Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?

[Town Heretic]

All of which takes me back to Blake's poem:

Tiger, tiger burning bright
In the forests of the night
Wish I may, wish I might
Have the wish I wish tonight...

Or am I confusing separate subjects?
Well, that seems about right then.

 

[noguru]

Is it so hard to concede that lower animals will be moved or provoked do something just because the opportunity presents itself?

No. The point I was trying to make is that opportunity in itself is no reason to do anything. There has to be motive first. If there is no motive the opportunity will be missed.

Why is it so hard for some of Us to concede that fact? Is the love for lower animals and beasts blinding our supposed objective judgment? Or maybe we don’t even care to be objective? After all, MOM is sure that many in here are aware of some people who are like that.

I am not sure what this has to do with anything. Are you saying we should judge lower animals by human standards?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Yes... in the brain of the animal a decision is made to attack that is obvious. Animals are not puppets being moved around by invisible forces (unless they are Calvinist animals). So yes there is some reason, some type of trigger for any attack.

Opportunity is not an invisible force. It is actually quite visible and recognizable.

When I said "no reason" I suppose I should have said "no good reason", but even that doesn't seem exactly right.

Good is subjective and is therefore modified or affected by the personal views, experiences, and backgrounds of each person or object. What to you may be a “no good” reason, may actually be a very good reason to the lower animals and beasts. In fact, through their personal views, experiences, and backgrounds, lower animals and beasts have come to see attacking because of opportunity as a very good reason. That is their reality.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Well if you look back at some of my previous posts, you can see that animals attack for one or both of two reasons; out of hunger, or out of self defense. Generally an animal kept in a zoo is fed well enough so that no attacks are the result of hunger. That is if they have competent biologists that know how much to feed them. That really leaves only self-defense as the "trigger" for such attacks. Now understanding what threatens an animal is a bit more complex than knowing how much to feed it.

So are you saying that unless threatened, a well fed lower animal or beast is of no threat to humans? In other words, with the removal of hunger as a reason, a lower animal or beast will not be moved to attack unless it concludes that it is being threatened?

The conclusion: Just keep a lower animal or beast well fed and don’t appear to be a threat and it will not attack.

Noguru, is this what you are trying to say?

 

[noguru]

So are you saying that unless threatened, a well fed lower animal or beast is of no threat to humans? In other words, with the removal of hunger as a reason, a lower animal or beast will not be moved to attack unless it concludes that it is being threatened?

The conclusion: Just keep a lower animal or beast well fed and don’t appear to be a threat and it will not attack.

Noguru, is this what you are trying to say?

Generally that is true. But since even lower animals have an individualized makeup any prediction of what might threaten an animal is not universal. There is also the alpha response (partly genetic, partly learned) to stimuli which will make an animal even more aggressive. That is why behavioral biologist play close attention to visual signs of aggression (raised hair on their backs, certain body posturing...). I use to keep many trout in aquariums. From close observation I became very keen on recognizing these visual clues of aggression. When they were defensive/offensive (showing signs that they were about to fight for the alpha position) I knew I had to seperate the trout involved. With lower animals like mammals there is still quite a bit of learned behavior. Hence dogs can be trained for certain duties or for fighting. All of these activities are just a release of instinctual drives.

Think of it like this. Each individual animal has an individual genetic makeup. This genetic makeup produces a phenotype based on that genetic plan. However the phenotype and the resulting behaviors can be affected by environment and training to a certain degree. At any rate, it is difficult to predict how a wild animal might react to certain stimuli. But there are certain guidelines that can be helpful.

In the case of the tiger, it may have been predisposed due to its genetic makeup towards aggression (moreso than most tigers). However, the behavior that those intoxicated youths displayed was certainly not designed to make the tiger feel unthreatened.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I don't agree that there are only 2 reasons as to why an animal attacks.

Well, it looks like we might actually agree on something.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Anger is simply self-defense (or in the case of parenting it is discipline).

How? How do you automatically equate anger with self-defense?

Attacks out of boredom and play are manifestations of the instinctual drive behind either self-defense or hunger. It is obvious when an animal is being playful out of boredom. There are specific aggressive signs that are not displayed.

Okay, and so what causes or leads to the manifestation of these instinctual drives? In other words, what leads these lower animals and beasts to show the behaviors that are used for hunger and self-defense when A) they are not hungry and B) they are not under attack?

Secondly, do you believe that it is boredom that leads to these behaviors?
And if it is, do you believe that the tiger was simply bored and was trying to play with the people that it attacked?

Thirdly, what specific aggressive signs are you speaking of?

Animals with a simpler nervous system like fish and reptiles very rarely if ever attack out of play. That is a behavior that is distinct to mammals and perhaps some birds. Although there is also some newer research that points to cephalopods (octopus, squid...) exhibiting similar behavior.
Also you should be careful not to anthromorphisize animal behavior too much. These latest cartoon movies that give animals the same array of emotions that humans have is misleading.

So, are you saying that you believe that lower animals and beasts have no emotions or human characteristics?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Oh geez.......

Whatever happened in this scenario the tiger is free from blame, it doesn't need 'defending' and nor would any other animal in this situation

How? How is the tiger “free from blame?” Was it not just responsible for killing someone and mauling others? How does that work? Why are you so insistent on absolving the tiger?

'anthropomorphising' human attributes to an animal in the 'real world' is ridiculous, that much is true whether the human victims were guilty of behaving like drunken louts or not,

Aren’t you yourself guilty of ascribing human characteristics to the tiger. Are you not the one who described the tiger as “innocent?” And so, if the tiger is “innocent,” then aren’t you ascribing a human quality to it ?
Red in Post # 110

That being said the tiger is innocent no matter how the scenario played out, it's a wild animal and can't be held to some set of moral values regardless......

Animals are not subject to some moral code, if they were we'd be able to prosecute black widow spiders for 'quick' divorces plus cannibalism along with the audacity to bite human beings unfortunate enough to be in their space....

Well, if animals are not subject to some moral code, then why is the tiger not alive?

Secondly, why is the black widow generally killed when it bites human beings? In fact, why are they generally killed when they are found in homes? How about rats?

 

[noguru]

How? How do you automatically equate anger with self-defense?

It is based on the fight or flight mechanism. Which is one of the most basic animal behaviors in regard to self-preservation. An animal sizes up any possible threat to its life and decides whether to run or fight. To stay and fight the animal does its best in regard to defending its ground by appearing to be as aggressive as possible. From what I have seen animals do have basic emotions that are rudimentary outlines of more complex human emotions. What is the closest human emotion that you think best describes this aggressive and defensive stance towards another? How about the terms anger, hostility, aggression?

Okay, and so what causes or leads to the manifestation of these instinctual drives?

Certain environmental stimuli.

In other words, what leads these lower animals and beasts to show the behaviors that are used for hunger and self-defense when A) they are not hungry and B) they are not under attack?

The drive to hunt when an animal is fed by humans will manifest itself in different ways. The drive for self-defense is never lost because there is always the threat of something ending the life of that animal. Although with domesticated animals (carnivorous animals like cats and dogs) humans are viewed as part of their social unit. With wild animals this is not the case.

Secondly, do you believe that is boredom that leads to these behaviors?
And if it is, do you believe that the tiger was simply bored and was trying to play with the people that it attacked?

Boredom defintely had something to do with it. It was probably a contributing factor. I do not think that boredom alone can be seen as the tigers reason to attack. I think the behavior of those young men produced in the mind of the tiger the possibility of a threat from these three humans. The boredom or the lack of other stimuli (like hunting, more land to explore....) also magnified the impact of the three human's behavior being a factor. Plus when any animal feels confined it will instinctively become more defensive of its territory.

Thirdly, what specific aggressive signs are you speaking of?

It is different with different animals. It takes long periods of observation to get a good idea about any animals signs of aggression. For trout and many fish their is a posture where they puff out their gills, and arch their neck a little. Along with an exaggerated swimming motion. With felines as well as with canines the hair on their backs will stand up, their are also many auditory differences associated with different responses.

So, are you saying that you believe that lower animals and beasts have no emotions or human characteristics?

No, I am not saying they have no emotions. But their emotional pallet is definately less varied than ours. Or should I say they have a much more rudimentary vocabulary of emotion.

 

[lightbringer]

If the death sentence is the only answer, the person that built the wall too short should be in question, along with all the inspectors that never required it's correction.

The Tiger in question was not a domestic animal, it was a captive, even if it was never in the wild. There is a great deal of difference!

The responsibilities of managing large animals is far reaching and should never be taken lightly. Destroying the animal is a reaction by people (Oh my God he's a killer!) out of stupidity and fear.

The Tiger did, what Tigers do!

It's too bad we've lost another of Gods magnificent creatures due to our limited ability to understand and take responsibility for our actions.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Perhaps, none of which should be 'morally' applied to an animal however.....

Why? Why should boredom, anger, play, and other actions not be morally applied to an animal?

 

[noguru]

Why? Why should boredom, anger, play, and other actions not be morally applied to an animal?

How would you morally apply boredom, anger, play, to the actions of animals? Perhaps you could start a new reality show called "Animal Court". :chuckle:

 

[MindOverMatter]

Yes, I do agree that it wasn't, the biggest culprit in this scenario is human negligence from what I can see and one reason why I'm no fan of having animals in enclosed spaces (which zoos for the most part are)

How is the tiger not the biggest culprit in this scenario? Did human negligence jump out of its container and kill the young man? Did human negligence jump out of its container and maul anyone? The last time that MOM checked all of those acts were committed by the tiger: it jumped out of its container to kill a man; and it jumped out of its container to maul some people. So why is it that when you look around, everyone is trying to absolve the tiger. What in the world is going on around here? Has everyone gone bestial? :sheep:

 

[MindOverMatter]

Ahh.... evil zoos! :doh:

Well, being that evil and good are subjective, depending on your experience, the zoo is either evil or good. The tiger and its supporters may perceive the zoo as evil but others may say otherwise.

One way or another the humans are at fault. :chuckle:

Humans are partly at fault.

Liberals hate humans and love animals.

Sometimes it does appear as if most “liberals” do love animals more. There are some who claim to be conservatives who you can throw into that “loving the animals more” category.

 

[lightbringer]

Why? Why should boredom, anger, play, and other actions not be morally applied to an animal?

How is the tiger not the biggest culprit in this scenario? Did human negligence jump out of its container and kill the young man? Did human negligence jump out of its container and maul anyone? The last time that MOM checked all of those acts were committed by the tiger: it jumped out of its container to kill a man; and it jumped out of its container to maul some people. So why is it that when you look around, everyone is trying to absolve the tiger. What in the world is going on around here? Has everyone gone bestial? :sheep:

Well, being that evil and good are subjective, depending on your experience, the zoo is either evil or good. The tiger and its supporters may perceive the zoo as evil but others may say otherwise.



Humans are partly at fault. :rotfl: :noway:



Sometimes it does appear as if most “liberals” do love animals more. There are some who claim to be conservatives who you can throw into that “loving the animals more” category.

When an attempt is made at applying human emotion and reasoning to an animal I have to question the statement "Man, The reasoning creature of the world!"

MindOverMatter, please tell me you jest....:dizzy:

 

[MindOverMatter]

Has anybody attributed "morality" to the tiger in this case?

Morality doesn't exist for animals.

Morality doesn't exist for animals? So lets see: The tiger escaped from it's containment and killed somebody; secondly, it mauled some people; thirdly, it is shot dead, and we conclude that “morality doesn’t exist for animals.”

Well, evidently some sort of morality exists for the tiger because it is now dead. Evidently someone is of the mind that morality exists for the tiger.

 

[zoo22]

Ahh.... evil zoos!

:noid:

 

[Sweet Pea]

Well, being that evil and good are subjective, depending on your experience, the zoo is either evil or good. The tiger and its supporters may perceive the zoo as evil but others may say otherwise.



Humans are partly at fault.



Sometimes it does appear as if most “liberals” do love animals more. There are some who claim to be conservatives who you can throw into that “loving the animals more” category.

I don't get this. I don't "love animals more" but I do understand that they are not to be held to the same level of responsibility as humans are. They act more on instinct than we do. We have big frontal lobes that can plan our actions according to what we think is moral. They don't.

I really don't get the "humans VS animals" thing AT ALL. That some of us care for animals a great deal does not mean we value them more than humans. That some of us don't consider them just "put here by god for us", worth only for what they can do for us, does not mean that we DEvalue people. That gold is worth more than silver does not make silver worthless, kwim?

~SP

 

[MindOverMatter]

In a moral sense it can only be the humans who are at fault

In a moral sense maybe you need to study the definition for moral. >>> MORAL

MORAL: adjective: 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL *moral judgments* b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior *a moral poem* c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment *a moral obligation* e : capable of right and wrong action *a moral agent*
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL *a moral certainty*
3 : perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect *a moral victory* *moral support*

You can't blame a marrauding tiger for it's behaviour no matter what....

That is quite odd and here is why:
You are claiming that “we can’t blame a marauding tiger for its behavior no matter what” But at the same time, you have no problem blaming and punishing humans who because they are of the same mind as the tiger, behave in a manner that is similar. Or maybe you don’t believe in punishing those who are of the same mind as the tiger?

So, if we can’t blame a tiger for its behavior, then we can’t blame or punish humans who because they are of the same mind as the tiger, behave in a manner that is similar. But yet, it is done. Humans who because of belief, behave as the tiger, are held responsible for their actions. And yet you want to absolve the tiger of any wrongdoing. Is MOM missing something here?

But who erect zoos for their own entertainment? Humans.....:shocked: this has got nothing to do with your perceived branch of "liberalism" as you well know and is totally irrelevant....

And so because humans erect zoos for their own entertainment, you believe that a tiger-- or for that matter any other wild animal-- should not be held responsible for killing a human?
Red, that is quite an interesting conclusion. Now you wouldn’t happen to be a secret member of ALF?

 

[Sweet Pea]

Morality doesn't exist for animals? So lets see: The tiger escaped from it's containment and killed somebody; secondly, it mauled some people; thirdly, it is shot dead, and we conclude that “morality doesn’t exist for animals.”

Well, evidently some sort of morality exists for the tiger because it is now dead. Evidently someone is of the mind that morality exists for the tiger.

Not necessarily, MOM. I think the zoo did what it had to with regard to the tiger because they *could not* allow it to remain in that zoo or any other and risk it mauling or killing another person, and having been in captivity, it could not be released to fend for itself in the wild. I don't think the tiger made a "moral choice" to kill someone and needed to be punished for it, but I do think there really was little other choice. I consider it a tragedy all around, for the young man killed, for those injured, for their families, *and* for the tiger. I am extremely hesitant to "lay blame" anywhere here. Non-human animals cannot be "held responsible" as humans can, and while the zoo should have made the enclosure such that the tiger could not get out, those guys shouldn't have been messing with it either.

~SP