[quote
Dogs contain empathy for humans as well, but does this mean they know right from wrong, or do they contain an instinct which tells them when something or someone is hurting. A sense of loyalty and empathy are just examples of instinct that some animals contain quote]

I think it is naive to believe that humans have this intrinsic sense of what is right or wrong. They are principles that are taught. One just has to look at different cultures to see that. It is wrong to kill other humans, but people still do it regardless for their own purposes. Take suicide bombers, for example..you and I know that it is wrong to take another life (however, unlike you I hold that to mean ALL life - ie animals-not just those lives worthy or for my gain). Suicide bombers truly believe that their actions are not wrong..so how do you account for them? What about those cultures that do kill infants or practice cannibalism?

Do you honestly believe that if you take a newborn human and raise it without any sense of consequence or not teach it values such as right or wrong, it would be naturally moralistic?

quote:

My dog, for example, once found an injured baby rabbit. Instead of ripping it to shreads, she picked it up gently in her mouth and brought it to me, placing it gentlly at my feet. I never tought her to be kind to that rabbit. She had never even encountred a baby rabbit before. but somehow she knew not to kill it. This may have been because of our reaction to other baby animals, but how would she reconized that she should not kill a rabbit?

I think that is a fair point, but I struggle with deciding whether your dog did that out of a sense of morality, or whether you dog has am empathetic instinc. I think it is probably the latter.

Dogs contain empathy for humans as well, but does this mean they know right from wrong, or do they contain an instinct which tells them when something or someone is hurting. A sense of loyalty and empathy are just examples of instinct that some animals contain.

Oh sry I didn't read the last sentance of your reply. But still, animals can get over fears.

P.S. the reason I named all those horses was to show you that animals make mistakes despite consequences.

Oh, so now you'r claiming animals don't learn to get over fears? Wrong. That horse that's afraid of rocks, after working with him for a month or so, he is no longer afraid of rocks. He doesn't like rocks, but will walk past them no problem.
And, animals know right from wrong. My dog, for example, once found an injured baby rabbit. Instead of ripping it to shreads, she picked it up gently in her mouth and brought it to me, placing it gentlly at my feet. I never tought her to be kind to that rabbit. She had never even encountred a baby rabbit before. but somehow she knew not to kill it. This may have been because of our reaction to other baby animals, but how would she reconized that she should not kill a rabbit?

Of course I have spent time around real live animals. Listen, this issue is not about certain personalities animals posess. I have never said that animals are all like living robots who all have the same reaction to certain stimuli. I am saying that animals have no sense of right and wrong. As humans, we may be afraid of the dark, but sleeping with the lights off for a few nights relieves this fear. Or maybe we simply learn to live with our fear. Either way, we see that our fear of the dark is actually irrational. Animals have fear, but cannot get over that fear through reason. They either live constantly afraid and probably die of the stress they cause themselves, or a human trains them out of the fear through a combination of negative and positive reinforcment. This is the fundamental difference.

OK, sorry BushSupporter, I wanted to make sure that that is what you meant before I tell you what I mean.
Question for you...How much time do you actually spend with animals? I mean real, live animals, not just watch AnimalPlanet, or read books. That said, let me continue...
ARE YOU KIDING ME!!!! Animals make mistakes, and you can kich, spank, yell at them all you want and they won't change! I spend a whole lot of time with horses, and I know this for a fact. Some horses just really don't care.
In my perspective, all horses have a certain personality, well maybe not a personality, so I'll call them 'horse-onalities'. I'll show you...
example 1; Taz:
Taz really doesn't care what you want him to do. I've been riding for years, and sometimes he just will not listen to me. I might have my western spurs on and be kicking him and I might have my riding crop and be hitting him, but he does not care. He will not get off the back wall of the arenea (sp.?). That is until I let him run. He will run until sweat foam is dripping from his neck. Then he does care if I pull him back. He does not care if I run him into a wall. He won't stop till someone shows him food.
example 2: Joker
Joker is pretty old, past his 30s, so he knows alot. When I take him out on trail, he refuses to walk through mud or manure. I have tried to walk him through the mud but he will not. He will either stand and gawk at what's infront of him or decide to walk through the woods . (where I get poison ivy) Don't say that's instinct, because other horses don't mind. I say that's experiance and wit. I can't punish him for not wanting to walk through mud/manure because one: that would be just stupid two: he is too old.
exaple three: many horses
Lot's of horses have random fears. Some horses that I've met/worked with are afraid of rocks, one side of the arenea/trail or riding crops. Some of theses horses, yes, have had this fear put into them by people who have used the crop horrifically, or a snake that was hiding behind a rock, but some just come from nowhere. One of the mares I ride was fine walking through the corner of the ring and the next day I took her out and she wouldn't walk through it. No one hade riden her since I had, so she somehow developed that fear over night for no reason.
Sorry this was long, and all these examples a horses, I have other animal examles too.

as quoted by bushsupporter:
[quote]Every human can't do the same because we don't operate on consequences and instinct. Animals do. We still make bad choices despite the consquences. Animals don't.]

oh btw..yes we do base our actions on consequences. we don't touch hot things because the consequences means pain and injury. furthermore, do you really believe that if the human world as we know it, had no law or punishment, that it would be safe? i don't think so. when faced with moral dilemnas, it are the consequences of our actions that predominate our reasoning.

and we do rely on instinct...what about flight or fight? when faced with a situation of danger, humans do react based on animalistic instinct, and that is to survive.

and animals do make choices..one just has to look at the hierarchical systems of pack and group animals..younger males do make choices as to whether they should challenge the dominate male...the weaker ones make the choice to stand down.

[quote]Every human can't do the same because we don't operate on consequences and instinct. Animals do. We still make bad choices despite the consquences. Animals don't.



so what drives humans? morals or consequences? i'm sorry..you can't claim that we are superior based on moralities, yet make excuses for individuals.

[quote

Murderers and rapists have something wrong with them. They are animal-like in their uncontrolable instincts to harm people. They have no morality.quote]


Animal-like in their behaviour? I'm sorry, but animals kill for specific purposes- to survive as well as keep their respective social orders..not because of some "uncontrollable urge" to cause harm. If that's the case then there are certain humans that should be considered of less "moral" worth than animals. You can't claim human superiority over non-human animals based on morals or intelligence, when humans are continually doing things that don't reflect these.

quote:

Originally posted by horseartistgrl27:

quote:

Every human can't do the same because we don't operate on consequences and instinct. Animals do. We still make bad choices despite the consquences. Animals don't.

Are you seriously proposing that animals don't make mistakes because of consequence? HAHAHA (sry)

Is that an argument? I think not.

Why don't you give me an example of what you are talking about. That is, if you want to make an argument.

quote:

Every human can't do the same because we don't operate on consequences and instinct. Animals do. We still make bad choices despite the consquences. Animals don't.

Are you seriously proposing that animals don't make mistakes because of consequence? HAHAHA (sry)

quote:

Originally posted by alnswed:

quote:

No, animals don't have morals. They operate differently, yes but not under a different moral system. The operate out of instinct and the threat and knowledge of consequences. Your dog doesn't dig through the trash because he has a moral aversion, he doesn't do it because he gets punnished.

This is in response to Bushsupporter: Humans base their actions on consequences- a child is taught what is right or wrong, based on whether they're rewarded or punished. Our moral code is not based on an intrinsic 'wiring', it is based on what our society deems as being acceptable or not.

I'd just like to pose this thought:

If humans are the only living entities that have morals, than how do youe explain those who do not live by a set moral condition, such as serial murderers, rapists and the like?

At least with a dog, if it knows what it is doing is "wrong" by those who set its limitions, than why can't EVERY human do the same?

Every human can't do the same because we don't operate on consequences and instinct. Animals do. We still make bad choices despite the consquences. Animals don't.

Murderers and rapists have something wrong with them. They are animal-like in their uncontrolable instincts to harm people. They have no morality.

Humans may be taught at a young age about consequences but human morality is what keeps people from doing things when they get older. There are really no consequences for stealing a 10 cent pack of gum, but you don't do it because you know it is wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by horseartistgrl27:

No, animals do have different morals that we may not consider to be morals. And because we have morlas, we should treat animals fairly because that's why we have morals (we have morals for a whole bunch of different reasons too, I know).
Even if we are the most superior being on earth, we don't own the whole earth, and we don't have the right to do what ever we want with it. We were given morals so we can take care of the earth and show mercy to animals/people and apperciate value.

If by animal morals you mean instinct then I agree with you. I am not an advocate of burning puppies alive or animal cruelty. I think there should be harsher punishments for that stuff. That doesn't change the fact that humans are superior.

quote:

No, animals don't have morals. They operate differently, yes but not under a different moral system. The operate out of instinct and the threat and knowledge of consequences. Your dog doesn't dig through the trash because he has a moral aversion, he doesn't do it because he gets punnished.

This is in response to Bushsupporter: Humans base their actions on consequences- a child is taught what is right or wrong, based on whether they're rewarded or punished. Our moral code is not based on an intrinsic 'wiring', it is based on what our society deems as being acceptable or not.

I'd just like to pose this thought:

If humans are the only living entities that have morals, than how do youe explain those who do not live by a set moral condition, such as serial murderers, rapists and the like?

At least with a dog, if it knows what it is doing is "wrong" by those who set its limitions, than why can't EVERY human do the same?

No, animals do have different morals that we may not consider to be morals. And because we have morlas, we should treat animals fairly because that's why we have morals (we have morals for a whole bunch of different reasons too, I know).
Even if we are the most superior being on earth, we don't own the whole earth, and we don't have the right to do what ever we want with it. We were given morals so we can take care of the earth and show mercy to animals/people and apperciate value.

quote:

You should read Spot Paine's Second Dog Treatise on Dog Government. It has really interesting ideas on Dogs in the state of nature. Beyond that, Fido Rousseau really expands the difference between Natural Dog and Social Dog.

I just read them, very good books both. I had to get the translated versions tohough. I don't speak dog.

quote:

No, animals don't have morals.

You should read Spot Paine's Second Dog Treatise on Dog Government. It has really interesting ideas on Dogs in the state of nature. Beyond that, Fido Rousseau really expands the difference between Natural Dog and Social Dog.

No, animals don't have morals. They operate differently, yes but not under a different moral system. The operate out of instinct and the threat and knowledge of consequences. Your dog doesn't dig through the trash because he has a moral aversion, he doesn't do it because he gets punnished.

I have two views to this whole 'animal morals' thing...

1. Christain Prespective
All animals and humans are directed by God. He has planned out everything to do according to what he has planned for it. He has given PEOPLE the decision to live according to centain morals (murder, lifestyle, etc.) He has made ANIMALS to have different morals.

(here is what I say to those of you who do not believe in God)

2. Scientific-er Perspective:
Animals have different morals than humans do. Take the wolf for example; wolves have a domiante order to their packs. The alpha male and female have rights reserved for them only. This includes the right to breed, feed first, and act a certain way. If an other wolf changes the alpha's dominancy, it is making the moral decision to either be injured, killed, kicked out from the pack, or be alpha. In this way they are choising to respect or disreaspect the right of the alpha.

We as humans have been given the moral ability to give animals right

( please excuse my spelling mistakes)

That's killing not murder. Something would stop you from murder. That's moraltiy. If nothing stops you from murder, you have extreme psychopathic problems. Morality is what seperates Man from beast.

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:

quote:

I'll reiterate: Morals would not exist if it weren't for our understanding of social consequence. Undesirable consequences are how we learn what is right and what is wrong. A lot of people think it's ok to sleep around, until they get infected with AIDS, then their morals are changed due to that consequence.

Consequences, the ones we have experienced and the ones we are warned of (such as going to hell), shape our morals.

You failed to answer my question directly. If you were able to get away with murder, no consequences whatsoever, would you do it?

I didn't answer your question directly because it's a weird question. But if I were in a situation where I could murder someone without consequence, I wouldn't do it if it didn't benefit me or other people. I would only kill those who are a danger to society. Sorta like Capital Punishment or Death Note...