It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Clearly then, no animal in nature is moral or just. What we may see at times is an unconscious judgement - and therefore a reaction - of animals to acts that are inherently unjust.
For instance, one person mentioned a Chimpanzee that became despondent after his friend was killed. This reaction implied an understanding of the evil done. But it is not a conscious understanding - but an unconscious reaction to an evil; his friend, his companion, was dead. The bare sight of his dead friend elicited an outrage in the monkey.
So, dude, which is it? Animals have a sense of what is "unjust"......and are capable of "condemnation of anothers' actions"......Or they don't and aren't.???
Again, this only shows that morality is indeed a natural demand of nature: it is not so much the individual monkey expressing condemnation in his actions, but natures creator.
this only shows that morality is indeed a natural demand of nature
Irony-ridden because Hauser, who left Harvard having been found guilty of research misconduct, and who has now been accused of plagiarizing the ideas of another scholar, specializes in morality. A philosopher at Princeton argues that in one of his books Hauser used many of the ideas in an unpublished manuscript by a younger scholar – ideas which Hauser sometimes presented as his own. Not only should Hauser “have waited [for the younger scholar] to publish his book before going ahead,” but the more senior scholar should have acknowledged his indebtedness to the younger much more generously and clearly in his book.
Wait, what? Are you saying that animals react to acts that are inherently "unjust"? Hmmm...thuoght your premise was that animals have no sense of justice.
Outrage? If the chimp (ape) showed outrage at his dead friend's death, how is that not a sense of "morality"?
Animals can distinguish between intentional harm and an honest mistake as negligence
Personally I think animals know morality but whatever.
Originally posted by Iron7
Are plants conscious?
Some plants are believed to have the ability to release toxins when they feel threatened by certain animal presences.
In order to be just, one needs to have the ability to disengage from the material world and abstract from any specific situation in order to come to a moral judgement. Outside this, were not talking about justice anymore.
"our sublimation of concepts is secondary and illusional. " I think it's dangerous, and highly misinformed to relay our abilities and experiences - which is higher in the chain of being - with that of lower worlds.
Originally posted by nerbot
Humans are not special.
I disagree. What I am proposing here is that an act could be called just EVEN if the actor did not choose the behavior consciously through reflection upon an abstract concept.
I point out that a distinction could be made between a "sense" of justice, and an "abstract intellectual concept of justice".
You seem to be refering to "self consciousness" not "consciousness". Am I mistaken?
I percieve we are animals and our social animal instincts are intact and active, and yet we use our intellect to deny that and lie to ourselves.
Originally posted by dontreally
An animal doesn't address it's inner states. It only responds to externals - not internals. It does know itself as self existing being.
A 'sense' of justice is nothing more than inchoate instinct.
In any case, it should be understood what kind of sponges dogs are.
Let me clarify what I mean. When I say unconsciousness - I still mean consciousness. Consciousness is an awareness of being. Self consciousness is awareness of my being aware of my being.
Like I said, we have to be careful not to let our praise of animals to turn into a depreciation and whitewashing of what makes human beings special and different.
The category of existence in which we ponder the questions and mysteries of life are unknown to animals - to the laws which govern their relations, the so-called 'law' of natural selection.
Thus, you can take mans ability as a testament to itself - in our unique vantage point in looking at the universe, or, you can ignore the ontological essence of things - in being as being - and reduce man to the level of the actual, material world, with it's determinations in concrete laws.
It seems you still don't understand this difference, yet arrogantly continue on in your stupid argument.
Before you can come to any mature understanding of consciousness, you need to be able comprehend unconscious reactions - a feeling of outrage can also be unconscious - and conscious reflections upon an action, which can also elicit outrage. They are fundamentally different. Consciousness and Unconsciousness; Reason and Emotion. The former is what is human - by which I mean self consciousness, which is the ability to abstract and moralize. The latter is simple reaction: no thinking, no theorizing, no notion of principles.
Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by jeantherapy
By themselves trees have no consciousness but in the forest they become one and develop consciousness. Like a bunch of neurons.
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by smyleegrl
It is a known fact, animals are in no way in possession of even close to the same mental facuties as man. The only people who think so are greenies, that will do anything to change your oppinion.
I mean what are they saying, animals brains have as much potential in a grain of sand as humanbrains in a hand full? Because that makes no sense. Humans haveas much brains at birth, as 1000 dogs, cats, birds, etc to say that we aren't more aware with thousands of times more brains is silly.