You are describing a preference...and a momentary one.
The animal could just as easily have attacked you. And the next time it might.
Perhaps, but I'll bet a lot of human beings have NOT done a lot of bad things precisely because they believe that there is a "divine disciplinarian" looking over their shoulder, and not solely due to genetically inherited "instincts".
I believe morality can be sourced to the survivability of individuals and the survivability of the various systems they identify themselves with. What to do and not to do and when, in terms of survivability and viability is as much a spiritual pursuit as it is a conscious/ethical/legal effort. Believing morality is something that can be derived consciously, or even logically, is a mistake. The inherent complexities of the world we live in are beyond conscious comprehension.
God is described by many cultures as a conscious manifestation of ultimate authority; omnipotent and omnipresent. Our perception of God occurs and is formulated regardless of whether or not God actually exists. Our perception of evil occurs when we sense an affront to our perception of God. Evil validates that we sense God's existence but does not prove God exists. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of faith?
This is a fascinating article. I really enjoyed reading it and thinking about it.
That's because God created the animals too. ;-)
Humans are the ultimate predator...
Predators are not known for mercy.
“This is a mistake many religious people make - assuming that ethics and morality must be based in religion. Why? Ethics, morality and the concept of fair play are based in empathy, a quality that even some animals apparently share.”
No, we are basing morality on God, not “religion.” Your own belief is a blind faith assumption in itself. You have arbitrarily picked one animal behavior and called it a ‘foundation’ for morality, but we could just as easily cite opposite behaviors in the animal world. As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati pointed out in his refutation of Bishop Spong, saying that homosexual behavior in animals justifies homosexual behavior in humans, would require that we also approve of woman killing and eating their spouses, just like some spiders do!
Studying the animal world (nature) only tells us what nature *is*, not what it *ought to be*. There is no way to make the jump from science (what the world is) to moral standards (what the world ought to be) without relying on something transcendant; that is, something not sourced in merely the material world.
Sorry, empathy is not strong enough to beat the baser emotions like fear, greed, lust, envy, jealousy, etc. A society can run quite a long time with a social code that is non-empathetic -- that allows and legalizes much immorality, much non-fair play.
There have been many such -- even MOST societies organized under potentates or legal codes had fatal flaws, morality-wise, fair-play wise. They can last a long time, but not forever.
Perhaps animals display empathy, perhaps not, regardless they certainly don't display ethics, morality, or fair play.
Besides, your assertion that those things are based on empathy has no support that I've ever seen. On what do you base your opinion?
Having brought this highest (for now) order created animal into existence, there are certain instructional processes needed to perfect the new creation. If the value of free choice (to acknowledge the Creator or not as sovereign in His creation) is as we believe, self destruction must be one possibility. Don't choose that path for your spirit.
First, animals do exhibit a measure of response to others' needs, one that sometimes (very rarely, but sometimes) exhibits outside of immediate kinship structures, such as the herd or the pack. You'll occasionally have the dolphin which boosts the sinking child up to the surface of the sea, or the nanny goat which suckles an orphan puppy. (I find such examples touching and very interesting, actually.)
But --- correct me if I'm wrong--- you never see animals exhort each other to be courageous or fair, or train their young to be self-controlled, or take responsibility for the well-being of an endangered species other than their own, or find one another of their kind innocent or guilty. They can be trained by us, but they do not train themselves. To even speak thus is plainly anthropomorphism, is it not?
My thought is that animals are acting on the basis of sensation and instinct only: the mother dolphin boosts her own babies up to the surface to breathe, and will react similarly to any small, flailing mammal. The nanny goat experiences pleasure and relief when her milk is sucked (that's true of all of us mammals) and would not kick away any little creature that suckles nicely. No conscious benevolence: just relief.
Second point: you are assuming that the motivation moving the moral theist is fear of punishment from divine disciplinarian. That such an element exists cannot be denied. But far more often, the motivation is not fear, but filial piety, gratitude: thankfulness for having been brought into existence, and a desire to please God, our ultimate maker and provider.
And it is filial imitation--- telling truth as you have learned that God tells truth, working beautifully as you believe God works beautifully, loving as you understand God loves.
Anyone at all familiar with the Lives of the Saints would have seen that: not fear, but gratitude and the kind of love that casts out fear.
Which ones? There's a wide chasm between instinctively prolonging the species and discursively reasoning that there are choices to be made with various outcomes. Does the black widow reason that her mate has a right to be alive? Does the tiger play "fair" with the antelope he sneaks up on in the night? Does he leave a memorial for his prey or feel guilt in the aftermath?
If the common ape could be proven to be 99.999999% alike to a human being, it is infinitely sub-human by the fact it cannot have an emotion that responds to intellect. That is the origin of empathy. Not protecting the brood or nuzzling with a mate. An animal, insect, etc., cannot apprehend the emotion or condition of another as its own. A pack(?) of cheetahs doesn't share its prey because they decide to share. They share it because if they don't, the cheetah next to them will kill them to get what it needs to survive.
Compassion is not the same thing as acting under fear of punishment by some divine disciplinarian looking over your shoulder.
Who said they're the same? Acting under fear of punishment is anxiety. Some are rightfully anxious because they persist in sin and know it. Others simply have weak faith. Most of us fall into category one, which leads to category two. No one is compelled but to love God and his neighbor. Anything short of that results in the rightful fear of punishment from the constant good that resists evil - whether its corporal punishment of the law, or spiritual (and accidentally corporal) punishment of God.
you are explaining the “hey were all just a bunch of animals anyway” crap. Hey a man is a bear is a pig....riiiight? and all are morally equal...riiiight? BS!
Animals do not care one second to cut in line in front of others to satisfy their needs. But ask any human if it this is acceptable and nearly all will say it is not. Man has a higher moral law than the animals.
When cutting in line, and confronted, nearly every time, the person committing the offense does NOT declare that the unwritten "it is rude to cut in line" law is wrong, but always defends why in that particular instance it was permissible for them to violate the law. In essence, they have declared the law to exist, but have stated that they are exempt from obeying it for a particular reason. In that method of defense and by implication, they declare that the law is good.
So too with liars, adulterers, coveter's, murderers (in thought and deed) etc. For in the animal realm these laws are violated constantly, without conscience. Only in man are these laws which we hold to be truee and noble. And the law doesnot come from governemnt (ecept murder), but form somewhere else...and that "somehwere" did not give that law to the animals.
So if we are just like the animals, why do we feel compelled to obey a moral law that they do not feel compelled to obey?
Your moral relativism is not well thought out! We are no more like the critters than your arguement was well thought out.