Non-human emotions poll

[warpspeedpetey]

Despite a few stubborn, close-minded hold-outs it is generally recognized scientifically that most "higher’ mammals experience “basic” emotions. A very interesting book by Jonathan Balcombe is called “The Pleasureable Kingdom” which does a very nice job explaining the scientific as well as anecdotal evidence that animals feel not just pain and fear but also pleasure, joy etc…

though you identify hold outs as “few stubborn, close-minded” they might say that there is no actual evidence for animal emotion, and that it is bad science to say so, because it seems to be a truth seeking behavior. i wouldnt care to defend the work of people like clive wynne, as i havent read it in depth, but there are people who disagree, considering the fatwa style attacks on him and others, i think that quite a few more people agree with us, but are unwilling to tale those kind of personal attacks. of course i have no evidence of that, its just opinion.

 

[Marfran]

though that is obviously not redhens intention, there are a great number of PETA like organisations and thinkers who do use such common beliefs to argue for equal rights for animals. the devovlement of such arguments lead to our good friend peter singers doorstep of preference utilitarianism, a disgusting way to think in my mind. simply the end justifies any means.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_utilitarianism

I have never heard of anyone, or any organization that argues for **equal **rights for animals. Please name them. People who have no love or concern for animals, and prefer that they be considered commodities, rather than living beings, will often twist statements made by animal welfare groups to discredit the purpose of those groups. The term animal rights, in no way, shape, or form is an argument for equal rights to humans. The concept of animal rights is basically the idea that animals, though not equal to humans, **do have the right **to live out their natural lives in their natural envronment without being subjected to cruelty and intrusive intervention by humans. I am not a fan of Peter Singer. I appreciate the writings of Rev. Andrew Linzey (Animal Gospel tiny.cc/WugTh ) and Matthew Scully (a Catholic and the author of Dominion). Link to Dominion by Matthew Scully tiny.cc/8o2Oo

I am also a member of ***Catholic Concern for Animals ***CCA tiny.cc/F3AGP

 

[Marfran]

though you identify hold outs as “few stubborn, close-minded” they might say that there is no actual evidence for animal emotion, and that it is bad science to say so, because it seems to be a truth seeking behavior. i wouldnt care to defend the work of people like clive wynne, as i havent read it in depth, but there are people who disagree, considering the fatwa style attacks on him and others, i think that quite a few more people agree with us, but are unwilling to tale those kind of personal attacks. of course i have no evidence of that, its just opinion.

Just so you know, your response here was to a veterinarian who has had a long career with working with animals.

“things don’t have to be like us to be important to us” QUOTE FROM web site about Clive Wynne’s book. I haven’t read it either.

 

[redhen]

i admire the curiosity, but i hardly think one needs a poll to understand it is a very common belief. of course if you attempt to use that poll in our conversation on the thread you posted i will point out that it is the fallacy of argument from popularity.

No, it’s not a popularity contest. I am truly interested because although you state it is a very common belief, I can infer that members on CAF might have different views because of the teachings in the CCC. CAF members are, presumably not representative of the general population. (cut & paste from our other thread).

356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake",

358 God created everything for man, 222 but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

So according to the CCC, non-human animals have no intrinsic value?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

He also said we should not care for animals as much as we care for people.

I also find that to be quite a disturbing idea. Oh well, he’s a good Priest, I just don’t agree with his ideas on animals and our relationship to them.

If you have a neighbour who has the same ideas as my Priest expressed, you will often see their animals neglected. Why? Because the people are busy with their family and they don’t consider the animals. And sometimes the animal is suffering greatly and its as if the people don’t even notice its suffering. They just tune it out.

I don’t know how people can do that. Just tune out animals and tell themselves they don’t have feelings.

(sorry if I’m going off topic)

from the Catechism

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have never heard of anyone, or any organization that argues for **equal **rights for animals. Please name them. People who have no love or concern for animals, and prefer that they be considered commodities, rather than living beings, will often twist statements made by animal welfare groups to discredit the purpose of those groups. The term animal rights, in no way, shape, or form is an argument for equal rights to humans. The concept of animal rights is basically the idea that animals, though not equal to humans, **do have the right **to live out their natural lives in their natural envronment without being subjected to cruelty and intrusive intervention by humans. I am not a fan of Peter Singer. I appreciate the writings of Rev. Andrew Linzey (Animal Gospel tiny.cc/WugTh ) and Matthew Scully (a Catholic and the author of Dominion). Link to Dominion by Matthew Scully tiny.cc/8o2Oo

I am also a member of ***Catholic Concern for Animals ***CCA tiny.cc/F3AGP

take the animal liberation front among others

animalliberationfront.com/

1. Liberation: animals should be liberated.
   This is the avant-garde position: animals deserve moral status similar in some way to human moral status. There are two types of animal liberationist and both want to abolish the use of animals on moral or other grounds. ‘New welfarists’ regard abolition as a long-term goal and meanwhile try to ease as much animal suffering as possible by introducing practical welfare measures. The 'hard-line abolitionists’ believe welfare is a waste of time and pitch straight for abolition of animal use on the grounds that if there is no abuse there is no need for welfare. Liberationists have a lifestyle quite different to the majority of people, being vegan or vegetarian and reject goods and services based on animals.

to be clear im not suggesting that people be mean to their animals, i have quite a bit of affection for opie, but i dont fool myself into thinking that he has any emotion for me, i have bacon, and fingers with which to scratch ears. i learned this because i really loved my first calf as a kid, J.R. Mooing, after a while though i realized that though i thought he loved me, he loved the bottle no matter if i gave it to him or a stranger.

unfortunately there are people who would ask for equal animal rights, of course maybe i should clarify that im not talking about the right to vote, or other rights irrelevant to their form.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Just so you know, your response here was to a veterinarian who has had a long career with working with animals.

“things don’t have to be like us to be important to us” QUOTE FROM web site about Clive Wynne’s book. I haven’t read it either.

i dont intend to defend his work, but yes he has great respect for animals.

though he may be a vet, i grew up on a farm and have a number of pets, to me, animals are commodities, i know some people find that distasteful, but i see no reason not to treat them as such. im not suggesting cruelty, i dont care for the manner in which veal is made. but then again, im not a sentimental person. i see animal rights as only my duty to G-d to take reasonable care of his Creation, not something based on an intrinsic value to animals apart from their utility.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, it’s not a popularity contest. I am truly interested because although you state it is a very common belief, I can infer that members on CAF might have different views because of the teachings in the CCC. CAF members are, presumably not representative of the general population. (cut & paste from our other thread).

356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake",

358 God created everything for man, 222 but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

So according to the CCC, non-human animals have no intrinsic value?

this was answered in the other thread wasnt it? cut and paste that also.

but none of this is evidence of animal emotions.

 

[Image_of_God]

You have never heard of it, but I have experienced it numerous times. I could tell you stories and stories (I work with animals). Animals *are *very intuitive, above and beyond natural instinct, learned behavior, and interpretation of their environments and factors within their environments. Here’s one good example that sticks out in my mind: I was in great mental distress and grief after the loss of my mother. I was walking down the street, minding my own business, showing no outward signs of my inner emotions, when a dog broke free from its owner (they were walking across the street from me and were not in close proximity to me), The dog bolted across the street toward me–I did not even see him coming–he knocked me to the ground and started licking me tenderly and gently. The owner rushed over and was very startled that her dog would do this. He had never done this before (break away and rush to a stanger). I did not know this dog, or the owner. My only explanation is that this dog perceived that I was in need and responded. After talking to the owner she told me that he was very sensitive and responsive to ***her ***emotions in their day to day contact. It was astounding to both of us that this dog reacted to me in this very positive way, as if he sensed I was distressed and in need of some affection that he was happy to give me–a total stranger.

Since you actually work with animals, you’re knowledge in this area is probably superior to my own. Even still, I will try to express what I think which is difficult because I wasn’t there.

The intuition that I am referring to is not a kind of telepathy, which you described here (that’s what scientists would consider you’re experience). The telepathic ability of animals is in itself controversial among scientists because some believe that such a thing exists and some do not believe such a thing exists even among humans. When I say “intuition” or “intuitive knowledge” I am not talking about that which is sensual and I should have been clearer. I am talking about the simple knowing of abstract principles. I doubt that the dog you referred to would know that murder is against justice. It would probably sense that whoever was attacked needs help. But the dog, I doubt, has the knowledge of what justice is.

I still cannot conceive that a dog could understand something as complex and abstract as well concealed emotions. This observation states that dogs are able to sense human emotions by the expressions on their faces. That is to say, dogs still need something concrete to go on. I would think that you would have to have given some expression for the dog to have gone on.

Still, it does not rule out the possibility of God to work through his creatures. In other words, a miracle!

 

[Marfran]

take the animal liberation front among others

animalliberationfront.com/

1. Liberation: animals should be liberated.
   This is the avant-garde position: animals deserve moral status similar in some way to human moral status. There are two types of animal liberationist and both want to abolish the use of animals on moral or other grounds. ‘New welfarists’ regard abolition as a long-term goal and meanwhile try to ease as much animal suffering as possible by introducing practical welfare measures. The 'hard-line abolitionists’ believe welfare is a waste of time and pitch straight for abolition of animal use on the grounds that if there is no abuse there is no need for welfare. Liberationists have a lifestyle quite different to the majority of people, being vegan or vegetarian and reject goods and services based on animals.

to be clear im not suggesting that people be mean to their animals, i have quite a bit of affection for opie, but i dont fool myself into thinking that he has any emotion for me, i have bacon, and fingers with which to scratch ears. i learned this because i really loved my first calf as a kid, J.R. Mooing, after a while though i realized that though i thought he loved me, he loved the bottle no matter if i gave it to him or a stranger.

unfortunately there are people who would ask for equal animal rights, of course maybe i should clarify that im not talking about the right to vote, or other rights irrelevant to their form.

??? Again, there is no person or organization that is fighting for animals to have equal rights to humans. Where in your example does it say this? The idea of animal rights is that animals have the right to live their lives naturally, in a natural environment, without cruelty inflicted upon them by humans. “Liberation” means freeing an animal (or person) from subjugation and imprisonment. .

 

[Marfran]

Since you actually work with animals, you’re knowledge in this area is probably superior to my own. Even still, I will try to express what I think which is difficult because I wasn’t there.

The intuition that I am referring to is not a kind of telepathy, which you described here (that’s what scientists would consider you’re experience). The telepathic ability of animals is in itself controversial among scientists because some believe that such a thing exists and some do not believe such a thing exists even among humans. When I say “intuition” or “intuitive knowledge” I am not talking about that which is sensual and I should have been clearer. I am talking about the simple knowing of abstract principles. I doubt that the dog you referred to would know that murder is against justice. It would probably sense that whoever was attacked needs help. But the dog, I doubt, has the knowledge of what justice is.

How is that intuitive? Knowing murder is against justice? Intuitive??

I still cannot conceive that a dog could understand something as complex and abstract as well concealed emotions. This observation states that dogs are able to sense human emotions by the expressions on their faces. That is to say, dogs still need something concrete to go on. I would think that you would have to have given some expression for the dog to have gone on.

In my example the dog was no where near me, and bolted across the street to me. I was not crying, or making noise, or making facial expressions. I was only thinking in my head.

Still, it does not rule out the possibility of God to work through his creatures. In other words, a miracle!

And you are absolutely correct. I have also experienced this. God does work miracles through His creatures. I have had so many “coincidences” occur with animals that it is obvious that they can not be mere coincidences. The Mother’s Day after my mother died a (wild) little yellow bird flew over my shoulder (from behind). It flew so close to my neck that I could feel the tips of its wings against my neck, and hear the beat of her wings in my ear. It was a stunning experience. One year later, on the next Mother’s Day, I awoke with great sadness on missing my mother. After getting up I walked into the livingroom to find a little yellow bird perched outside the windowsill looking into the house. (It may be noted that little yellow birds are not typical around my house, and I have rarely seen them here.) This experience, I doubt was a coincidence, and I doubt the bird was responsible for.

 

[Image_of_God]

How is that intuitive? Knowing murder is against justice? Intuitive??

No, no, no. You misunderstood me. I also said this, “But the dog, I doubt, has the knowledge of what justice is.” You forgot about that part. What I was trying to get at was that the concept of justice, justice itself, is an abstract principle. Therefore, knowledge of it is that of an intuitive kind. I doubt that a dog has knowledge of what justice is.

In my example the dog was no where near me, and bolted across the street to me. I was not crying, or making noise, or making facial expressions. I was only thinking in my head.

I can’t examine or be critical of the moment because I wasn’t there. It would be unfair if I was. I can only say though that there has been little to no scientific breakthrough on the thing you’re talking about.

And you are absolutely correct. I have also experienced this. God does work miracles through His creatures. I have had so many “coincidences” occur with animals that it is obvious that they can not be mere coincidences. The Mother’s Day after my mother died a (wild) little yellow bird flew over my shoulder (from behind). It flew so close to my neck that I could feel the tips of its wings against my neck, and hear the beat of her wings in my ear. It was a stunning experience. One year later, on the next Mother’s Day, I awoke with great sadness on missing my mother. After getting up I walked into the livingroom to find a little yellow bird perched outside the windowsill looking into the house. (It may be noted that little yellow birds are not typical around my house, and I have rarely seen them here.) This experience, I doubt was a coincidence, and I doubt the bird was responsible for.

Agreed!

 

[Image_of_God]

this was answered in the other thread wasnt it? cut and paste that also.

but none of this is evidence of animal emotions.

I think I understand your fear. But saying that animals have emotions does not mean they are also rational beings. Emotions, as I have stated earlier are NOT rational.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

??? Again, there is no person or organization that is fighting for animals to have equal rights to humans. Where in your example does it say this? The idea of animal rights is that animals have the right to live their lives naturally, in a natural environment, without cruelty inflicted upon them by humans. “Liberation” means freeing an animal (or person) from subjugation and imprisonment. .

if you want that specific wording here is some. im sure if i take the time i can find more. plenty of people out there on the fringes.

answers.com/topic/animal-rights

The claim that animals have rights reflects a belief that (at least some) animals are worthy of the protection and security afforded by a set of politically enforced rights. This belief may be grounded in utilitarianism, on the grounds that (a) animals can feel pleasure and suffer pain, (b) the world is a better place if animals do not suffer unnecessarily, and (c) such unnecessary suffering is best avoided through the invocation of rights. It may also be grounded in a deontological argument that all ‘subjects of a life’ have a basic moral right to be treated with respect. Amongst animal rights theorists the first approach is exemplified in the work of **Peter Singer **and the second in that of Tom Regan.

The claim for **equal rights **is not a claim for equal treatment. Whilst both animals and humans can be said to have an interest in not being tortured, cows are not generally thought to have an interest in a right to vote. Thus the claim is for rights appropriate to the capacities of a species.

Problems with animal rights are raised by those who believe that rights must be accompanied by duties—how can animals be rights bearers when they can never be under moral obligation? Environmentalists who believe that a serious moral belief in animal rights would see humans interfering in natural processes of predation and disease have also raised objections. (See also anthropocentrism and ecocentrism.)

of course im not speaking about equal rights like the right to vote or free speech. what you are calling rights here

the right to live their lives naturally, in a natural environment, without cruelty inflicted upon them by humans

are the same natural rights people have, im only talking about rights relevant to an animals form. do they need a right to property?

natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

so whether they use the word equal or not, thats what they mean. they want to animals to have the same rights people do, at least those relevant to their form and abilities.

 

[Marfran]

I think I understand your fear. But saying that animals have emotions does not mean they are also rational beings. Emotions, as I have stated earlier are NOT rational.

Does a living being have to be rational and/or emotional for us to respect that it has an entitlement to live its own life, free of human interference?

Is problem solving a rational function of the brain? (Because I can give examples of problem-solving in animals.)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think I understand your fear. But saying that animals have emotions does not mean they are also rational beings. Emotions, as I have stated earlier are NOT rational.

fear? i just think that saying animals have emotions is basic anthropomorphization. its an assumption, a guess, something that we would like to believe. though i do it myself sometimes with opie, i must say its irrational to me, it makes for bad science. i see it as an argument like the problem of evil, it sounds great and agrees with emotions right until you find out your standing on the doorstep to atheism. some things should be rejected because of where they go in the end, and this ends up at peter singers preference utilitatrianism. as there is no evidence of animal emotions, then i dont see a need to even set foot on the path.

 

[Benadam]

fear? i just think that saying animals have emotions is basic anthropomorphization. its an assumption, a guess, something that we would like to believe.

 

[Marfran]

of course im not speaking about equal rights like the right to vote or free speech. what you are calling rights here .

Well, then the term ***equal rights ***is innapproriate and does not belong in the scenario. Again, there are no animal rights groups that are saying that animals are equal to people.

are the same natural rights people have, im only talking about rights relevant to an animals form. do they need a right to property?..

so whether they use the word equal or not, thats what they mean. they want to animals to have the same rights people do, at least those relevant to their form and abilities.

Using the term **equal rights **is completely off mark. And when you use it, it en-angers people, and it lights unneccessary fires. Perhaps you do not use the term intentionally in a wrong way–or perhaps you do–I don’t know–but I would dispense with using it because it is innaccurate and misleading.

 

[redhen]

…are the same natural rights people have, im only talking about rights relevant to an animals form. do they need a right to property?

so whether they use the word equal or not, thats what they mean. they want to animals to have the same rights people do, at least those relevant to their form and abilities.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

“There is a bad as well as a good anthropomorphism. Bad includes the attempt to project obviously human needs and emotions onto animals as when, for example, we enter the Beatrix Potter world of animals dressed up in human clothes and enjoying gardening. But these fantasies should not detract from the truth of good anthropomorphism, which accepts, as a reasonable assumption, that, in their own individual manner, mammals suffer only to a greater or lesser extent than we do. The ‘anthropomorphic’ view was ably expressed by the ‘Ethical Approach’ of the former Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee in 1970: ‘the fact that an animal has limbs should give it the right to use them; the fact that a bird has wings should give it the right to spread them; the fact that both animals and birds are mobile should give them the right to turn around, and the fact that they have eyes should give them the right to see’.”

humboldt.edu/~essays/linzey.html

We’re still on topic with animal emotion and anthropomorphism, so I’ll toss out this link to more commentary by The Revd Professor Andrew Linzey oxfordanimalethics.com/index.php?p=comment

I know he’s Anglican, but I’m hoping you can cut him slack in that respect.
oxfordanimalethics.com/index.php?p=director

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Emotional states are made visible by the body.

i dont think so, i mean we can be sad and smile, we can be happy and frown, thats a poor method then by which to judge emotions, aspecially in another species.

When we observe the bodies of animals producing the same cues that communicate emotional states in humans, it’s not anthropamorphising. It’s just an observation of similarities.

that is exactly what anthropomorphising is. for instance, say a chimp smiles at you, do you think the chimp is happy? or could it just as well be a programmed response because you are smiling at it? it could just as well be using its social programming. therefore it may seem alot like the chimp is happy, but to assume that solely on the basis of observation is projective parodeilia, which is why you anthropomorphize a chimps smile as the emotion “happy” you see a pattern in information that may not be there, like seeing objects in clouds.

Emotional states by necessity require a universal language.

what evidence do you have of this? even animal behaviorists would disagree here, what universal language is there between a pig, a steer, chicken, and a man? we dont share facial expressions, thats anatomically impossible really. i dont think there is any universal language of emotion.

When that language is used by animals what evidence is there that the universal meaning changes when they use it?

first i need some evidence that a universal emotional language exists, it may seem obvious to you but even if a chicken could frown, i dont know how that could be extrapolated into “anger” or “sadness”.