Animalistic Behaviour - Essay Example

Beast: A Value Judgment Beast: A Value Judgment Goes Here al Affiliation Goes Here This paper explores the use of animals as descriptions or values of man. The primary investigation focuses on the term "Beast" as it relates to a value judgment of noble or savage. Animalistic behaviour will be explored as well as its relationship to theology. The object of this paper is not to find facts but to explore human's relationships with animals and how humans take on animalist identities as descriptors of perceived behaviour, value systems, strengths or weaknesses. Introduction Animals as descriptions of behaviours have a long history. Every day You can hear references to animals and their perceived behaviours such as in the old adage "March roars in like a lion and goes out like a lamb". Animals have been used as totems by Native Americans who are given a strong totem, such as an eagle or mountain lion, to protect them. Sports teams use animals as mascots to imply strength (Detroit Tigers). Countries even use mascots such as Great Britain, who uses the symbol of the bulldog to imply tenacity. And, the Bible says that "Jesus is also known as "The Lion of the tribe of Judah" (Revelation 5:5). A theological study of the use of animals to describe human behaviours or moral standing finds that animals are used throughout biblical history. The serpent of Genesis is the first representation of something other than human interacting with someone human. Eve was tempted by the evil serpent and then became evil herself when she then tempted Adam. The dreaded "Beast" of Revelation (the last book of the New Testament) ends the Bible. There are approximately one hundred twenty different animals mentioned in the Bible (Hammond). Animals are treated different culturally as well. In India the cow is a holy animal because of the Hindu belief that cows are descendents of Lord Krishna. Another Hindu belief is that cows are the mother of all civilizations (Nature Magazine). Cows are cared for carefully and gently moved aside if someone needs to move past them. Other cultures embrace animal images and attributes. In Greece and Rome cats were kept as pets because they symbolized liberty. Egyptians kept cats because they were considered sacred. Aborigines of Australia have the wildcat as their totem. China and Japan share the fear that cats are associated with witchery. Throughout the world animals and their images are a part of people's lives and cultures. There is also a belief in some countries that human-animal hybrids exist (like the werewolf and vampire) and are evil and can cause harm to humans. This type of belief is passed on from one generation to another and is perpetuated in movies and books. Although animals are powerful and sometimes dangerous man has created an us vs. them attitude that puts animals in their place because they are just not human. Man is superior to animal regardless of the animal's physical attributes. The idea that humans have ethical "wills" that animals just don't have is widely accepted. Despite all the possible positive attributes that animals have they are not "human" thus they are subordinate to humans. How animals are represented Animals are represented both positively and negatively throughout history. "Your room is a pigsty!" or "you're eating like a pig" insinuates that pigs are dirty, messy animals. "He runs like a gazelle" means he runs fast. "Dog-faced" means you're ugly while "cute as a kitten" means you are very cute. "I'm hungry like a wolf" asserts that you are very hungry! Animals are represented as powerful but subhuman. In our own language animals are addressed as "that" in writing vs. she/he. For example if the trash cans were knocked over the owner might ask "who" did that" if he thought a person did it, or "what did that" if he thought an animal was responsible. Our culture treats people as subjective and animals as objective.(Noske) Because animals are subordinate to humans there is the assumption that humans are responsible for them. That they should be cared for. To some extent that is probably true especially when it comes to any animal that is specifically breed to be docile and subordinate (dogs and cats for example). Some animals are hard-wired to do what is required to survive. For example, it is well known that wolves make terrible pets because their instinct to kill is hard to overcome. They are designed to live in the wild without intervention by humans. Dogs, on the other hand, are bred to be docile and serve the needs of man. Some have been bred to herd and protect cattle while others are bred to be showy pets. Dogs, unlike wolves, would not do well if left to their own devices. Their instinct (for the most part) to kill has been bred out of them. According to the Bible "A good man takes care of his animals, but wicked men are cruel to theirs." (Proverbs 12:10). Beasts The word "Beast" is used in the King James Version (KJV) of the bible 180 times in 157 verses (KJV English Concordance). Most mentions of the word "beast" are used as a general term referring to anything that was not human or not named specifically. This usage of "beast" in no way conveys a value judgment on the animals or those tending them but gives a general term for talking about animals. These beasts are these people's livelihood; they depend on them for their very survival. From this paragraph the conclusion can be made that the term "beast" does not convey a negative value judgment in this case. Revelations (KJV) negative usage of the word "beast" is used in the bible to describe everything we don't want to be. The "beast" used in Revelations (KJV) is not the same type of usage as the previous general usage referring to animals that people tend to for their survival. The beasts in Revelations are ones that can be talked to with understanding. This is a totally different usage of "beast". The beasts in Revelations are described in detail. They speak and can be understood, they oftentimes look like animals that are familiar, and they often appear as a combination of several animals (chimeras). One beast had seven heads and ten horns (KJV). Readers of this text are warned against following and worshipping the Beast. Consequences are laid out with descriptions of the beasts. Basically, if you see this, don't worship this, stay faithful to God is the impression the angels give the reader. The beasts in the Old Testament (KJV) are simply animals called by one collective name while the beasts in Revelations have negative attributes and are to be feared. A value judgment made based on these definitions would make someone proud to be associated with the first description and ashamed to be associated the second description. What is a "value judgment" A value judgment is defined as a "judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something, based on a particular set of values or on a particular value system."1 It is also described as "an assessment that reveals more about the values of the person making the assessment than about the reality of what is assessed"2. The foregoing definitions are helpful in providing the parameters used to determine whether a particular action falls squarely within the assigned meaning, or more properly an evaluation of how a thing or object is understood in human terms. According to Georg Spielthenner, the author of the article entitled "What is a value judgment" not all utterances or statements flowing from an evaluation, whether be it fact or opinion, are value judgments. Although they may have some resemblance to a judgment, nonetheless these serve at best as pseudo value judgments which may consist of any of the following kinds: (a) Reporting Value Judgments; (b) Hypocritical Value Judgments; and the (c) Value Judgments in the Third Person3. Reporting Value Judgments is literally a reporting of some valuation like an obligation, standards, conventions or norms, as for instance where one says that "you should inform your parents whenever you go out of your house", which would appear to be a statement of a value judgment. However, taking a closer look of what transpired, there was only a reporting of a duty "to inform your parents whenever you go out of your house", each statement may be true or false and not necessarily right or wrong. Hypocritical Value Judgments are best exemplified by a husband who says that he must remain faithful to his wife and yet does not adhere to the importance and value of "faithfulness". While Value Judgments in the Third Person are described as being de facto but not value judgments for example when someone says "Mary would not approve of your idea". The statement makes reference to Mary's valuation (which again may be true or false) and is also not a value judgment made by such person. Although it is not easy to identify when judgments consist of a value judgment, it is important to study the ethical theory behind the judgment. Justification of our judgments can best be done by having a clear concept of what a value judgment is. Spielthenner advances the view that when making value judgments, it is necessary that the person express his judgment as an attitude or there would be no value judgment to speak of4. The term "attitude" does not carry the same meaning of everyday usage like the way it is used in describing someone as "not possessing a professional attitude in work", but is peculiarly referenced within the context of ethical attitude as being for or against something. Apparently, value judgments compel a person to take a stand on a decisive matter that he is confronted with, or to accept or reject certain premises or proposals in resolving an issue brought before us for our determination. The subjective character of attitudes may invariably affect the outcome of a valuation, depending on whether one possesses a con-attitude (a negative attitude) or a pro-attitude (a positive attitude). In this sense, a value judgment may be said to be a biased opinion5. Nonetheless, Spielthenner instructs that "a person has an attitude towards an object if and only if she is for or against it, and we are for or against something exactly when we evaluate it. From these two premises follows that a person evaluates a thing exactly when she has an attitude towards it." Man as Beast There is this great reluctance among humans to acknowledge that they are in fact animals as well. Evidence exists that humans share a lot of characteristics that animals have. But, we are human! The human animal. Mary Midgely, a well known moral philosopher, wrote: Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature. In her book "Midgley argued that humans were more similar to animals than many social scientists then acknowledged, while animals were in many ways more sophisticated than humans." She also argued that humans could be better understood by looking at their genetic makeup (Midgley). Of course not everyone was thrilled by this idea. There was a lot of disagreement, anger, and written attacks on Midgley's works and opinions. She responded by writing The Myths We Live By (2004). She wrote: "In exposing these rhetorical attempts to turn science into a comprehensive ideology, I am not attacking science but defending it against dangerous misconstructions". The point here is that there is dialogue in support of human as animal and denying there is a relationship between the two. So, if we follow the road that Midgely has opened we can now ask another relevant question: Does man have a beast within or any beastly attributes And, is it a good or bad to have beastly qualities The answer to this question can be found in history and science. Certainly those who had anything to do with the holocaust, deathcamps, and killing of the jews (and others) were in touch with their beast within. It is hardley humane to maime and kill. Soldiers returning from war suffer from guilt for killing even though they can rationalize the killing as part of their wartime job. Many soldiers who went and saw war, came home, and found the war was still with them in the form of phobias, nightmares, and other behaviors. The beast can be found in genocide, segregation, discrimination, hate crimes, and war. Looking for the beast scientifically can be done by looking at human genes and compare them to animals. Scientists have stated that chimpanzees share 98.5% (Philipkoski) of the genes of humans. There is much debate in the scientific world about the accuraccy of the studies and their results. But, at least we can say we are 1.5% more human than a chimpanzee! Humans have been trained (for the most part) to keep the beast within. Acceptable forms of beastly behaviors are limited to sports or sporting events. Sports such as soccer, football, basketball, etcoffer the chance for humans to partake of war legally. The teams do the battling on behalf of the fans. The fans cheer their teams on boistrously but don't engage in the game themselves. The teams play on behalf of the many who cheer them on. Sometimes it does get out of hand and spills over to the fans (riots). But, for the most part sports fans have found a healthy way to battle and still remain human. The one area that causes many embarrassment to speak of is sexuality. There is no doubt that humans love their sexuality. Does having sex mean that you harbor a beastly element Animals breed but humans "make love" or "have sex". The outcome can be the same. Animals are bred because the owner desires offspring. Humans have sex to have children or for enjoyment. It seems the same. But is it Many would argue "no" because for animals sex is an act but for many humans sex requires some relationship attachment between two individuals. Freud had his ideas about human sexuality. "Indeed, in arriving at his theory of infantile sexuality, Freud assumed that children were full of desires which were, quite literally, 'beastly'" (Phillips). Freud also argued that children developed their sexuality by "recapitulating earlier phases of animal evolution." (Phillips). Freud believed humans evolved just as animals evolved to adapt to their environments. If religion is used to counter Freud's argument then the predominate belief is that we did not evolve (sexually or animalistically) but were created in His (God's) image. Adam and Eve were our forefathers (and mothers) and sex is hardly mentioned. It is interesting to note that most cultures have a creation story that includes a god like figurehead. For American Indians it is mother earth and the four traditional forces of Nature: earth, wind, fire, and water. Animals are considered God's creatures. It is interesting that sometimes animals are humanized. Dogs, for example, objective by our culture are given a subjective identity especially with children. Children will be the first to tell that "Sandy (the dog) is hungry" and the adult will answer "then feed the dog". Early on children are taught to use the subjective when referring to animals. In Steve Baker's book Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity, and Representation he gives the example of "sex beast caged" and "shake on it, old friend.(Baker, 167) "The first refers to the return to jail of a man ho had been "freed to prey on little girls" while the second refers to "Tripper the wonder dog" who saved his master" So, which one is the beast Certainly the first is the beast. Again in his book Baker uses another good example of human vs. beast. The example is of a Bangladeshi boy who suffers from a hormone deficiency that causes hair to grow all over his face. The parents refused treatment for this child based upon the fact that they wanted to continue to make money from his disfigurement. He was more valuable to the family as a Beast. Thus he was a modern day fair ground attraction (Baker, 167). Beast as Irrational, Human as rational As opposed to man a beast is any irrational animal. The study of Ontology helps explain this. According to John Sowa "The subject of ontology is the study of the categories of things that exist or may exist in some domain."(Sowa) "Genus and Differentiae. The oldest known tree diagram was drawn in the 3rd century AD by the Greek philosopher Porphyry in his commentary on Aristotle's categories. Figure 1 shows a version of the Tree of Porphyry, as it was drawn by the 13th century logician Peter of Spain. It illustrates the subcategories under Substance, which is called the supreme genus or the most general supertype." (Sowa) What is interesting about the tree diagram is the admission that animals are described as rational and irrational with human listed under rational and beasts listed under irrational. Figure 1 Noble Savage Savages are those external to human society while the beast exists within civilized society amongst us all. During the days of exploration of the Americas and beyond the explorers were convinced that they were the civilized and that there encounters with natives were encounters with savages. Before this, in early European history, among people's greatest fears was the beast within. People feared more than ever the beast within. This beast was the vampires and werewolves that people believed lived among them. Savages were well identified and could be kept separate from society but the vampires and werewolves were hard to detect and identify. We know now (or do we) that werewolves and vampires are storybook characters and nothing more. The "noble savage" myth is anthropology's oldest and most successful hoax (Ellingson). Jean-Jacques Rousseau created the myth in the mid 18th century. The myth puts forward the notion that savages are noble. This was a result of Rousseau's putting out the idea that savage life was wonderfully noble. The savage life was one that was uncorrupted by civilization. The noble savage was considered "natures gentleman" unimpeded by the training required of men in a civilized society. The noble savage is part of Rousseau's romantic philosophy. For the most part the noble savages are the Eden like cultures that existed that explorers encountered. These cultures were untouched by Christianity and other civilized ways of the European world. When exploration and colonization of Africa and the Americas took place it was not uncommon for the colonizers to kill off the native populations they met or use them as slave labor in their hunt for gold or spices. They did not deny that these peoples were human but did not equate them to Europeans and did not afford them any rights. There was always much interest in Europe when a feral child was found because it would bring up debate about beasts, savages, and what lack of contact with the civilized would turn you into a savage. Feral children were children either abandoned or who had run away. They had a limited opportunity to learn language or socials skills before being abandoned. Feral children were often raised by another animal and often behaved 100% like the animal they lived with. Feral children are hard to rehabilitate if they were abandoned while very young. The legend of Remus and Romulus who were raised by a she-wolf is a good example in literature of feral children. "Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage. He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests are involved - that about sums it up. I'm interested in the brutal and violent nature of man because it's a true picture of him. And any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably doomed to failure" (Kubrick) CONCLUSION: This paper has examined various aspects of humanity and its relationship with animals. The focus is primarily on the value judgments made throughout the years when it comes to judging people . Examination showed that people (humans) believe themselves superior to animals so much so that our language has adapted to being subjective when speaking to another person and objective when speaking of an animal. Animals have played an integral part in the development of the modern human race. Animals have functioned as companions, helpers, food, and workers for the benefit of man. Because of this animal descriptions are often placed on humans to convey a value judgment such as: "your room is a pigsty" that means that the room is a mess and gives the impression that pig's home is a messy one. Animals in the Bible were examined (KJV) and it was found that, for the most part, animals in the Old Testament we referred to as beast as a generic name to refer to all the animals used by people. This use of beast has no negative connotation. In the New Testament Beast was used as a negative connotation in Revelations (KJV). Animals are treated differently by different cultures throughout the world. Animals have special meanings and hold different statuses within these different cultures. Dogs in Korea are considered food while dogs in the United States are considered pets. Some cultures believe in human-animal hybrids such as werewolves and vampires. Because animals are subordinate to humans it is assumed that humans have the responsibility to care for their animals. Animals specifically bred to be pets require care because the animal kill instinct has been bred out of them. They are no-longer hardwired to kill to survive. A value judgment is when the rightness or wrongness of something is determined. Value judgments have been made throughout history that beasts are evil, and that savages are subhuman. The judgment made can only be as good as the person making the judgment. A value judgment can be as simple as someone declaring they are for or against something. People take a position or stand on issues based upon value judgments. There has always been much debate as to whether man is an animal. Scientific and philosophical research has shown that we are more animal than not. We share 98.5% of our genes with chimpanzees. Midgley argued that we are more like animals and in some instances animals were more sophisticated than humans. The beast within man is evident based upon man's past acts. Certainly the holocaust, hate crimes, racism, and perpetuation of war shows the beast within revealed. There is a lot of good in humanity and there is also a lot of bad (Beast). Humans have adapted to holding the beast within by conveying loyalty to sports team. The sports teams actually battle and are cheered on by their loyal fans. The idea of the noble savage was created and perpetuated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It is anthropology's most successful hoax. Exploration and colonization of new lands meant subjugation or murder of aboriginal peoples. These people were seen as savages and were used as slave labour or killed. There will always be interest in human vs animal discussions. Feral children keep the man or beast question on the table. What also keeps the discussion alive is the argument that because man has "will" and animals do not. References American Psychological Association (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Baker, Steve. Picturing The Beast: Animals, Identity, and Representation. University of Illinois Press. 1993. Nature. Holy Cow. Hinduism's Sacred Animal. Aired Sunday December 3rd, 2006. PBS. Retrieved 2007-03-07. < http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/holycow/hinduism.html> Hammond, Peter. PHD. Frontline Fellowship. Animals in the Bible. Retrieved 2007-03-09 http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/animals.htm King James Version of the Holy Bible. KJV English Concordance. Blue Letter Bible. Retrieved 2007-03-10. < http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.plhr=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eliyah.com%2Flexicon.html&icon=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eliyah.com%2Fbackto.gift&textcolor=000000&linkcolor=0000FF&vlinkcolor=A000FF&show_strongs=yes&word=beast> Answers.com. Value Judgment. Retrieved 2007-03-10. < http://www.answers.com/topic/value-judgment> Spielthenner, Georg. SORITES. What is a Value Judgment. Issue 16 December 2005. Retrieved 2007-03-10. http://www.sorites.org/Issue_16/spielthe.htm Midgely, Mary. Beast And Man: The Roots of Human Nature (1978; revised edition 1995) Routledge ISBN 0-415-28987-4 Midgely, Mary. Myths We Live By (2003) Routledge ISBN 0-415-34077-2 Philipkoski, Kristen. Wired News. You Can't Make a Monkey Out of me!. March 4th 2003. Retrieved 2007-03-10.< http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,57892,00.html> Phillips, Adam. Taming the Beast. The Beast in the Nursery. Richard Webster. Retrieved 2007-03-10 < http://www.richardwebster.net/tamingthebeast.html> Noske, Barbara. Humans and Other Animals. January 1989.Pluto PR Sowa, John F. (1993c) "Relating diagrams to logic," in G. Mineau, B. Moulin, & J. F. Sowa eds., Conceptual Graphs for Knowledge Representation, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993. Retrieved 2007-03-11http://www.jfsowa.com/bib.htm#NS Ellingson, Ter. The Myth of The Noble Savage. University of Washington. Retrieved 2007-03-11. http://faculty.washington.edu/ellingsn/Noble_Savage.html Kubrick, Stanley (2001). Stanley Kubrick: Interviews. University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 1-57806-297-7 Read More