This is why I think that animals are superior to humans

[Jaime_Wolf]

snip

What I meant is that whilst you can't compare cats and dogs directly you can make tentative assumptions about them. It's like comparing apples and oranges, they're not the same but you can make some observations about fruit.

I'm aware that intelligence isn't a linear scale and that there are different ways to measure intelligence (for instance, cats seem to trump dogs on spatial awareness and problem solving) but the literature I can find on cats seems to indicate that they are way below the threshold for self awareness and have a tiny emotional range. The literature I'm talking about is mainly from my uni's ebook selection whereas the contrary opinion seems to be backed up more frequently online, but by clearly biased sources (anecdotes from cat lovers etc.)

I think the most obvious point is that emotional development seems to be linked to social group size. All of the animals reckoned to be really emotionally aware are animals with tight social groups, cats would have no benefit if they were sophisticated enough to be cruel.

AS I say, I can only go off of what I have read (this isn't my field but stick me in a library and I go nuts) but cats don't seem to have the mental equipment to actually consider themselves, much less abstractly imagine another animal's suffering as their own and almost certainly not the reasoning ability to then choose to inflict pain for amusement.

I literally cannot find a credible source that says cats can empathise.

Again, you're not going to really find anything suggesting that cats can empathise because it would be a crazy thing to research. But it's not because there's consensus that they can't - it's more because research suggesting either way is unlikely to be credible whatsoever (empirical research anyway, discussion of the problems inherent in these questions and viewpoints happens pretty routinely, though in other parts of academia, see below). Cats play with mice in a manner that could be consistent with cruelty, but it could also be consistent with other, more basic systems of stimulus and response. And there's no good way to tell the difference. It's hard to even define what empathy is supposed to mean. What exactly are we testing for? It's even harder to find some way to actually test it once we have decided on some notion of empathy. Those that believe the behaviour to be indicative of cruelty think that's a simpler hypothesis because they know that other creatures (humans at the very least) are capable of cruelty, so assuming that cats are like other species is simpler. The opposing side believes that fewer assumptions about higher-order beliefs, despite evidence for higher-order beliefs in other species (again humans at the very least), is simpler. So it's really more of a question of philosophy of science than it is an empirical one. This is why you're actually more likely to find interesting stuff on this digging through the philosophy literature (unfortunately, it can be really hard to know what to search for, but see below for something resembling an entry point, and you'll likely strike some paydirt looking through discussions of ethics involving animals).

Certainly, I don't think anyone would agree that there's a certain "threshold" of intelligence (whatever that's supposed to actually mean) for self awareness. To my knowledge, you're right about emotional range varying strongly with social behaviour, but I'm not aware of any such credible link between social behaviour and self awareness (again, such links are impossible since there are no accepted measures of self awareness). Regarding the range of emotions assumed of cats, you're also right about that, but when you attempt to catergorise emotional responses into discrete categories, you can come up with a very small number of categories for pretty much all species (including humans). And I'm not sure how much one should ascribe such descrptions to a limited range of emotions or to the process of categorisation itself. Researchers are almost always wary of whether categorisations like this actually represent some analytic insight, or just represent a particular descriptive system (and there are a whole host of entirely separate philosophical problems with this too).

This is the same reason that assumptions about self-awareness are so fraught with peril and so rarely accepted by experts. It's hard to know what we're testing (how can we be sure that they're self-aware and not just behaving in a way that happens to be consistent with self awareness for lower-level reasons?). If you're interested, a good starting point on the problems inherent in testing for these things can be found by looking into the philosophy literature and searching for discussions of philosophical zombies (philosophers occasionally come up with some pretty great names for things) - such discussion is about humans, but humans actually present a parallel problem in attempting to prove that humans other than yourself are self-aware in the same way that you are.

Most of these issues are simply inconclusive. No one really has a very good idea either way. The answers are unclear. How to test for them is unclear. Hell, the questions are unclear. Modern animal psychology, by and large, is pretty unconcerned with these questions for these reasons.

(I have been reading your edits by the way, just didn't bother redoing the quoting.)

(Also, this is veering closer and closer to issues that I do work on and worry about regularly. Sorry if I bog down or start getting a bit overly zealous.)

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

Again, you're not going to really find anything suggesting that cats can empathise because it would be a crazy thing to research. It's hard to even define what that would mean. It's even harder to find some way to actually test it.

The way I was approaching the question was to define cruelty and then work out if cats were capable of being cruel as opposed to simply doing something we'd interpret as cruel.

To my understanding cruelty is deliberately inflicting suffering on some other creature either for enjoyment or out of deliberate disregard for it's wellbeing.

That would seem to cover it, the deliberate part is important because causing pain as an unintended byproduct of your actions or causing pain by accident aren't cruelty, neither is causing pain because it's the only way you can achieve your goals. Say I had to kill a sheep to eat and all I had was a metal spoon, it wouldn't be pretty for anyone involved but it wouldn't be cruel, it'd simply be a necessary evil.

It seems to me that for a cat to be capable of cruelty it has to be able to meet the following criteria:

It has to understand that other animals are capable of feeling pain.
It has to be capable of choosing to inflict pain deliberately.
It has to consciously make that choice.

That's why I started with self awareness and then empathy, I wanted to know if a cat was capable of abstractly imagining pain and of equating another animal's pain to that feeling. If it passed those tests it then had to be physically capable of killing painlessly but deliberately choosing not to for the purpose of enjoyment or unreasonably minor personal gain.

The original point was to refute the idea that cats could be cruel, an idea raised in argument against the idea that animals were morally superior to us. I personally do not think animals are morally superior since some animals have exhibited behaviour strongly suspected to conform to what we'd define as sadism and cruelty. However, someone else raised cats and how they play with their prey as an example of this and I feel that this isn't really a fair example seeing as the cat's behaviour seems to stem from a limitation on how they hunt rather than deliberate sadism. I then went on to suggest that cats probably didn't have enough cognitive ability to actually be cruel.

Personally I think that the suggestion that most animals are capable of cruelty is, with a few notable exceptions, largely anthropomorphising on the part of the observer. I think there are legitimately a few examples but judging on what I've read about dogs and more importantly cats (an animal that gets accused of cruelty a lot) I don't think most animals are physically capable of the level of abstract reasoning and situational empathy needed to be cruel.

I guess my overall point is 'are animals really morally superior for not doing something they physically can't do?'

Oh and I will be reading further, I recently discovered I can access my university's ebooks and journals remotely so thanks for the suggestion!

The anthropomorphism problem is a very deep one. Unfortunately, there are rather strong arguments that resistance to it leads people irrationally far in the other direction, treating animals significantly differently than we do humans in terms of how we study them and the assumptions we go into that study making.

Like I said, these are really questions of philosophy of science and ethics much more than they are questions of empiricism (they're empirical questions in the sense that they're questions about empiricism itself, but not in the normal sense). In empirical terms, we just don't know. We don't know how to test for these things, we don't know how to interpet the tests, and we don't really have a great grasp on what most of these things mean at a neural level or even at a cognitive level.

While I actually brought up the cat example (I find the arguments in favour of assuming similarity between cognitive functions of different species to be far more compelling that the more behaviourist assumptions of the opposing side), I find this to be a reasonable argument for philosophical reasons, not empirical reasons. And others definitely disagree. This is an area with very little consensus.

I have a good friend who spent a long time very invested in these particular questions about animal cognition and ethics, so if you shoot me a PM reminding me, I can make sure to ask him. And he's the sort of person who probably does have a list of particular things to point you toward.

Edit: I love that our posts probably represent a healthy 10% of this entire thread (and given their length, probably more).

 

[Vegan_Doodler]

To the OP

What kind of punishment should these kids receive?
I would like to say 10 hours alone with me in a shed with various power tools but I think a far more fitting punishment would be to drop them it the middle of the Amazon and just leave them there, let them learn what it means to have to fight off creatures that are far better at killing then they are, (this is another reason why skull island should exist).

Does my logic make sense?
Yes.

Should people receive as a punishment death for animal cruelty?
See above.

Just like any other young guy on the internet.
Focusing on the bad shit humans do.
Open your fucking eyes, man. For every horrible atrocity we commit, there's someone else doing one of the nicest things ever done and helping people.

That argument never made any sense to me because you have to look at humanity as a hole, and when you do you realise that most of the time humans are helping them selves and f***ing things up for other species, you can say some humans are saving the rain forest or pandas but the fact remains humans caused those problems in the first place.

Ever heard of Ichneumon wasps? They paralyze certain worms and then lay their eggs in them. The worm keeps on going but when the eggs hatch the larvae start eating the worm from the inside. It's not a pretty death.
Now, the thing that sets humans apart from animals (not making us 'better', mind you) is that we classify that as rather cruel while the wasp doesn't know any better.

That is not cruel at all and the wasp dose know better, the difference between the wasp and the people in the video is that is that the wasp did it to survive there was no hatred or cruelty in its intentions and there for its actions must be viewed differently.

A. Torturing animals is wrong and cruel, but don't speak as if that behavior is representative of all humans
B. Humans are animals. Just because we're the smartest on earth doesn't mean we're all that different. We still follow instincts, pheromones, all that primitive crap, even if we don't realize it.
C. Animals DO fight. A lot. Tons of animals kill for pleasure/sport. Even more animals kill to eat, and in FAR more gruesome ways than how humans raise livestock.

Spoiler

A. Fair point.
B. You just sent an electronic message down fibre-optic cables via a small metal box, while sitting in a bigger box of brick, wood, glass, ect...., and presumably at some point in your life you will move across the ground at 80mph in a large metal box, I don't know what humans would be classed as but we left on a tangent from being animals quite a while ago.
C. No matter what an animal dose it will never be as bad as humans farming animals.

 

[Verp]

I find it somehow funny that one of the reasons why OP came to the conclusion that humans are inferior to animals is likely to be thanks to a certain trait that brings us closer to many other animals: we are inherently very biased towards memorising and reacting to the ways in which others exploit us or other individuals that matter to us and far less likely to even notice acts of kindness. This is because just like with any other animal species, protecting ourselves from getting screwed over is far higher on our priority list than returning favours to others.

As unique as we are, we humans are pretty much off-the-rack mammals in more ways than we aren't. The differences don't make us inherently 'superior' or 'inferior' and the ways we're the same don't make us inherently 'equal' -- outside our minds, there is no such thing as value.

 

[MyNameIsNowNotMyName]

I think your ignoring the fact that we humans have saved animals, and we didn't get to the top by being submissive minnows... Here's the thing, we're MORE INTELLIGENT. Ergo, we're superior, even in most cases if you include morals. Anyone who denies that animals also fight to be "alpha" or the last animal standing is an idiot.

Oh yeah? Tell me one good reason how polluting the planet (and I am not even necessarily talking about that weak CO2 , I'm talking about legally throwing radioactiv waste into the ocean ),having other people of our kind suffer because it actually might cost us something (le gasp!) and declaring some bimbo playing in a movie more worhty and important than the guy who builds houses or in general makes life the way we are used to possible shows any sign of inteligence?

Or how using my "inteligence " to manipulate a whole nation to do my bidding or even to trick any system that was meant to establish equality for anyone for one's personally greed makes us superior in any way shape or form.

Just because we have the physical possiblity to be in a position to control what happens in the world doesn't mean we are actually made for that position. Else there wouldn't be so much crap going on in the world and yes we are able (and often show that btw) to do good, but what good is that if some person with enough control (-----> enough money) can fuck that up in seconds.

Intelligence is a double edged sword (oh how cliche). While it does empower us with the power of being ghandi himself it can also turn us into massive pricks (I am talking BP massive )

So don't just assume that YOU>everyone else that isn't part of your species just because you have something better than they do; cause you also have something far worse.

Hmm... As I feel like nitpicking one single thing from what you said, (The BP mention) I honestly have to disagree with you. I don't know anyone, (I MEAN ANYONE) who was thinking that BP was in the right. BP got punished for their stupidity, as in two months of their worst publicity of all time. Also, Azucar Winvirog? Wtf Captcha?

By "massive BP-esque pricks" I mean: WHat do you mean safety regulations? what do you mean we have to spend money to secure that nothing happens? nonsense! we will just leave everything how it is oh; woops! looks like a couple million liter of oil went to the ocean. sorry! but hey atleast we saved a couple thousand dollars by not having to use the appropriate repairs in the first place!.

..bu...bu...but! I never said that that BP's idea made it "superior"! What the hell does that have to do with what I said! The smarter person wins? Well you have to be pretty damn dumb to do that! Unless your implying what BP did condemned the entire human race! In which case, you're wrong! In case you didn't know, they're people around the world who SAVE animals! Unless you weren't referring to that... in which case, what were you referring to? Edit: Ah, I missed something. Also it's the US governments fault that they let BP have a league of their own, in which case, neither the US or Mexican Government stopped BP's drilling into the Golf Of "Mexico".

 

[Almgandi]

I think your ignoring the fact that we humans have saved animals, and we didn't get to the top by being submissive minnows... Here's the thing, we're MORE INTELLIGENT. Ergo, we're superior, even in most cases if you include morals. Anyone who denies that animals also fight to be "alpha" or the last animal standing is an idiot.

Oh yeah? Tell me one good reason how polluting the planet (and I am not even necessarily talking about that weak CO2 , I'm talking about legally throwing radioactiv waste into the ocean ),having other people of our kind suffer because it actually might cost us something (le gasp!) and declaring some bimbo playing in a movie more worhty and important than the guy who builds houses or in general makes life the way we are used to possible shows any sign of inteligence?

Or how using my "inteligence " to manipulate a whole nation to do my bidding or even to trick any system that was meant to establish equality for anyone for one's personally greed makes us superior in any way shape or form.

Just because we have the physical possiblity to be in a position to control what happens in the world doesn't mean we are actually made for that position. Else there wouldn't be so much crap going on in the world and yes we are able (and often show that btw) to do good, but what good is that if some person with enough control (-----> enough money) can fuck that up in seconds.

Intelligence is a double edged sword (oh how cliche). While it does empower us with the power of being ghandi himself it can also turn us into massive pricks (I am talking BP massive )

So don't just assume that YOU>everyone else that isn't part of your species just because you have something better than they do; cause you also have something far worse.

Hmm... As I feel like nitpicking one single thing from what you said, (The BP mention) I honestly have to disagree with you. I don't know anyone, (I MEAN ANYONE) who was thinking that BP was in the right. BP got punished for their stupidity, as in two months of their worst publicity of all time. Also, Azucar Winvirog? Wtf Captcha?

By "massive BP-esque pricks" I mean: WHat do you mean safety regulations? what do you mean we have to spend money to secure that nothing happens? nonsense! we will just leave everything how it is oh; woops! looks like a couple million liter of oil went to the ocean. sorry! but hey atleast we saved a couple thousand dollars by not having to use the appropriate repairs in the first place!.

..bu...bu...but! I never said that that BP's idea made it "superior"! What the hell does that have to do with what I said! The smarter person wins? Well you have to be pretty damn dumb to do that! Unless your implying what BP did condemned the entire human race! In which case, you're wrong! In case you didn't know, they're people around the world who SAVE animals! Unless you weren't referring to that... in which case, what were you referring to? Edit: Ah, I missed something. Also it's the US governments fault that they let BP have a league of their own, in which case, neither the US or Mexican Government stopped BP's drilling into the Golf Of "Mexico".

Ok let's go back to step 1. I neither said Bp was right nor that anyone stood behind BP in any shape or form. I mentioned BP as an example that actions of many towards helping animals (Green Peace and so on) can be undone or rather overshadowed by actions of a single entity with a lot of money (BP). Let's put it in an example. I have gathered 500 people to clean up a local beach so that the rubbish doesn't disturb or inflict harm to the animals (+10 for animals) . Ooops an oil carrier just exploded and now the beach and the water close to the beach are covered in oil and many animals end up dying (-1000 for animals).

 

[MyNameIsNowNotMyName]

I think your ignoring the fact that we humans have saved animals, and we didn't get to the top by being submissive minnows... Here's the thing, we're MORE INTELLIGENT. Ergo, we're superior, even in most cases if you include morals. Anyone who denies that animals also fight to be "alpha" or the last animal standing is an idiot.

Oh yeah? Tell me one good reason how polluting the planet (and I am not even necessarily talking about that weak CO2 , I'm talking about legally throwing radioactiv waste into the ocean ),having other people of our kind suffer because it actually might cost us something (le gasp!) and declaring some bimbo playing in a movie more worhty and important than the guy who builds houses or in general makes life the way we are used to possible shows any sign of inteligence?

Or how using my "inteligence " to manipulate a whole nation to do my bidding or even to trick any system that was meant to establish equality for anyone for one's personally greed makes us superior in any way shape or form.

Just because we have the physical possiblity to be in a position to control what happens in the world doesn't mean we are actually made for that position. Else there wouldn't be so much crap going on in the world and yes we are able (and often show that btw) to do good, but what good is that if some person with enough control (-----> enough money) can fuck that up in seconds.

Intelligence is a double edged sword (oh how cliche). While it does empower us with the power of being ghandi himself it can also turn us into massive pricks (I am talking BP massive )

So don't just assume that YOU>everyone else that isn't part of your species just because you have something better than they do; cause you also have something far worse.

Hmm... As I feel like nitpicking one single thing from what you said, (The BP mention) I honestly have to disagree with you. I don't know anyone, (I MEAN ANYONE) who was thinking that BP was in the right. BP got punished for their stupidity, as in two months of their worst publicity of all time. Also, Azucar Winvirog? Wtf Captcha?

By "massive BP-esque pricks" I mean: WHat do you mean safety regulations? what do you mean we have to spend money to secure that nothing happens? nonsense! we will just leave everything how it is oh; woops! looks like a couple million liter of oil went to the ocean. sorry! but hey atleast we saved a couple thousand dollars by not having to use the appropriate repairs in the first place!.

..bu...bu...but! I never said that that BP's idea made it "superior"! What the hell does that have to do with what I said! The smarter person wins? Well you have to be pretty damn dumb to do that! Unless your implying what BP did condemned the entire human race! In which case, you're wrong! In case you didn't know, they're people around the world who SAVE animals! Unless you weren't referring to that... in which case, what were you referring to? Edit: Ah, I missed something. Also it's the US governments fault that they let BP have a league of their own, in which case, neither the US or Mexican Government stopped BP's drilling into the Golf Of "Mexico".

Ok let's go back to step 1. I neither said Bp was right nor that anyone stood behind BP in any shape or form. I mentioned BP as an example that actions of many towards helping animals (Green Peace and so on) can be undone or rather overshadowed by actions of a single entity with a lot of money (BP). Let's put it in an example. I have gathered 500 people to clean up a local beach so that the rubbish doesn't disturb or inflict harm to the animals (+10 for animals) . Ooops an oil carrier just exploded and now the beach and the water close to the beach are covered in oil and many animals end up dying (-1000 for animals).

...How about YOU go back to square one: My post wasn't about BP or any of their shit. It was about why I think a whole bunch of people and I are superior to animals. If you want to complain about BP, go post on one of the "Still-Standing" BP oil-spill threads. All I'm saying is that I don't see how some idiots at BP have to do with every last human on Earth.

 

[Almgandi]

...How about YOU go back to square one: My post wasn't about BP or any of their shit. It was about why I think a whole bunch of people and I are superior to animals. If you want to complain about BP, go post on one of the "Still-Standing" BP oil-spill threads. All I'm saying is that I don't see how some idiots at BP have to do with every last human on Earth.

Hmm... As I feel like nitpicking one single thing from what you said, (The BP mention) I honestly have to disagree with you. I don't know anyone, (I MEAN ANYONE) who was thinking that BP was in the right. BP got punished for their stupidity, as in two months of their worst publicity of all time. Also, Azucar Winvirog? Wtf Captcha?

Jesus Christ you were the one who came out of nowhere starting the BP discussing while I just used them as an example how shit can go wrong. You were the one who ,as you said, had to "nitpick" about something that wasn't even there; at all; and you might want to consider not even bothering to join a discussion if your only point is something as one-sided and stupid as intelligence = superiority

 

[MyNameIsNowNotMyName]

...How about YOU go back to square one: My post wasn't about BP or any of their shit. It was about why I think a whole bunch of people and I are superior to animals. If you want to complain about BP, go post on one of the "Still-Standing" BP oil-spill threads. All I'm saying is that I don't see how some idiots at BP have to do with every last human on Earth.

Hmm... As I feel like nitpicking one single thing from what you said, (The BP mention) I honestly have to disagree with you. I don't know anyone, (I MEAN ANYONE) who was thinking that BP was in the right. BP got punished for their stupidity, as in two months of their worst publicity of all time. Also, Azucar Winvirog? Wtf Captcha?

Jesus Christ you were the one who came out of nowhere starting the BP discussing while I just used them as an example how shit can go wrong. You were the one who ,as you said, had to "nitpick" about something that wasn't even there; at all; and you might want to consider not even bothering to join a discussion if your only point is something as one-sided and stupid as intelligence = superiority

Alright, if you think that is the case, then get me an animal who testify why they're superior. The problem is, they can't. They're not intelligent enough to.

 

[Almgandi]

Alright, if you think that is the case, then get me an animal who testify why they're superior. The problem is, they can't. They're not intelligent enough to.

Well in that case you can just go up to them and tell them how superior you are... oh wait! They don't understand you because you don't taalk animal. Also the animals might feel strange being close to a being that still hasn't understood that it shouldn't use the world it is living in as a local freaking dumpster.

But yeah I'll rather stop before the thread is closed , not that it matters since it is pretty dead anyway