Some species are monogamous, you know.
Think of the bottom-feeding lobsters.
At 01:37 PM 10/13/00 -0400, Adam Gottschalk wrote:
>on 10/13/00 13:18, David Pearson at [log in to unmask]
>wrote:
>
> > As for the shark - when it comes to what sharks do, I think ethics is
> > simply irrelevant. They can't think or know about right or wrong (I
> > assume!), so they can't *do* right or wrong.
>
>
>Critical words: "I assume!" Quite to the contrary there is a great deal of
>evidence that animals lead moral lives; now when I say this, I do not mean
>they live by the moral code of the Bible Belt. I mean they _do_ distinguish
>between right and wrong. For a carnivorous animal (dogs, cats, etc.), the
>set of morals they consider are quite different from the ones we consider.
>Monogamy seems to be the best lifestyle for the human species for many
>various practical, emotional, and other reasons; therefore adultery has
>serious moral import. Multiple partners doesn't carry the same moral import
>as for other species, for a different set of practical and emotional
>reasons.
>
>I have often heard folks say things like, "Well, it is our duty, being the
>only species that has self-awareness..." This is right up there with
>"(animals/sharks) can't think or know about right and wrong..." I would be
>supremely amazed if you could show me a shred of evidence to this affect.
>
>Adam
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|