Y
YosefYosep
Guest
Animals don’t have free will. They can’t transcend their instincts. Does this mean that all their actions are determined by the external world (ie determinism)? They can’t really will anything?
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
There is an excellent book - with online extracts - which disproves determinism for one and for all:
Developmental Plasticity and Evolution by Mary Jane West-Eberhard
amazon.co.uk/Mary-Jane-West-Eberhard/e/B001HPKX18/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1
Developmental Plasticity and Evolution by Mary Jane West-Eberhard
amazon.co.uk/Mary-Jane-West-Eberhard/e/B001HPKX18/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1
B
Bahman
Guest
Animals have free will.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
This reminds me of one of those funny videos they play on TV from time to time.
This family had a large dog, and they’d deliberately left a bowl of potato fries near the edge of the dining table.
You could see the dog eyeing off the fries, and then looking back to the kitchen to see if the lady of the house was watching him or not.
It was a classic case of temptation versus the right choice.
Temptation won. After looking backwards and forwards a few times, he dragged one large fry off the plate and then disappeared.
He had a choice, even if it was rather a basic one.
This family had a large dog, and they’d deliberately left a bowl of potato fries near the edge of the dining table.
You could see the dog eyeing off the fries, and then looking back to the kitchen to see if the lady of the house was watching him or not.
It was a classic case of temptation versus the right choice.
Temptation won. After looking backwards and forwards a few times, he dragged one large fry off the plate and then disappeared.
He had a choice, even if it was rather a basic one.
M
mikekle
Guest
I have had many pet dogs and cats over the years, Im a huge animal lover too, the thing Ive always wondered about, Ive never once heard of any animal doing an evil act, or choosing to do something evil ( attacks on persons are NOT evil either, that is a usually them in a scared state of mind, trying to protect themselves).
I mean, God allows Satan to attack us humans on many different levels, strange that God never allows him to use animals for evil…?
I mean, God allows Satan to attack us humans on many different levels, strange that God never allows him to use animals for evil…?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Do all animals have free will or just some? Is an animal has free will, does that mean that he has an immortal soul?
L
laircy
Guest
I wonder something. Do animals maybe have will but not intellect? And do computers have intellect but no will?
(Might be totally wrong, just speculating.)
But I guess that would imply equating will with desire, and I am not sure that they are the same thing.
(Might be totally wrong, just speculating.)
But I guess that would imply equating will with desire, and I am not sure that they are the same thing.
B
Bradski
Guest
If you can think, then you have free will. So it’s a continuum from us down. Where it stops, I’m not sure.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
In most modern discussions of this topic I’ve found, philosophers make a distinction between Free Will and Freedom of Action. I think the distinction is helpful.
Free will is the ability to make choices. Animals seem to have that ability. (At least, some do.) Drug addicts is another case where they seem to be able to make free choices. Freedom of Action is the ability to act as an agent - which can loosely be described as ‘that quality that rational, paradigm people have that others do not’. I found the drug addict example most helpful.
A heroin addict still makes choices - they can choose to get up and go to work, and then to spend their money on dope and shoot up. Or they can choose not to. But being in the grips of an addiction, they (I don’t think) count as acting in an agent-like fashion. They’re being pressed upon to behave in a certain way that they must still choose, but, it isn’t a free action.
Free will is the ability to make choices. Animals seem to have that ability. (At least, some do.) Drug addicts is another case where they seem to be able to make free choices. Freedom of Action is the ability to act as an agent - which can loosely be described as ‘that quality that rational, paradigm people have that others do not’. I found the drug addict example most helpful.
A heroin addict still makes choices - they can choose to get up and go to work, and then to spend their money on dope and shoot up. Or they can choose not to. But being in the grips of an addiction, they (I don’t think) count as acting in an agent-like fashion. They’re being pressed upon to behave in a certain way that they must still choose, but, it isn’t a free action.
B
Bahman
Guest
They all have free will and they all have immortal soul/consciousness.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
You say that they “all have free will”? Would that include reptiles such as lizards and insects such as mosquitoes ?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Please give an example of an animal’s choice which is not due to instinct or conditioning. Why aren’t they regarded as innocent or guilty? Do you believe they should be?
T
tonyrey
Guest
It it does there is a very good case for capital punishment on a massive scale.
T
tonyrey
Guest
It depends on what you mean by “think”. Can animals weigh the pro’s and con’s? Do they take probability into account? Can they choose to be unreasonable?
T
tonyrey
Guest
If you are strong-willed you can control your desire!
R
Rhubarb
Guest
Uhm, well I’m not a biologist so I can’t say exactly for sure. But it seems that most mammals have the ability to choose and solve problems.
Innocence and guilt are caught up in agency - which is a different matter entirely ( I think ) and why I think the distinction between freedom of will and freedom of action are important. Or, rather, guilt and innocence are legal matters. Generally philosophers use the phrase ‘blameworthy’. For instance, my dog can choose whether or not to eat the food I leave on the coffee table when I go to answer the phone. But we don’t call the dog blameworthy for it. (in the same way we’d call a person) Likewise, if I’m being coerced to steal a million dollars from the company I work for, or someone will murder my children, I can still CHOOSE whether or not to comply. But if I yield to the coercion it seems I’m not blameworthy for that choice. (in the same way as if I made the choice without the coercion) Likewise, there are what are called “non-paradigm humans” (the handicapped, etc.) who can make choices but seem to lack rational agency.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Moral matters are more fundamental because laws are human conventions which are good, evil or amoral.
A dog’s choices are determined by physical factors rather rational considerations. Whether it eats depends on how hungry it is and how afraid it is of being punished. Morality doesn’t come into it.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
Right, that’s why I use the term ‘blameworthy.’ One can be guilty of a crime, but be n the moral right, I think. But I’ve lost my train of thought now - To recapitulate. I do think certain animals have free will. They don’t have freedom of action, though. That is to say, they can choose but they are not rational agents.
L
LogisticsBranch
Guest
Tonyrey and Rhubarb, you both need to review Animal Emotions, Do animals think and feel? by Marc Bekoff. (1)
Also read **The Ethical Dog ** Looking for the roots of human morality in the animal kingdom? Focus on canines, who know how to play fair
By Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce | Feb 11, 2010
EVERY DOG OWNER knows a pooch can learn the house rules—and when she breaks one, her subsequent groveling is usually ingratiating enough to ensure quick forgiveness. But few people have stopped to ask why dogs have such a keen sense of right and wrong. Chimpanzees and other nonhuman primates regularly make the news when researchers, logically looking to our closest relatives for traits similar to our own, uncover evidence of their instinct for fairness. But our work has suggested that wild canine societies may be even better analogues for early hominid groups—and when we study dogs, wolves and coyotes, we discover behaviors that hint at the roots of human morality.
Morality, as we define it in our book Wild Justice, is a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate social interactions. These behaviors, including altruism, tolerance, forgiveness, reciprocity and fairness, are readily evident in the egalitarian way wolves and coyotes play with one another. Canids (animals in the dog family) follow a strict code of conduct when they play, which teaches pups the rules of social engagement that allow their societies to succeed. Play also builds trusting relationships among pack members, which enables divisions of labor, dominance hierarchies and cooperation in hunting, raising young, and defending food and territory. Because this social organization closely resembles that of early humans (as anthropologists and other experts believe it existed), studying canid play may offer a glimpse of the moral code that allowed our ancestral societies to grow and flourish.
Playing by the Rules
When canids and other animals play, they use actions such as vigorous biting, mounting and body slamming that could be easily misinterpreted by the participants. Years of painstaking video analyses by one of us (Bekoff) and his students show, however, that individuals carefully negotiate play, following four general rules to prevent play from escalating into fighting. (2)
I should mention Marc Bekoff and Jane Goodale are two of my favorite people.
They worked together. Jane has passed away and I miss her. :sad_yes: I love Marc! He is brilliant! Love ya Marc!
Also read **The Ethical Dog ** Looking for the roots of human morality in the animal kingdom? Focus on canines, who know how to play fair
By Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce | Feb 11, 2010
EVERY DOG OWNER knows a pooch can learn the house rules—and when she breaks one, her subsequent groveling is usually ingratiating enough to ensure quick forgiveness. But few people have stopped to ask why dogs have such a keen sense of right and wrong. Chimpanzees and other nonhuman primates regularly make the news when researchers, logically looking to our closest relatives for traits similar to our own, uncover evidence of their instinct for fairness. But our work has suggested that wild canine societies may be even better analogues for early hominid groups—and when we study dogs, wolves and coyotes, we discover behaviors that hint at the roots of human morality.
Morality, as we define it in our book Wild Justice, is a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate social interactions. These behaviors, including altruism, tolerance, forgiveness, reciprocity and fairness, are readily evident in the egalitarian way wolves and coyotes play with one another. Canids (animals in the dog family) follow a strict code of conduct when they play, which teaches pups the rules of social engagement that allow their societies to succeed. Play also builds trusting relationships among pack members, which enables divisions of labor, dominance hierarchies and cooperation in hunting, raising young, and defending food and territory. Because this social organization closely resembles that of early humans (as anthropologists and other experts believe it existed), studying canid play may offer a glimpse of the moral code that allowed our ancestral societies to grow and flourish.
Playing by the Rules
When canids and other animals play, they use actions such as vigorous biting, mounting and body slamming that could be easily misinterpreted by the participants. Years of painstaking video analyses by one of us (Bekoff) and his students show, however, that individuals carefully negotiate play, following four general rules to prevent play from escalating into fighting. (2)
I should mention Marc Bekoff and Jane Goodale are two of my favorite people.
They worked together. Jane has passed away and I miss her. :sad_yes: I love Marc! He is brilliant! Love ya Marc!
T
Tomdstone
Guest
So, do animals such as dogs, have souls?Tonyrey and Rhubarb, you both need to review Animal Emotions, Do animals think and feel? by Marc Bekoff. (1)
Also read **The Ethical Dog ** Looking for the roots of human morality in the animal kingdom? Focus on canines, who know how to play fair
By Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce | Feb 11, 2010
EVERY DOG OWNER knows a pooch can learn the house rules—and when she breaks one, her subsequent groveling is usually ingratiating enough to ensure quick forgiveness. But few people have stopped to ask why dogs have such a keen sense of right and wrong. Chimpanzees and other nonhuman primates regularly make the news when researchers, logically looking to our closest relatives for traits similar to our own, uncover evidence of their instinct for fairness. But our work has suggested that wild canine societies may be even better analogues for early hominid groups—and when we study dogs, wolves and coyotes, we discover behaviors that hint at the roots of human morality.
Morality, as we define it in our book Wild Justice, is a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate social interactions. These behaviors, including altruism, tolerance, forgiveness, reciprocity and fairness, are readily evident in the egalitarian way wolves and coyotes play with one another. Canids (animals in the dog family) follow a strict code of conduct when they play, which teaches pups the rules of social engagement that allow their societies to succeed. Play also builds trusting relationships among pack members, which enables divisions of labor, dominance hierarchies and cooperation in hunting, raising young, and defending food and territory. Because this social organization closely resembles that of early humans (as anthropologists and other experts believe it existed), studying canid play may offer a glimpse of the moral code that allowed our ancestral societies to grow and flourish.
Playing by the Rules
When canids and other animals play, they use actions such as vigorous biting, mounting and body slamming that could be easily misinterpreted by the participants. Years of painstaking video analyses by one of us (Bekoff) and his students show, however, that individuals carefully negotiate play, following four general rules to prevent play from escalating into fighting. (2)
I should mention Marc Bekoff and Jane Goodale are two of my favorite people.
- Status