Kind language about animals

[Hog]

I do not like to refer to animals as "animals." When I hear the word animal, I think of not human. So I ask myself what is an animal such as a pig or a cow. I do not want to think about what the cow or pig is not. Should I walk around saying I am not a pig? It says absolutely nothing about what I am.

Animals and humans have nearly identical desires in life. We want food, shelter, and a few friends. All animals and all humans are unique. Thus, everyone is special in their own way.

Thus, I will stop referring to animals as "animals." I will refer to animals as individuals from this moment onward. Does this seem reasonable to you? Or should I use another word instead of individuals?

Here is an example of how using the word individual sounds better. The factory farm allows individuals to live in cramped confines without giving breaks to go outside for a few minutes a day. The individuals are deprived of the opportunity to practice basic hygiene.

 

[Mostly Random Dude]

When I hear the word animal, I think of not human.

I am an animal! Try taking away my lunch one of these days?!

 

[Mischief]

I say "nonhuman animals" when referring to multiple species not including humans. It's accurate, and reinforces the fact that we are just one species among many.

I also never use the word "it" when referring to an individual of any animal species, so as not to objectify.

Yes, words matter, even though some like to deride the effect of the words we use as "political correctness."

 

[Max Caulfield]

No, unless you use term individual accordingly with broadest dictionary definition regarding a single member of a class. Humans and animals are only the same on most basic levels of desires, humans have much more complex desires than animals, such as ambition, freedom, to live up to their ideals and morals and that's just to name a few.

Not to mention if you start using terminology individual in such way, then people will simply perceive you as dishonest and manipulative as they will think you're using the term for it's connotation by trying to mix animal and actual people, what people most likely will immediately pick up.

 

[Hog]

@ Max - Thank you for your honest feedback.

"humans have much more complex desires than animals, such as ambition, freedom, to live up to their ideals and morals and that's just to name a few." - Max Claulfield

I am wrong all the time! But, I will respectfully disagree with you.

A salmon has far more ambition to reproduce than I do. I would not make a suicidal one way trip for just the chance to have kids.
I think all individuals crave the freedom to make meaningful choices.
Individuals who sacrifice their lives to save someone else have morals.

THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN FOR YOUR HONEST FEEDBACK!

 

[Max Caulfield]

@ Max - Thank you for your honest feedback.

"humans have much more complex desires than animals, such as ambition, freedom, to live up to their ideals and morals and that's just to name a few." - Max Claulfield

I am wrong all the time! But, I will respectfully disagree with you.

A salmon has far more ambition to reproduce than I do. I would not make a suicidal one way trip for just the chance to have kids.
I think all individuals crave the freedom to make meaningful choices.
Individuals who sacrifice their lives to save someone else have morals.

THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN FOR YOUR HONEST FEEDBACK!

View attachment 20063

There is nothing really to disagree with, it isn't really disagreement about subjective opinion like argument which movie is better. It's concerning objective state of reality.

1.Desire to reproduce (not even reproduce but desire to engage in sexual encounter) isn't really an ambition unless one strips word to essentially strongly felt desire, rather than sense of achievement. It's essentially short term emotional impulse rather than gradually pursued goal. I may have sex with thousands of people that doesn't make it an ambition, just merely poor impulse control and prioritizing immediate gratification over future well-being.

2.Well, I've never heard about Livestock revolution trying to abolish agriculture industry. At most animal feels temporary impulse to wander somewhere off. So no real desire for freedom as it hasn't manifested in any way that would be indicative of pursuing such desire.

3.Actually, not really. Mother sacrificing her for her child may be mere evolutionary impulse rather than morality. I mean if such impulses constituted morality then rapists would consider rape moral, not merely acting upon impulse/desire that they may regret later on. As Animals lack pretty much ability to reason they can't construct morality as it would require capability to reason to distinguish between moral and immoral in order to categorize.

 

[Lou]

A lot of those behaviours found in animals is just instinctual. Nothing wrong with that. Human Animals have instincts too

 

[Mischief]

There is nothing really to disagree with, it isn't really disagreement about subjective opinion like argument which movie is better. It's concerning objective state of reality.

1.Desire to reproduce (not even reproduce but desire to engage in sexual encounter) isn't really an ambition unless one strips word to essentially strongly felt desire, rather than sense of achievement. It's essentially short term emotional impulse rather than gradually pursued goal. I may have sex with thousands of people that doesn't make it an ambition, just merely poor impulse control and prioritizing immediate gratification over future well-being.

2.Well, I've never heard about Livestock revolution trying to abolish agriculture industry. At most animal feels temporary impulse to wander somewhere off. So no real desire for freedom as it hasn't manifested in any way that would be indicative of pursuing such desire.

3.Actually, not really. Mother sacrificing her for her child may be mere evolutionary impulse rather than morality. I mean if such impulses constituted morality then rapists would consider rape moral, not merely acting upon impulse/desire that they may regret later on. As Animals lack pretty much ability to reason they can't construct morality as it would require capability to reason to distinguish between moral and immoral in order to categorize.

It has been cogently argued that altruism and other aspects of human "morality" are baked into human genetic makeup in order to increase our chances of survival, both as individuals, as groups, and as a species.

IOW, there's no difference in that respect between us and nonhuman animals, except for our ability to articulate these concepts verbally.

 

[Mikkel]

Don't use animals as an insult. Find that song on YouTube. It's a great start in fact.

Always use him/he/they about animals and names. Not it. It's not an object.

When I learned English at school, the teacher let me write who about animals, even though it wasn't correct. But since they know about my feelings for them, they said that it wasn't any point teaching me other. So use who! Which is for things....

To sacrify yourself for another living individual isn't always about moral, but instinct. Both humans and non-human animals are more likely to sacrify themself for an individual that share their DNA. The closer, the higher chance. We have it too. That's why you are more likely to save your own baby in a fire, than a random person.

 

[Hog]

Dogs are good at teaching kids social skills. I do not know if that is an instinct or not.

 

[Lou]

Dogs are kind of special. I started a thread on the "Trust Hormone" a while back.....

Scientists are re-thinking animal cognition | Page 2 | Vegan Forum

www.veganforum.org

 

[Sax]

A lot of those behaviours found in animals is just instinctual. Nothing wrong with that. Human Animals have instincts too

When we call something an instinct we might think of it as some kind of automatic, almost robotic response but I suspect that conception is wrong for pretty much any animal (individual?) that has self-awareness. When we're thirsty we don't automatically go get water...we experience a little discomfort, and think about the pleasure of a refreshing drink of water, and balance those motivations against our other desires. Jonathan Balcombe talks a little about this is his book Pleasurable Kingdom, and one of the examples he uses is spicing food. Scientists have theorized different evolutionary benefits of spices but as far as our internal experience goes we aren't craving micronutrients or anti-microbial properties, we simply want the pleasure of tasty food. Another example he uses is playing - there is a strong evolutionary benefit to practicing skills like chasing, dodging, jumping as well as the general benefit of fitness and agility...but we aren't robotically executing genetic imperatives, we play because it's fun.

Referring to behavior as "just instinctual" or "mere evolutionary impulse" removes the internal experience, motivation, and agency from the individual. Instincts aren't separate from our personal motivations or innate sense of morality - our motivations and morality are our instincts.

 

[Mischief]

When we call something an instinct we might think of it as some kind of automatic, almost robotic response but I suspect that conception is wrong for pretty much any animal (individual?) that has self-awareness. When we're thirsty we don't automatically go get water...we experience a little discomfort, and think about the pleasure of a refreshing drink of water, and balance those motivations against our other desires. Jonathan Balcombe talks a little about this is his book Pleasurable Kingdom, and one of the examples he uses is spicing food. Scientists have theorized different evolutionary benefits of spices but as far as our internal experience goes we aren't craving micronutrients or anti-microbial properties, we simply want the pleasure of tasty food. Another example he uses is playing - there is a strong evolutionary benefit to practicing skills like chasing, dodging, jumping as well as the general benefit of fitness and agility...but we aren't robotically executing genetic imperatives, we play because it's fun.

Referring to behavior as "just instinctual" or "mere evolutionary impulse" removes the internal experience, motivation, and agency from the individual. Instincts aren't separate from our personal motivations or innate sense of morality - our motivations and morality are our instincts.

Very well expressed.

 

[Lou]

When we call something an instinct we might think of it as some kind of automatic, almost robotic response but I suspect that conception is wrong for pretty much any animal (individual?) that has self-awareness. When we're thirsty we don't automatically go get water...we experience a little discomfort, and think about the pleasure of a refreshing drink of water, and balance those motivations against our other desires. Jonathan Balcombe talks a little about this is his book Pleasurable Kingdom, and one of the examples he uses is spicing food. Scientists have theorized different evolutionary benefits of spices but as far as our internal experience goes we aren't craving micronutrients or anti-microbial properties, we simply want the pleasure of tasty food. Another example he uses is playing - there is a strong evolutionary benefit to practicing skills like chasing, dodging, jumping as well as the general benefit of fitness and agility...but we aren't robotically executing genetic imperatives, we play because it's fun.

Referring to behavior as "just instinctual" or "mere evolutionary impulse" removes the internal experience, motivation, and agency from the individual. Instincts aren't separate from our personal motivations or innate sense of morality - our motivations and morality are our instincts.

I understand what you are saying, and you and Balcombe have a point, but I don't think of instincts as thirst or spicing foods.

"Instincts are defined as non-learned, inherited (genetic) patterns of behavior generally ensuring the survival of a species. Common examples include spinning a web by a spider, nest building and other maternal activities, migration patterns of animals, social behavior in pack animals. insects, animal courtship behaviors including monogamous mating, etc. Some behavioral scientists suggest that animals act out of instinct and humans out of will. However, the transfer of instincts from one generation to another is not well understood although it is assumed that somehow genes are involved."

Human animals do act mostly from learned behavior or out of will. But even Hoomans do have instincts. Some examples are
"However, human babies at birth instinctively exhibit:

• A sucking response for obtaining food,
• A grasping response with hands exploring surroundings,
• Crying to express pain, distress, and hunger,
• Noises and facial expressions conveying pleasure/happiness."

-http://iceskatingresources.org/InstinctiveBehaviors.html

 

[Max Caulfield]

It has been cogently argued that altruism and other aspects of human "morality" are baked into human genetic makeup in order to increase our chances of survival, both as individuals, as groups, and as a species.

IOW, there's no difference in that respect between us and nonhuman animals, except for our ability to articulate these concepts verbally.

Former yes, latter not quite. Morals weren't determined by evolution and more are created by specific individual or potentially group of them if they agree on embracing specific morality due shared values, that may or not involve evolved traits such as altruism. That doesn't change fact fact morality is reasoned and requires as such reason. Morality may overlap with altruism but one doesn't require another, example social Darwinism. It isn't about articulation in the first place, you may lack ability to communicate moral code in the first place and yet possess moral code. It's about ability as I've said to distinguish between behaviors and then categorizing them into two or more distinct categories, ie you have to possess sufficient cognitive abilities to reason.

 

[Hog]

Please note that I am not asking anybody to use the word "individual" instead of "animal." I am using the language to remind myself that all life has value.

 

[Mikkel]

If people uses animals as an insult to people, I often just ask them "What have pigs done to you?". "Hey, he doesn't deserve to be compared to a dog, they haven't done anything wrong".

 

[Lou]

If people uses animals as an insult to people, I often just ask them "What have pigs done to you?". "Hey, he doesn't deserve to be compared to a dog, they haven't done anything wrong".

Ha! There is some comedian who has a bit that is something like that. Gosh, I think it is Seinfield. I can almost hear him saying, "You called me a dog??!! So I'm loyal, courageous, intelligent, and adorable?"

 

[Mikkel]

Ha! There is some comedian who has a bit that is something like that. Gosh, I think it is Seinfield. I can almost hear him saying, "You called me a dog??!! So I'm loyal, courageous, intelligent, and adorable?"

Lol. That's a good way to react to it too!

It's like when you call a female Harry Potter fan for witch, it's a compliment!

 

[Tom L.]

Count me in as someone who doesn't use "it" to refer to an animal. For years now, I've always used the term "they" if the animal's gender is unknown. Maybe I'm making a bit too much of this. I've known the word "it" used to refer to a human baby, and although this bothered me, it didn't appear to bother anyone else; the baby was still considered human. Then again, maybe others have been taken aback by it too... in fact, I think I brought this up once in these forums.

And maybe I should have politely spoken up about using that word to refer to a baby, even though I don't think it was meant to be cruel, or even insensitive. And now I can't remember exactly the circumstances where or when this happened...