Why Can animals Be Like THIS WITHOUT RELIGION? No bigotry Here!

[Solitary]

https://youtu.be/FOzzsAKOLpg?list=UUYJkz44KRzuO8pxspJ9uocw

[Baruch]

This is more likely species confusion.  It has been recently determined that domestic cats aren't particular about species ... they think humans are big dumb cats.  Dumb of course, because we don't meow or behave properly.  With lions/tigers ... given the approximate nature of speciation ... they are the same species ... in the sense that a lion and a tiger can successfully breed (the original definition of species).  Domestic cats come in a wide variety of forms, because they are subject to routine but stereotyped mutations.

[Brian37]

Well hold on now, mammal grouping behavior still involves in group out group, and a simple demonstration to different species getting along, is to raise two different mammals together at birth. Cats and dogs as puppies and kittens will get along with each other and defend each other from unfamiliar cats and dogs. Different life forms can cooperate.

There is even a video somewhere where a toddler fell into a gorilla exhibit at a zoo, and a female gorilla stroked the kids back as if to comfort it.

Humans stupidly think their morality is unique, especially when it comes to religion. The truth is our species ability to harm others or to cooperate is because of evolution.

Inner species cooperation is not "species confusion" it is a result of life's ability to adapt.

[Brian37]

The idea that morality is strictly human is fucking bullshit. All human behaviors good or bad are a result of evolution. Otherwise this cat would not have protected this kid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBW5dfRoG7Q

[TomFoolery]

I guess I'm confused by this topic. While animals are capable of altruism (though some of it has obviously been anthropomorphized), heroism, and interspecies friendship, cooperation and kindness, it's pretty much the exception and not the rule when it comes to non-domesticated and untrained animals.

Bigotry and hatred are human constructs, but so are morality and tolerance. Throughout the animal kingdom there are numerous examples of all kinds of things we would find horrifying, so to suggest we should model ourselves after their religion-free good behavior is cherry-picking to the extreme.

Take this adorable photo of a macaque "adopting" a young kitten.

We can hold that up as a standard for people to live by, as long as we overlook the fact that macaques have been documented killing and cannibalizing their own young. To say this wild macaque has adopted this kitten is making a lot of assumptions.

In conclusion, yes, animals are capable of making us feel all the feels, but it's actually a pretty rare occurrence. I know we all like to sit around and hate on humanity for all the shittiness, but overall humans are far more likely to consistently demonstrate behaviors that we find socially pleasing based on our own notions of what is "good" than our animal cousins.

[Munch]

Funny thing I was having a debate about cats and dogs the other day with a friend, and this video came up.

Both cats and dogs are territorial of their home and owners, because they are like their pack to them, and often outsiders who pose a threat to them will make them react in that way. My cat has always been friendly to people who visit like family members, of my boyfriends staying over, even her once bobbing her head against the back of my boyfriends head, which is assumed a show of affection and trust.
But she however is very territorial of other cats coming in her garden, and is very territorial of my two young nephews because of how roughhouse that can be with her, patting her two hard to pulling her fur, she'll hiss at them making them back off.

Morality is a human construct no question, our way of explaining protecting our own, opening to others not of our own, and just in general applying our human faculties to others in a shared communion. Animals have a similar thing of protecting what they feel is their pack, like when a cubs mother dies, your see the sister of that cubs mother take their cub in as its own, even feed it.

[Baruch]

Some animals have collective child rearing.  With ostriches, initially all the eggs are by the same mother all in one nest.  But once nesting is done, the young ostriches are put into a juvenile pack and looked after collectively by the adults.  Perhaps just adaptation ... but suggestive anyway.

[Termin]

 I believe a religious person might simply state that the animals behavior is a result of god.

[wbuentello]

I've been saying this and I'll say it again... Morality, as in a sense of right and wrong, is NOT a human construct. More accurately it is a social construct. It is not exclusive to humans but it is exclusive to social animals.

[Valigarmander]

The video was adorable, but that was the corniest song I've ever heard.

[SkyChief]

This is more likely species confusion.  It has been recently determined that domestic cats aren't particular about species ... they think humans are big dumb cats.  Dumb of course, because we don't meow or behave properly. 

I can attest to this.  Our cat truly is astounded by the dumbfukkery that (us) humans exhibit.   

This feeling is quite mutual, however.  I suppose there's some poetic justice in that.

edit:   Especially when he drinks toilet-bowl water!  Ewwwwwwww.

[Mermaid]

I can't say I agree with your conclusion, and especially based on two captive cats that are basically forced to interact.

I don't think humans are all that different than other animals, it's a cruel world out there. We just have more power and impact than most, if not all, species. Those cats would not hesitate to skin a rodent alive just to watch it squirm.

[Mike Cl]

I have been lead to believe that dogs think we are god because we feed them.  And cats think they are god, because we feed them.  Yeah, seems about right.  We had a cat for 22 yrs.  This was his house.  He allowed dogs to stay--but they were kept in their place.  And he trained the humans in his house so that things ran the way he wanted them to.  And I must admit I do miss that dictator!

[Mike Cl]

I've been saying this and I'll say it again... Morality, as in a sense of right and wrong, is NOT a human construct. More accurately it is a social construct. It is not exclusive to humans but it is exclusive to social animals.

I don't remember reading you saying that--but then my memory--what??? memory???-----but it is an interesting idea.  What do you mean by morality?  What animals are social?  And what test would you use to demonstrate those animals were 'moral'?

[TomFoolery]

What do you mean by morality?  What animals are social?  And what test would you use to demonstrate those animals were 'moral'?

I agree. We as the human species can't even come to a solid foundation on what moral is, so I don't know how animals ever would. I think it's more likely that animals act a certain way which increases survival.

I wouldn't consider indiscriminate killing moral, but chimps and house cats call that Thursday. Gang rape: ducks and cheetahs love it. The more social the animal, the more propensity they show for altruistic behavior, but I think we incorrectly attribute it to human-like qualities like fairness and compassion, while overlooking all the other things that make them still, well, animals. It's true, we can't prove these animals don't actually have good hearts, but at least what does seem evident is that there was an evolutionary advantage to certain "moral" behaviors among social animals, leading them to occasionally mirror what we would call moral.