I'm in a better shape than yesterday.
nateriver10 wrote...
Fligger wrote...
A big mistake since there are lot of parasits what are animals.
Fligger wrote...
Don't be mad but you're anthropocentrist on that way to see it.
That's not my point, now is it? What I said is that I don't think parasites have morals but other animals do. Why is it a big mistake? To prove my point I wouldn't need to prove it in all animals, just one aside from humans.
I really don't see why. It's not a matter of disagreement either. I just literally don't understand where you got that from my comment. Not being sarcastig either. I'd appreciate an explanation.
1) Let's see. Why do I insist on parasits ? Take the ichneumon : a wasp specie "laying" its egg into a living and vivid host. Since this wasp take the burden to approach a living target, not killing it nor stunning it, and putting its egg inside the target's body ; the egg will not be the prey of other insects, as long as the host fights for its survival. In the same time, the egg hatch and the larva begin to eat the host from inside, but keep off from eating organs essential for the host survival. This way the host is still able to move away from its predators and keeps the hosted larva alive in the same time, until the larva have nearly eat all it can of its host and get out of it to the next stage of its development.
Now try to look it with your moral eyes and tell me what you think.
2) About wolves, lions and such.
When male lions take control of a female group by fighting down some other males, they kill all the cubs so the females get in heat quicker.
When a lambda wolf reach "puberty" in its pack, it's only the (fallible) surveillance of the alpha male what keeps that lambda wolf to impregnate the alpha female, whether this female would be or not its mother. If the lambda wolf is able to chase away or kill the alpha wolf, then it becomes the new alpha wolf and impregnate the female of its choice. Don't even believe the legend of wolves couple fidelity : studies had invalidated it because once all the wolves are grown up in a pack where the alpha male and female have disappeared (meaning none of them had chase away the puberiscent wolves), then those wolves will mate with each other without distinction, until either the pack explode into new groups, or a new alpha couple kill other rivals and eventually their offsprings.
Again try to look it with your moral eyes and tell me what you think.
nateriver10 wrote...
Fligger wrote...
Me I have. So much that my teachers tried to put me into the scientist field -- it did not realize because of administrative matters.
Considering this is the internet, neither of us have a way to prove it so this is just pointless «I said, he said». Still, I didn't take a full biology course but what I took was with a biologist so... Yeah.
Also, I don't really see what your own experience has anything to do here since I'm not talking about my experience either. I'm talking about what others said, point blank. You could be Einstein, Tesla, Darwin and Justin Bieber rolled into one, it wouldn't make much of a difference. Well, maybe if you were Darwin...
If it is true, sorry to hear that.
Forget it. Fakku is not the right place.
nateriver10 wrote...
Fligger wrote...
Social codes and cultures. Moral ? I suspect some misunderstanding or some clumsy way to popularize some data -- happens sooo often it's sadly uncountable...
Could very well be. Biology is not my thing. But this is yet another example in which the conversation takes flight. If I remember correctly, last time the same happened - I state P and you state «Not P» on the grounds of «He said» and the main point is lot. To reiterate -
Do *some* animals display moral behavior?
Only "humans", if they're willing to. The moral
(which values can even change from a culture to another) is
our specie's social code if you might "prefer". It has things to do only with us.
We may "see" in some species more or less "proach" to ours, some behavior making us think we understand what it happens. But to understand what it really happens, we must obliterate our own social code as if we were learning another "language". Then come some similarities but also differences. But since they don't have the same brain as ours, never take some other specie's behavior for a "synonym" to any of our behavior. It is only (more or less) similar, not completely the same.
nateriver10 wrote...
Fligger wrote...
Still I prefer to that the original darwinian evolution.
Daniel Dennett may be a soft determinist but still determinist, so it is doubtful or at least debatable when he teams up with Dawkin.
I doubt you would really understand all what is said about all those people, but believe me : it can become a veeeeery specialized and technical debate with looot of studies on those questions and looot of publication (Pubmed, Nature, Science, Cell...) as well to investigate and above all understand even within their possible bias or even "mistake".
Needs a lot about epistemology, too.
I doubt you understand them too but on the other side which would be philsophy, namely morality. I would say that on the grounds that this last comment only featured the word «moral» once and it was in a one word rhetorical question.
I know a bit more about Dawkin than Dennett and I can say I respect the biologist but his ideas are a little... "twisted" ? "too simple" ? too determinist and not available for too much exceptions -- you could even say it "may function" only for some given exceptions too... The same for Dennett.
And about philosophy, you're not forced to involve "morality" or some anthropocentrism when talking about animals -- rather the contrary in fact. I've explained above one of the reasons to keep off from anthropocentrism.
Philosophy is not about giving some "humanity" to animals, it should be about analysis of ideas, if possible not concluding for an exception but carrying on some generalization. In my eyes : running a hypothesis out of any possible ideas to theirs extremities. Ending up the reasoning.