Comparing animals to evil

[cantata]

When I hear someone described as an animal, I tend to assume that the speaker means precisely that the person being described is not evil, but merely either insane or utterly misguided, albeit with horrible consequences.

 

[lawtonfogle]

When I hear someone described as an animal, I tend to assume that the speaker means precisely that the person being described is not evil, but merely either insane or utterly misguided, albeit with horrible consequences.

I normally take it to mean that they don't have any manners, or in a more general term, knowledge (or care to use it) of how society (on the small scale, like a dinner party) works.

 

[selfinflikted]

From a perspective of modern taxonomy.

There is plenty of linguistic precedent, however, to use the term "animal" to the exclusion of humans. If it bothers you that much replace the term "animal" with "non-human animal" or "non-rational animal."

Next we won't be able to use the term "wolf" to the exclusion of domesticated dogs.

Actually, it does tend to get on my nerves - especially where some christians are concerned. Those christians tend to elevate themselves to a higher plane of existence than that of animals. I'm quick to knock them down a few pegs by reminding they that they themselves are animals. Because we are capable of abstract thought does not make us "better" than other animals.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

The argument in the OP is bunk. It seems to leave out, or forget one small but very important detail - humans are animals.

That is all.

How many animals are blogging on the internet? How many animals have grave stones for their "loved ones." Lions don't elect a leader. (OK maybe Marxists are animals, you win on that one.)

Our bodies are designed for this environment. That is all. The rest is purely God-breathed.

 

[cantata]

How many animals are blogging on the internet? How many animals have grave stones for their "loved ones." Lions don't elect a leader. (OK maybe Marxists are animals, you win on that one.)

Our bodies are designed for this environment. That is all. The rest is purely God-breathed.

How many humans can locate tiny flying insects in pitch darkness using nothing but their voice and ears? Clearly bats are the pinnacle of creation.

It's hardly surprising that you, Polycarp_fan, presumably a human, tend to consider human abilities far more impressive and valuable than the abilities of other animals. Hardly surprising, but still depressing.

 

[Isambard]

How many animals are blogging on the internet? How many animals have grave stones for their "loved ones." Lions don't elect a leader. (OK maybe Marxists are animals, you win on that one.)

Our bodies are designed for this environment. That is all. The rest is purely God-breathed.

"Animals are a major group of multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa. Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their life. Most animals are motile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently. Animals are also heterotrophs, meaning they are dependent on other organisms (e.g., plants) for sustenance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal

I wonder how many of qualifications humans meet...could the answer be all of them?....

Education is for everyone kids.

 

[SAY WHAT?]

Otters are evil little f*ckers, they'll snap your fingers off

I agree with Hairy Toe. One bit my ankle when I was a lad.

 

[Aeris]

I agree with Hairy Toe. One bit my ankle when I was a lad.

Lol and Im sure it wasnt your fault at all, just like my friend who got bitten by a duck when she was a kid because she tried to pet it while it was sitting on its eggs, but "it was the ducks fault cause ducks are evil"

 

[Aeris]

I agree with th OP non-human animals cannot be immoral, they may do things that seem immoral to us, but they cannot understand the morality of things, they may "rape" (like in the previous duck example where males outnumbered females 10 to 1) but its not "rape" like we think of it because they cannot understand what rape or consent is, also the males didnt do it knowing the females would die, it was not preconceived. It would be like a two year old playing with a gun if he shot someone it wouldnt be the kid that was acting immorally because he was not able to understand how a gun works or that he could kill someone.

 

[Isambard]

I agree with th OP non-human animals cannot be immoral, they may do things that seem immoral to us, but they cannot understand the morality of things, they may "rape" (like in the previous duck example where males outnumbered females 10 to 1) but its not "rape" like we think of it because they cannot understand what rape or consent is, also the males didnt do it knowing the females would die, it was not preconceived. It would be like a two year old playing with a gun if he shot someone it wouldnt be the kid that was acting immorally because he was not able to understand how a gun works or that he could kill someone.

Higher mammels do have their social codes which some members violate. Argueing that they dont understand "being moral" is thus bunk and dishonest given that this issue has already been addressed.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I agree with th OP non-human animals cannot be immoral, they may do things that seem immoral to us, but they cannot understand the morality of things, they may "rape" (like in the previous duck example where males outnumbered females 10 to 1) but its not "rape" like we think of it because they cannot understand what rape or consent is, also the males didnt do it knowing the females would die, it was not preconceived. It would be like a two year old playing with a gun if he shot someone it wouldnt be the kid that was acting immorally because he was not able to understand how a gun works or that he could kill someone.

Hey I called it.

Incidentally I do think that this line of reasoning is technically true. To act immorally one needs to know the moral and rational thing and then intentionally not do it. So from that perspective animals do not act immorally, since they lack reason.

But saying things like "humans are the only creatures that rape, steal, kill, etc." and then falling back on "well when animals do what, if a human did the equivalent, would be called rape, theft, murder, etc., it isn't really that act" is highly misleading. And it isn't what the OP had in mind in any case.

 

[cantata]

Morality as it is being spoken of in this thread is an illusion anyway, whatever species you happen to be considering.