Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Because humans are capable of moral judgment, but animals are not.
Much progress has been made in the study of animal intelligence over the past half-century, and many qualities that were thought to be unique to humans have been found in animals, but morality is still a specifically human phenomenon.
The reasons for this are unclear, but almost certainly lie in the same place as other differences – in the ability to create, to think abstractly, to build “categorical schemes”. If you want, you can look for reasons in metaphysics.
The question itself is not quite correct. What kind of murder are we talking about? The killing of any living organism, or the killing of an individual of its own species?
If we consider the first option, then there is no difference at all. Man quite calmly destroys thousands and millions of other organisms to satisfy his own needs and whims. And this is not considered something bad or inappropriate. Moreover, even the most ardent fighters for the salvation of nature use what humanity receives as a result of such murders.
If we consider the second option, then although there is a difference, it is vanishingly small. After all, we are talking about mammals – it is not entirely appropriate to consider insects, fish or reptiles in this matter. So among mammals, and especially those leading a gregarious lifestyle, the murder of a tribesman is very rare. And for this, as well as for violating some other laws, you should be expelled from the community. This is essentially no different from human laws. But killing a member of another pack is normal in many species, but not all of them either. But after all, in the framework of military conflicts, a person also, without hesitation, shoots at his opponent and is considered a hero in his “tribe” after that.
Moreover, the more reasonable the animal chosen for comparison, the greater the bias towards unjustified aggression towards others and the greater the similarity with a person.
Summing up, we can say that, no matter how many people wish it, life in our society is still subordinated not to rational thinking, but to the most primitive instincts. And what is considered the norm in the animal environment is also the norm in the most developed of the social organizations of homo sapiens. And as long as humanity tries to judge its exclusivity, no changes in this direction will occur. You can't start developing without realizing your inferiority.
Animals live according to the laws of nature, or rather-on instincts, first of all-the instinct of the breadwinner and the instinct of self-preservation, this is one time.
Second and foremost , how do we differ from animals? The presence of higher intelligence, logic, etc., that is, before you stab your boyfriend with a knife, because he came home late, she will think if I do this, (logic, thought process, loading Windows is turned on) I won't see him again, and I love him (the feeling of love, and in animals it's not really love, again only instincts), and they'll put me in prison, it will be bad there, but I probably won't do it and just take out his brain.
Something like that
We are above this, and we have learned to live with each other in a more or less safe world, without being afraid of each other (yes, not always and not everywhere), animals have these fears and will continue to have them.
Penny will always make fun of me, but tiger won't hurt kitty! If you say everything, Mueller will shoot himself! The diplomatic conspiracy, the bad heredity of Clinton, Obama and Trump can create bestsellers about this endlessly…
Don't generalize. When one animal (including humans) kills another for food or survival, it is not bad or good, it is a natural process. When one animal kills another for fun or to get pleasure from the process itself, it is not natural, so it is bad.
What is common to animals is also true for humans. Humans can kill their own kind. Animals kill based on the same instincts as we do.
However, humans are social animals, so unlike others, we can also ensure that the tasks of the self-preservation instinct are fulfilled by reaching an agreement on mutual non-violence against our own kind. This will ultimately meet the interests of each of us, helping to implement the tasks of the self-preservation instinct.
That is, in fact, due to the developed social component, we simply have an advantage over other animals in the tools for implementing the tasks of our instincts.
For animals, this is also murder.Well, you can also call it killing-the essence of this does not change.But for carnivorous animals, and to some extent for humans, this is a vital necessity, which is determined by the genetic program embedded in predators and in humans, when animal meat is the main, and for some the only type of food.But there is another genetic program in humans and animals that should help preserve their populations.This is a ban on killing your own kind. In the animal kingdom, such killing is not a frequent occurrence.The same can't be said for people.People can overcome such a program.Fortunately, there are a minority of them.