Join TSR now and chat with students like youSign up now

Why do humans have this false belief that they are more moral than animals?

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    he is more aquatic ? *
    Right...

    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    r u startin
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Other animals don't even have a notion of morality. They just do what comes instinctively to them. Ergo I don't think you can say that any animal's actions are good or evil. They just are. We are more moral in the sense that we have a notion of morals, but as for being more morally good, which I presume is what you're referring to, it is a false comparison, I think.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    Humans are self-aware and much more altruistic than most animals. Animals have no sense of morality and abide by the rules of nature. In the wild, their lives are solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Our standards of morality mean that people live longer and have happier lives.

    You might argue that morality is merely an invention by man, but I don't believe that the state of nature is a better standard of morality just because it is the base version.

    Also you're wrong in suggesting that we view humans as infallible creatures who can do no harm.
    Altruism doesn't really exist, every behaviour is either self-serving or beneficial on a group level.

    Also you mustn't know much about animals if you think all animals are "solitary". Most animals are not, ever wondered why we have collective terms for animals? The same applies for them having short and brutish lives, some have lifespans which far exceed our own, and some are peaceful creatures. I simply do not understand these sweeping generalisations.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Altruism doesn't really exist, every behaviour is either self-serving or beneficial on a group level.

    Also you mustn't know much about animals if you think all animals are "solitary". Most animals are not, ever wondered why we have collective terms for animals? The same applies for them having short and brutish lives, some have lifespans which far exceed our own, and some are peaceful creatures. I simply do not understand these sweeping generalisations.
    Altruism does exist; I see it every day. It's a lie that every behaviour is self-serving. And if something is beneficial on a group level rather than on an individual level, it is by definition altruistic.

    Note how I said 'most' animals. I did not say 'all'. Some animal species are fiercely altruistic, like ants.

    Just because some animals can live a long time, doesn't mean that they've lived a peaceful or moral existence.

    There are virtually no animals that are as peaceful to its own or other species as man. That's not to say that man is perfect, far from it. But man is constrained by morality and altruism, and does not engage in never-ending violence and war on both a personal and international level that you see in the animal kingdom. Man has a desire to end conflict. Man is violent, but not nearly as violent as animals.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    Altruism does exist; I see it every day. It's a lie that every behaviour is self-serving. And if something is beneficial on a group level rather than on an individual level, it is by definition altruistic.

    Note how I said 'most' animals. I did not say 'all'. Some animal species are fiercely altruistic, like ants.

    Just because some animals can live a long time, doesn't mean that they've lived a peaceful or moral existence.

    There are virtually no animals that are as peaceful to its own or other species as man. That's not to say that man is perfect, far from it. But man is constrained by morality and altruism, and does not engage in never-ending violence and war on both a personal and international level that you see in the animal kingdom. Man has a desire to end conflict. Man is violent, but not nearly as violent as animals.
    I disagree I think in part this depends on your perspective, but I distinctly remember studying this during my first year, and most of the psychological evidence if not all of the evidence I came across, supported the notion that pure altruism doesn't exist. There's always some self-serving explanation that prevails, whether it's feel good satisfaction, or some wider group goal.

    How so? Commiting a behaviour with the aim of benefiting your own wider social group is not altruistic, because you are still acting out of self-interest, as you are part of that social group, and share identity with it.

    Again, ants aren't altruistic, but simply that behaviour is adaptive for them. I honestly don't see where you have the statement in bold from! Many animals co-exist just as peacefully as man. I just don't see where you're getting this from.

    Sorry but when did I ever say that animals that have long lifespans must be peaceful or moral :rofl:. Morality and altruism does not even apply to animals, they do not have the cognitive capacity to make moral decisions, therefore to even apply those definitions to animals is anthropomorphic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Name one thing animals have built for the world...
 
 
 
Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.