Man, The Measure Of All Things

[Guest Gert Lush]

Any view that is not deeply anthropocentric is hypocritical (for humans)

All attempts to represent the "views" or "feelings" of other kingdoms, e.g. plant, animal, mineral, are hubris and sham, and cheap attempts at distraction to hide the truth.

Discuss...

[Boojum]

Sounds logical. One can only ever really see something from one's own point of view. I'd say it goes as much for thinking you can take another persons point of view as another species, to be honest. I may think I can empathise with someone else and can see their point of view, but all I'm actually seeing is my own perception of their point of view, which is a different thing entirely. I overuse the phrase "I can't speak for anyone else but...", but that's simply because I can't. I cannot represent the views or feelings of another human being, so there's no fucking way I can even pretend that I can represent the views or feelings of another species.

[PUREWEED]

Yea, go humans, we rock!

We are so the best, we should eat or kill everything else and concrete over what's left, because we can.

(not really)

Edited September 2, 2007 by PUREWEED

[Guest Gert Lush]

We are so the best, we should eat or kill everything else and concrete over what's left, because we can.

Is that your interpretation of anthropocentrism, PW?

Why not its opposite? You know, we ae the best so we should protect everything, etc...

[Guest Gert Lush]

Boojum, I would agree broadly, although that's moving on to another topic.

With regard to this one, I would say we have enough commonality to allow such statements to be made.

We speak (more or less) the same language and communicate (more or less) the same feelings / ideas. The whole anthropocentric thing implies OUR moral agency, if indeed such a thing even exists.

We certainly go around expecting other humans to manifest it in a way we (more or less) understand.

We don't expect anything else in nature to have a moral code, do we?

So we automatically place ourselves on a pedestal as a result.

[solarchild]

i think we can see moral codes in other animals, pack animals show morals - starting with might is right and developing from the self interest of the pack.

anyway, yeah i think it is wrong, maybe arrogant to try and put words into mouths, so to speak, of animals but it is worse to have no empathy whatsoever.

liono in thundercats is not as cool as a real lion but cheetarah was a lot hotter than a cheater. profound eh? (sorry thats not relevent at all but its sunday morning, i should be in church ffs)

[Guest Gert Lush]

i think we can see moral codes in other animals, pack animals show morals -

Would you consider human morals to be nothing more than an evolved pack survival instinct then, solarchild?

Or is there something extra? Something that sets man aside/above whatever. Something like INDIVIDUALITY perhaps?

You may see "morals" in wildebees, perhaps, but they don't really have any choice in the matter now, do they?

[utokia]

Altruism and Empathy are two of the human traits that seem to set us aside, but how do we know we are the only ones that feel these things?

Of course many of us choose to ignore those 'feelings', but I have been wondering about this recently. Whether humans do indeed have a role to fill, and whether our peculiarities of evolution (especially our own little 'evo-lite' process - technology) are intended for a purpose - and whether that shatters the illusions of the 'free to choose' brigade.

What if we are just supposed to be gardeners? Tending the oxygen crop to safeguard the future of life itself... or some other twisted vision.

Just got back of hols & I have a cold (bloody interstellar aliens hogging my processes again!) - so apologies for the bumpy re-entry...

[Guest Dr Benways Assistant]

.

We don't expect anything else in nature to have a moral code, do we?

There certainly seems to be a moral hierarchy among animals from the human point of view. Some animals are seen as less worthy of life than others: dolphins for example, people get upset at their deaths but aren't really bothered about the tuna.

So if a dolphin have more of a right to life than a tuna is that because of it's perceived moral superiority?

Edited September 2, 2007 by Dr Benways Assistant

[Guest Gert Lush]

So if a dolphin have more of a right to life than a tuna is that because of it's perceived moral superiority?

I always thought it was the "cuteness factor".

For instance, many people here would exterminate millions of spidermites, without blinking an eyelid, and feel good about it. So perhaps we do have an implicit hierarchy, with the other mammals on top, just beneath us, and everything else prety much expendable.

@ utokia - I don't think only humans feel empathy, some animals show a damn good facsimile of it. Empathy is good, but something more is needed. Altruism? Perhaps...

After all, Hitler was a vegetarian and had a deer park with big doe-eyed snuggly deer in his back yard. He had plenty of empathy for animals! It's when it came to humans that he lost it a bit.... a situation not uncommon today, I daresay!

[solarchild]

Would you consider human morals to be nothing more than an evolved pack survival instinct then, solarchild?

i suposse it boils down to wether you believe we are special or just another animal. can you demonstrate the usefulness of our morals as regards the advancemnet/evolution/survival of our species? i think so. then again i suposse you could break down all our desires and functions into products of evolution. do i believe we are more than this? i think so, but i also believe that other life and its behaviour/personality could be more than simple cause and effect.

i was thinking of apex groups of animals such as apes, wolves or elephants rather than herd species such as wildebeast. these grops have difinate social structure that is bound together by rules and behaviours that have evloved out of self interest.

Anyway back on topic, it is true that we identify with animals that are similar to us, the dolphin does exhibit behavior that is more akin to our own thatn the tuna (and it is cuter). does this mean it is better? our starting point of what is the more evolved creature is what is nearest to ourselves? is this arrogant or is this simply because we have no other referance point from which to begin. the shark for instance, however much it maybe admired/feared cannot evoke much empathy because of its lack of similarity with humans, whereas the giant panda(a big furry mammal) evokes enough to be the figure head of the coservation movement. one is superbly evolved wheras one seems to be going down evolutionary cul-de-sac. sorry dont know what i'm on about anymore.

back to work.

[Guest Gert Lush]

sorry dont know what i'm on about anymore.

back to work.

Actually, that's some pretty good points you made right there!

Ditto.

[Blayz'd]

I believe we're that arrogant that we truly think we are better than everything else. Or superior to everything else would be a better way to put it. The proof of history says we are one of the worst behaved animals on the planet. The fact we can rationally think about such a thing is what separates us from most other animals. Others can solve physical problems though. I'm not sure if any can solve mental problems, apart from maybe a spieces of monkey maybe.

[notts.pots]

the human race makes me sick. they/we dont give a fuck about the planet or anything on it. dont know if this is what im meant to be talking about but look at this global warming for instance, the polar ice caps are melting due to too much burning of fossil fuels, which are said to be running out. so what do we do? say never mind theres loads more under the ice thats melting that we can burn and melt more then there will be more under wots melting.

probly off topic but oh well, at least theres more oil ay

[utokia]

@ utokia - I don't think only humans feel empathy, some animals show a damn good facsimile of it. Empathy is good, but something more is needed. Altruism? Perhaps...

Empathy - hmm - it is a tricky one to gauge in other species, it is pretty hard to detect in humans! Altruism is an interesting one, as it could be seen to be a hive mind type function - putting others before yourself would seem to be counter intuitive as far as evolution is concerned but perhaps it benefits the species as a whole to put oneself after others. Of course for every altruistic fool there are at least a hundred selfish wankers...

After all, Hitler was a vegetarian and had a deer park with big doe-eyed snuggly deer in his back yard. He had plenty of empathy for animals! It's when it came to humans that he lost it a bit.... a situation not uncommon today, I daresay!

Yes Hitler is a good example to work with. He did seem to be concerned about the evolution of the human race, but wanted to strongly and violently influence the direction it was evolving in. He didn't have any empathy for the lives he destroyed but no doubt reconciled it in some way, in his own head. I can't make the leap myself. The vegetarianism bit always confused me though. If loss of life is a necessary evil in the big nazi scheme of things - then why not a few venison burgers? Survival of the fittest? He obviously had some twisted views on the hierarchy of existence and the evolutionary process.

Do you think a hive mind could be the next evolutionary paradigm shift for the human race? I have had a novel forming in the back of my mind for a while about this for a few years...