on 10/15/00 03:37, spiritwear at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> "(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.
>
> isn't there some scientific maxim that states that it's impossible to
> prove/evidence that something doesn't exist? i believe, adam, that the
> burden of proof/evidence lies with you (if you so choose to accept it)...
Someone else threw this at me and I have never heard of such a maxim in all
my studies of science.
But more to the point, throwing this "rule of thumb" at me is a petty
semantic ploy. I am talking about "proving" that sharks do not show know
right from wrong. You can refer to that effort (which I do not believe there
is need to engage in) as aiming to prove (or disproving) "existence" of
something, or you can use different terminology and such a maxim just
doesn't make any sense.
But the _real_ real heart of thing, that various posters seem to be blind to
is this:
You say animals do NOT know right from wrong.
I say yes they do. Prove that they don't.
You say it's logically impossible to do so.
I say that's putting your foot in your collective mouth. You, according to
you, cannot prove that animals do not know right from wrong. So, what, do
you all walk around believing deeply that such is the case even though you
have no way of proving it? How very unscientific.
I think of all the very scientific evidence as to sentience and intelligence
in non-human animals; I think of all my varied experiences with animals over
the years, most good, some bad, and consider that "anecdotal" evidence. Such
things have led me to see animals' self-awareness and moral lives as
self-evident. If I wanted to prove it, I'd be "proving a positive." So (even
though I still know of no such maxim), you are the ones who are in an
impossible situation, unable ever to prove something you blindly assume.
(more)
>> as they feel
>> pain and cherish love and affection, as they know what's right for them to
>> eat
>
> none of which points towards morality... the "cherish" part is
> anthropomorphizing, imo... the choice of food is probably instinctual
> only (exempting pets)....
>
This is my point. You tell me I'm anthropomorphizing because you believe,
for reasons you assert you cannot prove, that animals are not able to
cherish. I insist that they do. The trait is not peculiar to humans. How can
you say that? Have you never owned a pet or seen the way pets cherish their
masters (kind ones) above anyone else? (It's not just because they know
where their food comes from). Have seen the way that many/most non-human
mothers protect their kids at all costs? Have you never seen animals mourn
to no end the loss of a cherished friend?
Again, I think you're confused. Again we're at a yes-no kind of argument. I
used the word "cherish" specifically because I do not believe such emotions
are peculiar to humans.
Adam
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|