From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Jun 24 2003 - 01:33:01 BST
Hi all,
I said:
>Tarzan was an ape. He was not human. He was raised by apes and
> socialized into ape culture. The idea that the author tried to put forth
> about this noble born baby being so well bred that he could take his place
> in English society even though he was raised in the most savage way
> imaginable is a bunch of BS. If you met Tarzan in the jungle, you would
> recognize his body as human, but you would not have the sense that you were
> interacting with a person because he would not have a human personality,
> instead he would have an ape personality. He would be a very intelligent
> ape, but he would have an ape personality nonetheless.
Steve:
I wanted to add another thought I had connected to the previous thought
about Tarzan. As a dog owner, I train my dog to behave himself around
people. He is to a certain extent socialized into human culture. (It is
important to note that dogs are very often socialized to a greater degree
than many homo sapiens. My dog is less likely than I am to do violence to a
human for example.) Like most pet owners, I see my dog as having a
personality and I've come to see it as a split personality. He has a dog
personality that is apparent when I watch him interact with other dogs at
the dog park in a dog culture that includes rituals such as butt sniffing
and establishing a dominance hierarchy. This dog personality and most of
"dog culture" seem to me to instinctual behavior (latched through DNA)
rather than social (latched through copying the behavior of other dogs).
But he also has a human personality that is a requirement for existing in
human society. Let me emphasize that I'm not one of the dog owners that
doesn't know how to draw the line between dog and human. I consciously do
not anthropomorphize him and ascribe complex psychology and motives to him
that he is not intellectually capable of having. Some people have even
accused me of treating my dog cruelly at times while I know that my dog will
not interpret circumstances in the human way in which such treatment would
indeed be cruel. But while I realize fully that he is a dog and not a
person, I have come to understand that he has been socialized into human
culture to an extent and thus has a human personality to a degree.
To me this explains why it feels immoral to eat a dog. In many cultures
dogs are eaten, but in America such a practice is repugnant. Why? Because
in the US, dogs are people too. We don't merely coexist with them or raise
them. We live with them. They are members of our families. Of course
they are far from fully human, but having socialized dogs into human
culture, to eat a dog is akin to murder, even cannibalism. In other
countries where such socialization does not take place, there is no moral
problem with eating dogs.
As an important aside, before accepting defining humanity as dependent on
being socialized into human culture, recognize that a big consequence of
this way of defining humanity is that new born babies are also far from
fully human which sheds a lot of light on the abortion debate (an issue even
more controversial that eating dogs!)
Anti-abortion folks want to draw a biological line in defining humanity, but
this reductionist view seems opposed to the MOQ in my book and relies upon
defining humanity and a species of animal in the exact same way.
Thanks,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 24 2003 - 01:33:10 BST