I'm curious how morality tied with animals? do they reason and fear about life threatening in the same way we do about reality? and does natural selection play a role in this? i understand that evolution is driven by natural selection and the traits are passed on through genetics though.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
animals and morality
- Thread starter Faith24
- Start date
J
Jazer
Guest
All of creation is in need of redemption. The animals reflect the fallen state of man. Rom 8
niv 18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21thati the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will.
kjv 18For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Upvote
0
Golden Yak
Not Worshipped, Far from Idle
Animals is a pretty broad term. There are some lifeforms that lack the capacity to reason, and others are pretty bright and may have some concept of their own mortality.
In either case, behavior that enables them to thrive will proliferate, while behavior that impedes survival will not. You could regard these as 'good behavior' and 'bad behavior', I suppose - a basis of morality, even if they aren't thinking about it very deeply.
Upvote
0
It partly depends on how fear is defined. The emotion of fear as we know it is mediated by the amygdala; and that's only present in more advanced vertebrates. So it's questionable whether more primitive animals and invertebrates feel fear. However, if you mean fear to be defined by a response (e.g. flight/fright) then all things would feel "fear" - otherwise they would no longer be alive. However, it's possible to exhibit these actions and not feel afraid; conversely, it's possible to be afraid and not exhibit any of these actions.
In terms of morality, how does our morality tie in with reflecting the way animals act? Human morality is applicable only to humans; just as nobody feels remorse killing a mosquito, or having animals caged for the entirety of their lives for the sole purpose of providing humans food, or research subjects, or entertainment, I doubt a lion would feel any remorse in killing a gazelle - it would die, otherwise. Social animals have altruism, and morality of a sort, similar to our codes of ethics. As with ours, these codes are defined by mutual survival. And as with ours, individuals who do not follow these codes are in turn punished by their companions. However, also similar to our codes, they largely do not apply to individuals of different groups or species. The purpose of having a moral code is ultimately the projection of genetic material into the future; there is no point using your own effort to help prolong the survival of something that at best would be of no help to you whatsoever, and at worse will eat you sometime down the track. That is the rub with evolution of altruism and morality; there is very little distinction between your genes and your brothers' genes. If, for example, your death means that your relatives will have a greater chance of proliferation, then statistically (which is all natural selection really is) it makes sense for you to die. Sure, being altruistic means that your genes have a lesser chance of proliferation. But it also means that the genes of everyone around you, which will largely be identical to yours, will have a greater chance of proliferation.
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
They do whatever they can do in order to survive. That is their morality. In other words, they do NOT have the morality as we know it.
Upvote
0
Reason. That's the key word. The Bible explicitly indicates that man has something distinct from animals.
Job 32:7-9 “I thought age should speak,
And increased years should teach wisdom.
8 “But it is a spirit in man,
And the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding.
9 “The abundant in years may not be wise,
Nor may elders understand justice.
Dan. 4:32-33 and you will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field. You will be given grass to eat like cattle... Immediately the word concerning Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled; and he was driven away from mankind and began eating grass like cattle, and his body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair had grown like eagles’ feathers and his nails like birds’ claws.
Dan. 4:34 “But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever;
It should be noted that reason in Dan. 4 literally means 'knowledge'.
Now here's something interesting that further indicates distinction or does Scripture contradict itself?:
Eccl. 3:18-19 I said to myself concerning the sons of men, “God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts.” For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.
And yet Matthew 26:41, Rom. 7:18, 1 Cor. 2:11, and especially Psalm 142:3, Psalm 143:4, Job 7:11, Isaiah 26:9 indicate distinction. Oh and Isaiah 57:16.
But most importantly,
Job 7:17 “ What is man that You magnify him, And that You are concerned about him,
Job 15:14 “What is man, that he should be pure, Or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
This question is answered in the NT:
Eph. 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
Eph. 4:23 and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
Rom. 12:2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
Breath, spirit together may occur a few times in the Bible, but each occurrence is significant unlike the various verses that are found in the Bible.
It's all connected (Romans 8:20). There was never a rebellion. It was an offer from God. God approached Satan, asked him what he wanted, Satan resisted temptation and failed and he wanted to be like God, it was Amen (so be it), and Satan rebelled by authorization eventually becoming God's instrument of wrath. When God asked Adam those questions, He already knew (Gen. 3:9-13).
As for fear of life threatening scenarios,
As far as I know, animals have this drive to reproduce, pass on genes, and show concern about the survival of their offspring (this is not merely interpretation. This is observatory). And there have been cases of mourning. They are often curious. They have ingenuity.
That is all the soul however, which is distinct from the spirit (although in some instances in the Bible, soul means soul + spirit). Basically, the spirit enables knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being [Lit 'soul'].
Perhaps this is why there is distinction between the breath (i.e. Gen. 7:22 all that breathed air died) and the spirit. Perhaps they are one and the same, but they were not given at the same time.
Gen. 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—
I'm sure if God exists (and I do believe He does), they acknowledge His existence. But that may be as far as they can go. Can they recognize Him as their Creator? I don't know.
Upvote
0
But some humans do choose to feel remorse about those things, whereas--as you said--no animal chooses to feel remorse about anything. I know of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I've never heard of Animals for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Upvote
0
GrowingSmaller
Muslm Humanist
My argument is that moraility is an response to percieved value. Value can be experienced by animals, for instance in attractiveness of a mate, or a flower to a bee, or simply in pleasure and pain. The phenomena of living with value has evolved, for instance pain causes us to avoid harmful stimuli, and such a response will be selected by natural selection because it increases survival chances. I say this although we ought to remember than sometimes eating or sex would have been painful, but the genes responsible for this experience would have died out as they would have had no survival value. Anyway, as such, 'morality' (in the sense which I understand it), or at least it's basis in percieved value, is a simple aspect of evolutionary psychology. Humans may be unique in having a moralistic vocabulary and a moral philosophy, but I think that the distinction between humans and non humans is a matter of degree rather than a sudden transformation. Thats because animals probably experience and respond to value too, and therefore share an important aspect of moral life with us.
I add that the idea that pain can cause avoidance, or pleasure cause persuit of a behavior or objective seems to settle the philosophical question as to whether mental states have causal power.
If you want to know more about the idea of value I am using the term as understoon in the Cambridge Companion to Philosophy where different types of value (intrinsic, instrumental, inherent and contributory) are discussed, although there is no mention there of evolutionary psychology.
I add that the idea that pain can cause avoidance, or pleasure cause persuit of a behavior or objective seems to settle the philosophical question as to whether mental states have causal power.
If you want to know more about the idea of value I am using the term as understoon in the Cambridge Companion to Philosophy where different types of value (intrinsic, instrumental, inherent and contributory) are discussed, although there is no mention there of evolutionary psychology.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
