Posted on 06/15/2010 9:12:54 AM PDT by Salvation
Featured Term (selected at random):
Causing unnecessary pain to animals. Man has no duties toward animals because they have no independent personalities. They may therefore be used for any ethical purpose. It is sinful, however, to cause an animal needless suffering. The sinfulness does not lie in the violation of an animal's rights but in a person's irrational conduct, since reason forbids causing unnecessary pain and death. Moreover, cruelty to animals has a brutalizing effect on the tormentor.
Likewise.
To clarify any misconception, the word "personality" referred to in the article is not using the contemporary definition of the "distinctiveness of one's character" but rather the classical definition of the "state of being a person". Hopefully no one on this thread would think that animals are in fact people.
This kind of confusion could be avoided if the people who post controversial articles like this one would stick around to defend and clarify them. I am convinced that this kind of post-and-run thread causes far more needless inter-religious strife than any possible benefit.
Second it Joe.
We cannot give human thoughts and emotions to animals. We CAN and MUST take good care of the animal creation God has given to us to take good care of.
As of now, will add these words,pray for the people and animals affected in the Gulf by the oilspill. What has happened in the Gulf is a disaster that not only has effect the Gulf of Mexico itself, the people of that area, but also the wildlife there.
I can appreciate what you’re saying, but there is a significant cadre who hold that all other living things have been expressly put here to be exploited by homo sapiens.
This is justified by saying that this has been decreed by the Almighty with scrawlings on paper written by men and subsequently edited by others cited as Divine evidence. It is further justified with the notion that animals are ‘lesser’ while we are Chosen.
Similar rationale is used to justify practioners of one man-made religion raping, pillaging and murdering members of other human tribes wholesale.
This certainly confers a significant political advantage and permits a great deal of atrocity at others’ expense.
Remember this as some of you look down your noses at the Muslims.
Time, space — and most importantly the Almighty’s Divine Will — are too vast for us to presume that we’re Chosen to be anything but a tenuous experiment in its early stages on a small planet in a non-descript sector of a galaxy quite like so many others.
If we fail, life will go on as it did many millenia before we arrived — quite nicely, thank you very much.
Those of us who lack the humility to remember that will contribute to our demise if it comes to that.
I've read through this entire thread, and, me being a dog person, this is a better word -anthropomorphize. Or what that word would mean.
The question here is really about UNNECESSARY cruelty. No decent human being wants to see an animal suffer which is why we take them to the vet for ailments real or imaginary including puncture wounds in the mouth (my late yellow lab), keep a medication schedule for heartworm and fleas, clean their ears every morning when yeast mites get out of control (and with a toy breed, this is no small feat) and, yes, have them put to sleep when they are terminally ill (any human would be kept comfortable until natural death). Just like humans, they are all different in their cognizance and the traits that they display, but they aren't people. Okay, a few have been treated that way because they are REALLY smart, but an animal's way of seeing the world is different than a human's. No human carves out their spot in the world under your bed, willingly carries birds in their mouth or readily agrees to to "gopher" pose on command (okay, for a liver treat).
I thought that the definition at the top of the thread saying "ethical use" was interesting. I guess some people would think of experimentation, but truth be told, at least with dogs, they were bred for specific purposes - hunting, ratting, shepherding, retrieving both prey and humans. Bloodhounds have been bred to follow the scent of a human. St. Bernards and Newfoundlands are rescue dogs. None of this is unethical. Training a dog to tear another limb from limb, now that's another story.
Humans perform tasks in exchange for expected rewards all the time.
Well, okay, not circus stuff unless, of course, you're in the circus. Actually, that little pooch is on my list. She rolled in something dead.
Aren’t we all sinners?
I also believe if you are going to take being anti-anthropomorphist, for lack of a better term, I believe for consistencies’ sake, you also need to stop referring to Jesus Christ as the “Lamb of God”, the Holy Spirit being depicted as a dove, and Christ’s followers as “sheep” - in order to not anthropomorphize those animals in any way. If your goal is to be that strict about avoiding it, to not be hypocritical you need to be that consistent.
Even though God Himself refers to Christ as the “Lamb of God”, even though the Holy Spirit has manifested Himself as a dove.
I believe the vast majority of people can use the term “personality” applied to their domestic pet animals and not infer “human rights/animal rights” as liberal extremists may, just as we call Christ the “Lamb of God”, and envision the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and Christians as “sheep”, and not have that negatively affect how we relate to lambs, doves and sheep and anthropomorphize them more than we otherwise would any other animals.
That's a strictly allegorical usage, and any thinking person recognizes that...see my reference above to a person with a "wolf-like" appetite. Anthropomorphizing an animal is to attribute to them complex human motivations, thoughts and feelings onto the strictly instinctual drives that actually motivate them. Social animals, i.e. dogs, or ants for that matter, will congregate, but it's not to celebrate a class reunion, visit old friends, etc. It's for a completely different reason, and it's actually cruel to the animals to pretend otherwise, and to interact with them on that basis. To see the results of this taken to their extreme, one need only look at the Connecticut chimpanzee incident of a few years back.
"I believe the vast majority of people can use the term “personality” applied to their domestic pet animals and not infer “human rights/animal rights” as liberal extremists may..."
That may very well be true, but that was not the meaning used by the author of this thread who used the term "personality" to refer to the unique human quality of personhood. That many chose to alter the author's definition in order to discuss, and vociferously attack his writing, says a lot about their "personalities." I was simply pointing out that they were getting wrapped up in their own definition of the word, and not the writer's.
“Social animals, i.e. dogs, or ants for that matter, will congregate, but it’s not to celebrate a class reunion, visit old friends, etc.......”
Well I don’t think anyone who has a domestic pet would think that either. But most people also don’t confuse a pet animal’s basic survival instincts with their “personality” (ie what makes them a unique animal to them). People who have multiple animals ofthe same kind know all those animals have some basic things in common in terms of general behaviors and what certain signs are pretty universal. But then the person sees that some like certain things more, dislikes other things more, really enjoys certain activities, doesn’t like so much other activities, does a certain thing if you’re late, does a certain thing to express happiness, displeasure, sadness, has different favorite places in the house, etc etc - the unique attributes of their own personailties. We know this to be true because as we spend more time with our pets and get to know them better, we begin to recognize what ‘normal’ behavior is for them. “Charlie always jumps all over when he sees me coming with his bowl, but Rufus always runs over and sits at the same spot and waits for me to set the bowl down. Charlie isn’t jumping today, that really isn’t like him, maybe there’s something wrong.”
Nobody here is talking about animals having the same cognitive abilities that people do, but you don’t have to have all that to have unique traits and personalities (animalities if that is getting to you) that make that animal different and special to you.
And that's a human interpretation of typical alpha and beta behavior between two associated dogs...purely instinctual roles they have assumed. Certainly, when one acts out of sorts, that's an indicator that something is wrong or there's another external stimuli they're responding to. That's precisely where humans, as the responsible keepers and stewards of animals, assume the onus of knowing and understanding these drives so they can interpret them correctly in the context of their being dogs, rather than read human motivations onto them.
A typical example is when novice pet owners visit a breeder and one of the puppies departs the litter and walks to them. They'll choose that dog because, "He chose me!" In fact, they've probably merely chosen the most assertive, alpha-oriented puppy in the litter and nothing more.
Yes but those dogs choose to either do alpha or beta behavior. It’s not immutable and fixed. Alpha dogs can become beta dogs, beta dogs can become alpha dogs.
There are so many things animals do that are totally their choice that nothing is influencing them to do, it’s not just behavior they can’t help but do. If you’ve ever caught a glimpse of an animal on its own being happy and expressing it their own way, there’s no force causing them to have to behave that way. Same with affection returned to you. Sometimes it’s flopping down next to you. Sometimes it’s a little happy noise. Sometimes it’s grooming. They’re not forced to do that by anyone. ANd not all do things the same way, they have different habits and likes and dislikes. And you begin to see the uniqueness and individuality of them as you know them better.
And as far as the puppy example, I think you’ve just tanked your argument. For one thing I think you go way too far saying it’s just alpha behavior AND NOTHING MORE. You have no way of proving that, and I believe from my own experiences with animals the last 40 years that is totatlly wrong. That’s biochemical absolutism, no choice but to act that way thinking. Not true.
Let’s say the puppy can’t choose anyone. Certainly he can’t verbalize “I want to be your dog.” But the dog has made choices. He went up to you when he didn’t have to. The cases in shelters exist all the time where an animal doesn’t respond to anyone except a certain person. People who deal with lots of different animals of the same kind, are able to determine right away what’s unique and individual about animals that come in, how they react to different people. Of course some of that is from past experience but past experience doesn’t explain ALL of their uniqueness and individual likes and dislikes, habits, and behaviors. Same with us too, environment has an impact but that’s not the ONLY thing that can affect us.
I believe as far as domestic pets go, we generally choose them before they choose us. We love them before they are secure and trusting us enough to be affectionate back to us. That doesn’t mean they don’t have unique ‘animalities’. They all have their own spirit. The life (nephesh) of the body is in the blood. They too were all designed initially not to die. Each one has their own spirit, their own unique spirit. Contained in that unique spirit is their unique individuality. The fact we choose them first doesn’t mean that isn’t true that they don’t have their own unique individuality that allowed them to walk over to us, and make an impression on us. Did he actually choose us? I don’t think you can say 100 percent no. He might have. He might have just come by because of a scent, or what we were wearing, or we reminded him of someone who was nice. But he still made the choice to walk over when he didn’t have to. And all the other ones could have walked over if they wanted to, but didn’t.
Think about how it is with God and us. God chooses us before we choose Him. God loves us before we love Him. We know all of our human natures are sinful and as such, are opposed to Him and anything about Him, from our very beginnings. Our natural instincts are to run away from God, to reject God. Man cannot choose God without God helping Him. Regardless of our unique personalities, the one thing in common we all have is that by nature we’d all reject God and the things of God. You want to talk about behavior that’s hardwired into us, it’s our human sin nature.
But that's all response to external stimuli...once my GSD died, my once passive Tervuren became far more assertive in his behavior, stepping up to fill a void...that behavior is, for lack of a better term, programmed.
Nowhere did I deny (in fact, if you look back, I affirm) that individual animals have their own, unique characteristics, and certainly they have learned behaviors with regards to different stimuli...two otherwise identical dogs may respond to a rattling chain entirely differently...for one it may be an indicator that he's about to go for a walk, and for another, it may suggest he's about to get thrashed. That the two dogs react "differently" is not a "personality" trait, but a learned behavior that is entirely consistent with the "dogness" of their being.
Look...I'm done arguing this point. It takes a lot of work and humility to see the world through the eyes of another creature. It's lazy and vain to attribute to them uniquely human characteristics to simplify our interaction with them...it's the Disney approach, and it makes for fine entertainment, but it's not appreciating the animals for the way God made them, but rather the way we as humans wish to engage them on our terms and in the easily understood vocabulary of our uniquely human psychology.
You are perfectly free to choose the latter. IMHO, it's disrespectful to the animal as you're not engaging it on it's terms for all that is simple and complex about the way it was created, but rather you are engaging it with human attributes as you wish to see it....but hey...go for it.
I don’t really think we’re at total odds here, the original deal was about the term used. And yes people can sometimes go too far anthropomorphosizing animals because they aren’t people. But being spirit created beings that, like us, never were intended to die, and capable of relationships, some more complex than others, you have no proof and offered none that ALL their behaviors are simply programmed and instinctual. The bible doesn’t even say that.
Nor does the bible say that orange juice is packed with Vitamin C...we're left to infer and discover certain things about creation on our own...and the accumulation, transference and ability to validate information are among those uniquely human characteristics. The bible does say that man was given dominion over the animals, suggesting that we are on a separate plane of existence from them, and arguably over them. Now some on this thread have implied that some people have used that as an excuse for mistreating animals. I would argue that it gives humans a certain God-directed responsibility for and to them, and it's one that is best filled and carried out by carefully observing and recognizing the distinctions between humans and animals, and not blurring them.
I'm reluctant to continue to refer to dogs, as we're discussing the animal world in general, but it's the example I'm best able to speak to. I would aver that my relationships I've had with dogs have been very special, unique, and rewarding precisely because I related to them as dogs, and not tried to ascribe human qualities to them. God gave us a limited ability to try and empathize with other creatures and see the world through their eyes...I doubt my dog has the capacity, desire or certainly the notion of empathy to want to see the world through mine. Ergo, the onus in any human-animal relationship is on the human in satisfying God's larger design for those relationships whether they are symbiotic(i.e. dogs), agricultural (i.e. cattle) or adversarial (i.e. malarial mosquitoes).
To think that God placed any responsibility on the animals in any of those relationships entirely contradicts the biblical notion that God gave man dominion over the beasts.
I can see where you would think that, given the current state of the world we are living in. And in this current world, I generally agree with you that animals have any ‘responsibility’ in human-animal relationships, especially so now since God generally gave them a sense of fear of man after the flood as a general self-preservation trait.
But to say that how it is now is their maximum capacity, or that there’s nothing more to them while living under less than ideal conditions of the curse, which were not the same as the ideal conditions and abilities they had before the fall of man and the whole creation was affected, isn’t right. For instance, remember we all were not made to die. We were to have dominion over animals, but they were made for us to enjoy as well, and live in perfect harmony with. Remember that in Genesis, the devil took the form of the serpent and talked to Eve. Note that Scripture doesn’t mention Eve being surprised, scared, or shocked at a talking animal and carrying on a conversation with that animal. Remember the Lord allowed Balaam’s donkey to speak to Balaam and ask him why he deserved a beating, that he had always been a good animal to him.
What is now, I believe, is not what it was like, nor will be like when God does come back and restore everything. I believe, based on what I have read and studied in Scripture, that much like the Jews’ eyes have been partially blinded as to Jesus until the times of the Gentiles are over, I believe the way creation right now (in the fallen world) is operating at only a small fraction of its intended capacity. And we will see just how it will be at 100% when He comes back and restores things to the way they were supposed to be before we mucked it up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.