|
|
|
In Cicero’s On Obligations, he makes the case that the distinction between man and beast is that man is capable of rational thought while common animals are not. Though some may be inclined to argue that animals are capable of rational thought, it is apparent to any individual with knowledge of behavioral psychology that learning via operant conditioning and following instincts and hardwired patterns of behavior does not indicate the presence of rational thought.
Scientifically, even the most advanced of the mammals, the primates, often only have the mental capacity of a two- to three-year-old child, and cannot advance beyond that. As we are well aware, a three-year-old child possesses only the most rudimentary beginnings of rational thought. Much of a child’s behavior is determined by what they are observing and learning from the world around them. In this sense, the animal is not unlike a human child—they operate mainly on instinct and what they have acquired via basic conditioning.
It would be an insult to humans to insinuate that animals are capable of our style of high-level rational thought. What may come off as rational thought in animals is the result of basic conditioning. For example—a domesticated dog is being taught to not urinate in the house. Every time he urinates in the house, he is punished with a smack on the rump; when he urinates in the yard, the appropriate place to do so, he is rewarded with a cookie. In a few months, the dog no longer urinates in the house, and has even learned to bark when he needs to go outside. To some, this would be indicative of rational thought—the dog processes the consequences of the given behaviors, and chooses the behavior which best meets the needs of both the dog and his owners. In truth, there is not much processing to be done. The dog’s simple brain associates pain with urinating in the house, and tasty food with urinating outside. The dog is operating on a basic, instinctual level—seek that which is good, and avoid that which is bad. Another example would be Pavlov’s experiment in which he taught dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell by teaching them to associate the sound of the bell with food. When the bell was rung by itself, the dogs would still salivate, as though there were food being served to them, though it soon became quite apparent there was no food involved. Were these animals capable of rational thought, they would have realized after a couple of rings of the bell, that there was going to be no food given to them, and would have searched for food elsewhere.
Though I have only provided a few examples, I personally would be able to come up with many more as an indication that animals are, quite honestly, completely incapable of rational thought. To suggest that most animals, from the lowliest of insects to the largest, most impressive whales and land mammals, are as rational and able to think as critically as human beings is absurd and rather naïve—it gives far too much credit to animals, whose brains are not as biologically advanced as ours.
 fragile_lolita · Fri Sep 08, 2006 @ 06:26am · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
