Is Anthropocentrism Justified?

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by mikelus
whats separates us from animals is power. In other words we don't let the animal eat us.

All the animals that can eat people still manage to do it in this day and age. In India and Southast Asia, people still get eaten by tigers. Divers and snorkelers disappear when there are great whites around. Grizzley bears have killed and eaten humans. Anyone who dies without being embalmed or cremated gets eaten by insects and bacteria.

Dosen't that embark a new terrority on the food chain list. But yes we still have a heart and mind.

I don't think the food chain is a good representation of people's superior power. More important is our ability to seize and control huge amounts of territory for our own purposes. The main difference still boils down to our use of language: Gorillas still don't use the internet.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Zero
Most of the things pointed out are mere differences in degree, which is no justification for saying that humans are anything more than just another animal. We humans are better at the things that make us human, but those qualities do not make us different or better than other animals. I am a better guitarist than I am a football player, but it doesn't make me superior to or qualitatively different from an NFL player. Other animals are uniquely suited for their niche, as are humans...but that doesn't make us any less of a member of the animal kingdom.

You must be referring to humans that are not human. American dictionary meaning. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character that distinguish human beings from the lower animals. Humans have emotions.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Hummm, has never seen a Great Ape Beating it's own chest, a demonstration of EgO(?)

It is not a demonstration of an ego, but a demonstration of victory or supremacy. There's a difference (in case you can't see it on your own, the difference is that an ego is a conscious choice, while declarations of supremacy can occur without an sentience on the part of the animal).

Oh and BTW not all humans are Egotistical, either!

But only humans (not every individual, but as a species) have been stupid enough to declare themselves "superior" to the other animals when: 1) "Superiority" does not even exist in a Darwinian framework; and 2) We are the least adapted to life on this planet, and pose the greatest threat to ourselves and the planet itself, and are thus (if we're going to play the "I'm better than you" game) significantly inferior to the rest of the Animal Kingdom.

By Nature?? don't you mean by choice, as that is what our advantage is, we get to choose, they, "the rest of the animals", don't!

If we could choose, we would never have chosen the destructiveness that we have now, but would have learned to "get along" with the rest of nature and with each other. The destructiveness is part of our nature.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by mikelus
whats separates us from animals is power. In other words we don't let the animal eat us. Dosen't that embark a new terrority on the food chain list. But yes we still have a heart and mind.

And that so-called "power" is our own greatest threat...we have no advantage that does not come with a greater or equal disadvantage.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
You must be referring to humans that are not human. American dictionary meaning. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character that distinguish human beings from the lower animals. Humans have emotions.

Other, semi-sentient, animals have semi-emotions. Besides, the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "humans" as:

A bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs.


Clearly, we are mammals, and mammals are animals.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
It is not a demonstration of an ego, but a demonstration of victory or supremacy. There's a difference (in case you can't see it on your own, the difference is that an ego is a conscious choice, while declarations of supremacy can occur without an sentience on the part of the animal).
But only humans (not every individual, but as a species) have been stupid enough to declare themselves "superior" to the other animals when: 1) "Superiority" does not even exist in a Darwinian framework; and 2) We are the least adapted to life on this planet, and pose the greatest threat to ourselves and the planet itself, and are thus (if we're going to play the "I'm better than you" game) significantly inferior to the rest of the Animal Kingdom.
If we could choose, we would never have chosen the destructiveness that we have now, but would have learned to "get along" with the rest of nature and with each other. The destructiveness is part of our nature.

A question, why do you equate superior with a seeming need of proof of good nature, as opposed to bad nature?

Superior simply means "better then at..." fill in the blank/language (which equals a lot of history they have no access to)

Our destructiveness is still an indication of Superior ability, perhaps an even more obvious one.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
A question, why do you equate superior with a seeming need of proof of good nature, as opposed to bad nature?

Superior simply means "better then at..." fill in the blank/language (which equals a lot of history they have no access to)

Our destructiveness is still an indication of Superior ability, perhaps an even more obvious one.

The problem is that anthropocentric philosophies - even yours - do not meet up with your own qualifications of what "superior" means. I can say that a bird is "better than" humans "at..." flying. I can also say that every other animal on Earth is "better than" humans "at..." coexisting with the rest of the environment. So, anthropocentricism is unwarranted and illogical.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mentat
Other, semi-sentient, animals have semi-emotions. Besides, the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "humans" as:

A bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs.

Clearly, we are mammals, and mammals are animals.

So animals have semi-emotions; That could be a nice new thread. I will not say anymore on that for the time being.

Thats a nice scientific description of humans.

A dictionary meaning of ANYTHING is NOTHING more than a general conscensus of the author and his superiors who pay him to publish it. Whats more important is mine and your description of everything. Its called peace of mind. What the other says reinforece your own description, to your satisfaction. There is no one answer to describe anything, all descriptions equal the total descriptive reality of anything.

Thats very true also. May I add we are KING of the the animal kingdom. The only Mammmanimal that has a intellect to question its origin and ask Who we are? Why we are?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
The problem is that anthropocentric philosophies - even yours - do not meet up with your own qualifications of what "superior" means. I can say that a bird is "better than" humans "at..." flying. I can also say that every other animal on Earth is "better than" humans "at..." coexisting with the rest of the environment. Yes you can, but it would be a lie![/color] So, anthropocentricism is unwarranted and illogical.

It is in human history that we have very successfully co-existed with the environment.

So you seem to think that birds are better a flying then Humans, you mean 'like' as a natural function of corporeal being, cause Humans IS WAAAAAAAY better at flying then ANY BIRD!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
So animals have semi-emotions; That could be a nice new thread. I will not say anymore on that for the time being.

Thats a nice scientific description of humans.

A dictionary meaning of ANYTHING is NOTHING more than a general conscensus of the author and his superiors who pay him to publish it. Whats more important is mine and your description of everything. Its called peace of mind. What the other says reinforece your own description, to your satisfaction. There is no one answer to describe anything, all descriptions equal the total descriptive reality of anything.

Thats very true also. May I add we are KING of the the animal kingdom. The only Mammmanimal that has a intellect to question its origin and ask Who we are? Why we are?

We are not the "king" of anything, we are the BANE of the rest of nature, at almost every turn.

 

[Eddie French]

My my,
Let's all just forget the most important attribute of all.
What we have that 'Lifts' us above the animal kingdom (Let's not even talk about opposable thumbs or articulated elbows) is compassion!
Did you ever hear about a lion that paused for even a second before suffocating a wilderbeast with a well positionded fang?

No?

This is what makes us human

No amount of advanced physiology can come close to explaining this 'difference'

We are human because we feel. That is all there is to it.

 

[Rader]

The difference between any organic entity or inorganic is, that the human species can evolve above and beyond its works to ascend the ladder of ideas and transcend its actual works.

 

[Eddie French]

Originally posted by Rader
The difference between any organic entity or inorganic is, that the human species can evolve above and beyond its works to ascend the ladder of ideas and transcend its actual works.

That's a nice quote, and it reads really well.
However, It does not move me. It has no romance, no art.
This is what defines us as human.
Try again, tickle my intellect!

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Eddie French
That's a nice quote, and it reads really well.
However, It does not move me. It has no romance, no art.
This is what defines us as human.
Try again, tickle my intellect!

OK I will, is this romantic and artistic enough?

The beauty of creation is in its diversity and its strife for perfection. Rader

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
We are not the "king" of anything, we are the BANE of the rest of nature, at almost every turn.

And yet, in the measure of the "Milk Of Human Kindness" that is present/existing/working in the world, today, it's continuance as 'Normal' is a testament to the very fact of the opposite of that very true aspect of reality, as it is present in both views (A balance) as would only be capable in such as present society. (as in Radio/television/internet*[/color])

EDIT * Oooops and Newspapers/Journals/Magazines/BOOKS/etc./etc.[/color]

 

[Eddie French]

Originally posted by Rader
OK I will, is this romantic and artistic enough?

The beauty of creation is in its diversity and its strife for perfection. Rader

It certainly seems to be so. But it was creation and the quest for perfection which set us out on the path to arrive where we are now. it has not been the guiding hand on that journey. There is perfection in the successful kill of the hungry lion, but as I said before, where is the compassion in that?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Eddie French
It certainly seems to be so. But it was creation and the quest for perfection which set us out on the path to arrive where we are now. it has not been the guiding hand on that journey. There is perfection in the successful kill of the hungry lion, but as I said before, where is the compassion in that?

The "Quest for Perfection" is an entirely Human notion, the Universe itself is perfect, from it's creation.

The "Compassion" of the lion, is in it's ability to feed it's cubs, where you been?

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Eddie French
It certainly seems to be so. But it was creation and the quest for perfection which set us out on the path to arrive where we are now. it has not been the guiding hand on that journey. There is perfection in the successful kill of the hungry lion, but as I said before, where is the compassion in that?

Creation is the work, perfection is the quest, the CREATOR is the moving force that imbeded in the work his image and likeness.

The compassion is > the end justifies the means if the parameter is perfection.

 

[Eddie French]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
The "Quest for Perfection" is an entirely Human notion, the Universe itself is perfect, from it's creation.

I've been around.
You agree with me, though it seems that you do not fully see it.

The "Compassion" of the lion, is in it's ability to feed it's cubs, where you been?

You Anthropomorphise here. The lion does not 'feel' compassion in its ability to feed its cubs. It is merely a survival trait; instinctive, as when it kills cubs belonging to a vanquished ex alpha male.

 

[Eddie French]

I think I'm going to 'Drop' the lion now. It seems to be taking on a life of its own. I never meant it to

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eddie French
My my,
Let's all just forget the most important attribute of all.
What we have that 'Lifts' us above the animal kingdom (Let's not even talk about opposable thumbs or articulated elbows) is compassion!
Did you ever hear about a lion that paused for even a second before suffocating a wilderbeast with a well positionded fang?

No?

This is what makes us human

No amount of advanced physiology can come close to explaining this 'difference'

We are human because we feel. That is all there is to it.

Ever heard of the dolphin that pushes a sick dolphin up for air as the latter dies. Why is ours not just an evolved form of that? (Note: I'm not saying it is, compassion may indeed set us above all the rest of animals, and we may indeed be special; I'm arguing this side for other reasons).

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Eddie French
(SNIP)[/color] You Anthropomorphise here. The lion does not 'feel' compassion in its ability to feed its cubs. It is merely a survival trait; instinctive, as when it kills cubs belonging to a vanquished ex alpha male. (SNoP)[/color]

You attribute different event situations, as having identical origins, 'sans' emotion, when you cannot prove that they don't feel compassion, just as I cannot prove (to you) that they do, so why is it you decide, for the lion, what it feels?

(The answer is the first thing you state, in the quote of you, above)

 

[mikelus]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
All the animals that can eat people still manage to do it in this day and age. In India and Southast Asia, people still get eaten by tigers. Divers and snorkelers disappear when there are great whites around. Grizzley bears have killed and eaten humans. Anyone who dies without being embalmed or cremated gets eaten by insects and bacteria.

I don't think the food chain is a good representation of people's superior power. More important is our ability to seize and control huge amounts of territory for our own purposes. The main difference still boils down to our use of language: Gorillas still don't use the internet.

but what about the chickens and the cows and the bulls and all the species we control for our own food with the tools of the present such as fences and guns. wouldn't that prove humans have more power in the sense of the overall. Did gorillas what to use the internet?

 

[Eddie French]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You attribute different event situations, as having identical origins, 'sans' emotion, when you cannot prove that they don't feel compassion, just as I cannot prove (to you) that they do, so why is it you decide, for the lion, what it feels?

(The answer is the first thing you state, in the quote of you, above)

I don't believe I do. If we combine the power of choice with the emotion of compassion then we begin to enter that unique realm of humanity.
We can choose to show compassion.. or not as the case may be. No animal has yet demonstrated the ability to do this, not even the other higher primates. To attribute higher emotions to these animals is to Anthropomorphosise and in doing so demean our own place in creation. I am an animal lover and I despise abuse or cruelty to animals, I am certainly not advocating any such thing, merely stating my opinion.
More important than this, in the longer term, is the question of how we should treat each other as sentient beings. This is surely the yardstick by which to measure humanity's intellectual/evolutionary progress. If it turns out that we, the shapers of the destiny of this small planet are truly alone in this galaxy, or within a large enough space that it makes no difference, (A question to which I am sure we will have a statistical answer to quite soon) then we had better get these questions regarding sentience and compassion sorted out pretty darn soon. [b(]

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Eddie French
I don't believe I do. If we combine the power of choice with the emotion of compassion then we begin to enter that unique realm of humanity.
We can choose to show compassion.. or not as the case may be. No animal has yet demonstrated the ability to do this, not even the other higher primates. To attribute higher emotions to these animals is to Anthropomorphosise and in doing so demean our own place in creation.

Isn't that exactly what you have done with your Alpha male and the killing of the cubs, ascribed an emotionallity to it, "Alpha" male.

Aside fomr that, animals choose, just they have less choices, and cannot express choice in anything other the acitions. As that goes I have witnessed a cat and a dog laying together, cuddling, the cat purring, the god moving it's paw over the cat, and the cat snuggling into the dogs belly, purrrring.

Compassion is an expressed emotion, verbally expressed is waaaay easier to recognize whereas "acted out" compassion is much more difficult to adjudicate, and animals can really only 'speak' through actions, not words, not ideals, so, at best it is difficult to make a solid assertion of fact upon whether, or not, they are compassionate.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Eddie French
My my,
Let's all just forget the most important attribute of all.
What we have that 'Lifts' us above the animal kingdom (Let's not even talk about opposable thumbs or articulated elbows) is compassion!
Did you ever hear about a lion that paused for even a second before suffocating a wilderbeast with a well positionded fang?

No?

This is what makes us human

No amount of advanced physiology can come close to explaining this 'difference'

We are human because we feel. That is all there is to it.

I think that this is yet another example of someone conveniently ignoring the evidence out there in an attempt to find a characteristic to justify his bigotry.

Check out the following quote from Dr. Sagan adn Dr. Druyan:

"In the annals of primate ethics, there are some accounts that have the ring of parable. In a laboratory setting, macaques were fed if they were willing to pull a chain and electrically shock an unrelated macaque whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. Otherwise, they starved. After learning the ropes, the monkeys frequently refused to pull the chain; in one experiment only 13% would do so - 87% preferred to go hungry. One macaque went without food for nearly two weeks rather than hurt its fellow. Macaques who had themselves been shocked in previous experiments were even less willing to pull the chain. The relative social status or gender of the macaques had little bearing on their reluctance to hurt others.

"If asked to choose between the human experimenters offering the macaques this Faustian bargain and the macaques themselves - suffering from real hunger rather than causing pain to others-our own moral sympathies do not lie with the scientists. But their experiments permit us to glimpse in non-humans a saintly willingness to make sacrifices in order to save others - even those who are not close kin. By conventional human standards, these macaques - who have never gone to Sunday school, never heard of the Ten Commandments, never squirmed through a single junior high school civics lesson - seem exemplary in their moral grounding and their courageous resistance to evil. Among these macaques, at least in this case, heroism is the norm.

If that is not compassion, I do not know what is.

Eddie French:

Did you ever hear about a lion that paused for even a second before suffocating a wilderbeast with a well positionded fang?

No?

And how many humans kill other peaceful creatures to satiate their tongues? And it's not even a necessity of survival for us, whereas it is a necessity for lions.

 

[Dissident Dan]

It is not a demonstration of an ego, but a demonstration of victory or supremacy. There's a difference (in case you can't see it on your own, the difference is that an ego is a conscious choice, while declarations of supremacy can occur without an sentience on the part of the animal).

I completely disagree with the statement that no other animal has an ego. Firstly, the idea that the gorilla does not make a conscious choice does a tremendous injustice to gorillas and other animals. The idea that other animals are just unconscious robots and that humans somehow magically evolved concsiousness as a lone evolutionary anomoly is something that I continually have to fight.

Even looking at examples in my own dog's behavior, I can see egoism. My dog is submissive to my mother, but it will often defy my brother. It seems that she considers herself lower in the hierarchy of authority than my mother, but higher than my brother (especially when it comes to food). She appears to be thinking that in relation to one person, she has certain liberties, but not in relation to another, signifying a boosted ego in relation to the former.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I completely disagree with the statement that no other animal has an ego. Firstly, the idea that the gorilla does not make a conscious choice does a tremendous injustice to gorillas and other animals. The idea that other animals are just unconscious robots and that humans somehow magically evolved concsiousness as a lone evolutionary anomoly is something that I continually have to fight.

I didn't mean to imply that at all. I do feel, however, that I stepped slightly in the wrong direction, so I take that part back. An ape can indeed make a conscious choice (for all we know, anyway) to show supremacy, and it does, in fact, make more sense to believe that that is the case.

I realize now that what I said could have been interpreted as exactly the kind of anthropocentricism that I, too, am trying to fight. It's just plain wrong to consider us "better" than the other animals, or to assume that they are "robots" and we are the only conscious animals. Daniel Dennett's view, which I agree with (currently), seems to also combat such anthropocentric views. Have you read anything by him?

 

[Royce]

For one thing the characteristic to think that others outside of our group are less than we are or are to be feared is a suvival technigue that can be traced back quite a ways. Wolf packs will fright with an other over territory or drive off an outsider. Groups of apes often do the same.
It makes sense if we think that our group, tribe, pack, race, species, nation, etc must survive for us or more importantly our children (genes) to survive. If our survival is dependant on the killing or harming of others outside our group so be it. Too often it is either them or us and I usually vote for us.
We are not so different from other animals. We are too soon down out of the trees to think that we are so special or unique. Far too maney of our human traits can be traced back or compared to traits of simplier animals. Our morals and ethics are based on survival more than anything else just as is the behaviour of so many other animals.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
For one thing the characteristic to think that others outside of our group are less than we are or are to be feared is a suvival technigue that can be traced back quite a ways. Wolf packs will fright with an other over territory or drive off an outsider. Groups of apes often do the same.
It makes sense if we think that our group, tribe, pack, race, species, nation, etc must survive for us or more importantly our children (genes) to survive. If our survival is dependant on the killing or harming of others outside our group so be it. Too often it is either them or us and I usually vote for us.
We are not so different from other animals. We are too soon down out of the trees to think that we are so special or unique. Far too maney of our human traits can be traced back or compared to traits of simplier animals. Our morals and ethics are based on survival more than anything else just as is the behaviour of so many other animals.

Listen to my good buddy here, he knows what he's talkin' about. Seriously, I completely agree with you, Royce, and I don't know how anthropocentrics justify their belief, when (as you said) we can trace so many of our traits back to other animals.

I also don't like the implication that evolution has made us "superior". This is not the case, as we are quite the opposite (as I pointed out in another thread), we are the banes of the Earth, destroying and consuming natural resources at a dangerous rate and posing the biggest threat to the Earth's - and to our own - survival.