| deviantART Related / Deviant Stamps | ©2010-2013 ~moodyblues |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness |
Such face-palm inducing hypocrisy I hear over the web, when the computers they use are less natural than what they're debating (usually homosexuality/vegetarianism)
Who gives a shit if something's natural or not, it doesn't make it good or bad
With that said, I agree that humans shouldn't elevate other animals as if they were somehow better than us because they don't destroy nature or haven't invented the atomic bomb or whatever. I hate it whenever some misanthrope says stuff like: "I hate humans, we should be more like (X animal), they don't do these horrible things". Animals may not do bad things on such an advanced level as humans do, but certainly the same types of things most humans are capable of as well on a very basic level, such as rape, incest etc. Animals aren't innocent, we just don't hold them liable for their actions the way we do with our own species.
I'm curious - could you explain how animals have their own sense of morality? Can you give an example? I mean, I guess if you're kind to a dog, it generally won't tear off your face, but is that morality or instinct?
Heh, you make great points about misanthropes. Saying animals are more moral than us because they haven't invented the atomic bomb is silly. They haven't done it because they can't do it. It's like praising an undateable lecher for his celibacy.
NYTimes article:
[link]
"Social living requires empathy, which is especially evident in chimpanzees, as well as ways of bringing internal hostilities to an end. Every species of ape and monkey has its own protocol for reconciliation after fights, Dr. de Waal has found. If two males fail to make up, female chimpanzees will often bring the rivals together, as if sensing that discord makes their community worse off and more vulnerable to attack by neighbors. Or they will head off a fight by taking stones out of the males’ hands."
I can't find an article about it right now, but I recall hearing about a surprisingly complex social code among a pack of wolves. Another male wolf wanted to challenge the alpha leader for his position. As I recall it, the alpha refused to fight, despite the other male's continuous attempts to provoke him. Somehow even though they didn't openly fight, there was an understanding among the pack that because of his provocative behavior, the non-alpha male should be shunned and punished. The rest of the pack drove him out and refused to let him near again. So basically the non-alpha did something the group considered unacceptable behavior and punished him by excluding him from the pack, basically condemning him to starvation and isolation, even though there had been no open hostilities.
Humans and all other animals exhibit similar behavior. We may have more complex methods of communication amongst ourselves, all kinds of varying levels of acceptable and unacceptable behavior, but that is ultimately what constitutes what we call morality. A social code where the ones who don't agree with the generally accepted standards of behavior are shunned and sometimes punished. Anything we label as morality is basically just an extension of this.
And yeah, our prehuman ancestors were animalistic because... well, they were animals. They couldn't step back and sort out the morality of an action. All they had was emotion and instincts.
But to always see animals as role models for all things is going a bit far, I mean, why are wolves so great anyway? Is the lion really a great inspiration even though the male does little to no hunting?