Ahimsa, cruelty to animals, and emotional response

[david_obsidian]

I'm not sure I am following you entirely Anthony.  

And to say something is cruel or malicious is to assume that there is a higher conciousness that could well differentiate between primitive survival and meaningless cruelty.

But I don't believe that.  I believe that deep malice, and even schadenfreude, or pleasure in the pain of another, exists in the animal (non-human) kingdom.  I think the evidence for that is very high.  It's a common bromide to claim otherwise,  but I'm not sure how closely people have examined the evidence.  It's questionable that animals have no capacity for higher consciousness, but even if it were true,  I don't think it diminishes the reality of their malice.

BTW,  I would highly recommend reading 'The Blank Slate' by Stephen Pinker.

[Wolfgang]

quote:Originally posted by david_obsidian

It's questionable that animals have no capacity for higher consciousness,

The question we should ask ourselves is: do animal have any consciousness ?
To ask if animals have higher (or lower) consciousness is misleading.
And anyway, who decides what higher consciousness is ?
Do we agree that animals have indeed some kind of consciousness ?
And this of course leads to the question what kind of consciousness
do I have ?!

Is communication a sign of consciousness ?
I am sure most of us believe that communication between humans
and animals does take place.
When I believe it, then it should be clear that animals do
have consciousness. Why else should I communicate with something
that has no consciousness ?

May be even inate matter does have some kind of consciousness !?

But this may be a distraction from the most interesting point that
animal can seem to show maliciousness, schadenfreude, pleasure in
the pain of others ...