reply to post by Maslo
Oh be careful - you've just said what I've said, and everyone - or mostly everyone here - is completely convinced, I don't know how, that animal
sentience somehow involves sapience i.e. wisdom, understanding.
Does a 3 or 4 year old - who I as well likened the behavior of an animal to (and so their conscious might be similar) - understand morality?? I have
never seen such a kid. My sister works as an ECE, and we have conversations about this all the time. Children at this point in life only experience
base emotions, everything being an extension of themselves, therefore,they want and need and yell and complain: but when it comes to understanding the
wrongness of a certain way of acting, they don't have the ability to reflect and compare, and so realize the justness or unjustness of an action. Even
their admittance of "I was wrong" - like the dog, is nothing but a repetition of what the adult wants you to acknowledge that you did wrong, and not a
genuine understanding. Reflection - which is the full blossoming of a self consciousness mind that feels itself in it's entirety, and thus experiences
a sense of responsibility to the externals of life, does not exist for a child of that age; nor does it exist for any animal, dog, chimp etc.
Earlier on a poster here argued that she conducted an experiment trying to show (already compromising her results) that dogs have a sense of justice,
and so morality: she has two dogs; she gave one dog a larger piece of treat than the other dog. When the other dog realized it had been given less,
she went up to the owner and made an awkward face, which, to the eyes of the owner, implied to her that the dog recognized the unjustness of that
What REALLY happened, and this only highlights the mental immaturity of the woman who made that claim, is first and foremost, the expression of a base
Dogs are scavengers. This is how they subsist outside their domesticated state with man. When one scavenger dog sees a carcass on the ground, it goes
for it. And if there other dogs with it, they each fight for a larger piece of the whole. What she saw as an expression of injustice, was nothing but
the dog turning to her caregiver - her interlocutor, and jealousy asking for more, because this dog was given more. It was not a reflection upon the
rightness or wrongness of that dog having more, but a realization and recognition that her jealousy can only be remedied by going to her owner - by
petitioning her through her dumb faces that she wants more.
To argue otherwise is to show a complete lack of analytical ability.
edit on 1-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)