Whatever the cause of conscience , it does restrain, apart from the law.
From what i can see everything you mentioned relates to higher congnitive functioning, conceptual ability, etc - which is intelligence, what else could it be?I never mentioned IQ nor intelligence.
Man's mind is more than that.
I wasnt specifically talking about mental retardation, im also talking about severe mental impairment, even possibly brain damage.The gulf between a retard's mind and the mind of a deer is far wider than that between the smartest and the dumbest human.
On a completely different level.
No comparison.
At all.
If that were true the basic standard of the law would never be exceeded in terms of morality or ethics, which is demonstrably not the case. People voluntarily restrain themselves from all sorts of doings that the letter of the law would allow.
Vegetarianism, for instance, is a classic example of this.
I would agree with this and say that it applies to many. There must be a point of divergence where each individual's conscience does not coincide with law, even though most probably parallel the basic principles of society and see the mutual benefit.
Baron's example requires the absence of law and punishment. In that scenario people might disregard some of the more basic rules. How many though could murder or rape on a whim and wake the next morning feeling no regret? You might have it within yourself to break windows but could you really kill another person? Even when pressed hard to commit a crime or cause harm, an individuals conscience often controls the moment.
Mob rule might defeat individual discretion, but there will always be those who never join the riot. Is that because of empathy, fear of punishment or personal conscience?
invert_nexus' model of a psychopath hinges on the absence of empathy, and I might agree. But how much of our conscience hinges on empathy? How much of it is simply a natural ingrained attribute? I am inclined to believe that there is an inhibitor that is more deeply rooted in most.
There are skills involved in hunting. Exercising your skills, and being good at them, can be a pleasurable experience.
Animal cruelty is a warning sign for various personality disorders.
Hunting != Animal Cruelty.
Then perhaps you are lacking in human empathy for you to fail to perceive a difference in murdering a human and hunting an animal.
Hunting, per se, isn't a problem at all. There is the possibility for people to take advantage of hunting in order to satisfy cruel desires, but this is because of something in the person, not the act of hunting itself.
I'm not really interested in debating the ethics of hunting.
In some sense, man cannot be said to be higher than the animals. Because evolution doesn't work that way. There is no 'top rung'.
However, we have the biggest brain. And we have the most refined mind. Our mind is more powerful than the mind of animals on a grand scale. So much more powerful that there is not even a comparison between the two.
You'd equate the pain of an animal with the pain of a human?
The pain of an animal is in the moment. The pain of a man is something that keeps on going. It is abstract. It is savored. It is understood in a way that no animal can ever understand.
When a deer gets shot with an arrow that doesn't kill it immediately (a bad shot), then the pain it feels comes from the arrow itself. When a man gets shot, it knows that the arrow is not to blame. That there is a human being our there with a bow that has just shot him.
Not only this, but man is unique in his ability to empathize as widely as he does.
Animals don't empathize over other animals. They hardly even empathize over animals of the same species let alone animals of other species. There are some instances of interspecies empathy, but these are generally in animals that have bonded together through one means or another. Dogs empathize with their humans, that sort of thing.
Man has a theory of mind. That is, he is aware that other beings have minds of their own. That they are lving beings with existences of their own.
Animals do not have this, for the most part.
I could go on and on about this. But all this is so blatant that the discussion is practically pointless. You either get it or you don't. And you obviously don't. You over-empathize.
Hunting is not torturing an animal to watch it suffer.
Hunting does not equal animal cruelty.
I said there is no reason to feel remorse for the deer you've killed.
Animals are programmed to find their own species interesting and other animals only marginally so.
This is evidenced by the ease at which we can identify different members of our species. Their facial features and other characteristics allow us to tell them apart with ease.
The same cannot be said for other species. They 'all look the same'. At least, more effort must go into telling them apart.
This is because,
the average man has a nature that is not inherently good, but inherently evil...
That is why our society is a Republic. The founders knew all along that mass man, and mob rule were the most dangerous type of disorder a country could face.
Vegetarianism is not enough in my opinion to make a person ethical, it's one issue, and it's an issue that does not affect people directly.
What are you afraid of?
What skills are involved in hunting with a rifle that are not involved in hunting with a camera?
What's the difference? In one case, a human is killed. In the other, an animal is killed. Both involve killing a sentient creature.
You have an interesting kind of double-think. You seem to consider it wrong to kill human beings, presumably because you think humans are "special", for no reason other than that are a human being and you think you are "special"
I suspect your problem is that you view non-human animals as automatons.
You think animals are fungibles (look it up).
And you think this gives us some kind of right to cruelty?
I think it gives us greater moral responsibility for our actions.
Can you show that it is qualitatively or quantitatively different?
But not enough in the case of hunters, obviously.
Prove it.
Right back at you. You under-emphathise and over-assume.
So, it's not cruel to take life unnecessarily?
Why not? Because one deer is interchangeable with another deer? Because the deer won't care if it is dead?
I'm interested in your rationalisation for this.
What are humans programmed for? Are humans as robotic as you think animals are?
Wrong. Animals have no problem distinguishing other members of their species. Just because they often do not do so by sight doesn't mean that important distinctions aren't there. You aren't aware of them, but that's your problem, not theirs.
Baron is right. People are restrained by law not conscience. Thomas Hobbes said the same thing and he was right. People don't steal because it costs more to pay the fine or go to jail, not because stealing is wrong or feels bad. Why would it feel bad to steal food if you are hungry? Property has nothing to do with morality, it's a completely legal construction with no ethical basis.
My society isnt a republic its still a monarchy! (well on paper anyway) lol.Some of us have conscience, some of us have morality, some of us have empathy. Most people however, are simply well trained and lack in many of these areas.
This means, most people, meaning average people, not vegetarians and the human rights/animal rights types. I'm talking the majority of this country, the average citizen. This person, would be capable of killing, the murder rates would rise over night if there will no laws, and in no time we'd have civil wars, and then tribal wars, and then we'd see the war of all against all like how Hobbes describes. This is because,
the average man has a nature that is not inherently good, but inherently evil.
The average man is selfish, cruel, wicked, essentially a brute or barbarian.
The laws of society were set up to tame and manage the average man, not the rare individuals who could manage themselves through some sort of inherently good traits, but for the man who if left to his own devices, would literally riot, rape, murder, pillage, and set fires all accross the country.
This man exists, you know the type, I know the type, you may have grew up with these types as a child, you may have been like this as a teenager, and some people stay like that as an adult.
Basically, we need laws because people are too irresponsible to handle freedom. It sucks to have to say that, but people cannot handle the freedom that they currently have, they will use it to destroy each other and themselves. So we have laws to restrict the freedom and limit the destructiveness of the mass man, and to prevent society from becoming mob rule.
That is why our society is a Republic. The founders knew all along that mass man, and mob rule were the most dangerous type of disorder a country could face.
No there doesnt have to be a reason, infact id rather people were honest than hastily invoke ad hoc rationalisations that fall apart almost immediately on closer inspection.Why can't they just be not worthy of compassion because you don't feel compasion for them? Does there have to be a reason.
Well i appreciate your genuine honesty even if i dont agree with your attitude.I have no loyalty to animals, just like I have no loyalty to someone who I've never met. Why should we create extra emotions?
I know you're this big animal rights guy and everything, but frankly, I don't give a shit. And I didn't plan nor do I plan to go into a huge discussion on the ethics of hunting.
Some hunters do turn to cameras.
But, you don't get meat with a camera, now do you?
Ever hear about killing two birds with one stone?
I mean, you do know that some people like to eat game?
What's the difference? In one case, a human is killed. In the other, an animal is killed. Both involve killing a sentient creature.
You've just answered your question.
In one case, a human is killed. In the other, an animal is killed.
This is the difference.
I mean, it's a real tough distinction, right?
I suspect your problem is that you view non-human animals as automatons.
Well, that's a huge shame for you then. Because you'd be wrong in your suspicion.
You think animals are fungibles (look it up).
Nice insult.
I'm curious. Do you stockpile obscure words so you can use them to insult people's intelligence with often? I don't think I've ever seen you use this particular tactic before. Interesting.
I wonder if you're aware of just how much deer suffer from overpopulation since we've pretty much eradicated their natural predators?
And, I doubt you'll listen to reason on this since you're such a reactionary on the subject, but a good kill is a quick kill. Better than what they would get in the wild.
There is no way to 'prove' anything.
However, the absence of a theory of mind in all animal species other than man is pretty much a consensus in the scientific world.
Hell, James, human children don't develop a theory of mind until aproximately two years of age.
Because remorse is way too strong a term to use for what empathy one should feel for a deer.
Animals can distinguish animals within their species far better than they are able to distinguish from other species.
Because they're clued into the social network.
Because their empathic cues are wired up for their particular species.
Then I hope you'll think more carefully next time before you go off on a tangent you can't defend.
Most hunters do not hunt for the meat. They hunt for the fun of it. Meat is just a by-product.
If your intelligence is insulted by my use of a concise word, that's your problem, not mine.
Hunters don't kill deer to control their numbers. They do it for fun. Like the meat, control of deer numbers is just a by-product - a distraction from the main game, which is the blood-lust of the hunter.
I'm aware of that. I just thought you might have something to base your views on, that's all.
I believe that a "theory of mind" has been demonstrated in various apes, dolphins, whales, and most recently elephants. Probably, other animals have it, too.
Would it be ok to hunt young children, then?
Your view appears to be based on nothing other than your own convenience.
And so... ?
Conscience is internalization of the morals you have been taught. You could call it social training. It is absolutely not fear of consequences.You're equating "social training" with "conscience". Over time, society has "trained" its members to behave and to follow the laws and rules. That's not "conscience", MadAnthony, it's basic fear of the consequences of ones actions.
Every society has its rules. Ones internalization of them is one's conscience.If there were no consequences, we might well kill the stranger or rape the woman ...there certainly have been human societies that did that very thing in the past. Or are you proposing that "conscience" is a modern human invention??
Here you've made my point for me. Are the laws different in the "rough parts" of major cities? No. The problem is the people there. They have the same laws but they can not be enforced because many citizens in the area have not internalized the social norms present in the greater society.Try doing some indepth research into some of the rougher parts of major cities in the USA where gangs run free and the cops stay the hell away for fear of being killed. The gangs, the violent men/boys, have learned, yes, LEARNED, that there is little chance of being caught and punished.
I never said I couldn't defend. Just that I don't care enough about the subject to make the attempt.
Most hunters do not hunt for the meat. They hunt for the fun of it. Meat is just a by-product.
Yeah.
Right.
Your attempted insult was not in the word, but your snide "look it up".
As if you weren't already aware of this. Should I rolleye you?
Hunters don't kill deer to control their numbers. They do it for fun. Like the meat, control of deer numbers is just a by-product - a distraction from the main game, which is the blood-lust of the hunter.
You do realize that you're hopelessly biased, don't you?
Anyway.
Prove it.
My views are on animals' lack of theory of mind is far more scientifically sound than your views on hunters blood-lust.
You might note that I'm not a hunter. Just for reference.
And so... empathy is focused primarily on intra-species relationships, James.
I know that you've got this whole bloodlust thing going on. Compelled to speak against the horrors and brutalities of hunting and all.
But that's not what this thread is about.
James,Look at how hunters describe themselves. You won't have to look beyond this very forum. Hunters admit they do it for fun. Yes, they also try to rationalise it in the same ways you have if pressed, but their real motivations aren't exactly hard to uncover.
Actually, I think that sociopathy towards non-human animals is not so different from sociopathy towards other human beings. Both involve a failure of the ability to place oneself into another's shoes and see the world from their point of view. The only difference is that sociopathy towards non-human animals is widely accepted as "normal" in our society, whereas sociopathy towards other human beings is considered disfunctional.