First off I would like to say I have no desire to attack the argument presented in class. One thing I believe in is the complexity of the human condition. I believe there are many external, internal, spiritual, and possibly cosmic factors that influence each moment of each day of our lives. Due to a limited perspective, we can never truly know anything. We can hypothesize, have faith (though this is easier for some than others), prove things with the current scientific method (though this method has failed before and will again), but we never truly know. However, I also feel it is necessary and beneficial to know where you stand, and therefore have an opinion.
In the deductive reasoning model we discussed in class we put down the following algorithm:
If A.) Humans are genetically the same as animals.
And B). Animals are always immoral
Then C). Humans should therefore always be immoral.
My problem with this statement is in part B. I don’t think animals are always immoral. I don’t think all animals are inherently selfish. I think that even without language to scribe some moral code, some individuals would wake up with a desire to better things for other people. It is possible that language has shaped me in such a way that I cannot fathom myself with a completely selfish demeanor, but I cannot imagine it. If I had to hunt, kill, and prepare my own meat I would be a vegetarian. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine the condition that would drive me to eat my own kin, or even someone else’s kin. This difficulty to imagine may stem from a lack of experience in the desired (required) condition, but it may not. I can’t know without the experience and it is an experience I am content to avoid.
I also find difficulty believing we are the only animals that use our depth of language. I think other animals may have patterns similarly deep that we simply don’t comprehend or even hear. We are discovering different ways animals communicate all the time. I found a link on national geographic about the depth of African elephants’ language. The link is: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0221_030221_elephantvocal1.html.
In this article they talk about elephants using a low pitch we cannot understand. They talk about their use of nonverbal communication as well as their sounds and how it helps them maintain the relationships we hold so dear. What if we are just beginning to understand the depth of this language?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I really liked the way you structured your argument. You did a very good job of showing your opinions in a logical format. I find myself agreeing with most of what you said.
I thought your argument was very logically thought out. And the fact that you used outside sources to prove your point made your blog more credible.
I really found the elephant info interesting, but I do think that animal communication is a little more than slightly different from human communication. I mean if other animals were as advanced in communication as we, then how do we find ourselves so much more technologically advanced and why doesn't my cat have a blackberry?
Angel brings up a good point about the cat and the blackberry. I guess my next question is why don't I have a blackberry? I must be living in the dark ages. :)
Post a Comment