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 ?"