Criminals or dogs?

[redpaintednavi]

Often one hear the opinion that a human always is more worth than an animal. But now and then one can question that notion. One can for example take a case with a hardened criminal. He is a murder and rapist. He have molested and killed several children and women. His deeds have caused a lto of suffering, not only of the victims but also of the parents, siblings, relatives and friends of the victims, who have got their lives destroyed. The gruesome deeds have spread like rings on the water and affected many people in a negatie way.

On the other hand we have a dog. In a situation of catastrophe (earthquake, storm or similar) it finds and contributes to the rescue of several people (some dogs have run several kilometers to get help to rescue people trapped in fallen houses). The good behaviour of the dog have not only saved the lives of the people who were in need but also spread joy and hapiness among relatives, families, friends who got their loved ones back thanks to the dog.

Now, the question arise. Is the hardened criminal more worth than the helping dog, just because he happens to be a member of the human race, whilst the dog happens to be an animal? Does ones worth just depend on what species one belongs too? Does not ones deeds and actions also affect ones worth, or how others shall look on ones life?

[Tsyal Makto]

We are all animals, so I think that the "human = always intrinsic value" is just USI. In this situation I'd say the best reasoning approach to take would be which one helped foster life vs. which one destroyed life. And if that's the case, the dog is worth more BY FAR.

Hell, just ask any soldier that works alongside animals. Many view them as just as much brothers in arms as their human comrades.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

We are all animals.

What more needs to be said really?

We humans sometimes have a rather high opinion of ourselves, that is not always that justified.

Instrumental worth doesn't really go that well hand in hand with the value of life though. If I were to be rather cheesy, I would say that life in itself has value, and deeds then serve to add or detract from it.

[Banefull]

By virtue of their existence other forms of life and nature provide us with a means to live, much joy, and much to be grateful for. Thus humans owe them kindness and it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. But it is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. We should not, in my opinion "over-personify" other creatures. The behaviour of the dog may have saved the lives of the people; however, it did not do this with any sense of understanding remotely comparable to the level a human. It cannot rise beyond these physical circumstances.

And while a criminal may have done horrible things in the past, he or she can still see, realize, understand, or regret what was done and (hopefully) make restitution however slim the chance may be. It is that present or possible future capacity that points us in the direction of which action to take. I have not hinged my moral reasoning on a mere categorization, the term species. If another species of aliens possessed the same capacity to understand, realize, and judge now or in the future, they would be worthy of ethical treatment. Nor have I hinged it upon the past deeds or actions which I do not see as justifications for basic moral treatment. Whether a person has done good or bad in the past is irrelevant; all are worthy of living.

I have a feeling that my view isn't going to be popular here, but by moral reasoning, I think the line is drawn once higher life forms are at stake.

/me runs for cover

[Tsyal Makto]

Just throwing it out there - The concept that animals act only mechanically and have no higher mental functions is starting to become obsolete. Animals have emotions, they have memories that they act upon, some have forethought, and all animals (even insects) have some form of rudimentary consciousness, varying in complexity. So as we discuss this, let's avoid the old worldview that the animals are simply fleshy robots. The animal mind (including our own ) is much more complex than we ever could have imagined. The dog could very well know the direct consequences of its actions.

What if it's a criminal like John Wayne Gacy, who went to the gas chamber feeling no remorse for his crimes (his dying words were "kiss my ass"). If, for instance, to save his life, you had to kill a dog that has done heroic deeds, would you?

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Just throwing it out there - The concept that animals act only mechanically and have no higher mental functions is starting to become obsolete.

I never made this claim.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Animals have emotions, they have memories that they act upon, some have forethought, and all animals (even insects) have some form of rudimentary consciousness

Does this imbue them with any sense of understanding, justice, mercy, guilt?

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

What if it's a criminal like John Wayne Gacy, who went to the gas chamber feeling no remorse for his crimes (his dying words were "kiss my ass"). If, for instance, to save his life, you had to kill a dog that has done heroic deeds, would you?

Yes, rather reluctantly and as an absolute last resort. It may be easier to save a dog or cat than to save or convince a human that killing himself is wrong but ultimately I think the latter takes moral imperative regardless of how difficult it may be.

[Tsyal Makto]

1. I never claimed you did. It's just that there are a few here that do take a robotic approach to animals, and I thought I might as well toss it out there now to cut that mindset off at the knees before someone brought it up, and your post that at least could have been interpretted by these people to mean that animals lack consciousness was a good place to insert it.

2. How do we know they don't? Animals know when they do right or wrong if we condition them to. This demonstrates they have the capacity to make these connections, and they likely do in the wild. Animals have also been witnessed mourning their dead (one specific example I heard was Magpies, which brought small bits of foliage to a fallen bird and stood around it for a while in a sort of vigil before flying off). Animals also demonstrate compassion and love beyond simply mating (elephants, for example). Animals are more complex than our old vision of them used to be (eat, sleep, and screw). Before we declare them to have intrinsically less value than even the lowest humans, I think we need to learn more about who we are sharing this planet with, and just how powerful their minds truly are.

3. Why, though? One is a murderer, the other a hero. Does the precedent that each one set for themselves not matter? Even if Gacy continued to rape and murder for the rest of his life, would you still say he has more intrinsic value than an animal which has proven itself a useful counterpart to the human race, and would continue to be had it lived?

One takes lives, the other saves them. That information alone would tip the balance of value toward the latter, but all of a sudden simply learning of species flips this? That just seems off to me...

PS: Welcome back.

[Moco Loco]

I vaguely remember seeing a thread like this a few months ago, and what I thought then (as well as what I think now), is that this can't really be discussed until a concrete definition of "value" is agreed upon.

[Tsyal Makto]

Two Sick Puppies Walk To Human Hospital, Wait In Lobby (VIDEO)

Take this, for example. I think it's a good example of just how much critical thinking ability animals might have.

[iron_jones]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Two Sick Puppies Walk To Human Hospital, Wait In Lobby (VIDEO)

The name itself is so sad and cute. ; __ ;

[Raptor]

German Shepherd leads trooper to explosion site, injured owner - YouTube

[Aquaplant]

Normally I would be much more into a thread like this, because humans often seem to downplay many animals without understanding anything about them, but I guess Tsyal has things pretty well in hand, so I don't really need to repeat the same things twice.

[Banefull]

I guess I will have to go in depth to deconstruct these arguments otherwise neither of us has any chance of convincing the other. I will say that you are a good debater Tsyal Makto but with all due respect, I think that you cover many small logic errors with semantics sometimes which can add up quickly. Your choice of words tends to confuse cause-and-effect with associations. Jumping back to your first post in this thread, I will use this as an example.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

We are all animals.

This is something that strikes me as simply judging things by associations i.e. appealing to common ground. While humans, dogs, cats, and chimpanzees are all considered to be animals, we have to, in logic, look at whether the causation bears any relevance to the point in question. We are animals because we share common biology. Now, does our biology factor in as determinant in basic moral treatment? I do not think so. If we take for example, an alien who is not part of the animal kingdom, not even of common chemical makeup, a silicon based life forms, this being would still be considered equal if it had the capacity to reason and understand. The difference in biology has no effect; therefore, throwing around the saying that we are all animals carries no real weight. This is called an "accidental" attribute as opposed to being a "substantial" attribute. It is therefore not part of the "essence" (essential properties) of an object deserving moral treatment.

Now I know you may not have intended this to be used particularly as evidence but I'm just using it to introduce my methodology, the process, and manner in which I'm arriving at the conclusions that I arrive at. So onto the points being discussed:

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

How do we know they don't? Animals know when they do right or wrong if we condition them to.

This is the first case where I think semantics cover a small error in logic. We need to separate the concepts of acting in a manner in accordance with right and wrong and acting with understanding of right and wrong. I can train my cat not to attack other cats but regardless of how good of a cat trainer I am, I do not think I can hope to make it understand why.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Animals have also been witnessed mourning their dead (one specific example I heard was Magpies, which brought small bits of foliage to a fallen bird and stood around it for a while in a sort of vigil before flying off). Animals also demonstrate compassion and love beyond simply mating (elephants, for example).

Be careful about another semantic error here. You seem to be conflating some animals with all animals. I feel that, throughout all your posts, you are trying to make a defense for all animals when only some animals possess these qualities. I am aware that research also supports the idea of animal grief but not all animals do grieve. A lion, for example, upon seeing its dead comrade would eat it, only pausing to sniff the carcass to make sure it’s not rotten.

The key here is that these specific animals you list are social animals that by their very nature form bonds and social groups. I would think of them as more deserving than other animals who do not form social bonds and therefore we should do our best not to disrupt these social groups whenever possible but I still see them as being below humans which have an even greater capacity for this and many other things (like moral understanding, full capacity for reasoning, etc.).

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Why, though? .... the other [dog] a hero.

I think you make this error again. Is the dog functioning as a hero? Is it acting with any inner qualities such as having moral courage, or rather is the dog simply function in manner similar to a "hero"? I think it is the latter. I've seen some police dogs myself, but I've noticed that many of them seem to think that they are simply playing when they take down or chase down a criminal.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Does the precedent that each one set for themselves not matter?

In certain manners, yes. If someone was known to be a murderer, we would probably restrain him to ensure he does not physically harm anyone else. But in a matter of life or death, death is not the preferable option unless it cannot be avoided by other means.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Even if Gacy continued to rape and murder for the rest of his life,

There is something I forgot and should have clarified in my earlier post which should settle this specific matter. You can end someone's life as an act of self-defense for you or intervene in behalf of someone else in clear and present danger. If you know, for example, with great, clear, and obvious certainty that a murder was going to kill someone tomorrow, you can end the murderer's life in defense of the would be victim so long as all other options have been exhausted (like calling the authorities). If faced with that specific choice, you could choose to save the dog over a criminal, but it was not for the dog's sake but rather for the sake of the future victims. I'm not saying the dog's fate is an accidental characteristic in this scenario but rather a secondary (but still important) concern compared to the humans at stake.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

would you still say he has more intrinsic value than an animal which has proven itself a useful counterpart to the human race, and would continue to be had it lived?

One takes lives, the other saves them.

If I understand this correctly, you are arguing that we should save the dog for its utility in saving human lives--that we will end up keeping more humans alive in the end by choosing to keep the dog. Hmmm... I cannot really give much of an answer because I do need to think this over more. But off the top of my head, I would think that utility is an accidental characteristic. I'm sure neither of us wants to see people having to justify their utility to society to live but on the other hand, I can think of a few customary examples of where utility is the deciding factor in matters like this so I cannot really say for now. If you look at the paragraph above this one, you can tell my answer for some cases but when the outcome is uncertain (when it’s probable but not obvious that the person will kill someday), that’s where I run into some personal confusion.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

learning of species flips this? That just seems off to me....

It’s learning of the person-hood in one of the choices that flips this.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

PS: Welcome back.

Thank you very much.

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

humans often seem to downplay many animals without understanding anything about them.

I would agree with this statement, it’s just that I think in this case, we have gone too far in the opposite direction. I think there is a certain danger to be said of over-personifying other animals. What immediately comes to mind are animal hoarders or owners who overly "baby" their pets, over indulging them with human affections (the latter being more common).

Animals, while they can show love and affection, are no proper substitute for the personal qualities that a human provide. We have properties that set us apart. We should not say to a farmer that "you cannot farm the land to make a living because you kill all these trees" or to a fisherman that "you cannot fish because you are killing fish." While you might argue that these actions are justified because of their intent, intent is clearly not the only factor here. A person can kill live animals for food but could a person kill another live person (or sentient alien) for food? I'm certain most of us would say no. There is something to be said for what we do possess. Let us not go too far in the other direction.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Banefull

I guess I will have to go in depth to deconstruct these arguments otherwise neither of us has any chance of convincing the other. I will say that you are a good debater Tsyal Makto but with all due respect, I think that you cover many small logic errors with semantics sometimes which can add up quickly. Your choice of words tends to confuse cause-and-effect with associations. Jumping back to your first post in this thread, I will use this as an example.

No malicious intent intended, I tend to speak in a rather esoteric manner.

This is something that strikes me as simply judging things by associations i.e. appealing to common ground. While humans, dogs, cats, and chimpanzees are all considered to be animals, we have to, in logic, look at whether the causation bears any relevance to the point in question. We are animals because we share common biology. Now, does our biology factor in as determinant in basic moral treatment? I do not think so. If we take for example, an alien who is not part of the animal kingdom, not even of common chemical makeup, a silicon based life forms, this being would still be considered equal if it had the capacity to reason and understand. The difference in biology has no effect; therefore, throwing around the saying that we are all animals carries no real weight. This is called an "accidental" attribute as opposed to being a "substantial" attribute. It is therefore not part of the "essence" (essential properties) of an object deserving moral treatment.

It does carry weight, because we are all of this Earth, and are an intricate part of a biosphere that we all put into, take from, and depend on each other (all life) to sustain. We all form an intricate web of life. I tend to take the methodology that many indigenous cultures take in that most or all lifeforms are existentially equal because of this fact (yes, things are killed and sacrifices are made, but the line is set at merit rather than species, which is where spirituality and thanking an animal after they are killed for their sacrifice comes in). I am also guessing this is the major difference between us. I take a holistic morality while you take an anthropocentric one.

Let me just as you this, though: Do you think the current status quo in most industrialized societies of the relationship of the human animal to his brethren, in it's current form, is fine or healthy? Don't you think that, at the very least, a move to a more humane treatment of the life we share the Earth with is called for?

As for aliens, if they were ever to arrive to Earth, I think humanity would be best to put them on..."probation." Make them prove their merits as a peaceful species that will not harm our planet (environmentally and our civilization), before we let them into our sphere.

This is the first case where I think semantics cover a small error in logic. We need to separate the concepts of acting in a manner in accordance with right and wrong and acting with understanding of right and wrong. I can train my cat not to attack other cats but regardless of how good of a cat trainer I am, I do not think I can hope to make it understand why.

Closely examine the behavior and body motions of a cat or dog that has done something wrong. For example, my mother was once bitten by her dog (it had cataracts and she spooked him). Almost immediately the dog put it's tail between it's legs and it's head down, in a sense of shame. It is very well possible, IMO, that a dog understands it is doing wrong.

And according to that article I posted, they may also understand cause-and-effect (the mother cat, for example, knew that if it alerted the human, she could get help for her kittens).

Be careful about another semantic error here. You seem to be conflating some animals with all animals. I feel that, throughout all your posts, you are trying to make a defense for all animals when only some animals possess these qualities. I am aware that research also supports the idea of animal grief but not all animals do grieve. A lion, for example, upon seeing its dead comrade would eat it, only pausing to sniff the carcass to make sure it’s not rotten.

Grief was only one example, I'm sure lions have many emotions that they exhibit, it's just that grief isn't one of them. At least, they do not show it in a manner we can interpret as grief.

The key here is that these specific animals you list are social animals that by their very nature form bonds and social groups. I would think of them as more deserving than other animals who do not form social bonds and therefore we should do our best not to disrupt these social groups whenever possible but I still see them as being below humans which have an even greater capacity for this and many other things (like moral understanding, full capacity for reasoning, etc.).

Even if an animal does not make social bonds doesn't mean it might not possess complex consciousness. And even if not a high level of consciousness, I fall back onto the argument that because all Earth life forms a web of life that we all depend on, all complex lifeforms (which are shown to have consciousness, it's just a matter of degree of how much they deviate from instinct, but the freedom of mental movement is there) deserve to have a certain set of basic rights (yes, I'm an animal rights buff. ).

I think you make this error again. Is the dog functioning as a hero? Is it acting with any inner qualities such as having moral courage, or rather is the dog simply function in manner similar to a "hero"? I think it is the latter. I've seen some police dogs myself, but I've noticed that many of them seem to think that they are simply playing when they take down or chase down a criminal.

How do we know that a dog does not understand the benefits of it's actions? I explained this above.

In certain manners, yes. If someone was known to be a murderer, we would probably restrain him to ensure he does not physically harm anyone else. But in a matter of life or death, death is not the preferable option unless it cannot be avoided by other means.

So keeping someone alive who is no benefit to themselves, society, or nature as a whole is preferable to saving the life of a non-human creature that is benefiting society and nature, and very well could have an understanding of this (and thus is benefiting itself), simply for principle?

It’s learning of the person-hood in one of the choices that flips this.

So I'm guessing that you believe a person cannot act so badly that they lose their person hood? Do you believe it is right or wrong for societies to banish those who have committed crimes?

Which brings up another point. What if the criminal was not to be killed, but simply banished to a barren land or prison colony? They'd still be alive. So in this case: Would you kill the dog to allow the criminal to remain in our social sphere, or would you let the dog live, but the criminal is banished forever (not dead, though, at least not by our hand, they could still die by the elements)?

Thoughts?

This is all my personal worldview. (Let's leave it at that, we went down the debate about relativistic morality rabbit hole once before and I do not wish to do it again). Sorry if this isn't very easy to read, it's the best I could hobble together at 2 in the morning.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Banefull

I would agree with this statement, it’s just that I think in this case, we have gone too far in the opposite direction. I think there is a certain danger to be said of over-personifying other animals. What immediately comes to mind are animal hoarders or owners who overly "baby" their pets, over indulging them with human affections (the latter being more common).

Having a dog is no different than having a child, because they both need to be taught how to behave and fit in this world. If you have children, they need both love and boundaries, and same goes for animals.

Affection and guidance are both required in sufficient quantities, because a child grown with only affection will turn into a spoiled adult, and child grown only with discipline will turn into a violent adult. These are of course only rough and rather bad examples, but I just put them there to illustrate my point.