can animals choose Virtue?

Postmaster said:
I might agree that animals can choose virtue! But I wont agree that they can show more then humans can.
Click to expand...

They do it every day. Animals are without sin. Man is not. We are higher because God said so, not because of our behavior...
 
Have to disagree, humans are closer to virtue because we have a higher capability for it and it goes hand in hand with our success. And I will stick to saying that Humans carry a bigger burden then animals. Does a chicken really know what’s coming to it when a big blade comes to its head? I'm sure a human would! Our knowledge is our burden, Our knowledge brings us closer to God.

Don't forget our brains our this big from eating meat!
 
Funny when you mention chicken (and since I love sharing stories :D ). I about a silky chicken who always wanted chicks. She would go around trying to care for other hen's chicks but would often be driven off by the mother. Eventually she was able to find a rooster (or adopted some that were abandoned, forgot which one, it's been that long) and loved and cared for them.

One day the hens set up an alarm, a hawk was in the sky. They all rushed inside the coops with their chicks. The silky looked feverly for her chicks and found them a long distance from their coop, so she did the one thing she could do to protect them; she covered them with her body. The hawk killed her instead of her chicks. The farmer watched all of this, and after the hawk left he took care of the silky's chicks.

Also funny that you mention brains (no story this time:( ) I think our brains are so big because there was so much space that needed taking up. I read somewhere we use about 10% (I definitely know it's less than 50%) of our brains. Knowledge varies depending on the one who possess it. Give a rock a brain and it'll have knowledge that spans ages. You'll be surprised how smart crows are, knowing is how to work human tools (open packs, steal fishing rods). The things some animals know might not feel like knowledge to us, or not the same level of knowledge. I admit that they haven't built cities like humans, the closest ones to doing that are beavers (dams) prarie dogs and ants (both have underground tunnel networks), but given enough time and who knows what might happen.
 
Postmaster said:
Have to disagree, humans are closer to virtue because we have a higher capability for it and it goes hand in hand with our success. And I will stick to saying that Humans carry a bigger burden then animals. Does a chicken really know what’s coming to it when a big blade comes to its head? I'm sure a human would! Our knowledge is our burden, Our knowledge brings us closer to God.

Don't forget our brains our this big from eating meat!
Click to expand...

LOL, I am reminded of the servant with 5 talents, the one with 3 talents and the one with 1 talent. I Also am acutely aware that when we die, the animal kingdom has a "feast" ahead of them...and we are the "meat".

What good is capacity, if it isn't used? How much more valuable is the limited capacity of an animal (anima...latin for spirit or soul), that is invested in its own kind or...in us humans?

I'm not suggesting we are lesser, just that often times we don't act to our full capacity, while some animals often do exceed their "capacity" for ours or their own kind's sake...

True man carries the greater burden. But neither "chicken" nor "man" know what's coming, when those we learn to trust, suddenly "snap our collective necks". The look in the dying eyes of both, is shock, confusion, and wonder at "why"?...

In chess, I think this is what might be considered, a "draw".

my 2c

v/r

Q
 
Leafblade said:
Funny when you mention chicken (and since I love sharing stories :D ). I about a silky chicken who always wanted chicks. She would go around trying to care for other hen's chicks but would often be driven off by the mother. Eventually she was able to find a rooster (or adopted some that were abandoned, forgot which one, it's been that long) and loved and cared for them.

One day the hens set up an alarm, a hawk was in the sky. They all rushed inside the coops with their chicks. The silky looked feverly for her chicks and found them a long distance from their coop, so she did the one thing she could do to protect them; she covered them with her body. The hawk killed her instead of her chicks. The farmer watched all of this, and after the hawk left he took care of the silky's chicks.

Also funny that you mention brains (no story this time:( ) I think our brains are so big because there was so much space that needed taking up. I read somewhere we use about 10% (I definitely know it's less than 50%) of our brains. Knowledge varies depending on the one who possess it. Give a rock a brain and it'll have knowledge that spans ages. You'll be surprised how smart crows are, knowing is how to work human tools (open packs, steal fishing rods). The things some animals know might not feel like knowledge to us, or not the same level of knowledge. I admit that they haven't built cities like humans, the closest ones to doing that are beavers (dams) prarie dogs and ants (both have underground tunnel networks), but given enough time and who knows what might happen.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone knows how much we use however, we do know that the "dormant" parts of our brains often begin functioning when another part is damaged beyond repair (true it has to re-learn what we once knew).

In some circles that would be considered as a "redundant system backup"...

;) :eek: :D

v/r

Q
 
Now I wondering if someone suffers a brain injury that leaves them unable to speak, move, or do anything, does another part of the brain activate and does something to keep the conscious patient mentally active in another way? Do they live life in a waking dream like state?
 
Leafblade said:
Now I wondering if someone suffers a brain injury that leaves them unable to speak, move, or do anything, does another part of the brain activate and does something to keep the conscious patient mentally active in another way? Do they live life in a waking dream like state?
Click to expand...

I think sometimes (often called a semi-coma). But I also think that is the time when those close (or who care for the one), must use their efforts to attempt to stimulate the afflicted into full consciousness...

Sometimes it doesn't work, othertimes it works miraculously.

v/r

Q

p.s. animals are great for doing that...especially if there is a bond between the animal and the human...
 
One day the hens set up an alarm, a hawk was in the sky. They all rushed inside the coops with their chicks. The silky looked feverly for her chicks and found them a long distance from their coop, so she did the one thing she could do to protect them; she covered them with her body. The hawk killed her instead of her chicks. The farmer watched all of this, and after the hawk left he took care of the silky's chicks.
Click to expand...

Chickens don't mother there offspring after birth only for a short while if that even I think. There not programmed to do so. I'm sure there is extreme cases in any animal activity behavior. Self sacrifice for the protection of others is something that can be connected to virtue because there is no logical explanation for it and don't care what theories are out there.
 
Postmaster said:
Chickens don't mother there offspring after birth only for a short while if that even I think. There not programmed to do so. I'm sure there is extreme cases in any animal activity behavior. Self sacrifice for the protection of others is something that can be connected to virtue because there is no logical explanation for it and don't care what theories are out there.
Click to expand...

That is because "biddies" are hatched pretty much ready to fend for themselves. ducklings on the other hand stay very close to the Hen, for a season, in order to learn how to survive. And the Hen is extremely protective of her brood.

Primates will carry their young and tend to them for 1 to 2 years. They are even known to carry the dead baby for days, trying to get them to move. Almost like, "If I love you more, you'll wake up". It has been noted that a mother primate will go off into the woods and die, of broken heart, due to the death of a baby.

Animals have a body and a soul.

Man has body, soul and a "spirit". That spirit is the only thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Virtue, does not come from the spirit, since the spirit is part of God and a gift to man, but not the definer of how we behave (that is obvious in today's world). Therefore the "virtue" must be part of the soul. Perhaps the "spirit" is man's only saving grace, since it seems we are the most destructive of all the animal species on the planet. (no, I'm not going tree-hugger on you). What I am saying is that from observation, of all the animals on the planet, man seems to be short in the "virtue" section. Indeed, rats tend to show more compassion and concern for their own kind than man does for his own kind, let alone the rest of the world.

Even biblically speaking Post, the dogs shewn more compassion for the dying beggar, than his fellow men (by attempting to lick his sores).

I think, that if I were stranded in a forest and had one of a series of companions of similar survival characteristics to choose from to be with me (man or wolf/dog/cat/ape), I would choose the animal.

Why? Man does not care of virtue when it is life or death. Man does not care of virtue unless he deliberately chooses to. Animals do not comprehend death as we do. And by nature they want to be close to man (that is the original design). So their potential virtue remains intact. They want to please the "master" (also by design). Man fights over who is master (very unvirtuous).

Loyalty is a virtue. Man has a hard time learning that, but animals are much quicker.

Life is precious, yet man will let it slip away (out of self preservation), animals tend to try to save it despite the hazard to their own preservation.

Ya know, maybe you are correct, humans choose virtue, but with animals it is hard wired.

my thoughts.

v/r

Q
 
Postmaster said:
Just curious to your views in regards to this, does anyone think animals can choose virtue?
Click to expand...
If by virtue is meant the morals that is not relevant to animals because they just act on their intuition. I quote hereunder a thought provoking passage from the book, The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam, written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad: http://www.alislam.org/books/philosophy/1q3.html
“We have already stated that natural conditions are not something distinct from moral conditions. When they are regulated and are used on their proper occasions, under the direction of reason, they acquire a moral character. Before they are controlled by reason and understanding they have not the character of moral qualities, but are natural impulses, however much they might resemble moral qualities. For instance, if a dog or lamb displays affection or docility towards its master it would not be described as moral or good mannered In the same way a wolf or a tiger would not be described as ill-mannered on account of its wildness.
A moral state emerges after reflection and regard for time and occasion come into play. A person who does not exercise reason and deliberation is like a child whose mind and intellect are not yet governed by reason, or is like a madman who has lost his reason and good sense. A child or a mad man sometimes behaves in a manner that has the appearance of moral action, but no sensible person calls such conduct moral, as such conduct does not proceed from good sense and appropriateness, but is a natural reaction to the circumstances.”
Thanks
 
inhumility said:
If by virtue is meant the morals that is not relevant to animals because they just act on their intuition. I quote hereunder a thought provoking passage from the book, The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam, written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad: http://www.alislam.org/books/philosophy/1q3.html
“We have already stated that natural conditions are not something distinct from moral conditions. When they are regulated and are used on their proper occasions, under the direction of reason, they acquire a moral character. Before they are controlled by reason and understanding they have not the character of moral qualities, but are natural impulses, however much they might resemble moral qualities. For instance, if a dog or lamb displays affection or docility towards its master it would not be described as moral or good mannered In the same way a wolf or a tiger would not be described as ill-mannered on account of its wildness.
A moral state emerges after reflection and regard for time and occasion come into play. A person who does not exercise reason and deliberation is like a child whose mind and intellect are not yet governed by reason, or is like a madman who has lost his reason and good sense. A child or a mad man sometimes behaves in a manner that has the appearance of moral action, but no sensible person calls such conduct moral, as such conduct does not proceed from good sense and appropriateness, but is a natural reaction to the circumstances.”
Thanks
Click to expand...

How does one explain the affection and docility of the tiger and the wolf and the ape towards man, despite their wildness? Are they not deliberately going against their basic nature? ;)

my thought

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
How does one explain the affection and docility of the tiger and the wolf and the ape towards man, despite their wildness? Are they not deliberately going against their basic nature?
Q
Click to expand...
Sir,
That is because of a long association or domestication of the animals,it is possible but nevertheless it does not change their nature or intuitions altogether and remain hidden in them.The animals and other life has been created for service of the man, I think this also exhibits that.Thanks
 
inhumility said:
Sir,
That is because of a long association or domestication of the animals,it is possible but nevertheless it does not change their nature or intuitions altogether and remain hidden in them.The animals and other life has been created for service of the man, I think this also exhibits that.Thanks
Click to expand...

Ok. How does it explain wild animals of the same species not "killing" man, and becoming as I first suggested?

You can't. You've never dealt with it.
 
Postmaster said:
Just curious to your views in regards to this, does anyone think animals can choose virtue?
Click to expand...

Well, what do you mean by “virtue” ?

For example:

  • Moral excellence.
or

  • Valued traits, such as cunning, nurturing, truthfulness and sympathy (from a long list on Wikipedia).
What do you mean by “choose”? How could you test this in an animal?

What animals? Ants? Elephants?

We cannot know what it is like to experience life as another species (think of the bat and how it “perceives” the world). We cannot even know how another person really thinks; we can only be inside our own mind. There is a zen saying “We cannot even share a fart.” (I jest not!!!).

So my answers are yes possibly, no possibly and don’t know.

Yes possibly, for (say) a cat being cunning. This is self evident in their hunting.

No, possibly, for (say) a cat being truthful or having a moral stance as both are man-made concepts and therefore can only be applicable to humans.

And don’t know because my other two answers are only possiblys.

s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top