Petey,
Humans show emotions through facial expressions, bodily positioning and movement, activity in particular brain regions, hormonal secretions and verbally.
The only thing that animals don’t do, and many humans equally can’t do - either through age, disease or disability - is express themselves verbally. (Apart from higher primates who can express themselves using language and do make statements such as “I’m lonely.”) In every other respect they have some of the same basic emotions.
It can also be argued that when it comes to emotion, we all infer those states in other people as we don’t have direct access to their experience. Many psychologists argue that people are ‘mind readers’ in many ways. (I don’t mean literally).
I don’t know or understand why you are so resistant to the idea of animals suffering. The Bible itself refers to animals’ capacity for emotion and for suffering.
first and foremost, there is a complete lack of evidence that doesnt rely anthropomorphism. we can never actually know that the reactions that we assign emotion to arent programmed. whether by evolution or people, for instance, you take an ape signing “im lonely” as an emotion, but surely if i trained a parrot to say “im lonely” you wouldnt think it was expressing an actual emotion. a parrot doesnt resemble us so closely thus you are more likely to accept that it is just the parrots programming and not an actual emotion. the basis for all claims of animal emotions involve at some point an anthropomorphic assumption that some reaction is an emotion, and not a reaction to stimuli that is already programmed.
thats extremely bad science and would be completely unacceptable in any other field. in this case it simply appeals to emotions, people really want to believe that the affection they have for animals, the emotional connections they have with their pets, are reciprocal, i would like to think opie, has emotion for me too. unfortunately, i know that he just likes the bacon bits and ear scratches i provide, if someone else provided those things he is quite interested in them too.
ive been giving this same general argument for hundreds of posts now, and people act as though they can change this basic fact if they just wish hard enough. if i am wrong then surely there is evidence that doesnt rely on that assumption. yet no one has been able to offer any, ever.
i am not the only one who feels this way in fact until people started to anthropomophize chimps with jane goodall in the 1960’s, this was the common view among scientists. now, they make that same base assumption, its “emotions” and not a programmed reaction to stimuli. its still bad science no matter the credentials of the people who do it. google clive wynnes work.
now you may really be asking why i wont go along to get along. in that case let me make it clear that such assumptions are the basis of works by people such as peter singer, our friend who thinks a chimp is more valuable than a baby because of preference utilitarianism. it devalues human life whether we like to admit it or not. these same people screaming about animal rights, deny that same basic right to a baby, a baby has no right to life in their eyes. elderly people are worth less because they have less utility value so its ok to pull the plug. a homelss man froze to death here while the humane shelters were warm, the animals fed, and given medical attention, where was his comfort? where was his due as a our brother? these, and similar views are in radical opposition to what we believe as Catholics. it is our duty to resist such evil with all possible vigor. and i got plenty of vigor.
so i refuse to allow that basic irrational assumption, anthropomorphism. thereby denying the rational base of those who would use it to degrade the value of their fellow man in any way shape or form.
or as buffalos tag line reads
“
A man of conscience, is one who never acquires tolerance, well- being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion, at the expense of truth.” Pope Benedict XVI
