humans versus animals who do we love most?

[cacian]

a question worth asking because conflict is
because
the answer is not clear.
one to bear in mind:
a declaration of love is between two people.

[YesNo]

I probably love or not love them both in the same way. Unlike plants or stones, they both move around more and get my attention.

[cacian]

I probably love or not love them both in the same way. Unlike plants or stones, they both move around more and get my attention.

haha good on you YesNo
but i reckon humans tend to prefer animal to men.
i have seen ''families'' put their members on hold because their pets were more important.

[YesNo]

That's true. The pets don't talk back as much.

[Helga]

I love my dogs more than some people, but I don't really like that many people in general so it's not a big leap.

[cacian]

That's true. The pets don't talk back as much.

true true
pets are what they are. they have no choice
however people do have a choice
they either do not take it
or when they do it something else already in their power such as pets.


I love my dogs more than some people, but I don't really like that many people in general so it's not a big leap.

i am sure your dog likes you and so by order of logic you should like people.

[YesNo]

pets are what they are. they have no choice


I have (or rather my children have) a cat that is quite choosy. It has an evil look backed up by claws and teeth when I am not doing what it wants me to do: feed it, pet it, let it lick my face.

[Iain Sparrow]

'Love', is an emotion that all animals, save us humans, lack the mental capacity to experience.
A pride of lions do not hate their prey, nor do they hate the pack of hyenas that devoured one of their cubs... they do not love or hate, they neither have the capacity or luxury to feel such emotions. This is a lame attempt that most people make to humanize animals... and while doing so, inadvertently dehumanizing humans.

Here's an interesting article from last year, trying to account why it is that so many people get involved when an animal is mistreated or is suffering, but couldn't give a good god damn about human suffering...
http://nypost.com/2014/02/15/do-we-care-more-about-suffering-of-animals-than-of-humans/


Personally, I find it disgusting that people would choose the life of a pet dog or cat, over that of a stranger, a person they don't know. It's called empathy, it's a singularly human emotion; if your connection to the rest of humanity is such that a god damn pet dog garners more emotion than fellow human beings, well then, you are more animal than human. Seriously, I'm at a loss as to why some people have this weird affinity for animals, and that relationship is something they're completely comfortable with; meanwhile they can ignore human suffering as if all living things are equal.

[Poetaster]

'Love', is an emotion that all animals, save us humans, lack the mental capacity to experience.
A pride of lions do not hate their prey, nor do they hate the pack of hyenas that devoured one of their cubs... they do not love or hate, they neither have the capacity or luxury to feel such emotions. This is a lame attempt that most people make to humanize animals... and while doing so, inadvertently dehumanizing humans.

Here's an interesting article from last year, trying to account why it is that so many people get involved when an animal is mistreated or is suffering, but couldn't give a good god damn about human suffering...
http://nypost.com/2014/02/15/do-we-care-more-about-suffering-of-animals-than-of-humans/


Personally, I find it disgusting that people would choose the life of a pet dog or cat, over that of a stranger, a person they don't know. It's called empathy, it's a singularly human emotion; if your connection to the rest of humanity is such that a god damn pet dog garners more emotion than fellow human beings, well then, you are more animal than human. Seriously, I'm at a loss as to why some people have this weird affinity for animals, and that relationship is something they're completely comfortable with; meanwhile they can ignore human suffering as if all living things are equal.

Humans are weird, aren't they?

I love my pets, and my pets act like they love me. But is it actual love? I don't know.

[cacian]

I have (or rather my children have) a cat that is quite choosy. It has an evil look backed up by claws and teeth when I am not doing what it wants me to do: feed it, pet it, let it lick my face.

haha that is a true sign of a cool cat to me :D

[Ecurb]

'Love', is an emotion that all animals, save us humans, lack the mental capacity to experience.
A pride of lions do not hate their prey, nor do they hate the pack of hyenas that devoured one of their cubs... they do not love or hate, they neither have the capacity or luxury to feel such emotions. This is a lame attempt that most people make to humanize animals... and while doing so, inadvertently dehumanizing humans.
.

There is no way to know for certain what "feelings" other humans have, let alone what feelings animals are capable of. However, modern research suggests that many non -human animals are capable of emotions very similar to our own. I attended a lecture last month by Frans de Waal, a leading researcher on the psychology of apes (and other animals -- monkeys and elephants). He is the author of The Age of Empathy: (2009) and The Bonobo and the Atheist (2013), which I haven't read. Some of his research clearly shows that monkeys are capable of (for example) a sense of fair play.

Here was one experiment: he had a monkey (they may have been rhesus monkeys, but I remember they weren't apes, which are more sophisticated and smarter than monkeys) perform a task for which he was rewarded with a piece of cucumber. Then the monkey in the cage next to him performed the same task, and was rewarded with a grape. The first monkey was glad to perform the task in exchange for the cucumber, but when he saw his buddy get a grape (which rhesus monkeys prefer) for doing the same thing, he changed his mind. In fact, when he repeated the task and received a cucumber, he pouted and threw the cucumber at the trainer. This was all captured on film -- and it was clear that the monkey thought he was being treated unfairly. De Waal also showed a film of two human girls performing a task -- one got a cookie, the other got half a cookie. The one who got half of the cookie threw it on the ground, looking for all the world exactly like the rhesus monkey throwing the cucumber.

Now, a sense of ethics (fairness, in this case) is not "love". Nonetheless. Iain might equally claim that non-humans don't have a sense of ethics. Modern research suggests he is wrong, and common sense (for anyone who has ever owned a loving dog) backs up the research.

Observations of apes (and elephants) shows they SEEM (at least) capable of love, loyalty, and empathy and ethical behavior.

[cacian]

Humans are weird, aren't they?

I love my pets, and my pets act like they love me. But is it actual love? I don't know.

you are right humans are weird
you love your pets but i am sure they liek the fact that you show them interest affection
i am not sure they could love you back they way you know love
they are not like a human they have animal instinct.and yes they have feelings too.
but to say it is actual love i doubt very much
it is affection towards you for looking after them
they reciprocate it and yet they were not taught it.
that leaves a lot to say about humans.

[YesNo]

I agree with Ecurb. We also share chemical dispositions that make it pleasurable to have sex and painful to leave the partner. Although this doesn't mean we don't make choices, but these dispositions guarantee that enough of us will continue to procreate and stick out relationships to better raise the next generation although some will choose not to. Other species share these as well.

[Poetaster]

There is no way to know for certain what "feelings" other humans have, let alone what feelings animals are capable of. However, modern research suggests that many non -human animals are capable of emotions very similar to our own. I attended a lecture last month by Frans de Waal, a leading researcher on the psychology of apes (and other animals -- monkeys and elephants). He is the author of The Age of Empathy: (2009) and The Bonobo and the Atheist (2013), which I haven't read. Some of his research clearly shows that monkeys are capable of (for example) a sense of fair play.

Here was one experiment: he had a monkey (they may have been rhesus monkeys, but I remember they weren't apes, which are more sophisticated and smarter than monkeys) perform a task for which he was rewarded with a piece of cucumber. Then the monkey in the cage next to him performed the same task, and was rewarded with a grape. The first monkey was glad to perform the task in exchange for the cucumber, but when he saw his buddy get a grape (which rhesus monkeys prefer) for doing the same thing, he changed his mind. In fact, when he repeated the task and received a cucumber, he pouted and threw the cucumber at the trainer. This was all captured on film -- and it was clear that the monkey thought he was being treated unfairly. De Waal also showed a film of two human girls performing a task -- one got a cookie, the other got half a cookie. The one who got half of the cookie threw it on the ground, looking for all the world exactly like the rhesus monkey throwing the cucumber.

Now, a sense of ethics (fairness, in this case) is not "love". Nonetheless. Iain might equally claim that non-humans don't have a sense of ethics. Modern research suggests he is wrong, and common sense (for anyone who has ever owned a loving dog) backs up the research.

Observations of apes (and elephants) shows they SEEM (at least) capable of love, loyalty, and empathy and ethical behavior.

Wonderful. :) I honestly hope you are right.

[cacian]

I agree with Ecurb. We also share chemical dispositions that make it pleasurable to have sex and painful to leave the partner. Although this doesn't mean we don't make choices, but these dispositions guarantee that enough of us will continue to procreate and stick out relationships to better raise the next generation although some will choose not to. Other species share these as well.

i think it intelligent/clever to chose or to make a choice because it means we have thought about it
and that is all there is to it.
the same with humans with regards to animals we care for them enough to let them have their own space would be the choice we should make which shows we have thought about it.
pets like dogs come to be closer to poeple because humans seem to need something else to entertain with rather then a human
it is a sign of time we are become closer to animals because we dont make sense around humans anymore
we do not know how to and that is a choice we take because it is easier to move away then to try and bridge the gap

[Ecurb]

I agree with Ecurb. We also share chemical dispositions that make it pleasurable to have sex and painful to leave the partner. Although this doesn't mean we don't make choices, but these dispositions guarantee that enough of us will continue to procreate and stick out relationships to better raise the next generation although some will choose not to. Other species share these as well.

De Waal objects to the notion that our (or animals) decisions are "instinctual". His lecture is fading from my mind, but he clearly showed how different groups of apes have different "cultures" with respect to cooperation, sharing, altruism, etc. It's a complicated issue -- I'm sure our pleasure in sex is biologically enhanced, if not determined -- but anyone who has owned a dog can clearly see the dog mulling things over and making conscious, volitional (i.e. non-instinctual) decisions.

"Come, Fido."

"Hmmm, I know I should obey, and I might get punished if I don't obey, but I sure would like to stay outside and root through the neighborhood garbage cans for a while," Fido seems to be thinking. Sometimes he comes, other times he runs off.

[bounty]

I like the will rogers quote: "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went. "

[cacian]

I like the will rogers quote: "If there are no dogs in heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went. "

how is that?
if there were no dogs on earth this quote would not overt right??

[YesNo]

De Waal objects to the notion that our (or animals) decisions are "instinctual". His lecture is fading from my mind, but he clearly showed how different groups of apes have different "cultures" with respect to cooperation, sharing, altruism, etc. It's a complicated issue -- I'm sure our pleasure in sex is biologically enhanced, if not determined -- but anyone who has owned a dog can clearly see the dog mulling things over and making conscious, volitional (i.e. non-instinctual) decisions.

"Come, Fido."

"Hmmm, I know I should obey, and I might get punished if I don't obey, but I sure would like to stay outside and root through the neighborhood garbage cans for a while," Fido seems to be thinking. Sometimes he comes, other times he runs off.

I agree. It is not instinctual. Those chemicals only provide rewards and punishments. They aren't deterministic. One doesn't give one's computer a reward to do what it's told, nor a punishment if it does not obey. It is forced to do what we tell it to. What the chemicals do is show that we and these other animals are not that different from each other which is the same thing de Waal is showing at a cultural level.

I'm sure Fido is thinking.

[Iain Sparrow]

There is no way to know for certain what "feelings" other humans have, let alone what feelings animals are capable of. However, modern research suggests that many non -human animals are capable of emotions very similar to our own. I attended a lecture last month by Frans de Waal, a leading researcher on the psychology of apes (and other animals -- monkeys and elephants). He is the author of The Age of Empathy: (2009) and The Bonobo and the Atheist (2013), which I haven't read. Some of his research clearly shows that monkeys are capable of (for example) a sense of fair play.

Here was one experiment: he had a monkey (they may have been rhesus monkeys, but I remember they weren't apes, which are more sophisticated and smarter than monkeys) perform a task for which he was rewarded with a piece of cucumber. Then the monkey in the cage next to him performed the same task, and was rewarded with a grape. The first monkey was glad to perform the task in exchange for the cucumber, but when he saw his buddy get a grape (which rhesus monkeys prefer) for doing the same thing, he changed his mind. In fact, when he repeated the task and received a cucumber, he pouted and threw the cucumber at the trainer. This was all captured on film -- and it was clear that the monkey thought he was being treated unfairly. De Waal also showed a film of two human girls performing a task -- one got a cookie, the other got half a cookie. The one who got half of the cookie threw it on the ground, looking for all the world exactly like the rhesus monkey throwing the cucumber.

Now, a sense of ethics (fairness, in this case) is not "love". Nonetheless. Iain might equally claim that non-humans don't have a sense of ethics. Modern research suggests he is wrong, and common sense (for anyone who has ever owned a loving dog) backs up the research.

Observations of apes (and elephants) shows they SEEM (at least) capable of love, loyalty, and empathy and ethical behavior.

Certainly we humans, and other higher mammals are closely related; mechanically and chemically our brains function in much the same way, frighteningly so. You and I, and all of humanity share about 90% of our DNA with our primate cousins... but where we're different, that last 10%, we are miles and miles apart. There are no ethics in the wild; a mother cheetah with cubs to raise will sometimes wound a prey animal, and allow her cubs to finish the kill. Can you imagine if she stopped to ponder the ethical dilemma of that bit of nastiness? Accordingly, research on apes and other primates only show that these animals have an emotional range and depth that is more advanced than once believed... not only that, some primates have been observed in the wild doing things that require imagination (conceptual thinking)... but still, you have to ask yourself what is the essential difference between us and a chimpanzee? If you give a chimp a banana it only sees a banana as something to eat; I on the other hand may put the banana up to my ear and pretend it's a telephone. That makes me better than a chimpanzee.:)
What we have that no other creature has, is the Divine Spark. And I say this as an atheist, so I slightly cringed as I typed those words. If someone asked me for a banana, I might reply, "yeah, I've got your banana... hanging", and grab my crotch. I can conceptualize a banana as either a telephone, or a penis. That seems remarkable to me.

[Clopin]

Well sure... humans are more intelligent and creative than any other animal, that's pretty clear; but like Ecurb says if you have ever owned a dog you can clearly observe that they have emotions. I mean have you ever come home to be greeted by a dog who looks very shamefaced and cowed before you notice he tore up your garbage bag? What is the dog feeling in this situation if not an emotion. Also Orca whales are perfectly capable of loving their young, so that's one species at least.

[cacian]

Well sure... humans are more intelligent and creative than any other animal, that's pretty clear; but like Ecurb says if you have ever owned a dog you can clearly observe that they have emotions. I mean have you ever come home to be greeted by a dog who looks very shamefaced and cowed before you notice he tore up your garbage bag? What is the dog feeling in this situation if not an emotion. Also Orca whales are perfectly capable of loving their young, so that's one species at least.

an animal has feelings that does not need observation
animals are living creatures that move and make sound and therefore they have emotions
animals are affectionate towards their own same they have to because they need to preserve they would not procreate if they did not have feelings.
the question is
do humans love them more then they love each other?

[Ecurb]

There are no ethics in the wild; a mother cheetah with cubs to raise will sometimes wound a prey animal, and allow her cubs to finish the kill. Can you imagine if she stopped to ponder the ethical dilemma of that bit of nastiness? Accordingly, research on apes and other primates only show that these animals have an emotional range and depth that is more advanced than once believed... not only that, some primates have been observed in the wild doing things that require imagination (conceptual thinking)... but still, you have to ask yourself what is the essential difference between us and a chimpanzee? If you give a chimp a banana it only sees a banana as something to eat; I on the other hand may put the banana up to my ear and pretend it's a telephone. That makes me better than a chimpanzee.:)
What we have that no other creature has, is the Divine Spark. And I say this as an atheist, so I slightly cringed as I typed those words. If someone asked me for a banana, I might reply, "yeah, I've got your banana... hanging", and grab my crotch. I can conceptualize a banana as either a telephone, or a penis. That seems remarkable to me.

The cheetah story has no bearing on whether cheetahs have ethics. Humans (after all) bomb entire cities, incinerating babies, but that doesn't prove we don't have ethics (although it might prove our ethics are often misguided). If "ethics" means "the philosophy of morality", and philosophy involves putting moral principles into language, then animals do not have an "ethics" -- although they can still practice altruism, cooperation, and friendship, and can still be sanctioned by their groups for falling short in those practices. I suspect that there has been some research about the imagination of non-human animals, but I'm not familiar with it. In general, the more we study non-human animals, the more we learn about their proficiency with tools, language, and the ability to plan for the future. De Waal has done studies that clearly show that apes and elephants can make fairly detailed plans for the future that involve cooperation.