Hmm, OK, I tried to keep quiet but couldn't do it!
Firstly, just for interest, badgers do it too (rape that is) and possibly paedophilia too.
But my main point is this.
One of my respondents in my research objected to the Rolston example of the hawk valuing its camouflage, saying instead that the camouflage is of benefit to the hawk, but that the hawk doesn't have the mental capacity to do valuing.
But, if we accept (and this is a reasonably big 'if') that plants and animals strive to maintain their existences & spp, then these things (existences & spp) *can*, I think, be said to be of value to the organism.
There would seem to be something very logically dodgy about saying that the hawk's *existence* is of benefit to *it*. (Some sort of contradiction, infinite regress or something - I never quite worked out which!)
So, this of course would mean that its existence is of *intrinsic* value to it (which isn't logically dodgy) and would also suggest that there are objective values 'out there'.
OK, see ya!
Wayne.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Bissell
To: Wayne Butler
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 8:53 PM
Subject: Dolphin behavior and animal values
I should have been clear(er) in my post about "gang rapes." The behavior of (usually) young males forcing a non-receptive female to have intercourse has been recorded for dolphins, ducks, insects (this includes "homosexual rape"), fish, elephants, and parasitic worms. I have seen film of wild camels committing "gang rape" on a female which resulted in the death of the female.
My point is that while it is easy to accept "noble" and altruistic behaviors in animals as evidence of some sort of value system, it is not so easy to accept ignoble or "immoral" behaviors. However, it seems to be to be logical that if you are going to believe that behavior in animals can or should be interpreted as indicative of "moral" values, you have to accept, at least in principle, behaviors of the opposite nature. So if you want to see altruism in animals, you have to look for lust, gluttony (actually the scientific name for wolverines means 'glutton'), sloth (well, in sloths for example), rage, etc. Jane Goodall documented infanticide and cannibalism in chimps, but as far as I know no-one has ever observed rape in any of the higher apes except for humans.
My point remains that it is very risky saying that observed behaviors in animals is indicative of values in an anthropomorphic sense. I agree that bears seem to enjoy eating salmon, but to make the leap to say that bears "value" salmon is fraught with all sorts of problems in logic. For example, when salmon are very abundant and easily caught, the bears will eat the fatty tissue and discard the rest. So, do bears "value" the fat more than the rest?
Should we "protect" animals that display behaviors we approve of and "punish" behaviors we disapprove of? Should dolphins who commit "gang rape" be prosecuted? Actually there are records of animals being tried for murder in medieval times. I just think that finding evidence of values in animals by interpreting behavior in axiological terms is not a good basis for animal rights.
Steven
I have become increasingly skeptical of cynicism.
Anon
