Comparative Psychology aka Animals

JuliusCaesar

I couldn't find the thread where we had discussed this, having gone way off topic in the way that interesting discussions do - so I've started a new thread.

I had read Marc Bekoff's book The Emotional Lives of Animals, as I'm interested in emotion. (And animals, due to having a pet, and because, well, we are animals too.)

So the book started off well but I got more uneasy as it went along because I thought it was becoming more and more anthropomorphic. It ended, as it would have to, by Bekoff saying he is vegetarian and anti-zoos.

Personally, I think factory farming is cruel and should be banned and personally eat little meat. But we are omnivores. And certainly zoos should provide animals with large amounts of space to roam in - the African extension to Dublin Zoo was huge progress.

Anyway, a huge subject - animals, emotion, ethics....

(This is Bekoff's webpage: http://literati.net/Bekoff/)

And here's the organisation (Kerulos) he works with now, which is an anti-animal cruelty with added compassion.

steddyeddy

Thanks man very interesting post, you would be surprised how many people in zoology, ethology ect are in favour of banning zoos. I often wonder how much emotion a animal without our advanced brain experiences. some animals definatly mourn the dead, as i stated in a previous thread the more advanced apes show awe and they definatly show signs of depression. I was talking to a friend whos a doctor recently and he was very surprised to hear that millions of animals every year are prescribed prozac.

I do think farming is cruel myself but i think were stuck with it for the time being a lot worse (and possibly more fixable) are the experiments performed on animals in the name of science, not to upset anyone here but one involved sewing a kittens eyes shut to examine brain development of the blind. People say its important to help progress medicine ect but i dont think the phrase "important to progress medicine" justifys everything and can be abused.

there is actually a movement lead by some heavy hitters including lawyers from harvard and leading biologists to provide the great apes with basic human rights, if this were to go ahead experiments on chimps would be made illegal (im not sure that this will go ahead in america is it would cost the pharmaceutical groups billions).

looksee

I don't like zoos, but I accept that some animals would have died out if they had not been bred in zoos. I don't visit them though and I don't like the larger animals being kept captive. Wild animals in circuses I have no time for at all, especially elephants and big cats. Horses and dogs have been so long domesticated that I think they are ok.

While I dislike the anthropomorphism of animals, for example treating pet cats and dogs as human babies, I don't think there is any doubt that animals have emotions. The problems arise when we assume that their emotions are just the same as ours.

We have two cats of the same age, of different parents but they have grown from kittens together. We got both of them as approx 5 week (the tabby) and 7 week kittens. One is a comfortable tabby who is not easily alarmed and peacefully goes about her life in an independent way, unless she wants someone to feed her, when she rolls on her back and does cute in a very cynical way. She is the alpha cat and the black one will usually wait in line to feed, and yet at other times the black one will jump on the tabby quite roughly and wrestle her down growling and fighting. Its not entirely serious, but she is the aggressor.

The black one is a bag of nerves. She is thin, quick, and jumps at her own shadow. She will jump up on my chair arm and knead me, purring loudly. This can go on for ages, then she will walk to and fro across me, eventually sit down and start a mad grooming process until I get fed up with her and put her off. If you walk towards her she often goes into a skittish panic, though she is not actually afraid of anyone in the household. Maybe all this dates from when she was a kitten, but since we have had them they have been in an adult household and not stressed at all.

Their personalities are completely different, and yet they have grown up together, so I don't think their behaviour is learned. It might be inherited. It seems to the the only reason they are so different is because their emotional reactions to the world are so different. I would be interested in any other theories.

JuliusCaesar

looksee wrote: »

While I dislike the anthropomorphism of animals, for example treating pet cats and dogs as human babies, I don't think there is any doubt that animals have emotions.

Just briefly - animals definitely have emotions (emotions are adaptive) - but I think keeping pets keeps the animal in an unnaturally infantile state. It's not necessarily bad because we 'parent' them by providing food etc - it's a trade off.

Anyway, back tomorrow.

Valmont

The anthropomorphism given to animals astounds me, especially in Ireland. I don't understand how someone can value the life of an animal on par with that of a human; it seems counter-intuitive to me from an evolutionary standpoint. I hunted and did some trapping while I was in the United States for nine months and I believe that animals are a resource that can and should be responsibly harvested for their meat or their fur (where applicable). I see nothing morally wrong with such a position although I would imagine that there are many posters here who do!

hotspur

Valmont wrote: »

I don't understand how someone can value the life of an animal on par with that of a human; it seems counter-intuitive to me from an evolutionary standpoint.

You seem to be making a fundamental philosophical error in reasoning from evolution to ethics. That is reasoning from what is to what ought to be. It is known as the Is-Ought fallacy. I just Googled it to provide a link and one of the ones on the first page is actually a description of it from the Animal Rights Encyclopaedia, so I guess I'll link that one since it's most relevant to your argument:
http://www.zoosavvy.com/is-ought-fallacy.html

steddyeddy

Valmont wrote: »

The anthropomorphism given to animals astounds me, especially in Ireland. I don't understand how someone can value the life of an animal on par with that of a human; it seems counter-intuitive to me from an evolutionary standpoint. I hunted and did some trapping while I was in the United States for nine months and I believe that animals are a resource that can and should be responsibly harvested for their meat or their fur (where applicable). I see nothing morally wrong with such a position although I would imagine that there are many posters here who do!

Just breifly before i leave work a desire for animal welfare is definatly not anthropomorphism, the pro hunting lobby in ireland seem to be using that one (at one point they blamed disney for it).

Valmont

hotspur wrote: »

You seem to be making a fundamental philosophical error in reasoning from evolution to ethics. That is reasoning from what is to what ought to be. It is known as the Is-Ought fallacy.

:eek:
This is outright sophistry. If you think that my flouting of Hume's radical philosophy of denying our very ability to reasonably predict cause and effect (that is exactly where the Is-Ought debate comes from) as constituting a fundamental philosophical error then I don't think you are very familiar with Hume's philosophy. Not to mention the massive contradiction to the scientific method represented by Hume's ideas. Indeed, Bertrand Russell has this do say about Hume's philosophy:
"What these arguments prove- and I do not think the proof can be controverted- is, that induction is an independent logical principle, incapable of being inferred either from experience or from other logical principles, and that without this principle science is impossible." So, going by your statement above, you are heading down a very sceptical road, one that negates the logic behind the scientific method itself and I can't see you throwing your weight behind that one.

hotspur wrote: »

I just Googled it to provide a link and one of the ones on the first page is actually a description of it from the Animal Rights Encyclopaedia, so I guess I'll link that one since it's most relevant to your argument:
http://www.zoosavvy.com/is-ought-fallacy.html

:rolleyes:What a fantastically biased source of animal rights propaganda. From the website:

"The greatest threat to people is ignorance
The greatest threat to animals is ignorant people"

They blatantly contradict their own reasoning here:

"According to the theory of natural selection well adapted species survive and species not well adapted go extinct (fact); therefore we should not try to conserve species because only the best species will then survive (value judgement).' Although species go extinct (fact) it does not mean we should ignore their plight, especially if we are responsible for driving them to extinction in the first place (value judgement)."

I added the bold text to demonstrate their hypocrisy. If you want to debate the merits of Hume's philosophy and how you believe it constitutes a fundamental facet of philosophical reasoning that is fallacious to breach; I would be more than happy to engage that point on another thread.

Valmont

steddyeddy wrote: »

Just breifly before i leave work a desire for animal welfare is definatly not anthropomorphism

Well, what do you mean by animal welfare exactly?

steddyeddy

Valmont wrote: »

Well, what do you mean by animal welfare exactly?

I mean anthropomorphism (projecting ourselves in nature) does not explain for the phenomenon of people caring for animals, thats the principle some of the irish hunting groups are getting wrong, some seem to think that caring for a animal is seeing it on par with a human. I remember talking to a gorilla poacher (who happened to also be irish) and when i asked did he feel guilty about killing a gorilla, he stated that the only people who see anything wrong with a killing a gorilla are people who see the creature as more important than or on a par with humanity. So just because i dont particularly see the need for a gorilla being murdered i apparently see them as on par with humanity.

These hunters and i use the term loosley ( i fail to see how killing a creature with a gun is hunting) seem to be infering that its a us or them scenario (animals or us) that certainly is true in some cases and we do depend on meat but in the countries were fur or hunting isnt a need its a poor argument.

Valmont

steddyeddy wrote: »

I mean anthropomorphism (projecting ourselves in nature) does not explain for the phenomenon of people caring for animals,

I agree with you there. I see all animals as distinct from humans but that doesn't mean that I don't care if I see my neighbour giving his dog a kicking.

steddyeddy wrote: »

thats the principle some of the irish hunting groups are getting wrong, some seem to think that caring for a animal is seeing it on par with a human.

Where have you heard this from? I frequent hunting forums of all sorts and this is the first time that I have heard this criticism. Your story about meeting a gorilla poacher is a bit suspicious I must admit.

steddyeddy wrote: »

These hunters and i use the term loosley ( i fail to see how killing a creature with a gun is hunting)

Even though it clearly is hunting, as the definition implies.

steddyeddy

I agree with you there. I see all animals as distinct from humans but that doesn't mean that I don't care if I see my neighbour giving his dog a kicking

Im not saying you dont care about animals, im sure you do.

Where have you heard this from? I frequent hunting forums of all sorts and this is the first time that I have heard this criticism. Your story about meeting a gorilla poacher is a bit suspicious I must admit.

Well maybe its just an internet thing but the arguement often cited when i speak out against animal cruelty (im not against hunting to eat) is animal welfare proponents care more about human life than animal life and that they see animals as their equals rather than inferior creatures ect.

Yes it probaly does sound strange as i said in my introduction in this forum i am a zoologist specialising primarily in primatology, i visited The Karisoke Research Center many times and neighbouring villages, a man who was a suspected gorilla poacher (although he doesnt deny it) was often caught in various national parks in the area.

Even though it clearly is hunting, as the definition implies

Tell that to people who hunt with spears.

steddyeddy

I don't understand how someone can value the life of an animal on par with that of a human

well what do you mean by that, who values human life on par with a animal, you asked me where did i hear that arguement?

Valmont

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes it probaly does sound strange as i said in my introduction in this forum i am a zoologist specialising primarily in primatology, i visited The Karisoke Research Center many times and neighbouring villages, a man who was a suspected gorilla poacher (although he doesnt deny it) was often caught in various national parks in the area.

Ah right, the story makes sense now, apologies!

steddyeddy wrote: »

Tell that to people who hunt with spears.

I don't see how that changes anything. If you kill with a spear or you kill with a gun, you get the same result. I think the same applies to people hunting for food or for "trophies", the animal is dead at the end so I don't see how one's intent alters the morality of what is ostensibly the same act.

Valmont

steddyeddy wrote: »

well what do you mean by that, who values human life on par with a animal, you asked me where did i hear that arguement?

Recently, the Anchorage Daily news ran an article about a hunting guide who was accidentally shot by his client while hunting brown bears. I read through many of the comments and there was a lot of "karma!", "one back for the bears", etc. This isn't simply putting animals on a par with humans; it is even worse as it is elevating them above us. The deceased guide left a family behind him for goodness sake. How can one compare hunting bears to the death of a human?

To get back to the original topic, comparative psychology, I have always been interested in comparative studies on primates. Specifically one study which found that humans have performed worse than chimps in a memory test. Regarding whether the 'discovery' of animals having emotions or feelings, it doesn't really affect my attitude toward hunting or trapping.

steddyeddy

Valmont wrote: »

Ah right, the story makes sense now, apologies!

I don't see how that changes anything. If you kill with a spear or you kill with a gun, you get the same result. I think the same applies to people hunting for food or for "trophies", the animal is dead at the end so I don't see how one's intent alters the morality of what is ostensibly the same act.

Listen i dont have a problem with hunting but i dont think animals are exclusivly our resource, to see them that way would be missing their true value and opens the door for us to treat them whatever way we might choose, i dont mind hunting some of them for food and fur where applicable but not for fun or medical experiements.

hotspur

Valmont wrote: »

:eek:
This is outright sophistry.

Sophistry? Really? Look I didn't mean to tip you into an epistemological black hole, but to be fair you jumped in yourself without any help from me. I was making a simple point about you committing the naturalistic fallacy in arguing why hunting etc, is right. You argued an "ought" from an "is" without any other ethical premise.

Frankly I'm not quite sure why you chose to take that as a comment on the totality of Hume's subjectivism, the problem of induction in general, or the philosophy of science. On the last point I've always been inclined towards Popper btw.

I was just looking there for Russell's book on the problem of induction and I couldn't find it. It's weird, I recall reading a specific small book by him which I thought was called On the Problem of Induction or something like that, wonderful book too. But looking through his books you can buy I can't find it. Was it part of another book can you recall? Wouldn't mind reading it again.

Valmont

hotspur wrote: »

I was making a simple point about you committing the naturalistic fallacy in arguing why hunting etc, is right. You argued an "ought" from an "is" without any other ethical premise.

To be fair, I didn't say that at all. I was talking about excessive anthropomorphism. My main issue is your accusation that I made a fundamental philosophical error based on the Is-Ought idea which is simply not true no matter how you look at the problem itself. Regarding the naturalistic fallacy, I wasn't using nature to show that something is right, but that the practice of excessive anthropomorphism isn't consistent with man's omnivorous habits.

hotspur wrote: »

But looking through his books you can buy I can't find it. Was it part of another book can you recall? Wouldn't mind reading it again.

I have a well worn copy of Russell's History of Western Philosophy here on my desk. It is a very useful philosophical reference book and as I'm looking at the index right now, I see that there are multiple references to induction.

JuliusCaesar

Jeez lads.

Anthropomorphism definition - not everyone reading this will know what it means (and by the look of it, there isn't agreement on it here!): Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena. However, animals have emotions; I guess the discussion is about awareness/self-consiousness/cognitive abilities that animals might have.

We do know that some animals have a sense of self, or theory of mind. What else do we know for sure?

Hunting - yes, we are meat-eaters, and yes we've been hunting throughout our history; but there's something really abhorrant about taking to the woods on a hunt with assault rifles. There's a difference between hunting and slaughter.

Early in our evolution, before spears, humans had other methods of hunting.

hotspur

Valmont wrote: »

I have a well worn copy of Russell's History of Western Philosophy here on my desk. It is a very useful philosophical reference book and as I'm looking at the index right now, I see that there are multiple references to induction.

No it's not that. He has an essay in his book The Problems of Philosophy called On Induction. It's almost certainly that book that I was thinking of. You can read it online btw:
http://www.ditext.com/russell/russell.html

Valmont

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

but there's something really abhorrant about taking to the woods on a hunt with assault rifles. There's a difference between hunting and slaughter.

Ah, the News of the World buzzword for a semi-automatic centrefire rifle. There is a difference between hunting and slaughter, hence hunters being called hunters and not slaughterers. Regardless of their tools.

steddyeddy

Well my problem with hunting groups using the Anthropomorphism argument is that they think that people who value animal life are somehow projecting human worth onto animals, but that in itself is what i have a problem with. I dont have to project the worth of human life onto a creature for it to have worth, the species has worth in itself and i would argue that necessity is the only valid reason to compromise that worth and kill the animal, not fun/hunting.

Some people say their alright with killing animals but just because their alright with it that doesnt justify it. We dont need to kill more than we need to eat so why? The other argument is the hierarchy argument ie we are the only animals with the right to life, other animals are less important so their life is trivial, so that those concerned with animal welfare are projecting our "divine" status on animals. In my opinion as a zoologist were not that different, were really not the more we find out about the apes in paticular the more similar we are thought to be.

We like the rest of the apes plan ahead, we show emotions like the rest, we just do all this on a grander scale. some animals do other things on a much grander scale than us, navigation co-operation, care for family ect.

As regards activists being happy when a hunter is killed in no way would i be happy over the death of a person but if the person is killed by the animal he hunts i dont think thats paticlarly sad, he went out to kill the animal, he made it a case of him or it and it certainly doesnt have to be that way.

Valmont

In countries where hunting has strong cultural heritage, the animals worth lies in hunting it. In Alaska, the residents almost deify the mighty moose as one of them can feed a family for a year. If hunting was left down to necessity then it would be a dead activity. I enjoy hunting grouse and cooking them up for my dinner but I suppose I could hop on the bus and go to McDonalds if I really wanted to. The necessity argument is a little pointless to me as it matters little to the quarry if you are doing it for fun or for food. Don't forget that hunting for food can be fun in itself, so it's not so clear a distinction.

All this said, I don't know many hunters who would want to kill a gorilla. I think a certain anthropomorphism is unavoidable when you look at an animals behaviour, because, as you said, they are more similar to us than we sometimes think.