Hacker News Reader

Comment by animalshumans | Hacker News Reader

>the article nurtures an old misconception .. that there are some traits that distinctly separates humans from other animal

There are a number of traits that make humans a unique animal, it's not a misconception.

Humans:

- Are aware of the existence of good and evil and have the capacity for moral reasoning

- Have language

- Are aware of the existence of the distant future, and can plan for it beyond the instinctual cycle of a single season like a hibernating squirrel

- Are aware of their own mortality and vulnerability

- Have art

There might be more but that's a good start. We are animals, of course, nothing "separates us from the animals," in a clean way, but boy we're weird animals.

> Immediately downvoted

WTF HN, is this not polite, curious discourse? Why do I even try here? Never mind, I hate this website. Bye

View on HN

I was going to leave a similar comment, you've done much better at expressing my own objections to the OP. I've tried to upvote you but I don't have very much karma (not sure that that matters?). Sorry to see this sort of thing happen on HN too :(

It would be great if the people who are downvoting you would tackle any of your bullet points.

We are certainly descended from animals, but we are also wildly unique from anything else we've ever seen in the biological world, past or present, mostly due to our cognitive capacities for art, science, morality, math, language, you name it.

Our capacity for language (and its core property of digital infinity) alone, as pointed out by Chomsky, doesn't seem to have an analogue anywhere in the biological world down to perhaps the level of DNA.

That's a great puzzle and mystery, we shouldn't run away from it but rather we should embrace it with humility and awe.

The great trend of the day is abject materialism, a philosophy that sees humans as just clever bipeds. I'm not too keen on it. There is clearly something different about humans.

> There is clearly something different about humans.

That's not what this debate is really about. The proponents of "humans are different" are actually thinking "humans are superior". They can make a case for that, but only in terms that confer advantages and entitlement to humans.

Take this example:

> Are aware of the existence of good and evil and have the capacity for moral reasoning

and apply it to an encounter in the forest between a human and a venomous snake.

Imagine one kills the other without provocation.

Which animal was good, and which one was evil?

Let's try that exercise again three more times. I'll give you more information for each case:

1. The human was your pregnant wife.

2. The human was the mass murderer, Adolf X.

3. The snake was hungry and scared, and had a family to care for.

Your example is out of place. A snake is amoral, it cannot act in a moral or non-moral way. Morality is by definition a trait that only humans posses, as we believe that human could or should act in certain ways, despite natural instincts.

> we believe that human could or should act in certain ways

Are you referring to the voices in your head?

Have you noticed there are more than one voice, and sometimes they point you in different directions?

Assuming you don't speak French, Greek or Estonian, and have never read a translation of any writing by a French, Greek, or Estonian human being, how do you know whether French, Greek and Estonian people also have multiple voices in their heads like you do?

How can you know that non-human animals don't also have voices in their heads?

If non-human animals also have multiple voices in their heads suggesting different actions to them, and they make choices from those voices, how can you define them as "amoral"?

> Are you referring to the voices in your head?

No. I guess you refer to debating moral dilemma in your head, but that's only one aspect of morality.

Not all people share the same moral code, but we do expect all human cultures to have a moral code, and we expect humans to act on it's basis, despite their natural instincts and the rather arbitrary moral rules specific to their culture.

Meanwhile we expect animal to behave according to their natural instincts.

When humans break our exceptions, we judge them, since we know humans can and often are better than that. When animals break our exceptions, if ever, we are surprised, as this is rare and unnatural.

What do you mean by "moral code"? Is it something like "thou shalt not kill" or "do unto others as they would do unto you"? More generally, is it some rules of behaviour to which a human submits to obey? If so, is a person's moral code something they choose to enrol in, or is it something given from above e.g. by a god, without choice of an individual, in your understanding?

I am trying to understand what you are saying in your last para:

> When humans break our exceptions, we judge them, since we know humans can and often are better than that. When animals break our exceptions, if ever, we are surprised, as this is rare and unnatural.

What do you mean by "unnatural"? Can you give examples for

(a) humans

(b) poodles

> If so, is a person's moral code something they choose to enrol in, or is it something given from above e.g. by a god, without choice of an individual, in your understanding?

Some people believe that their moral code is given to them by god, some try to base their moral code on logic, some people integrate the code held in their society and don't think about it very much.

> What do you mean by "unnatural"? Can you give examples for

humans - I'm not sure what do you mean by that. It is natural for humans to have their behavior influenced by moral causes. It is unnatural for humans to have no moral code, I guess, or to consistently behave in a way that is not influenced by any moral code.

poodles - I guess it will be unnatural for a poodle to refuse a treat in reward for something that another poodle did, on the basis that the treat should be given to the other poodle.

jackals - It will probably be unnatural for a jackal to hunt an healthy creature instead of a sick one, just because the sick one is a parent who tends to young ones, even if he could do so with a little bit more effort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com