The very act of intercourse between humans and between animals is a purely
physical act. However, the human act is heavily laden with moral issues,
whereas I am sure moral issues are totally lacking amongst animals. In the
former case one has human awareness of a superior being, whereas in the
latter the act is purely physically driven. I am sure animals know, as
humans do, of punishment if caught in some forbidden act. However, the
source of punishment is totally different in humans and animals. I am sure a
chimp is not even aware of a superior being but merely fears the leader of
his clan. Moorad
----- Original Message -----
From: <tikeda@sprintmail.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Do animals ever "sin" (was something else)
> Richard Kouchoo wrote:
> [...]
> > And this is what separates us from other animals. There is a huge
> > gulf between humans and animals in terms of _results_ of actions
> > and meditative abilities. The young monkey would perceive 'interesting'
> > results from his harassment of the adult but he would not be able to
> > post-meditate his actions in terms of Good and Evil. Hence he cannot
sin!
> [...]
>
> I'm not convinced that chimps lack capabilities for pre- or post-
> meditative thought. I recall hearing about a case where a lower-ranking
> chimp male that had just copulated with another female tried to hide
> its erections from the male leader of the group. It clearly knew that
> it had done something "wrong" (within the context of the group) and
> could be punished if the behavior was discovered. It also knew that
> there was evidence that could expose its infraction. Finally, it
> knew how to cover up the evidence, albeit somewhat comically. In
> species where success in navigating social interactions is the key
> to survival, I do think that the ability to weigh the consequences
> of actions in more than a "stimulus -> response mode" can arise.
>
> I agree that there is a gulf (perhaps large) between adult humans and
> chimps in the relative ability to contemplate actions and their
> consequences. However, I'm not so sure whether that gap is quite so
> wide between human infants/toddlers (up to about 2 years old) and
> chimps. With respect to understanding the consequences of one's
> actions, the overlap with some humans suggests that either chimps can
> indeed sin like some humans, or that most young or mentally impaired
> humans cannot sin. Of course, if "sin" is defined exclusively within
> the confines of a _particular_ relationship between say, humans and a
> god, in contrast to a set of operational criteria based on behavior
> alone, then one could claim that animals cannot sin whereas infants
> can. The same applies to the questions of what organisms might posses
> souls, or even which individuals _within_ a species might lack souls (or
> be capable of sin).
>
> Regards,
> Tim Ikeda
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 05 2002 - 13:13:05 EST