Are we evil?

[Devils_Advocate]

Morality tends to be human-centric, thanks to it being created by humans and being defined by humans. (or being understood and interpreted by humans, depending on viewpoint) As such, morality is going to favor humans over other things, or at least equal to other things, and favor human viewpoints over non-human ones.

You could replace humanity with a particular culture, ideology, or, heck, tribe in that analysis, and I'm pretty sure that people have and do. Except that I'm pretty sure that the overall trend has been one of substituting the specific with the general, not vice versa. In no small part because, to the extent that fairness is moral and unfairness is immoral, it's easy to see how some "moral standards" are actually immoral standards.

And to the extent that "morality" can include unfairness in your favor, it seems like there's a distinction to be made between good morality and evil morality. Or however you want to put it. Maybe "good" and "evil" aren't the best words for this, but there is a rather obvious difference, right?

Please note that the idea that humans are evil, simply by eating and surviving, is not a new one

Has anyone argued that in this thread? If not, what's your purpose in bringing it up? Seems like kind of a strawman in that case.

[BananaPhone]

@OP:

No. Animals eat other animals, that's the way of the world. I'm against eating animals that are self-aware like elephants and dolphins, but other than that, nope, eat away.

I'd still see such parasites as monsters no matter how much they tried to philosophically befuddle me/weasel their way out of a shotgun to the face. At the least I'd see them as a predator and a threat to the security of myself and fellow humans, so again, shotgun meet face.

[SalmaHayek]

Those soybeans aren't even born yet, you monsters!

[Killer Angel]

@OP:
I'm against eating animals that are self-aware like elephants and dolphins, but other than that, nope, eat away.

What's the limit of "self-awareness"? a cow is self-aware of its existance or is like an amoeba?

[Zrak]

Generally speaking, "self-aware," "sentient," and "sapient" are all qualifiers based around the very precise standard of a delineation which allows you to take a principled stand in a way which does not in the least inconvenience you.

[Killer Angel]

Yeah, I thought it was something like that...

[Tvtyrant]

Generally speaking, "self-aware," "sentient," and "sapient" are all qualifiers based around the very precise standard of a delineation which allows you to take a principled stand in a way which does not in the least inconvenience you.

Like pretty much any principled stand in my experience.

[Tyndmyr]

@OP:

No. Animals eat other animals, that's the way of the world. I'm against eating animals that are self-aware like elephants and dolphins, but other than that, nope, eat away.

I'd still see such parasites as monsters no matter how much they tried to philosophically befuddle me/weasel their way out of a shotgun to the face. At the least I'd see them as a predator and a threat to the security of myself and fellow humans, so again, shotgun meet face.

I'm also against eating friendly animals. Pets and the like. They're basically family. Part of the tribe, regardless of talk of self awareness or whatever.

On the flip side, the idea of say...hyper-intelligent spiders does not fill me with curiosity and a desire to converse. Such a thing must be purged from the earth with fire. Something that lives off eating humans? Danger to me. Kill it with fire.

Justify that however you prefer.

[Coidzor]

Generally speaking, "self-aware," "sentient," and "sapient" are all qualifiers based around the very precise standard of a delineation which allows you to take a principled stand in a way which does not in the least inconvenience you.

From a utilitarian point of view, having principles that don't inconvenience you is a good, no?

[BannedInSchool]

From a utilitarian point of view, having principles that don't inconvenience you is a good, no?

With a sufficient array of principles one can do whatever one wants and choose the appropriate principle to justify it. Bonus points for also claiming it is right and necessary to do whatever it is that you want to do based on that principle.

[BananaPhone]

What's the limit of "self-awareness"? a cow is self-aware of its existance or is like an amoeba?

Being aware that you're a separate entity, an individual. Dolphins, elephants and most apes have been observed demonstrating the most rudimentary characteristics of this (such as recognising themselves in mirrors). Humans can too. The overwhelming majority of animals, however, cannot. Even dogs. And I love dogs.

If you want a deeper response than this though, I fear I cannot give it to you. Even the most eminent of psychologists haven't formed an agreement.

[Zrak]

Like pretty much any principled stand in my experience.

I would disagree. Even on a very rudimentary level, a great many principled stands involve a great deal of at least petty, quotidian inconvenience, and a not inconsiderable number of them involve a lot more.

Being aware that you're a separate entity, an individual. Dolphins, elephants and most apes have been observed demonstrating the most rudimentary characteristics of this (such as recognising themselves in mirrors). Humans can too. The overwhelming majority of animals, however, cannot. Even dogs. And I love dogs.

The idea that this is testable borders on the ludicrous; the idea that the mirror test is representative crosses that border and builds a clown shoe factory on the other side.

For example, do you contend that blind people, who lack one of "the most rudimentary characteristics" of self-awareness, are not aware that they're individuals? If not, then that is a pretty bad rudimentary characteristic of self-awareness. I don't mean this just to be pedantic, either. Although that's an extreme example, it shows the exact reason that the mirror test is a bad test; it doesn't test whether or not you're aware that you're a separate, individual entity, it tests your reaction to mirrors. I say "your reaction to mirrors" because it doesn't even really test whether you can recognize the figure in the mirror as yourself, but rather whether or not you touch a mark made on a part of your skin you cannot normally see that the mirror would allow you to see. The connection between this act and self-awareness relies on an astounding number of not only totally unsupported, but often contraindicated or demonstrably false assumptions, like an animal relying on vision to distinguish between individuals or the notion that touching all marks you see on your body is a necessary and unavoidable consequence of self-awareness. For example, dogs rely on other senses much more heavily than vision, and a visually-focused mirror test may be as likely to create a false-negative for a dog as a scent-based "mirror" test would be for most people.

[BananaPhone]

I would disagree. Even on a very rudimentary level, a great many principled stands involve a great deal of at least petty, quotidian inconvenience, and a not inconsiderable number of them involve a lot more.


The idea that this is testable borders on the ludicrous; the idea that the mirror test is representative crosses that border and builds a clown shoe factory on the other side.

For example, do you contend that blind people, who lack one of "the most rudimentary characteristics" of self-awareness, are not aware that they're individuals? If not, then that is a pretty bad rudimentary characteristic of self-awareness. I don't mean this just to be pedantic, either. Although that's an extreme example, it shows the exact reason that the mirror test is a bad test; it doesn't test whether or not you're aware that you're a separate, individual entity, it tests your reaction to mirrors.

I'm not a psychologist, and I use the mirror test as one example of methods those far more educated than I in the manner have gone about trying to test other animals self-awareness. But the underlying principle, I believe, is to see if the animal recognises itself or if it reacts as if seeing another of its own species. This is further explored by animals receiving additions to their bodies (such as noticeable dots being placed on them). Dolphins, apes, elephants etc have all then used the mirror to inspect this new addition to themselves, tilting their vision in ways that allows them to observe it. Where-as other animals notice no difference and act as if they're interacting with another of their kind.

The two camps of reactions tend to be split up into one group of animals reacting with "hey, what's that thing on me?" and another reacting with "another dog! Bark at it!"

It isn't fool-proof. It isn't watertight. But the underlying mechanics that are generating those two very different types of reactions are the rudimentary foundations of self-awareness.

I think so anyway. Again, I'm not a psychologist so I'll leave the research and conclusion up to them. In the mean-time I'll stick with my distinction between not wanting to harm/eat the animals I think are self-aware and being fine with eating the ones that aren't (except dogs and cats, because dogs are awesome and cats are snakes with fur).

[Killer Angel]

I it doesn't test whether or not you're aware that you're a separate, individual entity, it tests your reaction to mirrors. I say "your reaction to mirrors" because it doesn't even really test whether you can recognize the figure in the mirror as yourself,

Speaking about reaction to mirrors, Narcissus saw his own reflection in a pool, and fell in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image.

[Murska]

With a sufficient array of principles one can do whatever one wants and choose the appropriate principle to justify it. Bonus points for also claiming it is right and necessary to do whatever it is that you want to do based on that principle.

These are my principles, and if you don't like them... Well, I have others.

[Zrak]

I'm not a psychologist, and I use the mirror test as one example of methods those far more educated than I in the manner have gone about trying to test other animals self-awareness. But the underlying principle, I believe, is to see if the animal recognises itself or if it reacts as if seeing another of its own species. This is further explored by animals receiving additions to their bodies (such as noticeable dots being placed on them). Dolphins, apes, elephants etc have all then used the mirror to inspect this new addition to themselves, tilting their vision in ways that allows them to observe it. Where-as other animals notice no difference and act as if they're interacting with another of their kind.

That's not the underlying principle. The underlying principle really is just whether or not it touches (or, rarely, inspects more generally) the mark on itself. It really is just that. Pigs, for example, have never passed the "mirror test," (insofar as I'm aware) but have passed a number of other tests involving using mirrors to get food, which require at least a vague awareness that they are the figure in the mirror, since they could not otherwise gauge their position relative to the food they can only see in the mirror. Taken together, the two indicate that the mirror test says more about pigs' grooming habits than their comprehension of mirrors or their self-awareness.

The two camps of reactions tend to be split up into one group of animals reacting with "hey, what's that thing on me?" and another reacting with "another dog! Bark at it!"

It's more complex than this, since most animals, including people, initially react by thinking the figure in the mirror is a different member of their species, and very few continue to react that way over prolonged interaction with a mirror. For example, dogs typically lose interest in mirrors, rather than continuing to act as though there's another dog in the mirror; what this indicates is totally ambiguous. They could still think it's another dog, and just not have any interest in that dog, or they may recognize that it isn't another dog without recognizing it's them, or they may recognize it's them and have no real interest in looking at themselves.

It isn't fool-proof. It isn't watertight. But the underlying mechanics that are generating those two very different types of reactions are the rudimentary foundations of self-awareness.

It would be one thing if it weren't perfect, but it's another entirely to be so fundamentally flawed. A test of "the rudimentary foundations" should require only self-awareness to pass; the mirror test requires self-awareness, visual acuity, a certain fairly specific set of grooming standards and behaviors, and a measure of reasoning ability. Lacking in any one of those can lead a self-aware creature, even one which is otherwise demonstrably self-aware (i.e. a blind human) to fail the test. I've yet to see a mirror test attempt to control for any of these by, say, gauging reactions to a similar mark placed somewhere the animal can see without a mirror; if they don't react to the mark then, nothing can really be established by their lack of reaction to a mirror. It's a pretty goofy, arbitrary test that measures a lot of other things much more reliably than it measures the one thing it's supposed to.

[Ravens_cry]

I do agree that the mirror 'test' is pretty flawed. With modern computer capabilities, it would be possible to design a special purpose robot that could pass the test while otherwise being unintelligent, and it's deucedly easy to conceive of a being that, while otherwise intelligent, would fail the test.
However, if humans and animals are moral equals, then animals are moral equals to each other. Should we lock up a crocodile for murder because it eats a gazelle? If you say 'That's nature', well, it's human nature to eat other animals as well. We have the digestive system and teeth of omnivores. Now, that does not excuse human cruelty to other animals. If we take another animal into our lives, we have a duty to make its life comfortable and safe while they are with us, and make sure their end is without pain or suffering, because causing suffering when it can be avoided is wrong. How do we know if they 'feel' pain? How do we know if another human feels anything? We don't; we can't, but we assume so since, allegedly, we do.

[Grinner]

Consider this. There's a book by the eminent Douglas Hofstadter, titled I Am A Strange Loop. Early in the book, he introduces the idea of consciousness being a spectrum rather than a binary state.

Food for thought.

[Lissou]

I don't really understand the point of the mirror in the first place. I don't understand how being self-aware (aware that you're an individual, separate from other individuals) should automatically lead to recognizing yourself in a mirror, knowing that a reflection is your reflection, and so on. Even taking blindness aside, there are conditions that make people unable to recognize themselves in a mirror and they're still self-aware.

I also don't really understand basing what you eat on how smart they are. Not all individual from a same species have the same degree of intelligence so there will be overlaps (including with humans, for that matter) and since I doubt you'll ever bother to check if the specific individual you're eating (or eating part of) was on the smarter or dumber side of its species, using it as your justification doesn't really make sense to me. I mean looking at just humans, there is a huge range, and several humans would fail many of the criteria I've heard people use to justify eating this or that animal. And treating whole species as though they were all on the exact same page isn't consistent with what we know of individual beings from the same species, most notably humans (since we spend most time around humans) but also other animals, for anyone who has spend time around many individuals from the same species, they'll be able to tell you there is a large variation in personality, intelligence, and so on.

And in the end, because we can't communicate effectively with most animals, it's difficult to know what they think. For instance, it was believed for a long time that cats, unlike dogs, didn't understand things such as their names, a variety of commands, and so on. Only more recently was it proven that they completely understand, they just don't care. You ask them to do something? Well they don't want to do it, so they won't. Similarly, they know when you're playing with them, it's you who's moving the feather, but they pretend they're hunting it anyways. So I don't find it difficult to believe that they know it's them in the mirror, but don't care at all, and will either play with their reflection because hey, something that reflects them is kinda cool, or do nothing because they've lost interest. And they definitely know how mirrors work. I've seen my cat look at me through a mirror and then go directly to where I had put something. It shows a complete understanding of how mirrors works. Again, not that I think it is relevant as far as being self-aware goes.

And... I don't really see why something being self-aware would be the criteria for whether you'll eat it or not. There are criteria I understand. Do I need to eat it to survive? Is it tasty? Does it feel pain? But self-awareness, or intelligence? I don't really get those. "You're stupid, therefore it's fine if you die" is just too disturbing a thought to me because again, there are many humans who happen to rate lower than some individual animals on a number of scales meant to measure intelligence (and so many different ways we have to measure it that it's easy to pick the one you already agreed with in the first place and then use it to back-up your pre-existing position).

[Zrak]

However, if humans and animals are moral equals, then animals are moral equals to each other. Should we lock up a crocodile for murder because it eats a gazelle? If you say 'That's nature', well, it's human nature to eat other animals as well. We have the digestive system and teeth of omnivores. Now, that does not excuse human cruelty to other animals. If we take another animal into our lives, we have a duty to make its life comfortable and safe while they are with us, and make sure their end is without pain or suffering, because causing suffering when it can be avoided is wrong. How do we know if they 'feel' pain? How do we know if another human feels anything? We don't; we can't, but we assume so since, allegedly, we do.

Well, yes and no. I don't think having equal moral rights confers, necessarily, equal moral responsibilities, either in my own personal estimation or, for that matter, in most moral systems. The easiest example of this is children, who we generally consider at least morally equal to adults as objects, but who we rarely hold to adult standards as moral subjects. More abstractly, moral responsibility and moral weight are typically conferred by different qualities; the latter typically hinges on a nebulous "consciousness" or a more concrete (though still arguably unknowable) ability to suffer, while the former typically hinges on being a semi-rational actor with a certain degree of agency. A creature could conceivably be conscious and feel suffering without really having the reasoning abilities (or even simply not having the knowledge) required for moral agency or responsibility. The idea that the crocodile could choose not to eat the gazelle, either in the practical sense of being able to ensure its own survival without doing so or more theoretical terms concerning the degree of free will possessed by a crocodile, is hard to confidently assert; asserting that it can understand the gazelle's suffering as a basis to make that choice, is harder still. On the other hand, we can be much more confident in asserting that (most adult) humans can comprehend others' suffering, and are both logistically and cognitively able to choose to avoid eating meat.

In other words, even if the crocodile and human are considered equivalent moral actors, rather than merely equivalent moral objects, the actions also have to be considered in their contexts; a crocodile who is eating a gazelle likely has no other way to survive and, moreover, may not understand that the gazelle suffers; a modern human who is eating a pig is likely to have a ton of options that allow it to survive without eating the pig and, moreover, probably has at least some awareness of the pig's capacity for suffering. Even putting aside the issue of understanding others' capability to suffer, since it's harder to firmly assert either party's understanding on the subject with certainty, killing something because it's necessary for one's survival and killing something because it's convenient or has a pleasant result are generally considered ethically distinct, to say the least; killing someone in self-defense is not the same as killing someone to shorten the line at the coffee shop.

[Coidzor]

Speaking about reaction to mirrors, Narcissus saw his own reflection in a pool, and fell in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image.

Just goes to show, the idea of the pretty airhead goes way back. And the original Dumb Blonde was actually a Dumb Blond.

[danzibr]

I'm not a psychologist, and I use the mirror test as one example of methods those far more educated than I in the manner have gone about trying to test other animals self-awareness. But the underlying principle, I believe, is to see if the animal recognises itself or if it reacts as if seeing another of its own species. This is further explored by animals receiving additions to their bodies (such as noticeable dots being placed on them). Dolphins, apes, elephants etc have all then used the mirror to inspect this new addition to themselves, tilting their vision in ways that allows them to observe it. Where-as other animals notice no difference and act as if they're interacting with another of their kind.

The two camps of reactions tend to be split up into one group of animals reacting with "hey, what's that thing on me?" and another reacting with "another dog! Bark at it!"

It isn't fool-proof. It isn't watertight. But the underlying mechanics that are generating those two very different types of reactions are the rudimentary foundations of self-awareness.

I think so anyway. Again, I'm not a psychologist so I'll leave the research and conclusion up to them. In the mean-time I'll stick with my distinction between not wanting to harm/eat the animals I think are self-aware and being fine with eating the ones that aren't (except dogs and cats, because dogs are awesome and cats are snakes with fur).

I saw a cool video on this, in which a baboon attacked its reflection, and an ape used its reflection to actually examine itself.

[Amazon]

I saw a cool video on this, in which a baboon attacked its reflection, and an ape used its reflection to actually examine itself.

It is funny how in many scenes where the characters are supposed to be losing their mind they smash their own reflections.

[Zrak]

I saw a cool video on this, in which a baboon attacked its reflection, and an ape used its reflection to actually examine itself.

Are you calling Henry Rollins a baboon?

[BananaPhone]

That's not the underlying principle. The underlying principle really is just whether or not it touches (or, rarely, inspects more generally) the mark on itself. It really is just that. Pigs, for example, have never passed the "mirror test," (insofar as I'm aware) but have passed a number of other tests involving using mirrors to get food, which require at least a vague awareness that they are the figure in the mirror, since they could not otherwise gauge their position relative to the food they can only see in the mirror. Taken together, the two indicate that the mirror test says more about pigs' grooming habits than their comprehension of mirrors or their self-awareness.


It's more complex than this, since most animals, including people, initially react by thinking the figure in the mirror is a different member of their species, and very few continue to react that way over prolonged interaction with a mirror. For example, dogs typically lose interest in mirrors, rather than continuing to act as though there's another dog in the mirror; what this indicates is totally ambiguous. They could still think it's another dog, and just not have any interest in that dog, or they may recognize that it isn't another dog without recognizing it's them, or they may recognize it's them and have no real interest in looking at themselves.



It would be one thing if it weren't perfect, but it's another entirely to be so fundamentally flawed. A test of "the rudimentary foundations" should require only self-awareness to pass; the mirror test requires self-awareness, visual acuity, a certain fairly specific set of grooming standards and behaviors, and a measure of reasoning ability. Lacking in any one of those can lead a self-aware creature, even one which is otherwise demonstrably self-aware (i.e. a blind human) to fail the test. I've yet to see a mirror test attempt to control for any of these by, say, gauging reactions to a similar mark placed somewhere the animal can see without a mirror; if they don't react to the mark then, nothing can really be established by their lack of reaction to a mirror. It's a pretty goofy, arbitrary test that measures a lot of other things much more reliably than it measures the one thing it's supposed to.

I don't get what your beef or point is.

I'm not a psychologist, nor am I here to defend mirror tests in every facet of their existence. I merely mentioned them as one measure that we have. I've freely admitted that they aren't perfect but that the idea of testing an animals self-awareness is in itself a highly difficult proposition that'll be riddled with flaws (at least until the day we can mind-read them). Yet you're not coming across as someone that wants a conversation about it as much as you seem to want to brow-beat me into agreeing with you.

So okay, Zrak, you win. All psychologists that experimented with the idea of mirror testing are wrong and should have their work thrown in the garbage for being so terrible..

...what now? Where do we go from here?

[Grinner]

I don't get what your beef or point is.

If history proves true, I don't think Zrak is intentionally trying to offend anyone. He merely has a very...noxious approach to conversation.

[BananaPhone]

Is that so?

Hmmm, thank you Grinner, my good man.

*prepares Cool Story Bro images*

Thank you very much indeed! ^_^

[Zrak]

I don't get what your beef or point is.

You said that the overwhelming majority of animals cannot recognize themselves as individuals, based on the fact that they cannot recognize themselves in mirrors. I disagreed, and supported my contention by explaining why I didn't find the evidence you cited in support of your position (mirror tests) remotely convincing or conclusive. So my point is that failing the mirror test does not prove that an animal doesn't recognize itself as an individual. I have no "beef," I merely disagree with you.

I'm not a psychologist, nor am I here to defend mirror tests in every facet of their existence. I merely mentioned them as one measure that we have.

And I merely said they're a totally inconclusive and possibly misleading measure on which we should not rely. If you aren't willing or able to defend mirror tests, but still wish to make the same argument, why not suggest an alternate measure? Or merely say that you believe what you believe without saying there's any evidence in support of it; when you bring up evidence, you make a factual claim, and I feel that such claims are and should be subject to scrutiny and criticism.

I've freely admitted that they aren't perfect but that the idea of testing an animals self-awareness is in itself a highly difficult proposition that'll be riddled with flaws (at least until the day we can mind-read them).

I don't understand why you would support your position by citing the results of a method you agree to be "riddled with flaws" that tests something you at least vaguely seem to agree isn't really testable.

Yet you're not coming across as someone that wants a conversation about it as much as you seem to want to brow-beat me into agreeing with you.

I'm sorry that you feel I am brow-beating you by criticizing the methods of the studies you cited as evidence in support of your position. I think rigorous criticism is a part of productive philosophical conversation. It's how we learn and grow.

If history proves true, I don't think Zrak is intentionally trying to offend anyone. He merely has a very...noxious approach to conversation.

I think you mean Fort Knoxious, because everything I say is solid gold. It's okay, lots of people make typos when they try to say nice things about how great I am.

[Grinner]

I'm sorry that you feel I am brow-beating you by criticizing the methods of the studies you cited as evidence in support of your position. I think rigorous criticism is a part of productive philosophical conversation. It's how we learn and grow.

I don't think you actually believe that. I think you just like to win fights.

[Killer Angel]

I don't think you actually believe that. I think you just like to win fights.

Isn't that, basically, the spirit of debates? to support your pov? If i concede a point, due to your reasoning, it means you "won".