Why do animals suffer?

[Bill_Cherry]

No, I don’t assume it. I have studied the psychology of emotions in college, and I have experiential knowledge of the same. The study of emotions in man and animals has been going on several centuries.
darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1142&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

If you have never seen expressions of fear or anger in a non-human animal, than I can only suggest that you have a low EI quotient en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence
or you’re not being completely honest.

**Careful, that argument got me in trouble on a different subject, my friend.I was forced to concede due to the technicality of the “reality is subjective” argument.Which seems to be a no win situation. **

 

[redhen]

**I was forced to concede due to the technicality of the “reality is subjective” argument.Which seems to be a no win situation. **

If reality was subjective, we would not have any science or engineering, and we wouldn’t be using sophisticated software applications running on complex computer hardware to share ideas on the Internet.

Emotions are not meaningless reactions, they all serve a function. The biological basis of emotions are shared with non-human animals. These are the facts, and they are indisputable.

If someone wants to go further into emotions and evolutionary psychology, we should perhaps start a new thread somewhere.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

If reality was subjective, we would not have any science or engineering, and we wouldn’t be using sophisticated software applications running on complex computer hardware to share ideas on the Internet.

Emotions are not meaningless reactions, they all serve a function. The biological basis of emotions are shared with non-human animals. These are the facts, and they are indisputable…

:newidea:
And herein lies the REAL difference between humans and animals. Humans can ‘RATIONALIZE’ anything to prove their point. Animals don’t have to prove anything!!!.

 

[redhen]

:newidea:
And herein lies the REAL difference between humans and animals.

But humans (homo sapiens sapiens) are scientifically classified as belonging to the Animalia Kingdom, we did not drop onto planet earth from outer space. Maybe what you meant to say was the difference between humans and non-human animals.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

But humans (homo sapiens sapiens) are scientifically classified as belonging to the Animalia Kingdom, we did not drop onto planet earth from outer space. Maybe what you meant to say was the difference between humans and non-human animals.

You know what I mean…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, I am sure you would make a fine Marine.

Not even just a teensy weensy bit?

It’s ok bro. As CrackerMomma says," There is enough room in the church for all of us…

i would have made a great marine 20 years ago, now im too old, fat, and mean. but no, not a teeny little bit. its simply irrational to believe that animals “suffer”. that doesnt mean i kick dogs for fun though.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, I don’t assume it. I have studied the psychology of emotions in college, and I have experiential knowledge of the same. The study of emotions in man and animals has been going on several centuries.
darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1142&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

indeed you do assume it, an animal has never turned to you and said something along the the lines of “im really depressed right now” you assume it by anthropormorphism. you have zero evidence of emotions in animals. i can just as easily program a machine to provide the same responses that lead people to think that animals have emotions, but you wouldnt then say that the machine has emotions, it doesnt resemble you enough to anthropomorphize. therefore to do so is irrefutably irrational.

If you have never seen expressions of fear or anger in a non-human animal, than I can only suggest that you have a low EI quotient en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence
or you’re not being completely honest.

and now we come to the last defense of irrational minds, either there is something wrong with me, or i am a liar, this is the fallacy of ad hominem. you cannot prove your argument, no one ever has proven that argument, but you really desire it to be true, therefore the fault is not with the argument, but with me.

bad form, bad form indeed.

 

[redhen]

its simply irrational to believe that animals “suffer”. that doesnt mean i kick dogs for fun though.

You know what’s irrational? The belief that non-human animals and machines are the same.
Again I ask, show me a machine that expresses emotions. If you think you can program a machine to express mental and physiological states, then you need to read some biology and psychology text books.

p.s. what stops you from kicking dogs? After all, they’re just meat with eyes, right?

 

[redhen]

indeed you do assume it, an animal has never turned to you and said something along the the lines of “im really depressed right now” you assume it by anthropormorphism. you have zero evidence of emotions in animals.

By your logic, human infants before the age of language development also don’t have emotions since they can’t describe them to you in words. I would suggest you talk to any parent and tell them the fear, disgust, sadness, happiness, anger and surprise they think they see in their infants are just assumptions.

i can just as easily program a machine to provide the same responses that lead people to think that animals have emotions,

Go for it. The American Psychological Association would be very interested to review this piece of work.

and now we come to the last defense of irrational minds, either there is something wrong with me, or i am a liar, this is the fallacy of ad hominem.

You continue to call me irrational. quid pro quo.

you cannot prove your argument, no one ever has proven that argument, but you really desire it to be true, therefore the fault is not with the argument, but with me.

Non-human animals express emotions. This is not an argument, this is a scientific fact.
If you claim that no one has proven this, please provide sources.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If reality was subjective, we would not have any science or engineering, and we wouldn’t be using sophisticated software applications running on complex computer hardware to share ideas on the Internet.

Emotions are not meaningless reactions, they all serve a function. The biological basis of emotions are shared with non-human animals. These are the facts, and they are indisputable.

If someone wants to go further into emotions and evolutionary psychology, we should perhaps start a new thread somewhere.

as one cannot prove that animals have emotions, without resorting to anthropomorphization, i would suggest that the field of evolutionary psychology is entirely disputable, as should any theory be considered when it relies on fallacious reasoning.

 

[redhen]

as one cannot prove that animals have emotions, without resorting to anthropomorphization,

Sure you can. Take a few minutes and google animal emotions. Better yet, go to a university library and take a look in the zoology and psychology sections.

Again I ask, by your same logic, do you think that human infants before the age of language development (or for that matter, any human who for whatever reason cannot talk), do not have emotions? You still have not answered this simple question.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

 

[Xuan]

newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm

The very essence of the moral law is that we respect and obey the order established by the Creator. Now, the animal is a nobler manifestation of His power and goodness than the lower forms of material existence. In imparting to the brute creation a sentient nature capable of suffering – a nature which the animal shares in common with ourselves – God placed on our dominion over them a restriction which does not exist with regard to our dominion over the non-sentient world.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm

The very essence of the moral law is that we respect and obey the order established by the Creator. Now, the animal is a nobler manifestation of His power and goodness than the lower forms of material existence. In imparting to the brute creation a sentient nature capable of suffering – a nature which the animal shares in common with ourselves – God placed on our dominion over them a restriction which does not exist with regard to our dominion over the non-sentient world.

ssshhh…they are trying to use secular logic…cool, huh?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You know what’s irrational? The belief that non-human animals and machines are the same.

how so? i dont think either one actually has emotions, and you havent been able to prove that animals do, while machines dont. so its entirely rational until you can prove that animals have emotions, which you cant.

Again I ask, show me a machine that expresses emotions.

sure, a roomba “runs” from dangerous situations like a staircase, it must be afraid, because fear is the emotion that i would have if i were avoiding a dangerous situation. therefore the roomba must also be experiencing fear.

see how ridiculous that statement is? that is the essence of anthropomorphism.

If you think you can program a machine to express mental and physiological states, then you need to read some biology and psychology text books.

i might have read a few in the 7.5 years i have spent sitting in various university classes. i dont lack education if thats what your trying to say.

p.s. what stops you from kicking dogs? After all, they’re just meat with eyes, right?

i dont kick vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, or air compressors either.

 

[redhen]

newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm

In imparting to the brute creation a **sentient nature capable of suffering **-- a nature which the animal shares in common with ourselves – God placed on our dominion over them a restriction which does not exist with regard to our dominion over the non-sentient world.

Thank you Xuan. I hope people reading this thread don’t assume that I am advocating human rights for animals. This also seems in accordance to Catholic doctrine. I am just trying to get Christians who hold to a strict Cartesian view (animals don’t feel pain) and those who deny emotion in animals, to consider the evidence.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

Thank you Xuan. I hope people reading this thread don’t assume that I am advocating human rights for animals. This also seems in accordance to Catholic doctrine. I am just trying to get Christians who hold to a strict Cartesian view (animals don’t feel pain) and those who deny emotion in animals, to consider the evidence.

Cartesian? I have to look that one up. I was thinking it was more along the lines of Descartes

oh,…it is:blush: duh

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Sure you can. Take a few minutes and google animal emotions. Better yet, go to a university library and take a look in the zoology and psychology sections.

ive seen a few.

Again I ask, by your same logic, do you think that human infants before the age of language development (or for that matter, any human who for whatever reason cannot talk), do not have emotions?

of course not. i was an infant at one time and could not talk, and i have emotions.

You still have not answered this simple question.

you never asked this question before that i have seen.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Thank you Xuan. I hope people reading this thread don’t assume that I am advocating human rights for animals. This also seems in accordance to Catholic doctrine. I am just trying to get Christians who hold to a strict Cartesian view (animals don’t feel pain) and those who deny emotion in animals, to consider the evidence.

what evidence? the problem is that you dont have any. its all anthropormorhism.