-
Not Synced
Yes, I still have a little food for thought, which ame to my mind
-
Not Synced
with this topic, and I viewed some youtube
-
Not Synced
videos and one of these videos I have seen
-
Not Synced
was the philosopher Daniel Danett, who told
-
Not Synced
that neurobilogists expressed the theory that
-
Not Synced
there is no free will in humans. So it happened
-
Not Synced
that we made progress in brain research and
-
Not Synced
I do not want to enter the details now.
-
Not Synced
Anyway, by new techniques of neuro-imaging
-
Not Synced
many things today can be seen.
-
Not Synced
How new connections in the brain are built
-
Not Synced
and so on, and from all these new findings they
-
Not Synced
they tried to find
-
Not Synced
the free will and did not
-
Not Synced
find it, and by this they concluded:
-
Not Synced
Free will does not exist, it is
-
Not Synced
an illusion. Then the philosopher claimed
-
Not Synced
thet from his point of view this is false.
-
Not Synced
I myself see it the same way,
-
Not Synced
there is something like free will and
-
Not Synced
if we can not prove it with our means of investigation
-
Not Synced
this does not mean that it does not exist.
-
Not Synced
This only means that our means of investigation are
-
Not Synced
not sufficient to find it,
-
Not Synced
but the conclusion I consider to be false
-
Not Synced
What do I want to say? The question is:
-
Not Synced
you can define by the free will whether
-
Not Synced
humans really have character,
-
Not Synced
that they are persons and so on and
-
Not Synced
similar I want to do this for animals.
-
Not Synced
The question, whether an animal is a person
-
Not Synced
or has a character. I do not want to
-
Not Synced
lump this together. With this you can also
-
Not Synced
answer, whether an animal has a free
-
Not Synced
will or not.
-
Not Synced
Following new results of the neurobiologists,
-
Not Synced
neither animal nor man has
-
Not Synced
a free will and this classification is
-
Not Synced
futile following
-
Not Synced
these findings.
-
Not Synced
Somewhen I chatted with a pal
-
Not Synced
abot the topic: Which person is most close
-
Not Synced
to you?
-
Not Synced
And I said: My rat.
-
Not Synced
Then he said: I would not see
-
Not Synced
the rat as a person.
-
Not Synced
Then I began to think whether
-
Not Synced
some humans see animals as
-
Not Synced
persons and some don't.
-
Not Synced
What is the reason for this difference?
-
Not Synced
Do we need this distinction, and why?
-
Not Synced
Last christmas, this is now
-
Not Synced
about a month ago, I came a little closer to
-
Not Synced
the solution. My grandma told that she
-
Not Synced
has problems with mice in the
-
Not Synced
barn , because they built a net
-
Not Synced
somewhere during the winter, so she
-
Not Synced
put toxic bait there to master this
-
Not Synced
problem.
-
Not Synced
And for me, who is living
-
Not Synced
with rats this sonded like:
-
Not Synced
You could say, in the barn a homeless
-
Not Synced
has moved in
-
Not Synced
to shelter from the cold,
-
Not Synced
and of course
-
Not Synced
I had to poison him.
-
Not Synced
When I tell this I see someone
-
Not Synced
is already laughing.
-
Not Synced
Told this way it
-
Not Synced
sounds very cruel. Without further thinking
-
Not Synced
making cold who is only looking
-
Not Synced
for a little warmth.
-
Not Synced
On the other hand: If it is about
-
Not Synced
an animal, it is somehow normal.
-
Not Synced
Especially an animal you are
-
Not Synced
used to poison like mice.
-
Not Synced
That's the way it is.
-
Not Synced
The I realized:
-
Not Synced
If I have two behaviours
-
Not Synced
which are identical, where only the
-
Not Synced
victim is different, suddenly one behaviour is
-
Not Synced
cruel, and the other behaviour is more
-
Not Synced
or less normal.
-
Not Synced
There is a contradiction in this.
-
Not Synced
My grandma is a lovely person
-
Not Synced
and I would not say she defines herself
-
Not Synced
by the cruelness she
-
Not Synced
causes these animals.
-
Not Synced
For her this is simply
-
Not Synced
something that has to be done.
-
Not Synced
Apart of this, she is one
-
Not Synced
of the nicest persons ever.
-
Not Synced
Then it came to my mind:
-
Not Synced
Could it be that we have to
-
Not Synced
make the distinction that animals are
-
Not Synced
something different than we are,
-
Not Synced
or no persons, or of less value, so that
-
Not Synced
we can mask our own cruelness?
-
Not Synced
If we say we are cruel to some
-
Not Synced
and very kind to others, this does not
-
Not Synced
sound consistent.
-
Not Synced
But when we say one is of another
-
Not Synced
category than the other, and are
-
Not Synced
applying double standards, then we
-
Not Synced
can integrate
-
Not Synced
our behaviours.
-
Not Synced
It might be that someone does
-
Not Synced
something cruel on the one hand and
-
Not Synced
is a nice person
-
Not Synced
on the other hand.
-
Not Synced
The more I thought about it,
-
Not Synced
the more I ralized
-
Not Synced
that this scheme is to
-
Not Synced
be found
-
Not Synced
all over the world.
-
Not Synced
For example in economy.
-
Not Synced
We live in an economical
-
Not Synced
very good land, but on
-
Not Synced
the costs of countries in the third world.
-
Not Synced
But we do not realize
-
Not Synced
this, we fade out that we
-
Not Synced
inflict atrocities
-
Not Synced
for our
-
Not Synced
good life.
-
Not Synced
We have the mechanism of suppression
-
Not Synced
which enables
-
Not Synced
for us a good life.
-
Not Synced
The mechanism makes us
-
Not Synced
miss the
-
Not Synced
consquences of our actions.
-
Not Synced
Then the question came to me:
-
Not Synced
Might it be that we classify
-
Not Synced
many animals as of low value
-
Not Synced
to appease our consciousnesses,
-
Not Synced
not to be force to live with the
-
Not Synced
cruelness we
-
Not Synced
do to the world.
-
Not Synced
With this thought
-
Not Synced
I want to close
-
Not Synced
Thank you
-
Not Synced
Dr. Buschmann out of the off: This is
-
Not Synced
called cognitive dissonance, a
-
Not Synced
known phenomenon in man.
-
Not Synced
For example there are simultaneoulsy
-
Not Synced
animals as source of food in factory
-
Not Synced
farms and on the
-
Not Synced
other hand a
-
Not Synced
pet dog, which is no
-
Not Synced
match. A divergence of
-
Not Synced
reasonings which
-
Not Synced
are not comaptible, simply
-
Not Synced
to appease the consciousness to be able
-
Not Synced
to better live with this.
-
Not Synced
The same scheme you can find in speciism,
-
Not Synced
racism, group building, in economical
-
Not Synced
and cultural differences. This is very widespread.
-
Not Synced
Thank you for the expert's addition.
-
Not Synced
For me it was the moment
-
Not Synced
I realized this contrast.
-
Not Synced
Thank you