Postmaster said:I might agree that animals can choose virtue! But I wont agree that they can show more then humans can.
They do it every day. Animals are without sin. Man is not. We are higher because God said so, not because of our behavior...
Postmaster said:I might agree that animals can choose virtue! But I wont agree that they can show more then humans can.
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!
Leafblade said:Funny when you mention chicken (and since I love sharing stories). 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.htmlPostmaster said:Just curious to your views in regards to this, does anyone think animals can choose virtue?
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
Sir,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
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
Just curious to your views in regards to this, does anyone think animals can choose virtue?
Just curious to your views in regards to this, does anyone think animals can choose virtue?
Hello all:
I ran into this article on the NYTimes website and it applies to the discussion. What are your thoughts about this approach... or perhaps the anti-evolution crowd will try to drown a healty discusssion on an otherwise important issue ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html?ref=science&pagewanted=all
flow....![]()