Movies With and About Real Animals

[Qrazy]

I quite like these types of films. I think I'm going to be watching Annaud's The Bear soon and I was wondering if you could recommend any other similar films.

There's also his film Two Brothers which I'll probably check out if I like The Bear.

The Black Stallion
Tons of dog films.

I'd prefer to watch more films where the animals don't talk although those are fine too (Homeward Bound, Babe).

[Raiders]

Au hasard Balthazar

[Qrazy]

Au hasard Balthazar

Yeah, good call. Great film.

[Qrazy]

Ahh White Mane is another good one.

[Morris Schæffer]

There's a children's movie from the seventies called The Littlest Horse Thieves that's really good.

[balmakboor]

I remember liking The Bear quite a bit. It's similar to Bambi and The Lion King only with real animals.

There are actually two kinds of movies that I'm almost guaranteed to like -- ones with children and ones with animals.

[Grouchy]

I've always wanted to see White Dog. My film school had a DVD transferred from a VHS and it looked like a turd. Then I almost rented it but my video store only has it dubbed in Spanish.

[megladon8]

It bothers me more to see animals hurt or killed in movies than it does to see people hurt or killed.

If a version of Hostel was made in which dogs were tortured and mutilated, I would not be able to watch it ever.

[Winston*]

It bothers me more to see animals hurt or killed in movies than it does to see people hurt or killed.

That's weird.

[lovejuice]

http://willfulcaboose.files.wordpress .com/2009/02/howard_the_duck_xl_01-film-b1.jpg

oh, and i have a really fond memory of the bear. it's perhaps the third movie i've ever seen in theatre. (after superman IV, and some thai film.)

[megladon8]

That's weird.


Not really.

I hear that a lot, actually.

[Derek]

Not really.

I hear that a lot, actually.

I agree with you. Obviously it depends on tone and context, but I find it much harder to watch Balthazar's mistreatment in Bresson's film than stuff like the murders in Goodfellas and La Haine or even the random brutality in something like Alan Clarke's Elephant.

[number8]

Some dude on IMDB said he walked out of Drag Me to Hell when the kitty got killed.

[megladon8]

Some dude on IMDB said he walked out of Drag Me to Hell when the kitty got killed.


That part made me laugh, actually.

After being tormented by the Lamia for several minutes, cut to Christine holding a knife and saying "here kitty, kitty".

[Bosco B Thug]

That part made me laugh, actually.

After being tormented by the Lamia for several minutes, cut to Christine holding a knife and saying "here kitty, kitty".
That's a great moment. I'm awful when it comes to being animal-sympathetic. It gets me in trouble actually. I got a lot of flak just for saying "I don't blame her" post-movie.

[Russ]

For all the film's faults, A Boy and His Dog features a terrific performance by Blood (Tiger, from The Brady Bunch), whose voiceover/narration was provided by Tim McIntyre). Absent from much of the film's narrative centerpiece, he pretty much steals all the intro/climactic scenes in which he appears.


http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7673/aboyandhisdogdonjohnson.jpg

[Qrazy]

Alright well I liked the general approach of the The Bear although it was a bit too sentimental for me at times and/or the bears are just a bit too anthropomorphized. I mean I expected a fictional narrative with semi-anthropomorphic animals but a couple parts go a little too far. And I really reallllly could have done without the bear dream sequences and the bear tripping on mushrooms.

[B-side]

It bothers me more to see animals hurt or killed in movies than it does to see people hurt or killed.

If a version of Hostel was made in which dogs were tortured and mutilated, I would not be able to watch it ever.

I'm the same way. I have a slightly higher tolerance for it in film as it's almost always staged, but raw video of animal abuse is something you couldn't pay me to watch.

[Ezee E]

Alright well I liked the general approach of the The Bear although it was a bit too sentimental for me at times and/or the bears are just a bit too anthropomorphized. I mean I expected a fictional narrative with semi-anthropomorphic animals but a couple parts go a little too far. And I really reallllly could have done without the bear dream sequences and the bear tripping on mushrooms.
a bear on an acid trip? Sounds like something I should see.

[balmakboor]

My wife and two daughters can barely watch movies with animals at all. They constantly fear that harm will come to them. I have a much higher tolerance level, but I do hate to see animals get tortured.

[Ivan Drago]

The Adventures of Milo and Otis?

I mention that only because my sister LOVES it.

[Fezzik]

Not really.

I hear that a lot, actually.

I'm totally that way, but in truth, I like animals better than most people anyway.

I can hardly handle the scene in DWW when they shoot Two Socks. It just wrecks me.

Best movie animal moment for me: In Homeward Bound, when Shadow limps his way back up the hill to rejoin Jamie. That scene kills me every time.

[Spinal]

The Adventures of Milo and Otis?


That film had nasty animal cruelty rumors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Milo_and_Oti s#Animal_cruelty_allegations) associated with it.

[bac0n]

That film had nasty animal cruelty rumors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Milo_and_Oti s#Animal_cruelty_allegations) associated with it.

That's sad - it's a rather charming movie, made all the better by Dudley Moore's awesome narration.

On a different note - Two Brothers is quite a charming movie unto itself.

[Kurosawa Fan]

That film had nasty animal cruelty rumors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Milo_and_Oti s#Animal_cruelty_allegations) associated with it.

Yeah, my mom would never let me see it as a child because of that. Still haven't seen it to this day, though now it's because I don't want to support a film like that.

[Benny Profane]

Umberto D.

Not the main character, but an important one.

[Grouchy]

Bah, all this fuzziness over hurting animals pisses me off. Human beings are what's important. Animals are disposable.

[Russ]

Bah, all this fuzziness over hurting animals pisses me off. Human beings are what's important. Animals are disposable.
__________________
Just because you have an opinion, doesn't mean it's worth posting -- Watashi
I assume you're just kidding. But if not, then the irony of your quoted signature is worth noting.

[Grouchy]

I assume you're just kidding. But if not, then the irony of your quoted signature is worth noting.
No, no, I'm serious. If I had a choice between saving the most worthless human being in the universe and a dog, I'd choose the worthless human being.

The other choice strikes me as weird and almost inmoral.

[Kurosawa Fan]

No, no, I'm serious. If I had a choice between saving the most worthless human being in the universe and a dog, I'd choose the worthless human being.

The other choice strikes me as weird and almost inmoral.

What does this have to do with animal cruelty? I'm not seeing the connection. "All this fuzziness over hurting animals pisses me off" implies that you have no problem with people hurting animals.

[Grouchy]

What does this have to do with animal cruelty? I'm not seeing the connection. "All this fuzziness over hurting animals pisses me off" implies that you have no problem with people hurting animals.
Ok, you're right, and that straight after the Milo and Otis comment made me look bad.

I'm totally against animal cruelty, of course. Hell, I own two dogs. What pisses me off and what I was responding to is the people who say they prefer seeing violence applied to humans rather than animals. Or that they like animals better than people. That's just silly.

[megladon8]

I find my two dogs to be more agreeable friends than a good chunk of the people I meet.

[Grouchy]

I find my two dogs to be more agreeable friends than a good chunk of the people I meet.
But they're not really your friends by choice. Dogs can't be good or evil - they're animals. They only love you because you feed them and treat them right.

[megladon8]

But they're not really your friends by choice. Dogs can't be good or evil - they're animals. They only love you because you feed them and treat them right.


That's your opinion.

[Grouchy]

That's your opinion.
It's not worth posting?

[megladon8]

I have very little time for people who argue that whole "pets don't really love you / only love you because you feed them" bullshit.

[Grouchy]

I have very little time for people who argue that whole "pets don't really love you / only love you because you feed them" bullshit.
It's true, though. They aren't really your friends, they're pets. And there's nothing wrong with that, I love my pets too.

Friends are human beings who don't depend on you for survival, they just like you. It's a more complex interaction.

[megladon8]

It's true, though. They aren't really your friends, they're pets. And there's nothing wrong with that, I love my pets too.

Friends are human beings who don't depend on you for survival, they just like you. It's a more complex interaction.


No, it's not true. It's your opinion.

What about animals that rescue or help humans who are stranded in the wild? Do you think their only reason for doing that is "hey, this is a person, and he'll give me food later if I help him!"

I could easily turn your logic around and say the only reason I love my parents is "because they fed me and treated me well".

I find this level of human arrogance - that we are the only creatures capable of emotional connection - quite insulting.

[Grouchy]

No, it's not true. It's your opinion.

What about animals that rescue or help humans who are stranded in the wild? Do you think their only reason for doing that is "hey, this is a person, and he'll give me food later if I help him!"

I could easily turn your logic around and say the only reason I love my parents is "because they fed me and treated me well".

I find this level of human arrogance - that we are the only creatures capable of emotional connection - quite insulting.
But I'm not saying they aren't capable of emotional connections. Of course they are, with humans as well as their own kin. But it's not as complex as in humans because it comes entirely from instinct. So is the rescuing humans - not every animal does it, only those which have it in their instinct to relate to humans.

Using your example, there are many sons who have been well fed and well treated by their parents, yet they're ungrateful to them and don't really love them. Show me where that happens in the animal kingdom.

[number8]

I could easily turn your logic around and say the only reason I love my parents is "because they fed me and treated me well".

Well, if they didn't feed you and treated you like shit, I think it would be rather silly for you to love them anyway. Because they are bastards.

[megladon8]

OK, let me present it to you this way...

I imagine you would agree with me an 99.999% of the movie-viewing population that seeing atrocities committed against children is much harder to take than those committed against adults.

I ask you this: what is it that makes it so much harder to see children hurt, abused or killed in a film?

It's not the fact that they're young, or that you could attach an age to them, whether it be 5, 7, 9 or 12. Their age and their being young is totally arbitrary. It is what comes with that age - innocence, an inability to properly understand the circumstances and their surroundings, and their inability to intervene or stop what is being done.

Yes, it is awful to see an adult being tortured or raped or murdered. But an adult can process the information in their mind - "this is a sex-crazed maniac who wants to dominate me". A child is not going to know this, they're just going to think "this adult is hurting me and I can't do anything to stop it".

This combination of innocence and weakness (mental and/or physical) is what makes the child more sympathetic than the adult.

This is the same reason that many find it harder to see, say, a dog beaten, than a person tortured in a film like Hostel. A dog being beaten by an abusive owner has no ability to understand why it is being hurt, why its owner has suddenly chosen to cause it great physical pain. And if a dog is on a chain or in a cage and being tortured, it can't fight back.

Not that most dogs would fight back against their owner's abuse anyways. And I'm sorry, but "it knows you feed it" does not cover a situation where a dog will continue to love and protect its owner even when the owner beats it and (in many cases) really doesn't feed it.

[Fezzik]

Meg, if I could rep you 100 times for that last post, i would.

I couldn't agree more, and I could not have said it better.

I cannot stand seeing animals hurt in movies for the exact reason you said - their innocence, strength, loyalty, etc. I just can't take it. Its the easiest way to get me to hate a villain in a film. Its easy, cheap and manipulative, but it works on me.

As a side note, I don't think I could handle the idea of my dog, Pippen, not being in my life.

And he chose ME when I went to pick out a dog. There were 6 in there. When they opened the pen he ran over and curled up in my lap. The others didn't come over at all.

So yeah, sorry, animals not only CAN establish emotional connections, I believe they need them as much as we do.

Right on, Megs.

[megladon8]

Meg, if I could rep you 100 times for that last post, i would.

I couldn't agree more, and I could not have said it better.

I don't think I could handle the idea of my dog, Pippen, not being in my life.

And he chose ME when I went to pick out a dog. There were 6 in there. When they opened the pen he ran over and curled up in my lap. The others didn't come over at all.

So yeah, sorry, animals not only CAN establish emotional connections, I believe they need them as much as we do.

Right on, Megs.


I agree completely, Fezzik.

Living in a suburb right on the edge of green-belts and townships with lots of farming, I can tell you that a lot of people out here actually don't feed their dogs.

The dog lives on the farm but fends for itself. These people often have property of 100 acres or more, so the dog can roam around that property and hunt. However, it always comes back home, and it can always be depended on to defend the livestock.

Of course the farmers would never allow the dog to starve - they will give it food if it is visibly starving and/or exhausted. But 99% of the time, the dog is finding its own means for survival.

Yet, again, the dog keeps coming home to protect the farm, and is very affectionate and cares about the farmers. Obviously the dog is not just fulfilling an instinctual need for food, because it could get that at any one of the hundreds of farms around there, or by just living on its own.

It keeps coming back to the farm because the farm is home to that dog, the same way the farm is home to the people who live there.

[Yxklyx]

I'm the only one here to have seen CUJO?

[balmakboor]

Animals can have very complex emotions. Hell, elephants mourn their dead for extended periods of time and even do things remarkably similar to human funerals.

I've had numerous dogs who would apologize to me. Just the other day, one of my dogs was fighting with one of my cats on the bed. I reached to pull him away and he turned as if to bite me. The moment he realized what he had almost done, he crawled toward me with the saddest eyes imaginable and curled up in my lap for a good ten minutes.

I agree with Meg 100%. I can't stand seeing animals get hurt in movies.

[balmakboor]

I'm the only one here to have seen CUJO?

Humans would do the same sort of thing Cujo did if desperately ill from rabies.

[Grouchy]

OK, let me present it to you this way...

I imagine you would agree with me an 99.999% of the movie-viewing population that seeing atrocities committed against children is much harder to take than those committed against adults.

I ask you this: what is it that makes it so much harder to see children hurt, abused or killed in a film?

It's not the fact that they're young, or that you could attach an age to them, whether it be 5, 7, 9 or 12. Their age and their being young is totally arbitrary. It is what comes with that age - innocence, an inability to properly understand the circumstances and their surroundings, and their inability to intervene or stop what is being done.

Yes, it is awful to see an adult being tortured or raped or murdered. But an adult can process the information in their mind - "this is a sex-crazed maniac who wants to dominate me". A child is not going to know this, they're just going to think "this adult is hurting me and I can't do anything to stop it".

This combination of innocence and weakness (mental and/or physical) is what makes the child more sympathetic than the adult.

This is the same reason that many find it harder to see, say, a dog beaten, than a person tortured in a film like Hostel. A dog being beaten by an abusive owner has no ability to understand why it is being hurt, why its owner has suddenly chosen to cause it great physical pain. And if a dog is on a chain or in a cage and being tortured, it can't fight back.

Not that most dogs would fight back against their owner's abuse anyways. And I'm sorry, but "it knows you feed it" does not cover a situation where a dog will continue to love and protect its owner even when the owner beats it and (in many cases) really doesn't feed it.
Well, you're absolutely right here, of course. It doesn't contradict what I was saying, but my point was too small to get so worked up about. I dunno why I thought it was so important. Sorry.

[number8]

Someone should make a Hostel-like movie with chickens.

[Russ]

Animals can have very complex emotions. Hell, elephants mourn their dead for extended periods of time and even do things remarkably similar to human funerals.
Here's a true story of canine grieving: when I was growing up, I had a dog (German Shepherd) and I got a duckling for Easter. Duckling grew into an adult duck, and bonded with the dog. They were literally inseparable, with the dog following the duck everywhere and "protecting" him. One Christmas, when the duck was outside, it got tangled up in the fence, broke its neck, and later died. The dog never ate again, and a few days later, he died.

You may commence with the tears. (:) But it is a true story)

[Spinal]

Someone should make a Hostel-like movie with chickens.

Aardman?

[number8]

Aardman?

Live action, with emphasis on showing brutal chicken killings.

Every ticket comes with a free fried chicken.

[Scar]

No, no, I'm serious. If I had a choice between saving the most worthless human being in the universe and a dog, I'd choose the worthless human being.


I sure as fuck wouldn't.

[megladon8]

Yeah, that's pretty stupid.

[number8]

It is not stupid at all.

[megladon8]

It is not stupid at all.


You'd save a serial child rapist's life before you'd save your dog's?

[number8]

Depends on the situation. If it's a fire kind of situation, I would instinctively rescue my dog and run out. If someone straps me to a chair and points a gun to either my pet or a child rapist, and asks me to choose, I would choose the child rapist.

[megladon8]

I guess we have very, very different morals.

To me good is good and bad is bad, regardless of the species.

Ideally neither of them would have to die, I don't want to have to kill or have anyone killed. But in this hypothetical situation, it's a no brainer for me - a serial child rapist is getting less sympathy from me than my dog.

[balmakboor]

Depends on the situation. If it's a fire kind of situation, I would instinctively rescue my dog and run out. If someone straps me to a chair and points a gun to either my pet or a child rapist, and asks me to choose, I would choose the child rapist.

I guess I don't understand the distinction. Either way, you are choosing which would live. Or are you saying that humans instinctively favor animals over other humans, but rationally it is the other way around?

[number8]

I guess I don't understand the distinction. Either way, you are choosing which would live. Or are you saying that humans instinctively favor animals over other humans, but rationally it is the other way around?

It's to free myself of guilt. It's completely self-serving.

It's because one is an accident. The building's coming down, then it's coming down, I'm going to grab the ones I treasure. But the other scenario is murder. Basically, I don't want to take part in the murder of another human being, so I will never choose it.

This is why I'm against the death penalty.

[BuffaloWilder]

It's true, though.


Mark Bekoff and every other ethologist and behaviorist working right now would like to ask you:


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zYaFP45lGWM/Rx-Ii-TfDOI/AAAAAAAAAig/epmPle52U98/s320/u+mad.jpg

Cesar Milan would like to ask it, as well. But, he's a wacko, and nobody cares about him.


The debate's never been about the dog's emotional capacity - that's never really been in doubt, that I'm aware of. It's their intellectual capacity, that's the puzzling thing; the comparison most can ethologists make is to an autistic kid with a slightly more developed theory of mind, and I'd agree with that, if not for the recent upstart a year or so ago that dogs were capable of abstract thought and categorisation. Still, at the moment, it's a comparison that serves its purpose well, although there are subtleties.

That was a cruel ultimatum to pose to any audience, really.

[EyesWideOpen]

I don't distinguish between animal and human. I distinguish by how things impact my life. If I had to pick between my wife or mom and my cats I would pick my wife or mom. But if they picked a random person off the street and said who would you let live I'd pick one of my cats everytime.

[balmakboor]

I don't distinguish between animal and human. I distinguish by how things impact my life. If I had to pick between my wife or mom and my cats I would pick my wife or mom. But if they picked a random person off the street and said who would you let live I'd pick one of my cats everytime.

But what if that random person was heading to his lab to discover a cure for cancer? Will your cats be able to fill that void?

[EyesWideOpen]

But what if that random person was heading to his lab to discover a cure for cancer? Will your cats be able to fill that void?

If we are going to go with hypotheticals then what if that person was on his way to his school to shoot all of his classmates and I just did the world a favor.

[balmakboor]

If we are going to go with hypotheticals then what if that person was on his way to his school to shoot all of his classmates and I just did the world a favor.

But what if that school shooting provoked an individual to devote his life to solving the problems that lead to such events and he develops a system for identifying and handling warning signs that results in countless school shootings never occuring?

Isn't this why some religions make a point of leaving judgment to higher powers? Because the world of cause and effect is so complex and chaotic that it is impossible to tell if something bad is really something bad or is actually something ultimately good (in God's plan or whatever) disguised as bad. And is everything that appears good on the surface really good?

Was the discovery of penicillin really a good thing or will it ultimately lead to the obliteration of mankind due to the misuse of antibiotics evolving super bacterias?

A speculative writer could easily spin a what-if scenario where Hitler benefitted mankind.

I don't know why I'm saying all of this though. It sounds more like a plea to abolish the death penalty than a plea to stop torturing animals in movies.

[EyesWideOpen]

I'm against the death penalty so I'm with you on that but what we were talking about is picking one or the other. Someone or thing was going to die no matter what.

[balmakboor]

I'm against the death penalty so I'm with you on that but what we were talking about is picking one or the other. Someone or thing was going to die no matter what.

I guess I was just trying to suggest that it may not be so easy to tell how someone will impact your life. I do agree with your original statement though. I'd pick my wife or mother over my dog and I'd pick my dog over a stranger.

There is always the danger though that that stranger would have gone on to impact your life in ways even more profound than your close relatives. I lived in the same town as my wife for years before we met. Where would I be right now if I'd run her over with my car?

[megladon8]

balmakboor, am I going to have to send you my 25 issue run of "Captain Marvel"?

[Grouchy]

Cesar Milan would like to ask it, as well. But, he's a wacko, and nobody cares about him.
Heh, my mother watches his show all the time. She even watches the taped shows.


The debate's never been about the dog's emotional capacity - that's never really been in doubt, that I'm aware of. It's their intellectual capacity, that's the puzzling thing; the comparison most can ethologists make is to an autistic kid with a slightly more developed theory of mind, and I'd agree with that, if not for the recent upstart a year or so ago that dogs were capable of abstract thought and categorisation. Still, at the moment, it's a comparison that serves its purpose well, although there are subtleties.

That was a cruel ultimatum to pose to any audience, really.
That's exactly my point. There's no doubt the dog genuinely loves people. But the abstraction of that love that humans are capable of is impossible in my mind for it. But of course, there is much we don't know about the mental processes of animals.

What I'm reacting to is the mentality of the last couple of posts. "I'd pick my dog's life over a stranger?" That's just weird and fucked up. Obviously, with the gun in my hands and taped to the chair, I'd save my mother, my father, my sister, my cousins, my girlfriend and my friends over the stranger. But my dog? Is human life worth so little?

[megladon8]

Life is life.

It's arrogant to think human lives are worth so much more than everything else out there. Last time I checked humans have fucked stuff up a lot more than dogs have.

[Grouchy]

Life is life.

It's arrogant to think human lives are worth so much more than everything else out there. Last time I checked humans have fucked stuff up a lot more than dogs have.
Last time I checked dogs haven't written Don Quixote either. Or invented aviation, penicilline, chemotherapy, psychology, arithmetics or anything else.

Humans always have a choice because their potential is comparatively enormous. It's not that dogs don't fuck up stuff because they're better, they don't fuck up stuff because they can't. They don't have a choice between good and evil - they don't even know what that is. Theirs is a life of survival.

[balmakboor]

balmakboor, am I going to have to send you my 25 issue run of "Captain Marvel"?

I'll pretend you say this because my thought processes are so marvelous.

(Actually, I have no idea what you mean. I've never been much of a comicbook reader.)

[number8]

I distinguish heavily between humans and dogs.

BECAUSE IT'S A DOG.

[Winston*]

Are you a vegetarian, meg?

[Scar]

Are you a vegetarian, meg?

I'd shoot a serial killer while munching on a burger, while my cat sits on my shoulder.

[trotchky]

Hi guys I'm a vegetarian.

[megladon8]

No, I'm not a vegetarian.

[Winston*]

No, I'm not a vegetarian.

Doesn't this conflict with your "life is life" POV?

[megladon8]

Doesn't this conflict with your "life is life" POV?


No. Other animals kill for food the same way we do.

I don't agree with the way it's done (ie mass slaughtering) but that's a problem of incredible over-population on our part.

For example - I'm against the idea of hunting purely for sport's sake. If you kill a deer and just leave its carcass there to rot, I think that's pretty sick. But hunting for the purpose of using the animal's meat, skin, bones, etc. is fine.

In fact I've often thought about learning archery so I could try bow-hunting sometime. As was mentioned in the Off Topic board, deer meat is pretty damn delicious.

[Winston*]

So since you believe human and animal life has the same value, you would be okay with someone hunting people for food?

[Russ]

How do you feel about cultures that kill dogs for food?

[megladon8]

So since you believe human and animal life has the same value, you would be okay with someone hunting people for food?


HA! Nice one.

I don't think cannibalism is really something that's supposed to occur at any level of nature, is it? Are there any species out there who naturally hunt their own kind for food?

But I also think people wildly overreact when a person is killed by a bear or coyotes or whatever, especially in cases where it was really the person's own damn fault. Like the girl from Toronto who a couple of weeks ago went hiking in the forest at night all alone and was attacked by coyotes.

My heart goes out to her family and it's a terrible loss, but honestly...that was pretty fucking stupid.

[number8]

I don't think cannibalism is really something that's supposed to occur at any level of nature, is it? Are there any species out there who naturally hunt their own kind for food?

Black widow? Praying mantis?

[megladon8]

How do you feel about cultures that kill dogs for food?


Different strokes. It's not something I would actively seek out while there, but I understand it's a different culture with different ideals.

Here in North America beef is enormous, but in India that's quite literally sacreligious.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Black widow? Praying mantis?

Aren't those both ritualistic killings (for lack of a better term) rather than part of each animal's regular diet?

[megladon8]

Black widow? Praying mantis?


Do they kill each other for food, though?

I thought with both it was a part of their mating ritual.

[balmakboor]

Do they kill each other for food, though?

I thought with both it was a part of their mating ritual.

I believe it is both a mating ritual and for food for the offspring. Daddy becomes his kids' first meal.

[Qrazy]

Whether or not animals practice cannibalism has nothing to do with Winston's hypothetical.

To expand upon his hypothetical, here are some other consequences of valuing animal life on the same level as human life. Although just to clarify, when we say animal we're talking about what? Multicellular? Vertebrates? Only mammals? Only mammals that are soft and fuzzy?

1. No more forestry or anything made of wood or paper really. Deforestation decimates animal habitats and kills millions. Ditto oil. Ditto most crops. Personally I think we should be more responsible with our consumption of resources but if we considered animal and human life as truly equivalent I don't see how we could continue to destroy their ecosystems.
2. No more modern medicine. Animal testing is crucial to developing successful treatments and it's also been essential to the development of our understanding of physiology/genetics/biochemistry/etc. If animal and human lives are equivalent we may as well start testing humans with prototype drugs.

I have another comment about remarks made earlier. At this stage we do not know what animals feel. We can monitor their behavior and make assumptions about how they feel, but to say an animal experiences love and happiness in the same way a human being does is a completely arbitrary claim. If we classify emotions only in terms of behavioral response we can say animals experience emotions (with these being defined as such and such behaviors), but we can not say that animals experience emotions in the same way that we do. That is not to say that they don't, merely that it is premature to claim that they do.

[soitgoes...]

I don't think cannibalism is really something that's supposed to occur at any level of nature, is it? Are there any species out there who naturally hunt their own kind for food?
Actually, many carnivorous animal males will eat the offspring of a female, given the chance. Lions are well noted for doing this when an overthrow in power occurs. Bears also will kill and eat baby bears if given the chance. Not really hunting I suppose, but cannibalism does occur naturally. Cannibalism makes sense at a natural level. Kill the animal not carrying your genes, then getting a meal out of it too. Now back to the discussion.

[Spinal]

I believe it is both a mating ritual and for food for the offspring. Daddy becomes his kids' first meal.

Worst mating ritual ever.

[soitgoes...]

Worst mating ritual ever.
At least he died with a smile on his face?

[Qrazy]

Let's also bear in mind 'Hume's Guillotine' (the difficulties of moving from an is to an ought statement) and so albeit interesting, it's ultimately sort of beside the point to argue 'naturalness' for the sake of determining a moral framework.

[Sycophant]

Most species don't even have the capacity to enjoy mating, alas. :(

I somehow knew this is where this thread would go.

[BuffaloWilder]

That's exactly my point. There's no doubt the dog genuinely loves people.


But, it seems that such a thing is kind of the exact opposite of what you were saying earlier when you said: "It's true, though. They aren't really your friends, they're pets."


But the abstraction of that love that humans are capable of is impossible in my mind for it.

Well, when I said that we'd reached a great upstart over such a thing last year, I really should've said, 'extended abstract thought,' because the presence of a theory of mind kind of precludes the ability to do such things, at the very least unconsciously.

Here's a question that'll really bake your noodle - since it's not really, do animals think? that's the question anymore, it's how do they think?, do domesticated dogs think in purely visual terms or, because of their continual evolution and development with and under us, do they think in some kind of extended auditory language, like us?




Humans always have a choice because their potential is comparatively enormous. It's not that dogs don't fuck up stuff because they're better, they don't fuck up stuff because they can't. They don't have a choice between good and evil - they don't even know what that is. Theirs is a life of survival.

I don't think this is necessarily true for domesticated animals, however.


1. No more forestry or anything made of wood or paper really. Deforestation decimates animal habitats and kills millions. Ditto oil. Ditto most crops. Personally I think we should be more responsible with our consumption of resources but if we considered animal and human life as truly equivalent I don't see how we could continue to destroy their ecosystems.
2. No more modern medicine. Animal testing is crucial to developing successful treatments and it's also been essential to the development of our understanding of physiology/genetics/biochemistry/etc. If animal and human lives are equivalent we may as well start testing humans with prototype drugs.


While I do agree that medical tasting is a far greyer area than most consider it to be, your point here seems to be, essentially, "we can't see animals as equal in value, because that would mean we would have to change things. And, that's hard." I mean, how is that - valid?


I have another comment about remarks made earlier. At this stage we do not know what animals feel. We can monitor their behavior and make assumptions about how they feel, but to say an animal experiences love and happiness in the same way a human being does is a completely arbitrary claim.

Not at all, I don't think. And, especially in the case of domesticated dogs, that concern us here, who possess a markedly similar physiognomy to our own, making the determination of such a thing just that much easier.



Most species don't even have the capacity to enjoy mating, alas.

Well, not necessarily true. While it's commonly accepted, the fact is we really haven't paid much attention to what animals can or can't enjoy coitus - we've always been more concerned with whether or not they can perform basic cognitive tasks. And, when I say animals, I'm really referring to mammals and those birds who demonstrate the same degree of interaction. But, from what I can recall, the dolphin does, as does the bonobo ape, and - yes, the domesticated dog. Even the horse.

What's creepy is how this has become fodder for all those weirdies who like to have big, gigantic horse rod shoved up their intestines.

[Ivan Drago]

WHAT HAVE I DONE?????

[Qrazy]

While I do agree that medical tasting is a far greyer area than most consider it to be, your point here seems to be, essentially, "we can't see animals as equal in value, because that would mean we would have to change things. And, that's hard." I mean, how is that - valid?

That's not really my point at all. My point isn't that things would be hard. My point is that civilization itself would go completely down the toilet if we valued animal lives at precisely the same degree as our own. We could perhaps start caring more about animals but I can't think of a sustainable model for us where things could be genuinely equal, nor should they be.

Of course all of this is somewhat of a tangent. I think there are much better reasons (beyond the practical functioning of our society) why animals should not be granted full membership into the moral community. Again though, what are we talking about? What kind of animals and where do you draw the line? Do we grant membership only to vertebrates? Fish? You said mammals in your last post. Doesn't that seem like kind of an arbitrary distinction? Are we granting moral inclusion because of the capacity for pain, because of the loss of future life the animal would experience or something else?


Not at all, I don't think. And, especially in the case of domesticated dogs, that concern us here, who possess a markedly similar physiognomy to our own, making the determination of such a thing just that much easier.


If you wish to approach the subject with any philosophical rigorousness it seems fairly obvious to me that we currently do not know what a dog feels emotionally.

[Sycophant]

What's creepy is how this has become fodder for all those weirdies who like to have big, gigantic horse rod shoved up their intestines.


WHAT HAVE I DONE?????

:|

[BuffaloWilder]

That's not really my point at all. My point isn't that things would be hard. My point is that civilization itself would go completely down the toilet if we valued animal lives at precisely the same degree as our own. We could perhaps start caring more about animals but I can't think of a sustainable model for us where things could be genuinely equal, nor should they be.

Wait, wait - wait. So, not only do you think that there's no way we could manage in such a society, but you think that, even if we were able to come up with some sort of sustainable model - we shouldn't use it?

I'm not advocating giving apes a place on the Senate, dude. I'm not pushing to have dogs sack your bags at the grocery store.


Of course all of this is somewhat of a tangent. I think there are much better reasons (beyond the practical functioning of our society) why animals should not be granted full membership into the moral community. Again though, what are we talking about? What kind of animals and where do you draw the line?

Myself, I'd "draw the line" at those animals that possess a theory of mind - that's the big qualifier, isn't it? Sentience, and even sapience - which does narrow it down a little, I think.


Do we grant membership only to vertebrates? Fish? You said mammals in your last post. Doesn't that seem like kind of an arbitrary distinction?

Not at all. It's really only mammals - and birds, to an extent - that seem to possess those qualities listed above. Fish, as far as we're aware, don't possess the grey matter for such things. They can feel pain, we know, and they even have primitive "personalities," but not much else.


If you wish to approach the subject with any philosophical rigorousness it seems fairly obvious to me that we currently do not know what a dog feels emotionally.

That's just like your opinion man.jpeg

[Qrazy]

Wait, wait - wait. So, not only do you think that there's no way we could manage in such a society, but you think that, even if we were able to come up with some sort of sustainable model - we shouldn't use it?

I said I can't think of a model where things could be equal, (and also) nor should they be equal. I did not say if we can come up with such a model we shouldn't use it. Those are two different statements. As to my position on whether a working hypothetical model should be employed, it would depend on how much we have to sacrifice. I think you'll grant that any model would certainly require sacrifice. So hypothetically, if we have to sacrifice a hundred thousand human lives to preserve a million animal lives (perhaps as a result of population displacement vis a vis climate change) I would say the model is certainly not worth adopting.


I'm not advocating giving apes a place on the Senate, dude. I'm not pushing to have dogs sack your bags at the grocery store.

I have no idea what you are advocating. What my initial post and my following posts were responding to is the position where the value of an animal and a human life are treated as equivalent.


Myself, I'd "draw the line" at those animals that possess a theory of mind - that's the big qualifier, isn't it? Sentience, and even sapience - which does narrow it down a little, I think.

Not at all. It's really only mammals - and birds, to an extent - that seem to possess those qualities listed above. Fish, as far as we're aware, don't possess the grey matter for such things. They can feel pain, we know, and they even have primitive "personalities," but not much else.


We could get into a long discussion about what makes killing 'wrong' here... there are certainly a number of different positions on the matter and depending upon which position you take the moral and practical consequences differ wildly. However, suffice it to say that I simply draw the line higher than you do. It's basically (although not quite, she draws the line higher than I would leading to problematic exclusions) in line with Warren's criteria for personhood. For simplicity's sake I'll just post that.

"1. Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;
2. Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);
3. Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control);
4. The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics;
5.The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both."

[BuffaloWilder]

I said I can't think of a model where things could be equal, (and also) nor should they be equal. I did not say if we can come up with such a model we shouldn't use it. Those are two different statements.

:confused:

And, yet - they're saying the same thing.


As to my position on whether a working hypothetical model should be employed, it would depend on how much we have to sacrifice. I think you'll grant that any model would certainly require sacrifice. So hypothetically, if we have to sacrifice a hundred thousand human lives to preserve a million animal lives (perhaps as a result of population displacement vis a vis climate change) I would say the model is certainly not worth adopting.

Actually, I'm kind of confused as to what particular "model" it is you're positing, here. Is this a situational thing, where we're making a life-or-death choice between the hundred thousand humans or the million animals, or are you talking about the effects of whatever it is you're trying to get at on a societal scale, like if all medical testing was immediately halted on all animals, everywhere?


I have no idea what you are advocating. What my initial post and my following posts were responding to is the position where the value of an animal and a human life are treated as equivalent.

I'm an idealist, y'know. And ideally, I can see a society where that old Buddhist chestnut of the validity of all life is upheld to the fullest extent. It's hopelessly utopian, I know.


We could get into a long discussion about what makes killing 'wrong' here... there are certainly a number of different positions on the matter and depending upon which position you take the moral and practical consequences differ wildly.

http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsC/3754-26018.gif

"Nature."

Ape tribes wage war on one another. They also "imprison" (kind of) and eat their smaller monkey brethren. It's morally wrong, sure, but it's not going to change. And, it probably won't change for us anytime soon, either.


"1. Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;
2. Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);
3. Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control);

The jury's still out either way on two for dogs - not for other animals, however - but one and three don't seem to pose any problem.

However, this brings up another good talking point - are people with autism or who might be otherwise functionally retarded not "people," or - ?


4. The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics;

This is also kind of a weird one - both because it seems a little vague and because you could fudge it, either way. Speaking about animals as a whole, one could bring up the species-specific linguistic abilities of dolphins, apes, wolves, whales, and so on. Or, the - still primitive, but worthy nonetheless - communication of those animals who've been taught a form of pidgin English, like Alex the bird or Koko the ape.

As dogs go, they possess the ability to understand and communicate in their own nonverbal way, but there's still a wider gap that needs to be bridged, somehow.


5.The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both."

Theory of mind precludes self-awareness - in fact, it kind of hinges on it, really.

[Qrazy]

:confused:

And, yet - they're saying the same thing.

No, they aren't, but since I feel I just clarified it I don't think I can do much more.


Actually, I'm kind of confused as to what particular "model" it is you're positing, here. Is this a situational thing, where we're making a life-or-death choice between the hundred thousand humans or the million animals, or are you talking about the effects of whatever it is you're trying to get at on a societal scale, like if all medical testing was immediately halted on all animals, everywhere?

I'm saying whatever model one were to adopt which treated mammals and humans equally would certainly require sacrifice on our part. So for the sake of the hypothetical I'm saying that sacrifice would be the loss of a bunch of human lives for the sake of saving more animal lives. There could be many different causes of this, sure halting medical testing could be one of them. A moral system must have pragmatic value for those exercising it. If animals and humans were equal a family of bears would have as much right to life as my own family. If there were six bears in that family and only five humans in mine and only one family could survive, according to the equality model the family of bears ought to be the ones to survive (in a John Broome Weighing Lives-esque Consequentialist scenario). What kind of moral system would this be? It's completely ill adaptive. I recognize you said that you're not exactly arguing for equal rights but I just thought I'd play out the equality argument.


I'm an idealist, y'know. And ideally, I can see a society where that old Buddhist chestnut of the validity of all life is upheld to the fullest extent. It's hopelessly utopian, I know.

Fair enough.


Ape tribes wage war on one another. They also "imprison" (kind of) and eat their smaller monkey brethren. It's morally wrong, sure, but it's not going to change. And, it probably won't change for us anytime soon, either.

I don't consider that morally wrong.

[BuffaloWilder]

No, they aren't, but since I feel I just clarified it I don't think I can do much more.

Again, the two statements really aren't that different, and if they aren't, then please explain why.




I'm saying whatever model one were to adopt which treated mammals and humans equally would certainly require sacrifice on our part. So for the sake of the hypothetical I'm saying that sacrifice would be the loss of a bunch of human lives for the sake of saving more animal lives.

...why? That just results in another needless ultimatum.


There could be many different causes of this, sure halting medical testing could be one of them. A moral system must have pragmatic value for those exercising it. If animals and humans were equal a family of bears would have as much right to life as my own family.

I follow you so far. Still, while - like you said - I'm not arguing for equal rights, the rest of your argument seems to rely some meaning of the word 'equality' that I was not previously aware of.



I don't consider that morally wrong.

I do - chimps, like dolphins, are arbitrarily sadistic. They do this stuff, not for survival, but just because they can. They're quantifiable assholes.

In contrast to the bonobos, who are the laid-back all-sex all-the-time hippies of the ape world. If anything, I'm all for adapting their model of living.

[Grouchy]

I do - chimps, like dolphins, are arbitrarily sadistic. They do this stuff, not for survival, but just because they can. They're quantifiable assholes.

In contrast to the bonobos, who are the laid-back all-sex all-the-time hippies of the ape world. If anything, I'm all for adapting their model of living.
Buffalo, here's where I think the whole argument falls apart. The activities of chimps and dolphins can't really be considered inmoral because ANIMALS HAVE NO MORALS. Morals are entirely a human invention. I don't think some of you guys realize that by equating animals and humans, we're actually doing both a great disservice.

I think Qrazy provided some great examples why, if one were to take seriously that "life is life", doesn't matter if it's human or animal, the entire basis of our civilization would fall apart.


Here's a question that'll really bake your noodle - since it's not really, do animals think? that's the question anymore, it's how do they think?, do domesticated dogs think in purely visual terms or, because of their continual evolution and development with and under us, do they think in some kind of extended auditory language, like us?
Well, like Qrazy says, so far that's impossible to know for sure.

[BuffaloWilder]

Buffalo, here's where I think the whole argument falls apart. The activities of chimps and dolphins can't really be considered inmoral because ANIMALS HAVE NO MORALS. Morals are entirely a human invention. I don't think some of you guys realize that by equating animals and humans, we're actually doing both a great disservice.

I don't know if that's particularly true of all animals, but apes and chimps especially, considering what we now know about how their "ape society" works, and how complex and individually tradition-laden they've all turned out to be. And, within these societies there always seems to be a pre-defined and individual sense of "right and wrong," that is half-dictated by empathy. The chimps are entirely aware of this, it seems. You know, walks like a duck, talks like a duck.

But, yes - I'm specifically applying my own morals to the situation, but come on, now. Their actions here are entirely willful, entirely arbitrary, and entirely premeditated - and that's important, here.


I think Qrazy provided some great examples why, if one were to take seriously that "life is life", doesn't matter if it's human or animal, the entire basis of our civilization would fall apart.

...where? Again, this is just a silly notion, to me.



Well, like Qrazy says, so far that's impossible to know for sure.

...I know. That's - why I said it would be a puzzler.

[Ivan Drago]

:|

I say that because I bring up Milo and Otis and now come back to this thread to see we're arguing with each other about animals and their value compared to those of people.

[Qrazy]

...where? Again, this is just a silly notion, to me.


Ahh but monkeys are immoral. Got ya.

[Qrazy]

Cool video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxa6P73Awcg&feature=player_embedded) I found semi related to the discussion.

[BuffaloWilder]

Ahh but monkeys are immoral. Got ya.

Yeeees.


Oh, wait. I get it. You're doing that thing where you're subtly implying that what I was going on about is also a roundly silly proposition, I see. Without actually pointing out a flaw in what it was that I'd said, other than, "you can't say my proposition sounds silly, because yours does, too!" This is clever.

See, I just got all Amnesiac up in this.

[Derek]

But suggesting animals are immoral all the time means they have morals, which is kind of an innately silly notion.

[B-side]

You're fighting the good fight, Buffalo. I'm one of those silly characters that thinks of animals as equals, too. I mean, we ARE animals, too. Same group of mammals as monkeys. Higher intelligence does not = privelege to take lives. Few little issues getting in the way of me fully committing to the cause, though. I eat some meat, and rather enjoy it. I don't touch any meat that's attached to a bone, nor do I eat steaks of any kind. More just a hamburger and hot dog kind of guy. I feel guilty about it, then I kind of rationalize my eating it by telling myself these animals are gonna be killed anyway, regardless of whether or not I choose to eat them. Basically, I have no idea where I stand. I do think of animals as sentient beings worthy of the same respect, yet I eat some meat. Does that make me a hypocrite, or just not quite as dedicated to the equality notion as I've thought?

[BuffaloWilder]

Oh, not at all. I love me a good burger, here and there. And, come on now. You know a cow would do the same thing to you, if he were in power. I mean, look at them. With their beady little eyes.


But suggesting animals are immoral all the time means they have morals, which is kind of an innately silly notion.

I feel like something is being simplified on one of our ends, but - well, it's not really, depending.

[B-side]

Oh, not at all. I love me a good burger, here and there. And, come on now. You know a cow would do the same thing to you, if he were in power. I mean, look at them. With their beady little eyes.

What a cruel group of creatures we all are.:P

[BuffaloWilder]

It's strange - every species that seems to possess a degree of self-awareness is just full of weird ticks. Dolphins, apes, cows, cats - they're all freaks, in their own way.

Maybe that just comes with the territory.