Right. Here we go. This is going to have to be a long one, and I'm quite tired and slightly ill, so we'll see if I can stay conscious for the duration. It might have to be a multi-post post, if you see what I mean.
Before I go on with the main thrust, a brief point - I'm not having you paint me as some kind of hardcore determinist, nor as an animal rights activist. I'm in favour of being nice to animals, but, on a philosophical level, I don't think it makes any sense to talk about non-human animals having rights. It's obviously true that the human brain is extraordinarily - probably uniquely - plastic, in the scientific sense. It's also obviously true that, despite the extremely short time we've had to evolve from our common ancestor with the other great apes and the relatively tiny genetic differences between us and them, the degree to which we are capable of using learning and reasoning to adapt, extend and, in some cases, thoroughly reconfigure our conceptual and behavioural responses to the world makes us unlike any other animal. However, to quote a Darwinist who shall remain nameless, uniqueness is not unique. Most forms of life on Earth are unique in some way or another. We are not, in my view, imbued with some kind of vital spark entirely lacking from any other living creature, and we would do well to remember that we all eat, shit and breathe.
OK. I've made it this far. Good.
You say "I turn your instict arguement around - if kindness is instinctive then WHY do crocodiles or spiders eat their own young? Oh and i also refer you to cannabalism of people even in this contry and even in the 21st century."I'm a touch surprised you consider that an argument, to be honest. Different animals can clearly have different instincts. Why do sheep, or barnacles, not behave like spiders? Are they, like us, supremely cognitive beings, free from the shackles of genetically-encoded behaviour? Of course not - they're just a very different kind of animal, in lots of ways that are so obvious I can only assume I don't need to point them out. Oh very well then, if you insist: they are different sizes and shapes; they live in very different places; their bodies work very differently; they occupy completely different ecological niches; they are prey to a very different set of potential problems for their instinctive repertoire of behaviour to get them through. As for the cannibalism argument, I challenge you to provide me with real evidence that humans have ever been significant part of the diet of other humans on anything like a large scale, either in space or in time. When it occurs, it is usually something to do with violence or belief in magic, both of which I would argue are instinct-based (to different degrees) human responses which, if we really were devoid of innate concepts, we'd have done away with by now. I'd say the same for sexual jealousy and same-sex competitiveness, the latter of which I can't help but feel we're both displaying to some extent in this argument, albeit with a genuinely civilised and educated veneer and, one hopes, to some purpose.
I know chimps are bastards. I recently said so on someone else's status (we were discussing dolphins' habit of gang-raping females not always even of the same species). They're also rather nice sometimes.They're a bit like us in that respect. Also like us, they tend to be nicer to those who are more closely-related, less in direct competition and more in a position to confer some kind of social or genetic advantage to them than to others. Coincidence, or instinct?
Of course animals often (but not always) leave their sick and deformed to die. What else are they supposed to do? Go to a clinic? Take antibiotics? Get some wheelchairs and cover the rainforest with ramps? Most animals spend most of their time rather closer to the reality of a life-or-death existence than we do, and, like soldiers escaping from the enemy, are liable to leave behind those who would otherwise endanger the lives of the rest of the group. To be fair, many human societies have a much more robust view of, say, infant death than we do, particularly if you look back through recent history. Anyway, if you've never heard of animals looking after their sick, sharing food even with individuals who don't produce or procure it, or mourning their dead, well, just google it. Lots and lots of animals give up their lives to save others, for the same very good sociogenetic reasons most people do it.
I assume you know what a syllogism is. Here's the one you were just guilty of: you assert that, if behaviour (a) is instinctive and behaviour (b) is instinctive, (a) and (b) must be the same behaviour. You thereby deduce that, if behaviour (a) and behaviour (b) are different and (a) is known to be instinctive, (b) cannot be. This, as I hope I have shown, is a false deduction. You used this argument to assert both that, since we don't behave like spiders, we can't be acting on instinct and that the prevalence of human unkindness proves that kindness cannot be instinctive. To this second point, I'd say simply that it's easily possible (and very common) for an animal to have a range of different ways of behaving towards others of the same species, depending on the situation and the individual or group concerned.
It's half past three in the morning. Shit. Before I go, I'll respond to something you said in a previous post: books can, in some cases, be more useful than individual papers because, when what you are trying to do is bring together a variety of evidence from different areas to suggest an overall way of looking at a phenomenon that has greater predictive and explanatory power than others (in other words, a theory), no individual paper has the breadth or depth required. If Darwin had just published his research and not written On The Origin Of Species, I don't think most people would have drawn the intended (and, it turns out, correct) conclusion.
I'll also say this: when I say a behaviour is instinctive, I'm not saying that it's absolutely set in stone by our genes and there's nothing we can do about it. The aforementioned plasticity of out brains means we can do an awful lot more about it than any other animal. That, however, isn't to say it isn't there. You ask why there is war and violence? So do I. Why is there? Why, for that matter, do I shout at, and often want to hit, my computer when it goes wrong, even though I know perfectly well that that's not how you fix faulty computers? I say violence is instinctive, and I say that as one who has, as a result of conscious decision, never committed an act of physical violence as an adult. I reiterate: just because a behaviour is instinctive, that doesn't mean it's all you ever do.
