Why are humans the only beings with a conscience?

[Used and Abused]

First let me say that I am a casual Christian who believes in evolution--although there are one or two claims that pose a problem for me.

That being said, when and why did apes go from being totally unconscientious beings to being able to discern right from wrong?

I ask because of something my pastor brought up at church the other day.

Just interested in hearing what everyone thinks :-)

[VelmaD]

1. How do you know we are...

the only beings with a conscience? Hell, prove to me most humans even have one.

[shadowknows69]

4. I've never had my dog fuk me over

People do it to me all the time.

[VelmaD]

5. Go google some of the primate studies...

chimps "fuk" each other over all the time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. hell they go to war with each other too

[VelmaD]

73. And commit premeditated murder...

not too different from us at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Nope not at all

hell if it wasn't because we keep them under careful guard I would even say my Sun would like to kill my Tiel... and has even tried a couple times... jealous little bird

[Burning Water]

20. Next time you own

a dog, don't have him fixed. And DO NOT stand still. He WILL "fuk" you over if you do.x( }(

[Rainbowreflect]

47. To err is human, to forgive canine!

I know it is true with my dogs.
They love me even when I am PMS bitch from hell. I am not sure if that is true of my husband.

[ComerPerro]

89. Well said

[Used and Abused]

11. For the most part, they act instinctively

They don't spend time deciding which course of action to take. No studies have found that animals, not even apes, are capable of making rational decisions.

[endarkenment]

21. I don't think that is true.

I'll ignore whatever you might mean by 'rational decisions' as earthworms make rational decisions all the time. I think you probably mean something like 'abstract thought' and I think that has been fairly well established with the primate studies involving apes and language skills - established that at least the great apes most certainly are capable both of abstract thought and self awareness.

'They act instinctively' is a throwback to an earlier homocentric biological view that fits in well with homocentric theologies but is not sustainable as a scientific theory, as an explanation of animal behavior.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. Add birds to yuor studies

as Alex continues to astound and amaze the team at harvard....

Oh did I metion he has languge skills that are pretty advanced?

[Teaser]

23. You know shit.

"No studies have found that animals are capable of making rational
decisions."

Uh, actually read the literature, coolio. You'll find you are exactly wrong.

Are you trying to be exactly wrong, or is this what happens when you let your asshole do the talking?

[Used and Abused]

35. alrighty then... let's just go ahead and pretend that apes and humans

have the exact same thinking capabilities with no differences...

By the way, why are we keeping them in zoos again?

[VelmaD]

38. Gee...defensive much?

No one said animals and humans had the same thinking capabilities with no differences. Just that the original assertion that they have no conscience is not a proven fact.

And we could talk all day about the psychological reasons humans keep animals in zoos. I think it's mostly an attempt to prove we have mastered nature but I'm willing to consider other points of view on the topic.

[Used and Abused]

40. you'd get mad too if you were called coolio! nt

[VelmaD]

42. And that was a non-answer...

kind of answer.

[Used and Abused]

51. I just think theres no way we could control apes and other large animals

for this long, if they were capable of the type of complex thought that humans are. They would have overthrown us long, long ago and we'd be in a Planet of the Apes/ Dogs/ whatever by now.

[VelmaD]

53. If we "control" them

it's because we have more evolved tool use than they do. The ability to use tools is not a prerequisite for having a conscience. Hell, GW can use a spatula...or a gun. How does building bigger and better weapons prove that we are the species with the conscience?

I'm also not seeing you make a connection between "more complex" thought and a conscience..but I figure that's because you don't really know much about the current state of research into just how complex the thinking of some primates is.

[ProfessorGAC]

104. You've Made A Gigantic Leap There

Nobody said there were no differences in the complexity of human vs. other primate thought processes. But, it's patently obvious that the thought processes of animals, especially higher order ones, and domesticated beasties is not shear instinct.

There are unspoken learned behaviors that mainfest themselves to every pet owner is this world.

You have gone from a black & white, "They function on instinct" to "Ok you can believe that there the same as humans." That's leap of logic to make Bob Beamon proud.
The Professor

[Teaser]

50. Don't bring that weak ass straw man here.

You said, and I quote:

"No studies have found that animals are capable of making rational
decisions."

That is not the same as saying that

"apes and humans have the exact same thinking capabilities with no differences"

You made a positive statement about the intellectual capacaties of animals that is demonstrably wrong. I can point you to tons of studies on problem solving in animal species that show the evidence of rational behavior.

This does not mean that human rationality isn't more developed, which is where you attempted to retreat when you set up your straw man.

Furthermore your original point, that animals lack a conscience, is not demonstrable. How does one quantify that? Can you demonstrate that you have one?

We can demonstrate that humans show behavior consistent with a conscience. But so do some animals. Dogs "act guilty." Are they really feeling guilty? Fuck if I know.

By the way, tell your pastor he's clueless, and he can speak to this neuroscientist if he wants to know exactly why.

[Used and Abused]

52. actually he's pretty cool

He said he believes in evolution and thinks that Christians need to accept that the Earth is millions of years old. The point he posed was that the missing link, if found, still would not explain how humans became these complex beings who could think and make choices using logic and not ingrained instincts.

[Ravenseye]

69. Sounds like he needs to think about it

We're talking a timeframe that most people just simply can't fathom. On the scale of tens of millions of years. Most people are just simply incapable of truly understanding that span of time.

Once you get past that you have to think about why any adaptation occurs. Why would humans become these complex beings who could think and make choices using logic and not instincts? Survival most likely. And we weren't the only ones to do it. Not only has it been shown that primates are capable of using logic and abstract thoughts, but other mammals have as well. Still humans ARE on another level here. The closest dolphins and apes come is usually around the equivallent of a five year old human child. Still pretty impressive. Five year olds are pretty sharp.

Anyway we weren't even the only ones who developed up to this point. There have been numerous other 'related' hominids. In fact it looks like it has been far more normal for there to be two or more different types of intelligent hominids in existance at the same time (Like Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon Humans) so it wasn't even really just us that developed this far.

So over the course of millions of years humans were just one of many different species that adapted and survived by using their brains.

It really isn't too hard to comprehend, once you get past the immense span of time conception.

[zanne]

88. But......You claimed to be a "casual" Christian?

That's like someone who says he's a political "moderate"--I never believe it, and after a bit of dialogue, the "true believer" comes through. You said in your original post that you had a "few" qualms about evolution. You have more than a few issues with it, Used and Abused. And it's not a "theory". ID is a theory and a religious philosophy. Evolution is scientific. Period.

[Used and Abused]

92. casual meaning I was raised in the tradition

but I break many of the teachings on a daily basis and haven't been to church in a minute.

I have a bachelor of science so obviously I am a believer in science. Evolution has been proven, particularly microevolution. However, my qualms are about 1) big bang theories, 2) various macroevolution claims

[WindRavenX]

98. micro and macro evolution are the EXACT SAME THING

What "various" claims do you have a beef with?

[Used and Abused]

105. no they aren't nt

[WindRavenX]

108. nice

Care to eleborate on why they aren't? :eyes:

Same mechanics guide evolution no matter what the scale.

[theHandpuppet]

41. Geeze, was it really necessary to be so rude?

Rather than just calling someone names, how about providing some actual debate? Your rudeness was totally out of line.

[Teaser]

54. Yes.

absolutely.

[sepia_steel]

61. jeez

can someone be wrong without you resortig to this much insult? uncalled for.

[400Years]

84. an article that might help

http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,11917,1098467,00.html

Animals 'can think about thought'

Tim Radford, science editor
Wednesday December 3, 2003
The Guardian

Monkeys can manage mathematics. Dolphins can be decisive. But US psychologists have broken new ground in the animal intelligence challenge. They have proved that animals are also smart enough to join the "don't-knows".

It means that animals, like humans, may be capable not just of thinking, but of thinking about thinking, of knowing that they don't know. Psychologists call this "metacognition", evidence of sophisticated cognitive self-awareness. Ordinary mortals know it as "dithering".

[back2basics909]

25. Thats not correct..

.. i think you are confused.

Tool use, is a very rational event.

[VelmaD]

28. I'm trying to find a polite way of putting this...

and having a hard time. Your statement shows a lack of knowledge of the current state of the research. Here are just a couple of quick things found through google. You might want to consider a bit of more in depth research in this area:

http://www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html

http://www.springerlink.com/(hlawwbz0hpj1o545eqc5dv45)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,10,12;journal,26,143;linkingpublicationresults,1:100464,1

[Bob3]

32. You're gonna have to define what you mean by rational decision

A chimp deciding which way to go through the forest makes decisions all the time. A chimps world is too complex to rely on per-programed patterns of behavior.

And in experiments a chimp was able to stack boxes to get to a banana. I would suggest that that fulfills the criteria for rational decision making - identifying the problem, looking for a solution, testing solution (say trying to jump first) then stacking the boxes. Seems pretty rational to me.

[Toucano]

57. Thank YOU, Bob3. You've nailed it.

As long as humans are defining the terms (consciousness, rational, etc.) in relationship to themselves, the rest of the animal kingdom will be wrongly regarded as "instinctive".

One of the experiments for determing self-awareness has been the use of mirrors. It was said that if the animal recognized it's reflection as himself, he was self-aware, but all it really means is he processes visual input the the same way we do and recognizes his own reflection. It isn't a sign the the animal knows he is a unique individual nor does the inability to recognize one's own reflection indicate this knowledge.

There are squids that can learn tasks from other squids. There are birds that create unique, individual works of art.

I consider all living things to have consciousness until somebody can prove otherwise. It may not be exactly the same as ours, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Fleshdancer]

56. MANY studies have found that animals, even rats ARE capable

of making rational decisions.

I have a long post down thread with the link, but this paragraph is interesting to post again:

What about the emotional capacities that underlie being fair? Are some animals capable of the emotions and empathy that seem to be at the foundations of morality? “The answer to me is yes,” Dr. Bekoff said. For example, rats have been known not to take a food pellet from a machine if doing so means that another rat will receive an electric shock.

______

Not taking food for yourself to spare the pain of your fellow animal is not instinct. If this isn't a conscience act, then what is?

[Used and Abused]

64. Why is it that EVERY animal alive can be trained using food

as a reward? OK "every" is a strong word, but I took a Behaviorism course and we did some work at the zoo. Every animal at the zoo follows was trained with food as the reward for following instructions.

That same thing cannot be said of humans. It takes more than the promise of pizza and cheesecake to get us to do something (especially if we already have a weight problem).

[VelmaD]

65. Really?

Then why do so many of us work at dead end jobs that we hate if not for food and other basic necessities like shelter? We've been trained.

[Bob3]

100. Really? We're a little more complex than a dog but

we respond to basic drives the same say - I'm working a shit job because I want to be able to pay my rent and eat pizza from time to time. At the same time, working the shit job has reduced my self esteem so I don't feel as attractive to members of the opposite sex as I might be other wise but there is that food and shelter thing so I trade off. Read up on Maslow.

While I'm sure that you could set up an intelligence test for a chimp or a dog with the promise of sex as a reward but using food is simpler and less messy and you start to get into all sorts of problems with individual responses - everybody gets hungry, but sex drives vary and are unpredictable not the best thing for experiments.

Also most scientists tend not to have unlimited time to observe - unlike Jane Goodall who over the years found out amazing things about the inner workings of a chimpanzee troop. They have to get some results and waiting for a chimp to stack the boxes just cause he or she is curious about what's hanging from the ceiling. Hell even polar bears get bored with their surroundings if they don't change.

[mmonk]

2. I need proof

[GliderGuider]

3. Because we're the only beings who need one...

[Burning Water]

27. When a lion

takes over a pride, he kills and often eats all the cubs of his predecessors because the lionesses will not mate as long as they are raising a cub.

They're some men like that, too, and more than a few women. So why do they need a conscience and the lion doesn't??

[laruemtt]

6. check out the look on a puppy's

face when you catch him after knocking something over - oh the guilt! it's too cute.

[kenny blankenship]

7. Who says animals have no sense at all of "right" and "wrong"?

All animals have no such sense? Really? Have you never seen a guilty look on a dog's face?
How do we know that there is a world separating us from animals--many such boundaries dividing us from animals have been asserted and believed for centuries and many of them have been found to be far more porous than originally believed.

[Used and Abused]

15. a lot of that is our imagination--placing human traits on animals

I think dogs understand cause and effect, not so much right and wrong.

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. Can you define the difference?

Actually, I see much more of the opposite -- a clear acknowlegement of 'right and wrong' with a much less defined 'cause and effect'.

'Right' is what is approved by the pack or herd or tribe. 'Wrong' is what is disapproved. Animals, and humans' don't know what is approved or disapproved until they see such approval or disapproval from the other relevant members of their group.

The dog may not realize that pusing against the TV tray is going to spill my dinner (cause and effect) but he sure as hell knows that my dinner ending up on the floor because of his action is Wrong (sees my disapproval).

[Used and Abused]

49. oh i meant

cause and effect as far as---

dog spills tray, dog gets punished---- dog does not want to get punished or warned.

[kenny blankenship]

43. "Meat robots" huh? I don't think so.

I've seen dogs who experienced real guilt, and others that clearly experienced a some kind of secret joy (betrayed by a sly expression) in being bad, even when caught and reprimanded. That difference in response is enough to show me that dogs as a category do not inhabit a world of purely determined behavior; or if they do then humans are not necessarily in a separate moral universe. A dog that breaks a rule even though it knows punishment is certain and experiences a positive feeling from "doing it anyway" is at least one degree abstracted from a machinelike existence of inexorable causes and effects. It's capable of "evil" that is, being in rebellion against authority. If the range of affect observable in dogs can be put down to physically determining factors then most of what humans believe they experience themselves also may be. I don't impute "human" traits to animals, and by the same token I resist imputing "divine" traits to humans. Sure, dogs are more "meat robots" than humans--they seem easier to control--but it's surely a question of degree. Our species exhibits quite a bit of robotic (determined/conditioned) behavior too and more than we think; the linkages of determination and conditioning are ordinarily hidden from us.

[porphyrian]

17. Well, while I agree we should explore this further...

...I don't think you can use the "guilty look" of a domestic dog as evidence that dogs have a conscience. It could also be a learned behavior from humans, or it could merely be us humans projecting human qualities on our dogs that aren't really there.

Say hello to Vic Romano for me.

[endarkenment]

8. heck my dogs know when they've been bad.

Why on earth do you think we are the only creatures with a sense of right and wrong?

not sure about the cats though, they could be sociopaths :-)

[kenny blankenship]

10. Cats are different; they're not sociopaths

They're just always right.

[endarkenment]

12. with us (cats humans) yes

with each other they seem to have a clear sense of right/wrong mine/yours etc.

[pookieblue]

33. my cats....

I know when one of them knocked something over or whatever... and I find the evidence and say something... the guilty party always runs under the bed. the other one just looks at me with this "It wasn't me.." look on his face.

[maxsolomon]

9. because we have bigger brains?

and chimps/gorillas/orangutans/porpoises don't have consciences? you know this how?

[Field Of Dreams]

24. One consideration in discussing people versus animals

in terms of guilt is that a dog looks guilty when it does something wrong because it is fearing a negative consequence -- an adult with a fully developed conscience feels bad when they do something wrong or hurt another person because they can empthasize with the injured person: that is assume the perspective of the other person and feel that other person's pain. This of course would not apply to sociopaths who seem incapable of identifying with victims or those they hurt. In this example, Bush is the guilty looking dog and the sociopath, Bill Clinton is feeling the other person's pain. LOL.

These are interesting things to discuss.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Probably a vain evolutionary attempt to keep us from killing each other.

Hopefully, evolution will come up with a better solution.

[Orrex]

14. What's right? What's wrong?

It's entirely about preference and expedience, that's what.

Show me evidence that either moral "right" or "wrong" is anything but a social convention, and then we'll talk about how different we are from other apes.

Forgive me, but the doctrines of any faith are not persuasive in this context except to those who subscribe to that faith. You may believe with the entirety of your being, but it is necessary, when discussing moral absolutes, to provide evidence stronger than personal testimony.

[Jed Dilligan]

16. Maybe

We're the only animals bad enough to need one.

[TahitiNut]

18. It's apparently optional. Junior sure doesn't have one.

:shrug:

[ComerPerro]

90. Exactly. Not all people have one.

[seejanerun]

19. This is something we can't know yet.

My view of it is that we have to go on the basis of moral treatment of others, given that we can't know anything about their mental states. For a long time people didn't think animals felt pain, either.

[notadmblnd]

22. I've always kind of thought that our consciences is "god" in us.

and that some of us are more filled with god than others. Some are absolutely void of god.

[Saphire]

58. I'm absolutely void of God, but does that mean I dont have a conscious?

[noonwitch]

26. I don't know that humans are the only ones, my dog has a "guilty" look

in her eyes when she's doing something bad, like chewing up my shoes.

[SmokingJacket]

29. Some animals do appear to have some conscience.

Look at the Koko (a gorilla) experiment. She often expressed shame and guilt and a sense of right and wrong.

Dogs also have a notion of shame. A dog who breaks the code of the pack acts in a way that is very similar to a shamed child. I believe a "conscience" is a product of group life. What is "right" or "wrong" depends on what the group tells you is right or wrong.

I think morality is easily explainable by evolution -- individuals who act in ways that preserve the strength of the group will in turn be protected by the group.

If you go around stealing group members' food, for example, they're going to get pissed off and kick you out of the group. Next time they kill a mammoth or something, you don't get any and you die, and so do your genes. Soon, stealing becomes "wrong."

Morality is absolutely all about survival, in its origins, anyway.

[jilln]

30. There are countless stories of animals doing "the right thing"

such as saving babies from floods, etc. There are many documented stories of animals helping save members of species which are instinctively their prey or predators. I absolutely believe that many animals have consciences.

And many humans do not.

[Gregorian]

31. I don't think we are the only ones.

I just think we are really insensitive. We are not able to see what is right in front of us.
Elephants have a conscience if ever there was one.

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. Not sure that they don't discern right and wrong.. perhaps they just

have different standards.

Let's look at it this way, we know about a little boy who fell into a gorilla pit and yet was cared for rather than mauled by a gorilla. We also know that silverbacks (I think) have recently been noted to use tools.

Evolution happening right under our noses? Could be. :D

[HomerRamone]

36. It's being selected against.

The Fascists without consciences are winning out...

[Marr]

39. What is a conscience?

Is it a sense of "right and wrong"? We've got a set of values that are largely defined by the needs of our particular species. Our idea of "right" and "wrong" are those of a social primate. They are (for the most part) standards of behavior that ensure our survival.

If a male cat kills the young of a another male, is that "wrong"? It is by our social primate standards, sure- but in cats it may be something that strngthens the species in the long run. So it's moral- or "right". I expect that cat is doing what he instinctually feels is "right".

[Angry Girl]

44. What a prideful and factually baseless statement!

Conscience: The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong.

First one can argue what's right and what's wrong until one is blue in the face. It's like that question of how many angels can dance on the top of my tiny head. So already we're already dealing with purely subjective terms. (Is it wrong to kill for food? Is it right to put a suffering person out of their misery? Is contraception wrong?)

But, a worse flaw in the argument: On what basis does your pastor presume that animals other than humans have no conscience? Does he commune with poultry? Did he mind-meld with his dogs?

Why does the dog deserve the title of man's best friend? Does this presume the dog is a "better" animal than the snake? And if so, does "better" mean the dog is better able to tell right from wrong? And if so, then already your pastor's argument is on the floor, since the ability to tell right from wrong, no matter how slim, is the very definition of conscience.

Whatever the case, I think you need to find yourself a new pastor because this guy is building arguments based on faulty logic in that manner so typical of churchie arguments:

You lay down some illogical, easily refutable premise and declare it an axiom: "That being said!" What do you mean, "That being said!"?
You're essentially railroading the entire argument right there! Just like you guys do with your anti-evolution stance....

Question what people say: Most of the time it's crap. Just like you think this post is! :-)

[fleabert]

45. my dog has a conscience, for sure!

she knows when she has done wrong, her behavior tells me she peed on the carpet, or ate a sock!

now apes? I don't know about them much. I bet they have more of a conscience than we think, same with other higher mammals like dolphins. But that doesn't mean they would make the same decisions as us humans.

[Fleshdancer]

46. Research seems to show that animals have a conscience too

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:-p8CGthWfbQJ:www.aaas.org/spp/dser/seminar/10162003wildjustice.pdf+animals+behavior+conscience&hl=en

This is a little long, but worth the read:

Does this capacity for emotion necessarily mean that animals are born equipped with a moral code? “Cashing out the notion of behaving fairly in animal play will help us get a handle in answering this question.” Animals have social expectations when they engage in various social situations, and the violation of these social expectations constitutes a feeling of being treated unfairly. “Somehow animals have to agree to cooperate,” and this is done through a complex series of play signals.

What about the emotional capacities that underlie being fair? Are some animals capable of the emotions and empathy that seem to be at the foundations of morality? “The answer to me is yes,” Dr. Bekoff said. For example, rats have been known not to take a food pellet from a machine if doing so means that another rat will receive an electric shock.

To study animal morality, Dr. Bekoff says, it is crucial to study animal play. Dr. Bekoff has discovered that much of animal play mimics real-life scenarios that animals must learn in order to survive. To engage in play, animals must learn a complex set of social rules in order to communicate with other animals the intention to play.

The “play bow” among canines has been a keystone to understanding how animals engage in play. These play bows have been noted across canine species lines. In studying the bow, Dr. Bekoff has discovered the bows are used non-randomly to communicate to other animals the intention to play and to qualify the interpretation of rough behavior during play.

Animals have also been known to use other methods of indicating play, such as role reversal, when an animal allows itself to be dominated by a smaller animal, and self-handicapping, when an animal does not use its full strength.

“It’s my theory that animals are learning how to communicate with each other. If they don’t play fairly, then they won’t be able to play. Animals who cheat don’t play.” Coyotes who initiate play, and then allow it to escalate into aggression are not invited to play again.

[Used and Abused]

62. interesting, i will look up more on that to

see if the Dr. is missing other possible explanations of why the rat didn't take the pellet.

[VelmaD]

63. THis post pretty much says it all about you...

You have decided that animals have no conscience and no one can dissuade you from this belief. Even scientific evidence that appears to contradict you will be read with an eye toward proving your own point of view rather than an open mind. You are apparently not worth talking to on this topic. Bye. :hi:

[ecstatic]

66. and you are completely convinced of the opposite

I'm sorry but I always try to read the original study to see the procedure used, etc. I really have not made up my mind either way although I went into the topic with the point of view that humans are by far the most, if not the only, conscientious beings.

[VelmaD]

68. Where exactly did you get the idea...

that I'm convinced of anything from this thread? I'm merely pointing out that there are flaws in the argument by the original poster and that there is scientific evidence that tends to disagree with his view.

I haven't really stated what my own beliefs are so I'm a bit confused how you know what I'm convinced of. Must be those amazing psychic powers so often displayed by DUers when talking to people they don't know. :eyes:

[Shakespeare]

99. Um, did you forget that you logged back in under another name?

Your sock puppet is showing.

[WindRavenX]

101. ZING

:thumbsup:

[zanne]

93. It's all about wanting to be the superior being.

Believers in ID, for the most part, don't want to think of themselves as being animals. They don't want to admit that they came from a very primitive form of life that evolved after eons into the human animal. There's alot of ego involved here. If you're a believer in Adam and Eve and take it literally, you don't want to be reminded of your mortality by looking in the eyes of an ape; you want to believe that, out of all the species on the earth, God chose humans to be immortal. I guess we all believe what we have to. If it helps keep you feeling sane and safe, go for it. But don't you try to teach it to my children in school.

[pop goes the weasel]

48. We're not

Many animals probably don't act on a sense of conscience, because they don't have that level of self-awareness or a sense of time. But there are animals aside from humans that do. Elephants, for example, will band together to rescue a fellow elephant, create "graveyards," and create specific cultures within their herds. Of course, they do a lot that is based on instinct, but so do we. Apes mourn the deaths of their mothers and children, sometimes to the point of killing themselves from refusal to eat.

It's even possible that nearly all animals have a conscience, but that we just don't understand the terms of their existence. After all, if you are a female Praying Mantis who doesn't rip the head off her mate, aren't you maybe a bit perverted and ought to see a Mantis therapist for help with your problem?

[OrlandoGator]

55. My dog has way more of a conscience than a typical neocon.

At least he understands what it means to care about something other than himself.

[sepia_steel]

59. My dog certainly seems to have one.

and she cares when i'm sad.

[villager]

60. Read Mark Twain's "Letters From the Earth"

Has an essay in there where he proves an anaconda snake is a higher form of life than an English Earl - because the snake didn't kill indiscrimantely, like the Earl did, blasting bison from a passing train...

Thus, Twain calls non-humans the "higher animals."

[NashVegas]

67. Do You Remember the Chimp Study Last Year?

That showed that chimps seem to have a sense of fair play?

[natrat]

70. given that we are in the midst of the largest mass extinction ever

and a lot of religous types are ok with this i would say humans have no conscience. How incredibly arragant to state humans are somehow more conscientious than other species. Humans are dickheads ,,,especially the ones that are hellbent dominating the natural world

[Used and Abused]

79. Yes, we do have a lot of jerks in our species

But come on, its not arrogant to accept that humans are more conscientious than other species. We will never know the exact truth but we can tell a lot by looking at their actions.

[VelmaD]

80. We can tell even more...

by looking at our own actions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Let me tell yuo, your pastor knows nothing

I'd say the three feathered kids I share my house with are fairly intelligent (bout five year old intelligent) and KNOW when they do soething wrong.

It is human hubris to think we are the only ones...

And maybe he should read some Assisi as well

[Used and Abused]

75. But I didn't tell you what my pastor said about the issue

You are assuming based on stereotypes and bigotry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Yes I am as you did not give us enogh info

and I have heard enough religious leaders (not only christians by the way) make the argument that we are rational and have a conciceince ... and all that...

So I take it he took the contrarian argument that Francis of Assisi also took (and almost paid for)

[devilgrrl]

78. Why are humans the only beings that kill for money?

That's something I'd like to know.

[Used and Abused]

81. we are the only ones who set up civilizations and bartering systems

Which goes back to the point of us being thinking beings.

[VelmaD]

86. Yet another assertion with no facts...

THe general consensus in the scientific community is that most apes do have some form of culture. One piece of evidence for this is the way different tribes of the same species will use different tools for the same job. (i.e. using a stone to break open nuts as opposed to using a piece of wood). There is also evidence that the components of that "culture" are taught from the old to the young.

And who knows whether animals have bartering systems. I know I'm going to go do some research to see if anyone has studied this topic rather than making a blanket statement as you seem wont to do.

[Used and Abused]

91. lol wow

OK, you got me. I did make a blanket statement without facts. But... are you just playing devils advocate or do you really think apes have this complex thought thing going on? Why are most animals trainable by food alone (and don't switch it around like you did before)?

[VelmaD]

94. Well, someone has already pointed in this thread...

to studies that show that rats won't take food for themselves if it means another rat is harmed by doing so. So apparently food isn't the be all and end all for all animals.

And I wasn't really trying to "turn it around" before. I was just pointing out that most humans will do things they don't want to do to obtain food and shelter. It's a basic Maslow's hierarchy of needs thing. You put an animal in a situation where they rely on you for food and cannot really obtain it on their own and they'll figure out what they need to do to get to eat. Most humans would react exactly the same way.

And yes, I do think there is evidence that many of the apes have complex thoughts going on...both through study of their group behavior in the wild and those apes that have been taught to communicate with humans. Read up on some of what those apes have had to say...it's fascinating stuff.

The way I see it, any social animal has to have a lot going on in it's brain...the constant interaction with other beings, trying to figure out your place among them, and navigate the web of relationships requires some complex thought.

Same with tool use. As more research is done more and more animals are being found to use tools to accomplish tasks they can't manage without them. I think the most fascinating was something I saw on PBS recently where monkeys would bite the tops off of a particularly hard kind of nut and drink out the juice but then leave the rest of the nut sitting on the ground for several days. Then they would go back to get the nut because it had rotted enough that they could then use a stone to crack the nut open and get to the meat. They weren't strong enough to crack it before it rotted a bit. The whole process seems to show very complex thought and memory and a perception of time.

[blindpig]

107. So, people who live without cities and barter are not thinking beings?

Pretty arrogant. Fact is people lived for hundreds of thousands of years without cities just fine, probably better, more fulfilling lives than we live now. Because we evolved as hunter gathers that is the life style which most suits us and preserved our continued survival. But look at us now, a pending disaster.

Is civilization the point of our being or an aberration?

[VelmaD]

83. THat's another big assumption...

There are documented cases of chimpanzees in the wild killing each other for reasons that observers didn't quite understand. Just because they don't have money as we know it, doesn't mean that they couldn't have some other sort of system or transaction...some other reward they could offer one another to commit violence on their behalf.

I'm gonna have to go do some research to see if anyone has looked into that sort of thing. Thanks for sparking off the thought. :)

[endarkenment]

95. Heck, we didn't have money as we know it

until rather recently in human history. This entire thread is another display of profund du ignorance combined with an amazing willingness to display that ignorance, trot that ignorance around the ring for all to admire, flaunt that ignorance as if it were a badge of honor.

I've posted stupid things too. We all have. However after one or two posters have pointed you towards the errors in your thinking, it is best to thank them and depart the thread, rather than proceeding to dig oneself in deeper and deeper and deeper.

[VelmaD]

106. When you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole...

it's probably best to stop digging. :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Because we have bsrteting systems

chimpazees go to war over honey and kill over honey... so yuo could say that they kill for what they consider valuable, just as we do

[BurtWorm]

82. How does your pastor know animals don't have some form of conscience.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it's unlikely that humans developed it wholesale. It must have come from somewhere. Social animals do seem to have standards of behavior, within their societies, that they rarely violate--or that they violate with negative consequences--which would seem to indicate that they "know" and even learn "right" from "wrong."

[devilgrrl]

87. Perhaps he tries to sleep with the animals....

I'm waiting for the gay/beastiality comparison from this guy.

[endarkenment]

97. Har!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Lilith Velkor]

96. Because we define conscience.

And we have a tendency to mistake our cultural norms for universal truths.

102. I think animals have their own sense of right and wrong

depending on the animal. Much "conscience" in animals and humans is really just group behavior. So if you act contrary to what is good for the group, there will be penalties. In a wolf pack, there is a strict hierarchy and if a wolf doesn't follow that, he will be thrown out of the pack or killed. And I would guess that in same way, in the ant society, if an ant did not perform its special function, the other ants would attack it. In humans that is why we have laws and moral values, to keep people acting appropriately.

As for an individual conscience, I feel that is something god-given, and an individual knows when they are doing something wrong. God gave us a specific conscience in order to help guide us to live our lives the way we were created to. (If you don't believe in God, fine, you don't need to get upset if I do).

Just my off-the cuff opinion. Haven't posted much lately.

[northzax]

103. conscience is a social construct

in my opinion. Any socialized creature that has rules knows when they have broken them and feels bad, ever seen your dog hang his head after having an 'accident' on the floor?

[Neil Lisst]

109. I disagree. I've seen animals be embarrassed, compassionate,

funny, angry, appreciative and loving.

I've also seen them exhibit guilt, something one can't do without some kind of conscience.

Animals have the life force, and each one is imbued with qualities that are unique to that animal, a certain - as the French would say - I don't know what.



(I'm laughing, even if you aren't!)

[WindRavenX]

110. LOL, TS'D!

:rofl:

Freakin' asshat.