Free will

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

stevencarrwork
Apprentice
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:33 pm

Free will

Post #1

Post by stevencarrwork »

Do cats and dogs love their owners,and are devoted to their owners, of their own free will?

User avatar
Nyril
Scholar
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:21 pm

Post #11

Post by Nyril »

Do you really think the companinship between a blind man and hs guide dog, is the same sort of thing as the interest a viewer of a film has in the characters depicted (many of them real people ,of course)
Why are you so quick to try and win sympathy for your argument by evoking (as my english teacher said) "Verbal Fireworks"?

The example of the blind man works far better for the idea of conditioning then the idea of some sort of animal love. The dogs that assist blind people don't just up and one day decide they'd like to do some charitable work, not at all. The dog is given many months of training (if not years) in the art, and in the training it is emphasized the ability to interact well with people, otherwise the training is wasted.

stevencarrwork
Apprentice
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:33 pm

Post #12

Post by stevencarrwork »

Nyril wrote:
Do you really think the companinship between a blind man and hs guide dog, is the same sort of thing as the interest a viewer of a film has in the characters depicted (many of them real people ,of course)
The example of the blind man works far better for the idea of conditioning then the idea of some sort of animal love. The dogs that assist blind people don't just up and one day decide they'd like to do some charitable work, not at all. The dog is given many months of training (if not years) in the art, and in the training it is emphasized the ability to interact well with people, otherwise the training is wasted.
Could you clarify for me?

Are you saying that the devotion a guide dog shows is as synthetic as the poster who said that people's emotions were when watching a film? (eg The Passion of Christ)

Or are you saying that there is genune devotion and love between a blind man and his guide dog?

I'm puzzled as to your point.

As far as I can see, many pet-owners love their pets, and many pets love and are devoted to their owners, and pine terribly when their owners are away.

I want to know how this affection can arise, if pets have no free will to choose whether or not to love and devote themselves to their owners.

User avatar
Nyril
Scholar
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:21 pm

Post #13

Post by Nyril »

Could you clarify for me?
Sure.

I don't care what the dog is, I don't care what it's function is. The dog may assist blind people in getting around, the dog may work for a fire department, the dog may even fly around and cure cancer in neighborhood children hospitals for all I care, but to me this is excellent evidence of conditioning, and not love.
Are you saying that the devotion a guide dog shows is as synthetic as the poster who said that people's emotions were when watching a film? (eg The Passion of Christ)
I'm saying you only see the dog as devoted, because you choose to allow yourself to see it that way. The dog is no more devoted to you then a stuffed toy is, but try and take a stuffed toy away from an infant that is attached to it.
As far as I can see, many pet-owners love their pets, and many pets love and are devoted to their owners, and pine terribly when their owners are away.

I want to know how this affection can arise, if pets have no free will to choose whether or not to love and devote themselves to their owners.
You call I pining, and I call it psychology. You've gotten the dog so it associated you with food, it associates you with positive emotions (petting, which you've associated with food by petting a dog as you give it a treat). When you go away, the animal is unable to complete the associates it usually gets, and is in effect depressed.

When you return, the dog once again can complete the associations between rewards and yourself, and gets an endorphin rush.

stevencarrwork
Apprentice
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:33 pm

Post #14

Post by stevencarrwork »

Is it morally acceptable to stick pins into a stuffed animal, because it does not have free will?

User avatar
Nyril
Scholar
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:21 pm

Post #15

Post by Nyril »

Is it morally acceptable to stick pins into a stuffed animal, because it does not have free will?
Of course not. The presence or absence of free will isn't moral justification for anything.
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air...we need believing people."
[Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933]

stevencarrwork
Apprentice
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:33 pm

Post #16

Post by stevencarrwork »

Nyril wrote:
Is it morally acceptable to stick pins into a stuffed animal, because it does not have free will?
Of course not. The presence or absence of free will isn't moral justification for anything.
So why is it morally unacceptable to stick pins into something that does not feel emotion, such as a cat or a dog?

User avatar
Corvus
Guru
Posts: 1140
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:59 pm
Location: Australia

Post #17

Post by Corvus »

stevencarrwork wrote:
Nyril wrote:
Is it morally acceptable to stick pins into a stuffed animal, because it does not have free will?
Of course not. The presence or absence of free will isn't moral justification for anything.
So why is it morally unacceptable to stick pins into something that does not feel emotion, such as a cat or a dog?
I would agree with everything said, but I wouldn't say that a dog or cat does not feel emotion. I believe they feel things very like emotions, such as happiness and sorrow, only not in exactly the same form familiar to our complex psychology (though I feel our own complex psychology, which involves such feelings as love, comes from quite simple causes, like possessiveness, but that is another topic). Dilettante and Nyril are quite right in saying that most "emotions" are almost invariably associated with conditioning and the basic biological desires which makes conditioning successful.

But even without emotion, why would you feel it should be acceptable to stick pins into any sort of creature capable of feeling pain? The dog may not be self-aware, in that it cannot understand anything outside of its own day to day desires, but I would classify it as simply "aware", because it does have desires and can feel pleasure and pain.
<i>'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'</i>
-John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn.

User avatar
Nyril
Scholar
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:21 pm

Post #18

Post by Nyril »

stevencarrwork wrote:
Nyril wrote:
Is it morally acceptable to stick pins into a stuffed animal, because it does not have free will?
Of course not. The presence or absence of free will isn't moral justification for anything.
So why is it morally unacceptable to stick pins into something that does not feel emotion, such as a cat or a dog?
What? I said it was not acceptable to stick pins into the animals on the grounds that it lacked free will. Go back and read it again.

Secondly, the animal can feel pain, it's wrong to cause pain that serves no viable purpose. I would support causing the animal pain if it was good for the animal (surgery, pulling teeth, etc...)
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air...we need believing people."
[Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933]

Post Reply