can animals choose Virtue?

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Just curious to your views in regards to this, does anyone think animals can choose virtue?

If by virtue is meant the morals that is not relevant to animals because they just act on their intuition. I quote hereunder a thought provoking passage from the book, The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam, written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad: http://www.alislam.org/books/philosophy/1q3.html
“We have already stated that natural conditions are not something distinct from moral conditions. When they are regulated and are used on their proper occasions, under the direction of reason, they acquire a moral character. Before they are controlled by reason and understanding they have not the character of moral qualities, but are natural impulses, however much they might resemble moral qualities. For instance, if a dog or lamb displays affection or docility towards its master it would not be described as moral or good mannered In the same way a wolf or a tiger would not be described as ill-mannered on account of its wildness.
A moral state emerges after reflection and regard for time and occasion come into play. A person who does not exercise reason and deliberation is like a child whose mind and intellect are not yet governed by reason, or is like a madman who has lost his reason and good sense. A child or a mad man sometimes behaves in a manner that has the appearance of moral action, but no sensible person calls such conduct moral, as such conduct does not proceed from good sense and appropriateness, but is a natural reaction to the circumstances.”
Thanks

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by inhumility

If by virtue is meant the morals that is not relevant to animals because they just act on their intuition. I quote hereunder a thought provoking passage from the book, The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam, written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad: http://www.alislam.org/books/philosophy/1q3.html
“We have already stated that natural conditions are not something distinct from moral conditions. When they are regulated and are used on their proper occasions, under the direction of reason, they acquire a moral character. Before they are controlled by reason and understanding they have not the character of moral qualities, but are natural impulses, however much they might resemble moral qualities. For instance, if a dog or lamb displays affection or docility towards its master it would not be described as moral or good mannered In the same way a wolf or a tiger would not be described as ill-mannered on account of its wildness.
A moral state emerges after reflection and regard for time and occasion come into play. A person who does not exercise reason and deliberation is like a child whose mind and intellect are not yet governed by reason, or is like a madman who has lost his reason and good sense. A child or a mad man sometimes behaves in a manner that has the appearance of moral action, but no sensible person calls such conduct moral, as such conduct does not proceed from good sense and appropriateness, but is a natural reaction to the circumstances.”
Thanks

How does one explain the affection and docility of the tiger and the wolf and the ape towards man, despite their wildness? Are they not deliberately going against their basic nature?

my thought

v/r

Q

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

How does one explain the affection and docility of the tiger and the wolf and the ape towards man, despite their wildness? Are they not deliberately going against their basic nature?
Q

Sir,
That is because of a long association or domestication of the animals,it is possible but nevertheless it does not change their nature or intuitions altogether and remain hidden in them.The animals and other life has been created for service of the man, I think this also exhibits that.Thanks

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by inhumility

Sir,
That is because of a long association or domestication of the animals,it is possible but nevertheless it does not change their nature or intuitions altogether and remain hidden in them.The animals and other life has been created for service of the man, I think this also exhibits that.Thanks

Ok. How does it explain wild animals of the same species not "killing" man, and becoming as I first suggested?

You can't. You've never dealt with it.

[wil]

I know there is a better thread to post this article...

but I couldn't find it, perhaps someone else will....

What is your pet thinking from the Wall Street Journal

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Just curious to your views in regards to this, does anyone think animals can choose virtue?

My dogs or cats or any other animal can choose what it will, just like humans.. We are mere animals with too much intelligence for our own good.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Just curious to your views in regards to this, does anyone think animals can choose virtue?

Well, what do you mean by “virtue” ?

For example:

• Moral excellence.

or

• Valued traits, such as cunning, nurturing, truthfulness and sympathy (from a long list on Wikipedia).

What do you mean by “choose”? How could you test this in an animal?

What animals? Ants? Elephants?

We cannot know what it is like to experience life as another species (think of the bat and how it “perceives” the world). We cannot even know how another person really thinks; we can only be inside our own mind. There is a zen saying “We cannot even share a fart.” (I jest not!!!).

So my answers are yes possibly, no possibly and don’t know.

Yes possibly, for (say) a cat being cunning. This is self evident in their hunting.

No, possibly, for (say) a cat being truthful or having a moral stance as both are man-made concepts and therefore can only be applicable to humans.

And don’t know because my other two answers are only possiblys.

s.

[flowperson]

Hello all:

I ran into this article on the NYTimes website and it applies to the discussion. What are your thoughts about this approach... or perhaps the anti-evolution crowd will try to drown a healty discusssion on an otherwise important issue ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/he...pagewanted=all

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Hello all:

I ran into this article on the NYTimes website and it applies to the discussion. What are your thoughts about this approach... or perhaps the anti-evolution crowd will try to drown a healty discusssion on an otherwise important issue ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/he...pagewanted=all

flow....

Apparently you are just as guilty of trying to weigh on one side of the argument, before it even begins...

[flowperson]

Really a bold statement Q. Of course it would be more interesting to discuss the premises contained in the article...huh?

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Really a bold statement Q. Of course it would be more interesting to discuss the premises contained in the article...huh?

flow....

As bold as your presumption that "perhaps the anti-evolution crowd will try to drown a healthy discusssion on an otherwise important issue ?"

[Alex P]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Just curious to your views in regards to this, does anyone think animals can choose virtue?

Dunno.... Can you?

[Jasmine Moon]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

That is because "biddies" are hatched pretty much ready to fend for themselves. ducklings on the other hand stay very close to the Hen, for a season, in order to learn how to survive. And the Hen is extremely protective of her brood.

Primates will carry their young and tend to them for 1 to 2 years. They are even known to carry the dead baby for days, trying to get them to move. Almost like, "If I love you more, you'll wake up". It has been noted that a mother primate will go off into the woods and die, of broken heart, due to the death of a baby.

Animals have a body and a soul.

Man has body, soul and a "spirit". That spirit is the only thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Virtue, does not come from the spirit, since the spirit is part of God and a gift to man, but not the definer of how we behave (that is obvious in today's world). Therefore the "virtue" must be part of the soul. Perhaps the "spirit" is man's only saving grace, since it seems we are the most destructive of all the animal species on the planet. (no, I'm not going tree-hugger on you). What I am saying is that from observation, of all the animals on the planet, man seems to be short in the "virtue" section. Indeed, rats tend to show more compassion and concern for their own kind than man does for his own kind, let alone the rest of the world.

Even biblically speaking Post, the dogs shewn more compassion for the dying beggar, than his fellow men (by attempting to lick his sores).

I think, that if I were stranded in a forest and had one of a series of companions of similar survival characteristics to choose from to be with me (man or wolf/dog/cat/ape), I would choose the animal.

Why? Man does not care of virtue when it is life or death. Man does not care of virtue unless he deliberately chooses to. Animals do not comprehend death as we do. And by nature they want to be close to man (that is the original design). So their potential virtue remains intact. They want to please the "master" (also by design). Man fights over who is master (very unvirtuous).

Loyalty is a virtue. Man has a hard time learning that, but animals are much quicker.

Life is precious, yet man will let it slip away (out of self preservation), animals tend to try to save it despite the hazard to their own preservation.

Ya know, maybe you are correct, humans choose virtue, but with animals it is hard wired.

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

Although this was posted quite awhile ago, I'm new so I apologize, but I think what you have said, well, I think this is a reason some like myself feel more comfortable in nature than sitting in a church pew... seems closer to god and more 'right' than any person preaching their own thoughts to me. Thank you.

[China Cat Sunflower]

I don't think that animals can choose virtue. Humans routinely anthropomorphise altruism in the natural kingdom, but even the "natural laws" are human projections. The fact is that nature is incomprehensible on its own merit. We may formulate tables,hierarchies, and systems that represent and record our observations of nature, but we don't actually have a clue as to its real motivations. As far as we're concerned, nature projects the human qualities we've assigned it.

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I don't think that animals can choose virtue. Humans routinely anthropomorphise altruism in the natural kingdom, but even the "natural laws" are human projections. The fact is that nature is incomprehensible on its own merit. We may formulate tables,hierarchies, and systems that represent and record our observations of nature, but we don't actually have a clue as to its real motivations. As far as we're concerned, nature projects the human qualities we've assigned it.

Chris

Lol, then again, we may simply have pets or mascots that "choose" because they already "know God"...and are doing their job to help man...(oohhh sounds familiar).

"Mascots" where I come from, aren't the norm...they save lives and sometimes die in the process. But they follow their "masters'" lead, then lead on their own.

Can't answer for that, especially when they're usually mutts, or caste aways that tag along and eventually become part of the crew.

No, I think you miss the point of animals in general.

v/r

Joshua