Moorad wrote:
> I am sure that in God's scheme of things, the laws that govern human
> behavior is more associated with the notion of sin than the laws that
> govern animal behavior. Humans, according to Scripture, were created
> in the image of God and as such can offend God with their actions. I
> am sure that is not the case with animals. Moorad
Yes, that idea is more in line with a religious concept of "sin" that is
defined by a revelatory social contract with a "higher power" as opposed
to being defined operationally by observable behavior. While chimps (eg.
Pan troglodytes in my earlier example), may lie, cheat & steal, they don't
"sin". In contrast, those acts could be considered "sinful" in humans
(& possibly in children and those with mental impairments as well).
And I'm happy to work under such a definition. I just think it's important
to note that if one defines "sin" in such a manner (i.e. divine fiat) there
is little reason to diminish the evidence that other species may exhibit
capabilities and behaviors somewhat similar to our own (e.g. planning, social
calculation & etc.). I know that you, Moorad, don't do this but I've read
other posts in this thread that lean that way. That an animal cannot "sin"
doesn't mean that it cannot think ahead, feel distressed or happy, or try to
calculate its optimal place within a social group. And just because we aren't
necessarily "special" or unique within the animal kingdom in ways we once
thought doesn't necessarily have any bearing on supernatural moral contracts.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 05 2002 - 16:45:28 EST