Do animals feel?

[Dark Jaguar]

Yes, animals have emotions and "feelings". Does this make it wrong to kill/eat/make suffer/enslave/etc them?

No. Morality is not based on the feelings of others, but rather on what is beneficial to us in a social sense. You abstain from killing people not because they have feelings, but rather because it is socially detrimental to you to do so, and in turn detrimental to your survival (and the survival of your genes).

That's one definition of morality. I myself go by a different definition, the "killing is wrong because that guy does not want to be killed" position. I use empathic morality.

 

[Jimbo07]

I tend to agree, but a behaviorist would probably reject the claim that emotion (as we know it) is involved if there are other, simpler explanation for the behaviors you described. As far as Occam's razor is concerned, the behaviorist explanation would probably be the most likely since it would involve the simplest mechanism that explains the behavior.

-Bri

I just read the 2nd article you posted on Behaviorism itself. Actually, in that I believe that all behaviours are the end result of physical processes, I guess I am a behaviorist. Note that I would apply this to humans as well. I'm with BDZ that we are animals and that no fundamental difference exists.

So people may have misunderstood me here. I'm not promoting animals, per se, rather I am demoting human beings. Frankly, on the fluffy side, there should be neither promotion nor demotion, because I love both my wife and my dogs (just not quite the same way ). Love may even be the end result of physical processes!

MdC: I wasn't aware that primate signing was crap. However, it's irrelevant, so I'll take your word for it. I was demoting the English language out of the realm of Godliness, and into the realm of natural processes. Another example - math is cool, but it does nothing to prove that I have emotions and dogs do not.

 

[Jeff Corey]

primate sign language is crap...

Not true.

 

[Mercutio]

Not according to behaviorists. From the Wikipedia article I posted earlier:

Behaviorism would suggest that in light of the fact that we cannot read the minds of animals, their behavior can and should be explained in other (simpler) ways. More information about behaviorism can be found here.

-Bri

Or for those who prefer non-wiki sources, here is a very nice behaviorism tutorial. The appropriate behaviorism for this question would probably be Radical Behaviorism. Just so nobody tries to say that Pavlov or Watson are the last word on the subject.

Since we cannot read the minds of humans, should we assume the same?

Yes. You'd be surprised at how simply some of our behavior can be explained. Our own self-reports of our reasons for actions are notoriously unreliable. All that the "simpler ways" rule dictates is that we apply Occam's Razor. As skeptics, surely we are doing this to our own behavior already, no? Or do you believe all the things the cognitive psychologists tell you?

 

[Rob Lister]

That's one definition of morality. I myself go by a different definition, the "killing is wrong because that guy does not want to be killed" position. I use empathic morality.

Yes, but your definition has no logical basis. The definition you quote does.

In the definition you quote, it is established that "killing a human" is wrong because it might likely cause direct harm to you to do so.

In your definition, that is not established. What you established is that it will make you feel naughty.

morality = that which you determine is in your overall best interest, all things considered (as best as you can or or willing to, consider them).

By your definition, I certainly choose naughty. You'll excuse me if I don't it the way you do.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

primate sign language is crap...

Not true.

If you are catching me on the technicality that humans are primates and therefore human sign languages are primate sign languages, then I say touché.

If you are protesting, rather, that the "signs" produced by chimps and other non-human primates have any resemblance at all to human language, then I'd have to ask you to start another thread, so we don't derail this one.

 

[Jeff Corey]

OK, but maybe on Science,
ETA, done.
But what's the dog thinking?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

OK, but maybe on Science,
ETA, done.
But what's the dog thinking?

For example, THAT animal appears to feel. Who knows? maybe he just learned the signal but couldnt grasp the meaning.

 

[Robin]

Often when people say don't anthropomorphise, they are making the opposite mistake of assuming that human minds are fundamentally different from that of animals.

Does it not seem likely that the mental construct that drives sociability in other mammals is a version of the mental construct that drives sociability in humans? Something that has evolved from the same root?

In other words, when we say a dog loves it's master, maybe it really does love it's master.

 

[Ben Best]

Often when people say don't anthropomorphise, they are making the opposite mistake of assuming that human minds are fundamentally different from that of animals.

Good point. Judgements are made about animal emotions by observing the animal behavior and projecting our own emotions onto them. We can do the same thing in judging the behavior of other humans, but how can we be so sure that other humans feel things as we do just because they are of the same species?

 

[ruach1]

Tobias,

Well, yes, thats another discussion. In my case, I wont kill nor accept anyone to kill an animal just because I want to eat it. But, if the animal is already dead, I have no problems.
Still, in a better world, we would have the technology to make artificial food, the whole process, from sunlight to meat, would be done by technological means.

To what marketed animal food does this apply? I can only think of roadkill and floating fish at the moment--neither of which I am sure you don't eat.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Do animals have emotions?

Obviously.

First of all, Im posting this in the religion and philosophy area because I believe those questions have been answered by religion (are still answered by religion). and this answer is simple believed to be true, just because. That said, here is what I think:

1) Evolution is correct.

Obviously.

2) We are animals.

Obviously.

3) We are continuous and homogeneous with the rest of nature (we are not "more different" from a cow than a horse is from a gorilla).

Obviously.

If we accept these premises we are forced to conclude, even without any "scientific proof" that animals do feel and have emotions like us.

I think we just conclude that by watching them and empathising with them. Dogs, in particular, are capable of facial expressions that are understandable by humans, and vice versa.

Anything else, in my opinion, is being deluded by old religious beliefs in the "superiority of man" because "god create us to be like him, and so, we are obviously above animals".

The only reason that we might be considered above animals is our capacity for reason. No animal ever sacrificied its own life in defence of a moral principle or an idealogy. Humans do it all the time.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The only reason that we might be considered above animals is our capacity for reason. No animal ever sacrificied its own life in defence of a moral principle or an idealogy. Humans do it all the time.

I guess that is true. Still, I find it interesting that (for example) oxytocin makes male rats to stay close to its family. No oxytocin present and the set of behaviors (feelings?) are gone.

Now, what matters here is that, apparently, this happens with humans too. So, talking in to account that we tend to explain our actions "retrospectively" reasoning what was already decided by the system... I would have to say that there can be arguments regarding that complex "decisions" are always product of electrochemicals, and so maybe other animals (dolphins?, wales? apes?) have sacrificied their own life for something they believed in.

Highly speculative, true. Nevertheless I find it possible. Nope, Im not saying it happens, but that it could.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Dogs, in particular, are capable of facial expressions that are understandable by humans, and vice versa.

This is just not true. Humans might be capable of understanding canine facial expressions or not. Interpretation of canine facial expression is not intuitive and is a learned behavior. Dogs may be able to look at human facial expressions and attribute something to them but very unlikely to understand them.

 

[This Guy]

In the April 2006 issue of Discovery magazine, there is an article by a Robert Sapolsky(no title listed with his name), discussing the 2% difference in DNA between Chimps and Humans.

In it he makes the statement - "Chimps have complex social lives, play power politics, betray and murder each other, make tools, and teach tool use across generations in a way that qualifies as culture."

Don't know who he is or why we should believe his statement, but thought it fit in with the OP, so figured I'd quote it

ETA\ OK, Was heading to the shower when I posted the above. I'm clean now, and looked a bit. Seems he's a Ph.D in brainy stuff -

http://www.meta-library.net/bio/sapolsky-body.html

"Robert Sapolsky, Ph.D is John A. and Cynthia Fry Gunn Professor of Biological Sciences and Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University . Sapolsky, a neuroendocrinologist, has focused his research on issues of stress and neuron degeneration, as well as on the possibilities of gene therapy strategies for help in protecting susceptible neurons from disease."

So, maybe he knows?

 

[Jeremy]

That's one definition of morality. I myself go by a different definition, the "killing is wrong because that guy does not want to be killed" position. I use empathic morality.

But why do you ascribe to empathic morality? Even if you do not understand it, it is because it was beneficial to your ancestors (and to you) to play nice with the neighbors.

EDIT: Fixed spelling mistake.

 

[Correa Neto]

I guess that is true. Still, I find it interesting that (for example) oxytocin makes male rats to stay close to its family. No oxytocin present and the set of behaviors (feelings?) are gone.

Now, what matters here is that, apparently, this happens with humans too. So, talking in to account that we tend to explain our actions "retrospectively" reasoning what was already decided by the system... I would have to say that there can be arguments regarding that complex "decisions" are always product of electrochemicals, and so maybe other animals (dolphins?, wales? apes?) have sacrificied their own life for something they believed in.

Highly speculative, true. Nevertheless I find it possible. Nope, Im not saying it happens, but that it could.

Depends on what exactly could be defined as being "something they belive in" or, something worthy of being killed by.

Bees, termites, ants, etc. do get killed defending their hives. It's a reaction triggered by chemicals, we know it. And the bee most likely has no idea that after stinging, its guts will stay with the sting, stuck at the target...

A chimp defending it's clan space from a rival group can get killed.

Humans get killed defending their countries and ideologies.

Couldn't these be the same basic phenomena with different degrees of complexity generated by higher brain capacities? Humans can plan ahead, understand and predict the consequences of their acts with a higher degree of complexity and accuracy than any other species. A bee is just "programmed" to behave like that.

I suspect the "sacrifice for the ideology" behavior is some sort of similar drivel (sacrifice of the individual for the colony, clan or species). The "ideology" is something that will help perpetuate or maybe even save the clan from oblivion. The hability of planning ahead and evaluate possible outcomes make such behavior -individual sacrifice based on some abstraction- possible. But the basic drivel is the same of a bee atacking a giant wasp that threatens the hive.

 

[Robin]

The only reason that we might be considered above animals is our capacity for reason,

Other animals appear to have the capacity to reason. We just seem to have it in greater amounts.

No animal ever sacrificied its own life in defence of a moral principle or an idealogy. Humans do it all the time.

Maybe because no animal other than humans ever had a moral principle or ideology.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

But the basic drivel is the same of a bee atacking a giant wasp that threatens the hive.

Yes. Thats exactly what I think. Rationalization "Im doing this for my ideologies" comes last. The drivel is instinctive, it is related to our genetical coding in order to survive.

 

[chriswl]

Humans are the only creatures who posses complex, gramatical language. I suspect that makes our experience of the world very different from all other animals.

Most animals can't identify themselves in mirrors - i.e. they have no conception of themselves as objects for others. Which means they don't understand that they are like other animals. If they are conscious then they would not be aware that other animals were conscious also and would not be able to imagine themselves as beings who have consciousness, that is they would not be self-conscious. Perhaps language plays a major part in our forming such concepts?