Meadowlark > wrote in news:dceupm$ek5$1
@reader2.nmix.net:

(snip)

>> Thank you. Please forgive me if I have unwittingly mislead you.
>
> Oh, no problem. I can understand your unwillingness to discuss
> *anything* in a forum where Rudy (Jon) and Usual also post -- I
> am in the same situation myself. It's hard to imagine that
> anyone can still deny animals emotions and cognitive ability,
> after all the scientific and empirical material which has
> been published in the last twenty years or so.

Yes, and as I have pointed out, the only 'proof' that we have that another
'human' has these abilities lies in exactly the same kind of 'study of
behavior' of others, even though such 'studies' were done on an informal
basis thousands of years ago and 'language' created which allows us to
continue to 'assume' that other's feelings and motivations are the same as
our own. So to claim that our 'observing behavior' of animals is simply
'projecting' our own feelings onto animals is ludicrous.

>The argument that
> some animals have what might be regarded as rudimentary ethical/
> moral capacity is newer, but is moving into the mainstream with
> recent articles in the popular press (_Newsweek_, IIRC). This
> undercuts one of the foundations of Regan's theories, which makes
> for an interesting controversy.

>
> Quite outside animals rights _per se_, what is your opinion on
> animals as (possible) moral agents in a limited sense? What
> about the newer evidence that some parrots probably have the
> cognitive ability of a four or five year old human child? That
> chimpanzees may have some kind of an aesthetic sense? So much
> new information is showing up that the old categories into which
> this group has degenerated in recent years have become more and
> more irrelevant. I'd like to see some more useful discussion.
> However, if you are uncomfortable posting publicly on this
> newsgroup, I can certainly understand. If so, I'll return to
> Lurk mode.
>
>
Until I have had a chance to get familiar with this, I really can't comment
on it and at the present time, I probably won't be able to do anything more
than a cursory look at it because I am already heavily involved in
researching for a couple of articles on other subjects.

Thanks for your comments.

David Wright Sr.
--
There are different kinds of interpretations of history and different
schools of philosophy. All of them have contributed something to human
progress, but none of them has been able to give the world a basic
philosophy embracing the whole progress of science and establishing the
life of man upon the abiding foundation of Fact.
Alfred Korzybski, _Manhood of Humanity_(1921)