Is Anthropocentrism Justified?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
(SNIP)[/color] 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. (SNoP)[/color]

Prove this will you, explain it to any other animal on the planet and get them to understand it!

BTW the rest of the animals have NO "Morals" or "Ethics" as both of those are as a result of established linguistic codes...case you forgot, they don't have that!

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons

BTW the rest of the animals have NO "Morals" or "Ethics" as both of those are as a result of established linguistic codes...case you forgot, they don't have that!

Did you not read my quote from Sagan about the macaques? Ethics do not need to be written down or linguistically communicated to guide one's actions.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat
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.

Thanks, Mentat, for the vote of confidence...I guess. I find it hard to accept that we agree once more. There may be hope for ou yet.

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.

We are not the banes of the Earth just another species undergoing a population explosion. It is a self limiting problem. Either Mankind does something about it and improve our stewardship of the Earth or Nature will do something about us. We will reach and equalibrium and our population will stabalize even if it is ZERO.

We are destroying nothing nor using anything up. We are merely converting forms of matter from one form to another. It isn't lost nor used up. It is still here on Earth in another form.

The Earth and nature and life have experienced much more drastic cataclysms than mere Man and survived and recovered. Remember the span of time in which mankind had been so populous and so destuctive has been but a blink in time and as destructive and wasteful as we may seem to us we are rather puny and ineffective when compared to an ice age, meteor or super volcano. This too is a form of anthropocentrics and arrogance. We are as far as the Earth is concerned a rather minor temporary rash not worth doing anything about yet. Bothersome maybe. No more.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Did you not read my quote from Sagan about the macaques? Ethics do not need to be written down or linguistically communicated to guide one's actions.

So then it isn't a moral 'code' or ethical 'process' but simply instinctual reactions, according to you, right?

If they are not written down, then they cannot be passed on, (by any animal other then a human) in any manner other then as "demonstrated"/"actions" and speaking nothing but the truth.

See, animals cannot lie...we can!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
(SNIP)[/color] The Earth and nature and life have experienced much more drastic cataclysms than mere Man and survived and recovered. Remember the span of time in which mankind had been so populous and so destuctive has been but a blink in time and as destructive and wasteful as we may seem to us we are rather puny and ineffective when compared to an ice age, meteor or super volcano. This too is a form of anthropocentrics and arrogance. We are as far as the Earth is concerned a rather minor temporary rash not worth doing anything about yet.[/color] Bothersome maybe. No more. (SNoP)[/color]

WOW, talk about someone anthropomorphisizing, your making nature out to be an entity that has concern about how we humans, act upon the face of the planet, how anthropocentric of you!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Thanks, Mentat, for the vote of confidence...I guess. I find it hard to accept that we agree once more. There may be hope for ou yet.

Hmm...so there's only hope for me if I agree with you?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
WOW, talk about someone anthropomorphisizing, your making nature out to be an entity that has concern about how we humans, act upon the face of the planet, how anthropocentric of you!

First off, there is a huge difference between anthropomorphisizing and anthropocentricism.

Secondly, I agree that it was rather anthropomorphic of Royce to have referred to the Earth as "tolerating" us, and all that.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So then it isn't a moral 'code' or ethical 'process' but simply instinctual reactions, according to you, right?

If they are not written down, then they cannot be passed on, (by any animal other then a human) in any manner other then as "demonstrated"/"actions" and speaking nothing but the truth.

But they are still passed. How this happens is irrelevant, but ethical memes are being propogated.

I also wish you'd remember that Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a very new innovation, compared to those animals that we have been referring to, since all of humanity's ancestors are extinct. Each of them was "better" at certain things than the previous one, but we are still not so far separated as you (for some reason) wish to believe.

See, animals cannot lie...we can!

There are lots of other animals that can decieve. The chimp is one, but that's no surprise, since it's 98% identical to us genetically; but a dog is another; so is a cat. I've seen them do it. To avoid impending punishment, a dog or cat can beg, snuggle up to you to make sure there's no way you could get mad at them, and they can even decieve you into thinking that something else was responsible for whatever they did, or into thinking that nothing happened at all.

I can name specific instances where my pets have done exactly these things, if you want; but, if you've ever owned a dog or cat, you already know I'm right.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
But they are still passed. How this happens is irrelevant, but ethical memes are being propogated. So, assert something as a fact and therefore it is?? HUH??[/color]

I also wish you'd remember that Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a very new innovation, compared to those animals that we have been referring to, since all of humanity's ancestors are extinct. Each of them was "better" at certain things than the previous one, but we are still not so far separated as you (for some reason) wish to believe.
Genetically, no, in ability YUP!...Huge>>>Language![/color]

There are lots of other animals that can decieve. The chimp is one, but that's no surprise, since it's 98% identical to us genetically; but a dog is another; so is a cat. I've seen them do it. To avoid impending punishment, a dog or cat can beg, snuggle up to you to make sure there's no way you could get mad at them, and they can even decieve you into thinking that something else was responsible for whatever they did, or into thinking that nothing happened at all.
Ahem, you are fooling yourself, the animals are not the ones fooling you, they only use action to make "exhibition of communication" and action ALWAYS speaks truly. [/color]

I can name specific instances where my pets have done exactly these things, if you want; but, if you've ever owned a dog or cat, you already know I'm right.

In my lifetime there have been many a pets that have been a part of that time, that is why I can figure out, that you have not yet figured out, not to fool yourself, when attempting to read the communications of other types of animals, because anthropomorphisizing is a very common occurance in such attempts, a very quick, and un-obvious pitfall.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So, assert something as a fact and therefore it is?? HUH??

What are you talking about? If Dissedent Dan's reference indicates that ethical memes are being propogated among macaques, then I'm not stating anything as fact...Dan's source may be, but I'm not.

Genetically, no, in ability YUP!...Huge>>>Language!

And yet, there are so many studies (not just the one that Dan referenced) that show that other animals have many of the necessary abilities, which would build toward full-blown "language". As it is, there are no perfect languages, and humans still, often, find themselves "without words" to describe what they are feeling.

Ahem, you are fooling yourself, the animals are not the ones fooling you, they only use action to make "exhibition of communication" and action ALWAYS speaks truly.

Again, what are you talking about? When the dog uses a piece of paper to cover up the large pile of crap these he's just dropped on the carpet, I don't know how you could interpret it as anything but deciept.

In my lifetime there have been many a pets that have been a part of that time, that is why I can figure out, that you have not yet figured out, not to fool yourself, when attempting to read the communications of other types of animals, because anthropomorphisizing is a very common occurance in such attempts, a very quick, and un-obvious pitfall.

But there is a difference between "anthropomorphizing" and detecting the actual motives of a certain action. My cat hated me, she wouldn't come within 5 feet of me, if she could help it. But, when she coughed up a hair-ball on my bed, she just loved me. She snuggled up to me, she licked my face, etc, etc. How else can you explain this?

BTW, I don't think the term "anthropomorphizing" has nearly as much meaning as you're trying to give it. To anthropomorphize is to attribute "human traits" to something non-human. That very definition is anthropocentric (or anthro-egotistical; a word I used to use a lot, but I think I made it up ), as almost every single human trait (when dealing generically, and not in specifics) was exhibited by other animals long before a human exhibited them.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
What are you talking about? If Dissedent Dan's reference indicates that ethical memes are being propogated among macaques, then I'm not stating anything as fact...Dan's source may be, but I'm not.
You State "you state nothing" as fact, but below you state the emboldened as fact, only problem is that, it is relevant how!, as it is demonstrated learning, ergo NOT a "Moral Code", bit a situational reaction, 'empathy' for another member of the troupe.[/color]

But they are still passed. How this happens is irrelevant, but ethical memes are being propogated.

Originally posted by Mentat
Again, what are you talking about? When the dog uses a piece of paper to cover up the large pile of crap these he's just dropped on the carpet, I don't know how you could interpret it as anything but deciept.

Please tell me where is the lie?? did the dog fool you??

Originally posted by Mentat
But there is a difference between "anthropomorphizing" and detecting the actual motives of a certain action. My cat hated me, she wouldn't come within 5 feet of me, if she could help it. But, when she coughed up a hair-ball on my bed, she just loved me. She snuggled up to me, she licked my face, etc, etc. How else can you explain this?

How do you know the cat hated you, did it tell you that??
Aside from that, the cat might think it just gave you a great present, to line your bed with, as represented by the fur ball, and the purring that ensued is simply indicative of the fact that it is expressing "its contentment" for knowing that it has been nice towards you...it's all subjective interpretation, hence your answer is no more correct then mine, BUT the Animal did NOT lie, it cannot, it can only speak with its actions, and actions cannot lie.

Originally posted by Mentat
BTW, I don't think the term "anthropomorphizing" has nearly as much meaning as you're trying to give it. To anthropomorphize is to attribute "human traits" to something non-human. That very definition is anthropocentric (or anthro-egotistical; a word I used to use a lot, but I think I made it up ), as almost every single human trait (when dealing generically, and not in specifics) was exhibited by other animals long before a human exhibited them.

Now this is just downright condescencing, aside from that, you miss completely how that one little differentiation, that permits us language, makes the hugest difference, and your so accustomed to it you take it sooooooo for granted, you don't even realize just how special it is to be able to do it, "speak", speak some more, cause every word you use, counts against you, and for the "we are special" side, keep typing it out, and you Keep proving it/(me) right!