcome them, millions of years ago.
But if we are to discuss the result of dog breeding, we could also take a look at the bulldog or the dachshund, or any other breed of dog that has been breed too carelessly.
Labcoat Samurai said:
It is not uncommon for animals to show no empathy to other species.
Neither is it for humans.
Labcoat Samurai said:
A scientist would probably find it difficult to experiment on his own pet, but an anonymous test subject is another story. Similarly, a dog doesn't have a problem chasing down and killing a rabbit just for fun, but if it was raised with the rabbit, it generally won't do that. The reason they don't do scientific experimentation is that they don't have the intellectual capacity to do so. It isn't because they have some higher and more noble morality that impedes them.
I don?t think that dogs have some kind of higher morality than humans. But let?s imagine that the reasons behind a dog?s decision to be moral and unselfish were irrelevant, then wouldn?t they give every sign of having a more noble morality than humans?
Labcoat Samurai said:
I've talked to people before who credit animals for their apparently noble behavior, saying that it comes from a deep emotional commitment to their fellow living creatures, and then when you point out the fact that dogs and cats routinely kill innocent creatures, they'll absolve them of responsibility by saying they are only acting on instinct.
This is where each person has to form their own philosophical conviction. My belief is that both animals and humans act on instinct or impulses. So that argument really isn?t applicable to my philosophy.
Labcoat Samurai said:
We accept that humans have minds and experience emotions and feelings because we know that *we* experience them, and we are humans. But it is far harder to ascertain to what extent an animal experiences these things.
That?s why we shouldn?t be so fast when deciding that they don?t.
Labcoat Samurai said:
Source please. My understanding is that most mammals are *not* self-aware.
Do you actually want a source confirming that animals know that they exist? What I meant is that the scientific community finally abandoned the idea of all animals being exclusively driven by instincts during the 80s, and to some point, before that. This must mean that they are self-aware.
But by all means:
Also, self-awareness is a question of semantics. ? In the end it may be this simple principle of self-awareness that distinguishes the living from the nonliving.?
http://www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/selfawareness_animals
Secondly, the test for self-awareness might not be sensitive enough. What little scientific evidence we claim to have are often inherently flawed.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/09/the_test_for_self-awareness_in.html
Thirdly:
?Self awareness is proven by the many behavioral patterns which animals exhibit which suggest, without the shadow of a doubt, the possessions of certain mental stimuli; some of which are: status, pride, self esteem, territoriality, self punishment, self love, supremacy, and submission.?
?Sometimes when animals are passing through stressful situations in which there is no way out, they, in turn, start punishing themselves, for they bestow the anger of failure and frustration towards themselves. If it is a parrot, instead of grooming itself, it might start plucking its own feathers. If it is a dog, it might start chewing on its own fur or chasing after its own tail. These are usually signs of self punishments that can only be seen in beings with a well developed sense of self.?
1997 Samuel Vergio - http://www.strato.net/~crvny/sa03002.htm
And lastly, I think it?s preposterous that we assume that animals do not have self-awareness, and that the opposite must be proven. The logical would be to go the other way around, and require evidence to suggest that they are not self-aware. And there is no such evidence. To quote an article from Scientific American.
?One of the most common misconceptions about brain evolution is that it represents a linear process culminating in the amazing cognitive powers of humans, with the brains of other modern species representing previous stages. Such ideas have even influenced the thinking of neuroscientists and psychologists who compare the brains of different species used in biomedical research. Over the past 30 years, however, research in comparative neuroanatomy clearly has shown that complex brains?and sophisticated cognition?have evolved from simpler brains multiple times independently in separate lineages, or evolutionarily related groups?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=one-world-many-minds
And lastly, according to Mark Bekoff author of? Minding animals: Awareness, Emotions, and Heart?
?Some people don't want to acknowledge the possibility of self-awareness in animals because if they do, the borders between humans and other animals become blurred and their narrow, hierarchical, anthropocentric view of the world would be toppled.?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/200907/do-animals-know-who-they-are
And lastly, http://www.squidoo.com/interestinganimalfacts
Here you can find an accumulation of supposed evidence and examples of animal self-awareness in the animal kingdom.
Labcoat Samurai said:
Most fail the mirror test, for example, which is, as I understand it, the usual way to determine this.
EDIT: not that I personally think the mirror test should be the final word on self-awareness. Nevertheless, awareness of self is only the tip of the iceberg. Human beings additionally possess concept of self. Are you lazy, smart, industrious, mellow, or funny? You probably have ideas about these things.
quote] My dog recognizes herself in a mirror.
I doubt it. Did you conduct the mirror test scientifically? Because it is a well known fact that dogs, as a species, do not pass the mirror test. If yours does, then you have an exceptional and possibly noteworthy dog.
[/quote]
I?m glad you added that ?edit?. The mirror test is a rather stupid, old experiment from the 70s. It was thought of in a time when humans knew less of animal senses and are based upon human awareness and understanding of mirrors, which is the result of our advances visual system. Humans recognize and define things based on vision, whereas dogs, smell things. I?ve heard that humans who have been blind their entire life, and then regain vision, may not recognize themselves in mirrors in the beginning. The reasons why dogs fail mirror tests is mainly because they don?t interpret the world with their eyes to the same extent that humans do. It should also be noted that many gorillas have failed this test, whereas other animals widely considered to be less intelligent has passed. Elephants, magpies, etc.
Because of the many flaws of this test, other more modern and elegant tests have been conducted to test, for example, canine intelligence. Such as Marc Bekoff?s urine test.
But it?s true that I didn?t conduct the mirror test scientifically. I just noticed that she reacted on herself in the mirror initially, but later learnt to ignore it, obviously knowing that the motion in the mirror is just her passing by. She also saw me through the mirror, and reacted on me, so I assumed that if she could also define things seen through the mirror. (And yes, my dog is intelligent. She is a border collie)
Labcoat Samurai said:
My theory is that we see ourselves even in the mentally handicapped. This is the root of compassion in humans. Why do you have more compassion for a dog than a lizard? The dog reminds you more of a person. If there were a giant
spider that possessed as much loyalty, invention, and industry as a dog, the typical human being would still recoil from the thing due to its alien and horrifying appearance.
Probably. I?m not sure what this is supposed to prove, though.
Labcoat Samurai said:
Fundamentally, our morals are based on subjective feelings that we have. Any attempt to assign value to a living thing arises from feelings that have no objective basis in fact or in any sort of absolute morality.
This is the subjective, social factor comes into play. To me, my dog will always be more important to me than you, not because my dog is technically more worthy as a species or anything of the like, but because I know her but not you.
And I think that this is a very good reason as well. This is the only valuation that is applicable to reality.