this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
67 points (100.0% liked)
Science
12963 readers
12 users here now
Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
One of the reasons that I don't spend much time in online communities focused around cetaceans anymore, despite having a lifelong interest in these animals, is the rather zealous and over-the-top idealisation of orcas, especially the Southern Resident population, as being more noble and moral than humans. And, indeed, more noble and moral than other cetaceans - I once had a far too long conversation with someone who is convinced that the Southern Residents are better than all other whales and dolphins because, unlike dolphins, they don't kidnap and murder baby porpoises. So I have to admit to feeling some glee to read that the Southern Residents have been... kidnapping and murdering baby porpoises. Turns out they're not so noble and moral after all.
Orcas are amazing animals, to be sure. They are genuinely intelligent beings, and their capacity to learn new skills is both fascinating and worthy of admiration. But lets admire them for what they are: just as wickedly clever and capable of cruelty as any other animal on the planet, including humans. It does neither us nor them any good to put them up on a pedestal as somehow morally superior to us.
Well said. There's a part of me that desperately wants to know there is a true, pure species on this planet that doesn't stoop to sick levels of cruelty, but that's not reality. Bambi noms baby birds, cetaceans mutilate each other's babies, and we do the unthinkable every second of every day. Depressing, but here we are.
Most bacteria are noble and pure, they will even freely exchange DNA fragments to produce bioweapons to kill everything around... oh, right.
🤣
Quokka! They eat leaves, they have no idea about predators so are incredibly trusting and keep their babies in little pouches.
They're so sweet. The trusting part gets me. Too pure for this planet! 💛
Bees are a democracy. Sure, they treat outsiders with suspicion and can be radicalised to great violence, but they're one of the only animals on earth that eats without killing anything, not even a plant. And if they don't like their queen, they have a revolution. They're communists.
I guess maybe the species that are exclusively herbivorous. Obviously Bambi and horses and a lot of other ungulates don't qualify. But how about the humble flat periwinkle? They spend their whole lives just vibing on seaweed, which is the only thing they have the equipment to eat. They literally just wander around licking seaweed, while being bright yellow.
I could get behind this little critter.
They are remarkably inspiring for such tiny little critters.
Capybaras maybe?
I will call you Speak! Because that's what you do.
I think morality is largely a matter of frame of reference. When humans look at morality, more often than not they're not looking to completely redesign the society they live in, but to act morally within that context. There are going to be parts of that context that are more or less taken for granted, and while it may be more moral to investigate and seek to change these cultural and environmental conditions, that's not the only avenue for moral behavior.
Someone who lives in the context of their culture and does their best to help others within that context rather than by seeking to eradicate the conditions that cause the suffering may still be argued to be acting in a positive way morally. It may be that snuffing out the root cause of a particular plight is outside of their reach, while lending assistance to those who suffer from it is much more achievable. Especially if they would ostensibly support such a change, it's hard to find major fault for not setting their sights high enough or risking enough on a presumed positive outcome.
So if I were looking for moral actors in other species, I'd start by looking for instances of aberrations from more or less species-wide behaviors that lean toward the cruel side. I don't think looking to the behavior as a species as a whole is necessarily the place to start.
Frankly, I don't think that humans should typically be viewed as remotely 'moral' on a species-wide level when considering their collective behaviors. We've turned torture and oppression into a science in a way that other species don't come anywhere close to. We've created cultures that focus the entirety of their energy on consolidating power as much as humanly possible, favoring parasitizing laborers and artisans to extract as much value as possible with no regard for the creations of human hands of the needs of human bodies and minds.
The idea of a human judging any species on this planet on a moral basis is absurd.