Is it cruel to boil lobsters alive?

[GetBetterer]

Fedace:

If i find the secrets of encapsulated chromosomes, do you think i will win the Novel prize ? or i could just sell it to the select clients ?

I think you're going off-topic and just plain spamming at this point. But it would depend on the person who finds it, as they hold the patent.

 

[mucat]

If i find the secrets of encapsulated chromosomes, do you think i will win the Novel prize ? or i could just sell it to the select clients ?

I am lining up!!!!!!!!!! what's your paypal account?

 

[FedererBestTennis]

I should probably rephrase what I said. It does not kill it, but it feels absolutely nothing. I have years of Alton Brown experience. Trust me.

 

[GetBetterer]

FedererBestTennis:

I should probably rephrase what I said. It does not kill it, but it feels absolutely nothing. I have years of Alton Brown experience. Trust me.

Didn't feel anything in the first place. Just poking holes again.

 

[mucat]

I should probably rephrase what I said. It does not kill it, but it feels absolutely nothing. I have years of Alton Brown experience. Trust me.

Ha ha, I don't care about the more humane way, I only care about the proper way to prepare a lobster. But I do feel sorry for the lobster every single time. I kept saying sorry repeatedly while chopping it to pieces...

 

[salsainglesa]

bon apettit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_G8GjMxkQU&feature=player_embedded

 

[Sentinel]

I think the Golden Rule (there are variations of it in many cultures) is interesting. One might think about the Golden Rule, then consider the question, who are the "others"? If the GR is to "do onto others as you have them do onto to you" in essence, the much depends on how each of us interprets the word "others".

Thanks a lot for the quotes in the post.

 

[SoBad]

No, seafood are not reasonably afforded the standing to claim cruel treatment.

 

[borg number one]

Thanks a lot for the quotes in the post.

No problem Sentinel. You're most welcome.

 

[Sentinel]

And as I've said before, I'm not against killing animals for food.

I just said we have to look for the best and less cruel way of killing them. Not because that's the way it works in nature (animals don't care being cruel to others, in fact many predators use very cruel ways of killing preys) but because we are a moral species, unlike the rest of animal kingdom. We shouldn't get used to cruelty and we should try to avoid it any time it's possible.

I really appreciate your thoughts.

Humans are a moral species, or perhaps a species capable of morality???. Humans are also the only species that kills millions of its own kind due some ideology or belief, not to mention killing and wiping out other species and life (again not for self-survival). To my knowledge, other species kill in very small numbers and only out of hunger. They do not kill in excess of immediate needs. There is no waste in such cases. (Some species may store food for the winter, but again its survival, not a luxury and there's no wastage there too.)

 

[sureshs]

Ok, so how do i get those encapsulated telomeres on my chromosomes ? How do i get 100 % of my chromosomes covered in that ? so i can outlive all you fools.

Check out some Prof in UCI who was working on that

 

[sureshs]

I really appreciate your thoughts.

Humans are a moral species, or perhaps a species capable of morality???. Humans are also the only species that kills millions of its own kind due some ideology or belief, not to mention killing and wiping out other species and life (again not for self-survival). To my knowledge, other species kill in very small numbers and only out of hunger. They do not kill in excess of immediate needs. There is no waste in such cases. (Some species may store food for the winter, but again its survival, not a luxury and there's no wastage there too.)

True, but all that is due to increased complexity of the brain. Animals are neither good nor bad as most of their behavior is hard-wired, or learnt from their parents, but still in the domain of survival. But if we give them more powerful brains, how will they behave? We already have the answer, because we are just apes with more complex brains. So you should replace humans with "more evolved animals" in your post and suddenly your animal argument disappears.

 

[Sentinel]

True, but all that is due to increased complexity of the brain. Animals are neither good nor bad as most of their behavior is hard-wired, or learnt from their parents, but still in the domain of survival. But if we give them more powerful brains, how will they behave? We already have the answer, because we are just apes with more complex brains. So you should replace humans with "more evolved animals" in your post and suddenly your animal argument disappears.

Sorry, there is a huge, fundamental difference in humans and all other life forms on Earth (beyond brain complexity or evolution).

In any case, my point was not that humans are not moral. I was just observing that some are and some are not.

 

[mucat]

Sorry, there is a huge, fundamental difference in humans and all other life forms on Earth (beyond brain complexity or evolution).

In any case, my point was not that humans are not moral. I was just observing that some are and some are not.

What is this huge fundamental difference?

 

[sureshs]

Just like animals did not ask to be born animals, humans did not ask to be born humans. The increased brain complexity may be viewed as beneficial by some, and a curse by others. Animals have instinctive knowledge of death (for their survival) but do not think and brood over it. They also have limited self-awareness is some sense. Humans have big brains but not enough to comprehend the Universe. Humans can think and plan for death, but (so far) can do nothing about it. Humans can build and conquer Nature, but a simple tsunami can crush them. They are stuck in a peculiar position - half-intelligent and half-capable, but not enough. So I really don't see why humans are glorified so much.

 

[Steady Eddy]

^^Glorified by whom? Only by other humans I suspect. Remember "The Meaning of Life"? The goldfish wondering what their purpose was? A goldfish, if it tried to think about what it's purpose and destiny was, (live in the bowl till death, then get flushed), it couldn't do it. And if it could, it would be disappointed in the answers. A friend was trying to tell me about his ideas of infinity, and I said that maybe we're not smart enough to figure such things. He laughed and said that he thought he could figure it out. What evidence is there that we're nearly that smart?

 

[Dilettante]

I really appreciate your thoughts.

Humans are a moral species, or perhaps a species capable of morality???. Humans are also the only species that kills millions of its own kind due some ideology or belief, not to mention killing and wiping out other species and life (again not for self-survival). To my knowledge, other species kill in very small numbers and only out of hunger. They do not kill in excess of immediate needs. There is no waste in such cases. (Some species may store food for the winter, but again its survival, not a luxury and there's no wastage there too.)

Yes, humans are capable of wars. But also, humans are the only predating superior animal capable of forming crowds of thousand individuals without a single fight. Try to make a crowd of thousand monkeys or dogs and see what happens.

You can't have the good moral without the "bad moral". The same capacity that can make humans evil, can make humans saints. That's the moral capacity, the capacity of choosing the way they act beyond what's supposed to be the natural behaviour. Other animals have a bit of this capacity to some extenet, but not enough to say they have free will like humans do.

Humans can modify their behaviour by the mere power of ideas and reasoning, for the good and for the bad. This is the moral power of the human being. The rest of animals are not moral. They just act and they can learn to act differently, but just by learning different behaviours, not by reasoning and taking moral (good or bad) decisions.

What I meant is, once we are a moral species, we need to reason in order to find the best behaviour. Because we can.

Humans can build and conquer Nature, but a simple tsunami can crush them. They are stuck in a peculiar position - half-intelligent and half-capable, but not enough. So I really don't see why humans are glorified so much.

It's not glorifying. It's pointing the obvious difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Pointing human weaknesses won't change the fact.

 

[sureshs]

Try to make a crowd of thousand monkeys or dogs and see what happens.

You fail to spot the fallacy, don't you? Who is trying to make this crowd of 1000 monkeys? A human!

And as a matter of fact many species migrate in strengths of tens of thousands over thousands of miles without self-destruction. See the "Great Migrations" series now running on Science channel. And 1000s of emperor penguins stand next to each other in Antarctica feeding and raising their young. You need to expand your knowledge of animal populations.

As far as morality goes, it is due to increased complexity of the brain which requires more social mores to help people live together, otherwise they will try to scheme and plunder and destroy themselves and others. It is a necessity which has been turned into a virtue. Animals have that too to some extent: apes have elaborate social status and pecking order and lots of rules, and communication means to indicate approval or disapproval. Humans are just more evolved versions of them with more social complexity. There is no "point" at which we suddenly left our ancestors behind and became human instead of animal. Such false ideas are due to religious propoganda. It was an ongoing process.

 

[pushing_wins]

Yes, humans are capable of wars. But also, humans are the only predating superior animal capable of forming crowds of thousand individuals without a single fight. Try to make a crowd of thousand monkeys or dogs and see what happens.

You can't have the good moral without the "bad moral". The same capacity that can make humans evil, can make humans saints. That's the moral capacity, the capacity of choosing the way they act beyond what's supposed to be the natural behaviour. Other animals have a bit of this capacity to some extenet, but not enough to say they have free will like humans do.

Humans can modify their behaviour by the mere power of ideas and reasoning, for the good and for the bad. This is the moral power of the human being. The rest of animals are not moral. They just act and they can learn to act differently, but just by learning different behaviours, not by reasoning and taking moral (good or bad) decisions.

What I meant is, once we are a moral species, we need to reason in order to find the best behaviour. Because we can.



It's not glorifying. It's pointing the obvious difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Pointing human weaknesses won't change the fact.

animals do not reason?

 

[mucat]

But also, humans are the only predating superior animal capable of forming crowds of thousand individuals without a single fight. Try to make a crowd of thousand monkeys or dogs and see what happens.

There are lots of example to disprove this point. Shouldn't take long for you to find them.

You can't have the good moral without the "bad moral". The same capacity that can make humans evil, can make humans saints. That's the moral capacity, the capacity of choosing the way they act beyond what's supposed to be the natural behaviour. Other animals have a bit of this capacity to some extenet, but not enough to say they have free will like humans do.

Saints???? We pat each other on the back and give each other medals and "names". That's how silly we are.

Humans can modify their behaviour by the mere power of ideas and reasoning, for the good and for the bad. This is the moral power of the human being. The rest of animals are not moral. They just act and they can learn to act differently, but just by learning different behaviours, not by reasoning and taking moral (good or bad) decisions.

Other animals can do those things too.

What I meant is, once we are a moral species, we need to reason in order to find the best behaviour. Because we can.

You might be a good and maybe naive person to think this way, but that doesn't mean others will think the same. However, I am happy my cats behave very good most of the time.

 

[Dilettante]

You fail to spot the fallacy, don't you? Who is trying to make this crowd of 1000 monkeys? A human!

Where's the fallacy? Even in a small crowd of monkeys there are a lot of fights.

Speaking of fallacies, I've seen the weight of your argumentation consists in misquoting what I've said:

And as a matter of fact many species migrate in strengths of tens of thousands over thousands of miles without self-destruction.

I didn't say "self-destruction", I said without having a single fight. AND I said predating animals, who are naturally aggresive as humans are.

But even the thousands of migrating hervibores and your beloved penguins have fights among them. They don't self destruct, but they fight.

here is no "point" at which we suddenly left our ancestors behind and became human instead of animal.

Again, I never said humans "instead" of animals, you just made it up.

In all my posts I spoke of humans as an animal species.

-------------

Another misquoter:

animals do not reason?

I never said that. I said: Humans can modify their behaviour by the mere power of ideas and reasoning. The MERE power of reasoning.

---------

Guys, I think the first rule of a deep discussion is trying to be fair when quoting/pointing the other's arguments.

 

[Dilettante]

There are lots of example to disprove this point. Shouldn't take long for you to find them.

I said A is possible.
You said non-A cases disprove A being possible.
But non-A cases just prove non-A cases are ALSO possible. They don't disprove A cases.

See?

You might be a good and maybe naive person to think this way, but that doesn't mean others will think the same.

I said we need and we can. I didn't said we always do.

Read better the next time, please, so I don't have to clarify what is already written.

However, I am happy my cats behave very good most of the time.

Behaving good is not necessarily behaving in a moral way. Because your cats can act good without a previous moral reasoning. They just act good, and acting good it's not being moral per se.

 

[mucat]

I said A is possible.
You said non-A cases disprove A being possible.
But non-A cases just prove non-A cases are ALSO possible. They don't disprove A cases.

See?

See what? Other animals can do that too. And we are also capable of fighting even with a few of us around.

I said we need and we can. I didn't said we always do.

Read better the next time, please, so I don't have to clarify what is already written.

So what's the different between animal and human again?

Behaving good is not necessarily behaving in a moral way. Because your cats can act good without a previous moral reasoning. They just act good, and acting good it's not being moral per se.

How do you know? Did you talk to him? Do he call you? You are making assumption here. And animals don't just act good. Even within species, every individuals has different personalities. For example, there are good cats, there are bad cats, nice bear, not so nice bear...

Sharks, insects and lots of other animals have living on earth a lot longer than us. Heck, even dinosaurs lived longer. We are special?? No.

 

[borg number one]

I find facts like this to be fascinating. When we speak of whales and dolphins for example, they can do certain things that we as human beings could never dream of doing. I'm so glad I've never tried lobster by the way. Not for a billion dollars, no thanks.


What else do we not understand?

Whales are known to teach, learn, cooperate, scheme, and even grieve.

Some species, such as the humpback whale, communicate using melodic sounds, known as whale song. These sounds can be extremely loud, depending on the species. Sperm whales have only been heard making clicks, while toothed whales (Odontoceti) use echolocation that can generate about 20,000 watts of sound (+73 dBm or +43 dBw[21]) and be heard for many miles. Whale vocalization is likely to serve many purposes, including echolocation, mating, and identification.

Dolphins are often regarded as one of Earth's most intelligent animals, though it is hard to say just how intelligent. Comparing species' relative intelligence is complicated by differences in sensory apparatus, response modes, and nature of cognition. Furthermore, the difficulty and expense of experimental work with large aquatic animals has so far prevented some tests and limited sample size and rigor in others. Compared to many other species, however, dolphin behavior has been studied extensively, both in captivity and in the wild. See cetacean intelligence for more details.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

Yes, humans are capable of wars. But also, humans are the only predating superior animal capable of forming crowds of thousand individuals without a single fight. Try to make a crowd of thousand monkeys or dogs and see what happens.

You can't have the good moral without the "bad moral". The same capacity that can make humans evil, can make humans saints. That's the moral capacity, the capacity of choosing the way they act beyond what's supposed to be the natural behaviour. Other animals have a bit of this capacity to some extenet, but not enough to say they have free will like humans do.

Before the great population explosion, deforestation and European incursion into africa, back in the 1700s there were tales of "kingdoms" of monkeys numbering in the thousands. There are also accounts by of ape (iirc gorilla) group numbering close to a thousand. Go back 2000-3000 years and who knows what you'd find.

Tigers used to selectively and intentionally conduct warfare on humans in india until the 1800s. That changed with the introduction of the gun and hunting campaigns forever decimated their numbers, and imprinted a fear of humans into both their social group and genetic psyche. Competition for resources, never ending encroachment in their territory and hunting campaigns caused them to engage in behavior only seen by gorilla troops. They would wipe out an entire village of over a hundred for example, not eating them, simply killing everyone.

Humans can modify their behaviour by the mere power of ideas and reasoning, for the good and for the bad. This is the moral power of the human being. The rest of animals are not moral. They just act and they can learn to act differently, but just by learning different behaviours, not by reasoning and taking moral (good or bad) decisions.
What I meant is, once we are a moral species, we need to reason in order to find the best behaviour. Because we can.
It's not glorifying. It's pointing the obvious difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.
Pointing human weaknesses won't change the fact.

I would say countless animals can reason and alter their behavior via analysis of a situation and decisionmaking overriding some imprinted "instinct". I don't know where to begin...

Take the raven story in scandinavia. The raven’s intelligence and persistence are fascinating to observe. In Scandinavia, an unattended ice fishing line turns provides an easy meal for a clever raven — until the frustrated fisherman finally discovers the thief’s identity.

- Raven figures out how to manipulate fishing line (tool) (other example of tool usage using twig/sticks in beak to spear worms burrowed in tree trunk)
- Raven understands the purpose and benefit of waiting for the human to leave before attempting to extract fish.
- Raven realized what the fisherman was doing by pulling up the fish.
- Raven learned (and understood by the time of the video recording) that a tug on the string meant that a fish had caught on the hook/sink. As soon as the string started to get tugged it flew down and pulled up the string.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/ravens/video-raven-intelligence/1549/

 

[Sentinel]

Speaking of fallacies, I've seen the weight of your argumentation consists in misquoting what I've said:


--------

Guys, I think the first rule of a deep discussion is trying to be fair when quoting/pointing the other's arguments.

Despite his intelligence, he does have this habit of misquoting and deliberately misrepresenting what others say making it difficult to have a discussion -- one would go nuts trying to point out what one said in which line, and it goes on.

 

[Sentinel]

Tigers used to selectively and intentionally conduct warfare on humans in india until the 1800s...... . They would wipe out an entire village of over a hundred for example, not eating them, simply killing everyone.

That's interesting. Do you have any link for this ? where did you read/learn of this ?

While mentioning that animals only kill for eating, i forgot that they also kill for territorial purposes. However, this post of yours is quite shocking.

(Acco to whatever i have read as a kid, animals did *not* hunt humans since they were not used to human smell as humans came in pretty late. Human smell was not known to them as "prey" till recently.)

 

[PCXL-Fan]

I was watching some tv documentary about the history of tigers in India, and their subsequent decline.

At one point they talk about accounts of tigers (in the iirc 1700-1800) going door to door, wiping out entire villages leaving no one alive.

 

[Sentinel]

I was watching some tv documentary about the history of tigers in India, and their subsequent decline.

At one point they talk about accounts of tigers (in the iirc 1700-1800) going door to door, wiping out entire villages leaving no one alive.

going door to door, knock knock

 

[matt.flynn60]

If boiling lobsters is wrong then I don't want to be right.

 

[Fedace]

If boiling lobsters is wrong then I don't want to be right.

What do you think about baking over the grill ? that might taste better. and more humane...

 

[mucat]

If boiling lobsters is wrong then I don't want to be right.

LOL!! Awesome!!!!

 

[sureshs]

I didn't say "self-destruction", I said without having a single fight.

Seriously, you are arguing about animals having a SINGLE fight?

Have you counted all the wars in human history? Have you seen how much destruction a single bomb can do compared to what an entire group of animals can ever do?

The intelligence that humans have to stop destructive tendencies is more than needed because of the destructive tendencies. If you and your opponent have a missile each, you need intelligence to control your impulses. If you are fighting over a fruit, basic behavior is enough. Animals other than humans have what it takes for them, we have what it takes for us, that is all.

 

[sureshs]

Tigers used to selectively and intentionally conduct warfare on humans in india until the 1800s.

That is not true. Humans began encroaching more and more into the natural habitat of the tiger. Once some tigers got a taste of human flesh, they became what were called "man eaters." Read Jim Corbett's books on hunting down these man eaters. The other tigers would occasionally kill only if humans got in the way. Only a few maneaters used to be regulars. Jim Corbett traces the history of each case, like how it became a man-eater, and would only kill the tiger unless absolutely warranted, so much that a national park was named after him.

I am sure ancient humans faced many challenges from animals. That is how it should be. You can't go swimming a mile into the ocean and complain about sharks - you are encroaching into the territory that has always been theirs.

 

[Dilettante]

Despite his intelligence, he does have this habit of misquoting and deliberately misrepresenting what others say making it difficult to have a discussion -- one would go nuts trying to point out what one said in which line, and it goes on.

It's a shame, because that kind of debate is a dead end street. Forcing me to explain the same thing again and again in different ways only will get me tired. And I like to discuss these matters a lot.

Mucat is doing the same, but even worst. I don't want to ignore them, but I don't want to explain the same stuff five or ten times.

I would say countless animals can reason and alter their behavior via analysis of a situation and decisionmaking overriding some imprinted "instinct". I don't know where to begin...

Take the raven story in scandinavia.

I see your point and yes, I've said other animals can learn new behaviours. And they can learn through abstract reasoning, no doubt. Many animals can do it.

But my point was moral reasoning. I don't think other animals are capable of making complex moral reasonings like humans can do, to the point that in some cases moral can become the first motivation of the behaviour, over instincts and momentary needs. You can imagine a human acting like Gary Cooper in "High noon" for similar moral reasons, but I can't imagine any other animal doing it. They are not capable of acting like that for pure moral reasons.

Moral reasoning is not just a result of empathy. Many animals can empathize and they can act good in consequence. But moral does not necessarially need empathy. Moral is the result of intelligent, profound analysis of good and bad.

Tigers used to selectively and intentionally conduct warfare on humans in india until the 1800s.

Didn't know aboput tigers but the obvious example are ants. For ants, warfare is one of the most important activities. Their society is designed for war, among other few things. They even have professional soldiers.

 

[dParis]

For ants, warfare is one of the most important activities. Their society is designed for war, among other few things. They even have professional soldiers.

Cool. How are they "paid"?

 

[mucat]

It's a shame, because that kind of debate is a dead end street. Forcing me to explain the same thing again and again in different ways only will get me tired. And I like to discuss these matters a lot.

Mucat is doing the same, but even worst. I don't want to ignore them, but I don't want to explain the same stuff five or ten times.

Dilettante, you will first have to define what is moral values first. Once we have a clear definition of moral values. Then we can debate on whether it is a human only quality.

It is only a dead end street because maybe you are wrong, have you consider this?

There are also examples of wide animals saving humans. Those are wide animals saving strangers!! That's not moral enough for you!?

Other posters have been giving you tons of examples but you somehow choose to ignore them. But I guess that's one of the unique quality of human too.

And yes, I am the worst.

 

[sureshs]

Jim Corbett explains

"As many of the stories in this book are about man-eating
tigers, it is perhaps desirable to explain why these animals
develop man-eating tendencies.

A man-eating tiger is a tiger that has been compelled, through
stress of circumstances beyond its control, to adopt a diet alien
to it. The stress of circumstances is, in nine cases out of ten,
wounds, and in the tenth case old age. The wound that has
caused a particular tiger to take to man-eating might be the
result of a carelessly fired shot and failure to follow up and
recover the wounded animal, or be the result of the tiger having
lost his temper when killing a porcupine. Human beings are
not the natural prey of tigers, and it is only when tigers have
been incapacitated through wounds or old age that, in order to
five, they are compelled to take to a diet of human flesh."

 

[sureshs]

But my point was moral reasoning. I don't think other animals are capable of making complex moral reasonings like humans can do, to the point that in some cases moral can become the first motivation of the behaviour, over instincts and momentary needs.

That is because they are not capable of complex reasoning about the past, present and future, in general, and also have limited self-awareness. The contradiction is to expect only moral reasoning when the other kinds of reasoning are not there, and then make humans out to be moral. You can compare humans with humans, not with others. You cannot ascribe human qualities to animals when there is no justification.

It is like saying over and over again that a snake does not use a one handed backhand but humans do, without acknowledging that snakes simply cannot play tennis in the first place.

A crocodile has a brain the size of a nut. It is almost entirely hard-wired to hunt. Saying it lacks morality makes no sense whatsoever. It is the same as expecting us to live in a river all our life and swallow whatever prey comes our way.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

That is not true. Humans began encroaching more and more into the natural habitat of the tiger. Once some tigers got a taste of human flesh, they became what were called "man eaters." Read Jim Corbett's books on hunting down these man eaters. The other tigers would occasionally kill only if humans got in the way. Only a few maneaters used to be regulars. Jim Corbett traces the history of each case, like how it became a man-eater, and would only kill the tiger unless absolutely warranted, so much that a national park was named after him.

I am sure ancient humans faced many challenges from animals. That is how it should be. You can't go swimming a mile into the ocean and complain about sharks - you are encroaching into the territory that has always been theirs.

I don't know. Wiping out a small village sounds like something other than sustenance. How much meat could a tiger eat in one sitting? Dozens of bodies would be too much for several tigers. They don't eat rotting meat.

 

[sureshs]

I don't know. Wiping out a small village sounds like something other than sustenance. How much meat could a tiger eat in one sitting? Dozens of bodies would be too much for several tigers. They don't eat rotting meat.

It looks like there were a few tigers like that. Remember also that things tended to get exaggerated in those days. There was no youtube or cell phones to document anything. But Jim Corbett was very careful and he was probably right.

Another example I saw in TV was about young male elephants in Africa whose elders had been killed by humans for poaching the tusks. Having no social structure and support system in place, they exhibited aggressive behavior similar to some homeless youth in humans. They started killing rhinos for fun. They would gore them with their tusks, play around with them, and then walk away. So, for mammals with more complex brains, such behavior is sometimes possible.

In both cases, humans were often the root cause.

 

[Fedace]

Where is the best tasting Lobsters found ? in Alaska ? also i hate that Red Lobsters joint,,,,their lobsters taste like its been dead for centuries...

 

[Sentinel]

Interesting observations by sureshs

 

[sureshs]

Interesting observations by sureshs

How is Raja Federer?

 

[Dilettante]

I don't know. Wiping out a small village sounds like something other than sustenance. How much meat could a tiger eat in one sitting? Dozens of bodies would be too much for several tigers. They don't eat rotting meat.

You make interesting points so I'd recommend you not getting lost in suresh's offtopics. It's obvious several animal species do warfare for other purposes than just getting food. You don't need to prove that. It's a fact.

That is because they are not capable of complex reasoning about the past, present and future, in general, and also have limited self-awareness. The contradiction is to expect only moral reasoning when the other kinds of reasoning are not there, and then make humans out to be moral. You can compare humans with humans, not with others. You cannot ascribe human qualities to animals when there is no justification.

It is like saying over and over again that a snake does not use a one handed backhand but humans do, without acknowledging that snakes simply cannot play tennis in the first place.

A crocodile has a brain the size of a nut. It is almost entirely hard-wired to hunt. Saying it lacks morality makes no sense whatsoever. It is the same as expecting us to live in a river all our life and swallow whatever prey comes our way.

Yes. All the previous junk was only to end here saying exactly the same that I've said several times and you were misquoting again and again?

Geez man.

Dilettante, you will first have to define what is moral values first.

I did it already.

It is only a dead end street because maybe you are wrong, have you consider this?

I'm out of words here.

Cool. How are they "paid"?

Monthly checks.

And food.

 

[sureshs]

You make interesting points so I'd recommend you not getting lost in suresh's offtopics. It's obvious several animal species do warfare for other purposes than just getting food. You don't need to prove that. It's a fact.



Yes. All the previous junk was only to end here saying exactly the same that I've said several times and you were misquoting again and again?

Geez man.



I did it already.



I'm out of words here.



Monthly checks.

And food.

No, you don't get the subtleties about my posts. Everyone knows that animals fight for food, mates, territory, etc. What I question is the constant harping on human "morality" compared to animals. Animals do not have the same brain complexity of humans, and so morality is not required. Does anyone complain that animals cannot do calculus? The harping on morality is based on ignorance of evolution and a staple of the old ways of thinking in which morality was used to imply divinity and convey the impression that we are the chosen species.

 

[Sentinel]

Isn't morality a human invention ? I mean it is not an absolute standard, but something specific to our society. Another intelligent, advanced society could have very different sense of morality.

I don't consider animals to lack morality. they have their ways. For example, a mother will often push off her offspring when they are old enough to look for food. In many cases, a mother may actually kill or reject her weak(er) offspring so that the stronger ones can survive. This especially happens when there is a shortage of food.

Does morality also cover monogamy -- isn't promiscuity and adultery supposed to be "immoral" in humans ? It appears to be an "arbitrary" or "peculiar to humans" standard.

 

[mtommer]

The harping on morality is based on ignorance of evolution

Uhh, no, not even close. Evolution doesn't prove that our "intelligence" (morality - whatever) came via evolution. Further, brain complexity doesn't prove intelligence exists, only that the complex brain in question has the capacity to process intelligence. In other words, while a complex brain is needed for intelligence, it doesn't mean there is intelligence just because the brain is complex. If that's the case, then the complexity of the universe is a valid proof that God exists - ie the watchmaker argument is no longer a fallacious argument.

 

[mtommer]

Isn't morality a human invention?

No, it's a human observation.

 

[sureshs]

Uhh, no, not even close. Evolution doesn't prove that our "intelligence" (morality - whatever) came via evolution. Further, brain complexity doesn't prove intelligence exists, only that the complex brain in question has the capacity to process intelligence. In other words, while a complex brain is needed for intelligence, it doesn't mean there is intelligence just because the brain is complex. If that's the case, then the complexity of the universe is a valid proof that God exists - ie the watchmaker argument is no longer a fallacious argument.

Your comparisons are not correct. Evolution is not a watchmaker approach.

There is no way for intelligence to "just show up." It could have been accelerated due to factors like meat eating, language, ability to stand up, opposable thumb etc, but ultimately it has to get into the genes to be able to be propagated from one generation to another.