Animal Empathy
“Nonhuman animals are amazing beings. Daily we’re learning more and more about their fascinating cognitive abilities, emotional capacities and moral lives.” – Dr. Mark Bekoff
One of the most complex and integral emotions is empathy, the ability to understand and share the feelings of those around us. Humans display empathy toward other humans and animals alike. Do animals do the same? Research points to yes.
https://online.uwa.edu/news/empathy-in-animals/#:~:text=Animals display empathy toward humans,harm at their own expense.
Just as empathy is vital for human relations, so too could empathy be critical for other social animals, and there is a compelling body of behavioral research to support this.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-new-brain/202103/do-animals-feel-empathy
“Pets show love by being excited to see us, by greeting us, by vocalizing in ways that show us they’re excited to see us, by spending time with us and seeking us out to be with us,” said Margaret Gruen, an assistant professor of behavioral medicine in NC State’s College of Veterinary Medicine.
https://news.ncsu.edu/2019/02/how-do-pets-show-love/
ElCid said:Again this is stup!d. You confuse instinct by anthropomorphizing the behavior of animals. How can animals display "love" when you say it's just chemical reactions? Only people are capable of rational thought and emotion. So you're no better than AN ANIMAL based on your own reckoning that is why it really really sucks to be you logitext.logitext said:Will? Love and empathy is based on free will?
Animals display love and empathy. Do they have free will?
To love you need freedom to choose. It is not love when it is chemically induced - it is drugs. It is stup!d reasoning on your part. So when you told your wife you love her and when you said I DO - it was just the chemicals and it is no different from the love of rat to another rat. It really sucks to be you logitext
On the other hand, animals are without spiritual capacities of intellect and free will.
https://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2015/08/carmelite-sisters-the-difference-between-humans-and-animals/
So who's being stupid here: you, your church or science? I'd rather believes its just you, Amigo.
0
Comments
-
You are the one being stup!d here. You deny free will which makes LOVE a possibility and claim it at the same time for rats. Do rats have free will logitext? How can you call it love when for you it's just chemical reaction? This is simply stup!d on your part. Why don't you place your head in between the jaws of a crocodile and find out if they have empathy?
Why can't you tell your own family that the love you have for them is no different from the love that RATS have for their own and that it is chemically induced? And why claim this chemical reaction as EMPATHY? Just plain stup!d logitext. You deny humans the capacity to choose - free will and CLAIM that the good we do is chemically induced
. How can there then be MORALITY let alone LOVE in that BULLSH!T POV? It really sucks to be you logitext.
Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
For Catholics, LOVE is the impetus behind MORAL ACTIONS. It is therefore stup!d to talk about morality which involves freedom of choice (will) and claim it for animals which do not have it. So are you now arguing that animals have free will and can choose between good and evil? But this runs counter to your argument that "good acts" is generally caused by a chemical reaction and "evil acts" is the lack of a certain chemical. So you aren't making any sense - as usual. You are a very confused person logitext
. Have some more of that OxyTOXIN BULLSH!T injected into your brain. That's the only reason why you are GOOD lol. It is certainly not by your own CHOICE since you deny free will. Just plain stup!d. 0 -
ElCid said:You are the one being stup!d here. You deny free will which makes LOVE a possibility and claim it at the same time for rats. Do rats have free will logitext? How can you call it love when for you it's just chemical reaction? This is simply stup!d on your part. Why don't you place your head in between the jaws of a crocodile and find out if they have empathy?
Why can't you tell your own family that the love you have for them is no different from the love that RATS have for their own and that it is chemically induced? And why claim this chemical reaction as EMPATHY? Just plain stup!d logitext. You deny humans the capacity to choose - free will and CLAIM that the good we do is chemically induced. How can there then be MORALITY let alone LOVE in that BULLSH!T POV? It really sucks to be you logitext.
Amigo, rats protect their young. Unlike some people out there who ABUSE & MURDER their very own children.
SOMETIMES ANIMALS ARE BETTER THAN PEOPLE.
ElCid said:
Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
For Catholics, LOVE is the impetus behind MORAL ACTIONS. It is therefore stup!d to talk about morality which involves freedom of choice (will) and claim it for animals which do not have it. So are you now arguing that animals have free will and can choose between good and evil? But this runs counter to your argument that "good acts" is generally caused by a chemical reaction and "evil acts" is the lack of a certain chemical. So you aren't making any sense - as usual. You are a very confused person logitext . Have some more of that OxyTOXIN BULLSH!T injected into your brain. That's the only reason why you are GOOD lol. It is certainly not by your own CHOICE since you deny free will. Just plain stup!d.
I am simply showing the scientific findings that some animals do have emotions, empathy and are capable of love.
Do you agree?
DO
YOU
AGREE
WITH
SCIENCE?0 -
Can you put your head between the jaws of a crocodile to prove that the crocodile has empathy, love and morality to prove your claim? Do you believe in science and moreso with common sense? Can you put your money where your mouth is? Don't you know that the nature of science is provisional? You are so pathetic logitext. Do animals have free will logitext to enable them to love? Do you know that LOVE REQUIRES A CHOICE AND FREEDOM TO CHOOSE? It's kind of pathetic that a moral life for you is not a choice that you make - it's just a freaking chemical reaction in your brain. That is why it sucks to be you logitext. 0
-
ElCid said:Can you put your head between the jaws of a crocodile to prove that the crocodile has empathy, love and morality to prove your claim? Do you believe in science and moreso with common sense? Can you put your money where your mouth is? Don't you know that the nature of science is provisional? You are so pathetic logitext. Do animals have free will logitext to enable them to love? Do you know that LOVE REQUIRES A CHOICE AND FREEDOM TO CHOOSE? It's kind of pathetic that a moral life for you is not a choice that you make - it's just a freaking chemical reaction in your brain. That is why it sucks to be you logitext.
Amigo, do you feel empathy on a mosquito you squashed? On the fish you eat? No. Thats because EMPATHY PRIMARILY WORKS ON YOUR OWN FAMILY, then on your own tribe, then on your own species. So while a lion will have no mercy on you, it will love its own offspring.
Got it?
0 -
ElCid said:You do not know the difference between instinct and emotion since you are a very confused individual. And how can that be love if it is caused by a chemical reaction in the brain? You're so full of bullsh!t logitext.
Stick with the topic. Animal empathy.
Is that love or not?0 -
ElCid said:It's instinct.
Correct:
The instinctive version of empathy is the most basic, and it’s shared across species.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/brain-waves/201712/the-two-channels-empathy#:~:text=Hugging is one way to show empathy.&text=In other words, the empathy,and it's shared across species.
Yes we can:ElCid said:You can't get into the brain of the animal logitext.
In recent years, neuroscientists have begun to identify the neural circuits of empathy in experiments on animals—for example, by using brain imaging to trace brain circuits that are activated in rodents and monkeys while behaving in situations that demonstrate the ability to respond empathetically to another animal’s emotions.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-new-brain/202103/do-animals-feel-empathyElCid said:How can that be love? Love is a decision you make not a freaking drug or hormone you take.
Man and some Animals both display love.
The difference is man's ability to decide.
When love happens to you, you can decide whether to accept it or not.
Man's ability to decide can override many of our basic instincts. Agree?
0 -
Again this is another bullsh!t modification of your untenable and indefensible position about everything boiling down to chemical reactions in your brain. You make sh!t up each time you paint yourself into a corner. And you cannot know the mental state of an animal - you assume too much. Now you ADMIT that man has ability to decide after denying free will. How can you decide without free will? You're just full of bullsh!t logitext. And your admission that man has decisions to make despite your bullsh!t oxytoxin nullifies all your argumentation. IT IS MAN'S DECISION NOT YOUR FREAKING CHEMICALS THAT MATTER. You lose again logitext because you're just a RAT and you're just full of bullsh!T .
0 -
^ Scientifically 'free will' is indeed an illusion. For the simply reason that there is no place for MAGIC/supernatural in science. So brain function is all about chemistry, but with a little bit of physics (electrical signals).
For simplicity we can pretend we can "decide".0 -
The sad thing here is that you believe that animals have feelings as in loving the same way we do but deny that humans have free will.logitext said:^ Scientifically 'free will' is indeed an illusion. For the simply reason that there is no place for MAGIC/supernatural in science. So brain function is all about chemistry, but with a little bit of physics (electrical signals).
For simplicity we can pretend we can "decide". How can you get into an animals head but cannot even determine what goes on in your own head? There is no technology yet to determine the emotional and mental state of an animal.
How can you argue about morality when you don't have free will to begin with? It is stup!d to make a distinction between good and evil when it's just chemical reactions. Why hold people responsible for their actions as if they have a choice? Stup!!!d argument logitext. Without free will there is no moral responsibility.
So this discussion is not a decision on your part but a result of a chemical reaction in your brain similar to what happens to a rat's brain That is why it's so easy to refute you since what happens in your brain is no different from what happens in a rat's brain. It's just like arguing with a rat
You flip flop from one position to the other:logitext said:
The difference is man's ability to decide.
This is just one post apart:logitext said:
For simplicity we can pretend we can "decide".You just make sh!t up obviously. I wonder what kind of bullsh!t you will come up with later on
0 -
Some animals have feelings. A scientific and observable FACT. Its not a belief.
We partially recognize the fact that some mental states or conditions cannot be held responsible:ElCid said:
Why hold people responsible for their actions as if they have a choice? Stup!!!d argument logitext. Without free will there is no moral responsibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_criminal_responsibility
0 -
logitext said:You construe reaction to stimuli as "feelings". That is stup!d logitext. This is anthropomorphism on your part. Nobody could tell how really an animal "feels". You are not even sure how you feel since what you experience are just chemical reactions so stop claiming these things since you don't believe in them anyway.
Some animals have feelings. A scientific and observable FACT. Its not a belief.logitext said:You make bullsh!t as you go along as usual. It's really amazing.
We partially recognize the fact that some mental states or conditions cannot be held responsible: If there is no "choice" then there is no moral accountability. In your bullsh!t world people cannot be held responsible for their actions since they don't actually have a choice since they don't have free will. And obviously you do not understand the issue since you flip flop from one extreme to the other:logitext said:
The difference is man's ability to decide.
This is just one post apart:logitext said:
For simplicity we can pretend we can "decide".You just make sh!t up obviously and contradict even yourself
. I find the kind of volume of bullsh!t you are capable of making very amusing 
0 -
ElCid said:logitext said:You construe reaction to stimuli as "feelings". That is stup!d logitext. This is anthropomorphism on your part. Nobody could tell how really an animal "feels". You are not even sure how you feel since what you experience are just chemical reactions so stop claiming these things since you don't believe in them anyway.
Some animals have feelings. A scientific and observable FACT. Its not a belief. apparently you dont really know what "anthropomorphism" is. Here:
Saying the fact that a Fox has 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose and mouth, LIKE HUMANS....thats not anthropomorphism
Saying the fact that a Fox cares for its young, LIKE HUMANS....thats not anthropomorphism
YOU ARE WELCOMEElCid said:
If there is no "choice" then there is no moral accountability.
Exactly. That is why there is little accountability in child offenders, and none in the insane.
For the rest, we need to ignore science because we need to set proper deterrents to crime. For now. Perhaps in the future we can afford to send criminals for rehabilitation instead of prisons.
0 -
Again this is stup!dity. You are really a funny guylogitext said: apparently you dont really know what "anthropomorphism" is. Here:
Saying the fact that a Fox has 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose and mouth, LIKE HUMANS....thats not anthropomorphism
Saying the fact that a Fox cares for its young, LIKE HUMANS....thats not anthropomorphism
YOU ARE WELCOME. I am of course referring to anthropomorphism in SCIENCE not in literature. You are so pathetic and your celebration is premature. Let me again educate you:Anthropomorphism in science
It is a human characteristic to assign human emotion and behaviour to other living creatures. Yet anthropocentrism may well have ‘infected' microbiology and misdirected research.
It is a common characteristic of our species to assign human emotion and behaviour to other creatures and even inanimate objects—just ask any car owner. Common examples of such anthropomorphisms involve animals and pets, especially dogs and cats. These domesticated species are sometimes considered to behave like us and think like us, becoming pseudo-human.
But one thing I could agree with you is that a RAT and YOU have so many things in common since you behave so much like a RAT and vice versa
The problem is as usual, you make the exception and fringe as the rule. And now again you modify your stand and agree with what I have been saying all along: that if what you're saying is correct, then we shouldn't be sending people to prisons but instead rehabilitate them and send them to hospitals instead. But that isn't the case since people do make decisions unlike you whose thought processes are just a product of a chemical reaction just like what happens in a rat's brain. People aren't rats and like you logitext - they are people. That's the difference.logitext said:
Exactly. That is why there is little accountability in child offenders, and none in the insane.
For the rest, we need to ignore science because we need to set proper deterrents to crime. For now. Perhaps in the future we can afford to send criminals for rehabilitation instead of prisons.
0 -
We are talking about science. Microbiology is a science. The comprehension problem is on your part since your example is LITERARY APPLICATIONlogitext said:
Amigo, microbiology does not cover higher forms of animals like dogs and birds. While bacterias dont have feelings, mammals and birds do.
Please work on your comprehension skills.. Another stup!d bullsh!t argument on your part . Please work on your comprehension skills. And this is the observation of the author:It is a common characteristic of our species to assign human emotion and behaviour to other creatures and even inanimate objects—just ask any car owner. Common examples of such anthropomorphisms involve animals and pets, especially dogs and cats. These domesticated species are sometimes considered to behave like us and think like us, becoming pseudo-human.
And the author was particularly talking about Anthropomorphism in science and not in literature. So kindly educate yourself. You are behaving more and more like a RAT with very minimal intelligence
Obviously you have comprehension problems aside from your psychopathic tendencies
0
Welcome to PinoyExchange!
Forums
- 4.5K All Categories
- 27.1K PEx Sports
- 56.7K PEx Local Entertainment
- 30.4K PEx International Entertainment
- 41.7K PEx Lifestyle
- 26.8K PEx Hobbies
- 64.1K PEx News and Tech
- PEx Business and Careers
- 44.5K PEx Family and Society
- 25.3K PEx Relationships
- 13.1K PEx Chat
- 29.5K PEx Campus
- 32.3K PEx Classifieds
- 703 PEx Community
