Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Privileged people calling less privileged people "stupid" doesn't seem to be working...

It's quite possible that all animal behaviors are completely determined by biological factors, meaning the animal has no choice, meaning 'morality' doesn't enter into it.

The animal doesn't 'choose' to do 'right' or 'wrong'. It may simply be acting in the way that's biologically determined.

Biological determinism doesn't exist in higher species. What you believe is "quite possible" doesn't accord with generations of cognitive research with animals. Biological determinism doesn't allow for learning, and yet many species learn from experience.
 
You're the one anthropomorphising! It's not about seeing human traits in dogs, it's about understanding social traits in social animals. Of which we happen to be one, but there are many more non human social species: we're not the apex of evolution but a twig on the bush.
Yep. Humans are not the measure of all things, but dog traits and human traits have a fair old bit in common. It's why we get along so well.
 
Biological determinism doesn't exist in higher species. What you believe is "quite possible" doesn't accord with generations of cognitive research with animals. Biological determinism doesn't allow for learning, and yet many species learn from experience.
Yeah, Skinner was very badly wrong. Another whose works have caused lasting damage.
 
Inferring morality in dogs because they exhibit traits similar to humans, is a logical error known as 'affirming the consequent'.

It goes like this:

Because people have morals, they are social with each other.

Dogs are social with each other.

Therefore, dogs have morals.

It doesn't follow.

Affirming the consequent - Wikipedia

The example given in the site:

Arguments of the same form can sometimes seem superficially convincing, as in the following example:

If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.
I have a sore throat.
Therefore, I have the flu.
But having the flu is not the only cause of a sore throat since many illnesses cause sore throat, such as the common cold orstrep throat.

I find that it usually helps to break an argument down to its logical construction.
 
Studies have been done with infants showing that they are developing a sense of, for instance, fairness at an age of just a few months. The suggestion is that, as butchersapron alluded to, we're born with a predisposition to look for something like 'right' and 'wrong' in a very similar way to how we are born with a predisposition to look for something like language, and that we're very active in our acquisition of these things.

To what extent the content of what is right or wrong is then culturally determined is a separate point, no? If we really do have a more or less innate sense of fairness, one that we don't learn from others, there may be limits to what we will accept as fair, and if we're born with a predisposition to look for binaries (right/wrong, good/bad), that will have an influence too, but it seems pretty clear to me that, just as we can learn any language, whatever framework we're born with contains enormous room for post-natal development. That extreme flexibility is a very important part of what humans are.
So what you're saying is parents have no influence on their children in the first few months of life.
 
Inferring morality in dogs because they exhibit traits similar to humans, is a logical error known as 'affirming the consequent'.

It goes like this:

Because people have morals, they are social with each other.

Dogs are social with each other.

Therefore, dogs have morals.

It doesn't follow.

Affirming the consequent - Wikipedia

The example given in the site:



I find that it usually helps to break an argument down to its logical construction.

Not going to speak for others, but that's really nothing like what I've been arguing.
 
You and I are probably using the word 'morals' differently. Or perhaps you're inferring something special to human morals and sense of morality that I don't. I think that's a common thing to do - the flip-side of anthropomorphising, which is attributing undue, almost mystic, specialness to various evolved human traits.
 
I'm going by this definition:

Definition of moral
  1. 1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moralpoem>c : conforming to a standard of right behaviord : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

Definition of MORAL

Which definition are you using?
 
There was a programme on just showing four different groups of orcas having fed an individual with spine and fin deformities that couldn't hunt on its own but had reached the age of seventeen.
Not sure if it moves the argument on but it was pretty cool. They weren't so nice to the seals.
 
Which takes us right back to the beginning: you saying that wolves have a moral conception of right and wrong, and me asking 'how can we know that for sure?'

We can look at their behaviour and see them change as they learn from the reaction of their social group that certain actions are right or wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom