deviant art

Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
[x]
Download Image
PNG, 99×56
more ▶

More from ~moodyblues

Featured in Groups:

Details

October 26, 2010
2.9 KB
99×56
Link
Thumb

Statistics

Comments: 15
Favourites: 21 [who?]

Views: 605 (0 today)
Downloads: 5 (0 today)
[x]
:iconmoodyblues:
(Yeah, another grouchy stamp. Sorry, but I had this in mind for the longest time, and I just had to get it out.)

Don't justify your morality by comparing certain human actions to those of animals and saying it's "part of the natural order," unless you're prepared to defend rape, murder, cannibalism, and incest.

You can't blame animals for their actions because they can't make choices. People can. There's a difference.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconpocket-fulla-shells:
~Pocket-fulla-shells Mar 15, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
'It's natural, so it's OK' - 'It's unnatural, we shouldn't be doing it'

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
Reply
:iconmugourth:
Saying animals can't make choices is a bit of a stretch, to be honest. Animals don't have the same intelligence that humans have, but that doesn't mean they can't make choices.
Reply
:iconmoodyblues:
Hmm... well, I guess some animals can make choices - like a dog choosing wet food over dry food. I don't think they can make moral choices, though.
Reply
:iconjesskat-art:
*JessKat-art Jan 22, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well, technically, humans are animals too. It's true that we have perhaps more choice in the moral choices we make (that's not to say some groups of animals don't have their own sense of morality as well), but while it's no justification for such acts, things like rape, incest and murder do happen because of our natural instincts. Some people are just better at fighting their impulses than others.

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.
Reply
:iconmoodyblues:
Biologically speaking, yeah, you're absolutely right - people are animals, too. And that's part of the reason why we feel tempted to do immoral things. Then again, certain "animal" instincts (like mother love, loyalty, and self-preservation) are very good. I guess the whole business of morality is figuring out when these instincts are good and choosing to act on them.

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. :giggle:
Reply
:iconjesskat-art:
*JessKat-art Jan 22, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
There have been studies about a certain type of primitive morality emerging among for example primates and wolf packs. I'm not sure if "morality" is really the right word to use, since morality is ultimately a human concept and likely to vary somewhat depending on where in the world you happen to reside. The type of "morality" observed in animals is more like an accepted social code, which is ultimately what human morality comes down to as well. Animals seem to know instinctively what kind of behavior is desirable for the benefit of the group, not just for themselves.

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.
Reply
:iconmare-of-the-sea:
I've seen people do this to justify the holocaust and rwandan genocide as well as childrape. Dx Not once have I felt disgusted that people would use this argument. Sure, our prehistoric counterparts may have been 'animalistic' (for a lack of a better word), but we've evolved since.
Reply
:iconmoodyblues:
Seriously? Eugh. I've only heard that defense used in debates about homosexuality (for and against).

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.
Reply
:iconhanksbeaniehat:
*HanksBeanieHat Oct 27, 2010  Student Digital Artist
Actually, whilst I agree, you cannot deny humans have gotten inspiration from animals, surely you know of Robert the Bruce and the spider?

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?
Reply
:iconmoodyblues:
Hee, you're right. And I've been inspired by animals, too. For example, I admire dogs' unconditional love. I just think it's weird to emulate animals just because they're "natural."
Reply
Add a Comment: