• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do animals have a sense of purpose?

JC Callender

JC Callender

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
6,477
Reaction score
3,270
Location
Metro Detroit
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I was at a grocery store today and noticed a small tank crammed with live lobsters and wondered if they're suffering, as in they have a sense of purpose that keeps them content and they're not doing that. I'd like to think that they don't care one way or another whether they're in the ocean or the tank but find it hard to believe that their only purpose is to eventually be eaten. Do they and other animals have a purpose and does fulfilling that purpose keep them more content than if they weren't fulfilling their purpose?
 
JC Callender said:
I was at a grocery store today and noticed a small tank crammed with live lobsters and wondered if they're suffering, as in they have a sense of purpose that keeps them content and they're not doing that. I'd like to think that they don't care one way or another whether they're in the ocean or the tank but find it hard to believe that their only purpose is to eventually be eaten. Do they and other animals have a purpose and does fulfilling that purpose keep them more content than if they weren't fulfilling their purpose?
Click to expand...

I think the purpose of lobsters while not in captivity is to keep the oceans clean. They're scavengers.

All living beings have a purpose, IMO.
 
The lobsters have the same purpose as every living thing: to propagate the species.
 
Depends on what you mean by purpose.

I am an ethologist (animal behavior) by academic training.

If you mean purpose like we have purpose then the answer is no. To imply they have a sense of purpose would also imply a sense of self or self awareness and there is no evidence to support that.

If you mean purpose in the sense of living, eating, procreation and protecting their young and territory then yes. Most animal response are based on instinct. Some higher animals such as primates may do something in a purposeful way like make tools or teach their young. But this is an argument similar to the one that says do animals have complex emotions.


If you mean purpose as in Philosophy then absolutely no.
 
I think purpose is an entirely human concept.

Lobsters lack the brain capacity to think on such a level.
 
JC Callender said:
I was at a grocery store today and noticed a small tank crammed with live lobsters and wondered if they're suffering, as in they have a sense of purpose that keeps them content and they're not doing that. I'd like to think that they don't care one way or another whether they're in the ocean or the tank but find it hard to believe that their only purpose is to eventually be eaten. Do they and other animals have a purpose and does fulfilling that purpose keep them more content than if they weren't fulfilling their purpose?
Click to expand...

I would imagine that all animals have the same purposes. Those would be to survive and to reproduce. Humans are no exception. How an animal goes through life and what it does during that lifetime would depend on the sophistication and intelligence of the animal. A Chimpanzee is likely to have a more interesting life than an amoeba. But the basic purposes of surviving and reproducing shouldn't be any different.
 
wolfman24 said:
Depends on what you mean by purpose.

I am an ethologist (animal behavior) by academic training.

If you mean purpose like we have purpose then the answer is no. To imply they have a sense of purpose would also imply a sense of self or self awareness and there is no evidence to support that.

If you mean purpose in the sense of living, eating, procreation and protecting their young and territory then yes. Most animal response are based on instinct. Some higher animals such as primates may do something in a purposeful way like make tools or teach their young. But this is an argument similar to the one that says do animals have complex emotions.


If you mean purpose as in Philosophy then absolutely no.
Click to expand...

Exactly my thought on reading the topic.

A sense of purpose is a concept applied to higher life forms which have self awareness. This doesn't apply to lower life forms that have not achieved self awareness.
 
Deuce said:
I think purpose is an entirely human concept.

Lobsters lack the brain capacity to think on such a level.
Click to expand...

Do you believe it makes a difference to those lobsters whether they're in the tank or in the ocean?
 
wolfman24 said:
Depends on what you mean by purpose.

I am an ethologist (animal behavior) by academic training.

If you mean purpose like we have purpose then the answer is no. To imply they have a sense of purpose would also imply a sense of self or self awareness and there is no evidence to support that.

If you mean purpose in the sense of living, eating, procreation and protecting their young and territory then yes. Most animal response are based on instinct. Some higher animals such as primates may do something in a purposeful way like make tools or teach their young. But this is an argument similar to the one that says do animals have complex emotions.


If you mean purpose as in Philosophy then absolutely no.
Click to expand...

My family has had a couple black labrador retrievers as pets. They go out in the yard and hunt for squirrels, they dig holes, they protect us and desire our attention, etc... basically put, I feel like it would destroy a lab to put it into a cage all day, every day if for no other reason than to take away the things it desires to do, and this is what I mean by purpose. I'm assuming some animals are more advanced than others but wonder if they all have a built in thing or set of things they're meant to do and feel content doing. Does it hurt an ant to be isolated in a tiny box with no ability to build things or be around other ants? Does it harm a lobster to not do whatever work it usually does?
 
JC Callender said:
My family has had a couple black labrador retrievers as pets. They go out in the yard and hunt for squirrels, they dig holes, they protect us and desire our attention, etc... basically put, I feel like it would destroy a lab to put it into a cage all day, every day if for no other reason than to take away the things it desires to do, and this is what I mean by purpose. I'm assuming some animals are more advanced than others but wonder if they all have a built in thing or set of things they're meant to do and feel content doing. Does it hurt an ant to be isolated in a tiny box with no ability to build things or be around other ants? Does it harm a lobster to not do whatever work it usually does?
Click to expand...

I understand your point with the dogs but a major failing of humans is to apply our emotions and capabilities to animals its called anthropomorphism. It is a cardinal sin in my discipline. Your lab does what it does because of millions of years of processing of a social being. What we see in dogs, wolves and other animals with higher brain development is instinct.. Their programming (for lack of a better word) requires them to be this way. Purpose as humans understand it has nothing to do with it. As for lower forms which only have fused ganglia such as ants and lobsters they have so sense of the things you mention. they are automotons (again for lack of a better word.) Scientists have been doing experiments (non harmful) on animals to determine their capabilities and one thing that has recently come out is the higher plants have more response capability than "ganglionic" animals.

The comment about "built in set of things" is called instinct. Humans tend to equate this word with what to do but it also encompasses how to do it. This is again based on millions of years of programming. We were once very similar to that until our diet improved and we began to experiment to find better ways to do things. This resulted in a larger brain and better capabilities.
Primates show a number of these characteristics - They will try and save a member of their group, they teach their young not just show them and appear to feel grief when one of their group dies.
Pinnipeds (dolphins and porpoises) have also developed some these traits but due to their unusual habitat they are harder to see. An amazing example is that dolphins will risk their lives to save us. This was first reported in WWII in the Pacific by sailors whose ship had gone down.
it was confirmed during the 1960's by researchers working for the Navy.

For your information I spent three years working with captive wolves and one of my conclusions was that their social structure was not impaired in any way and the "pacing" that many people see is more times than not is the wolves natural instinct to move. NOW I am NOT saying that animals in zoos do not sometimes develop paranoid behaviors. They do and this includes pacing but the difference is in how they pace or how they seem to be behaving when they pace. "My" wolves showed no sign of distress or anxiety while pacing. A paranoid animal would.
 
wolfman24 said:
I understand your point with the dogs but a major failing of humans is to apply our emotions and capabilities to animals its called anthropomorphism. It is a cardinal sin in my discipline. Your lab does what it does because of millions of years of processing of a social being. What we see in dogs, wolves and other animals with higher brain development is instinct.. Their programming (for lack of a better word) requires them to be this way. Purpose as humans understand it has nothing to do with it. As for lower forms which only have fused ganglia such as ants and lobsters they have so sense of the things you mention. they are automotons (again for lack of a better word.) Scientists have been doing experiments (non harmful) on animals to determine their capabilities and one thing that has recently come out is the higher plants have more response capability than "ganglionic" animals.

The comment about "built in set of things" is called instinct. Humans tend to equate this word with what to do but it also encompasses how to do it. This is again based on millions of years of programming. We were once very similar to that until our diet improved and we began to experiment to find better ways to do things. This resulted in a larger brain and better capabilities.
Primates show a number of these characteristics - They will try and save a member of their group, they teach their young not just show them and appear to feel grief when one of their group dies.
Pinnipeds (dolphins and porpoises) have also developed some these traits but due to their unusual habitat they are harder to see. An amazing example is that dolphins will risk their lives to save us. This was first reported in WWII in the Pacific by sailors whose ship had gone down.
it was confirmed during the 1960's by researchers working for the Navy.

For your information I spent three years working with captive wolves and one of my conclusions was that their social structure was not impaired in any way and the "pacing" that many people see is more times than not is the wolves natural instinct to move. NOW I am NOT saying that animals in zoos do not sometimes develop paranoid behaviors. They do and this includes pacing but the difference is in how they pace or how they seem to be behaving when they pace. "My" wolves showed no sign of distress or anxiety while pacing. A paranoid animal would.
Click to expand...

I am going to have to disagree somewhat. Emotions are very primal , and you don't need a heck of a lot of intelligence to feel emotion. Mammals have the same common ancestor, and as such, there will be basic emotions that mammals will have in common.
 
RAMOSS said:
I am going to have to disagree somewhat. Emotions are very primal , and you don't need a heck of a lot of intelligence to feel emotion. Mammals have the same common ancestor, and as such, there will be basic emotions that mammals will have in common.
Click to expand...

Incorrect - People in my field have been doing research into this for almost a hundred years. there is a lot out on the net explaining this. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It is brain development.
Our earliest common ancestor was a rodent like creature if you want to stop there. I doubt it had emotions.

From the research done. the ability to "feel" emotions exists only in higher mammals which have a higher brain development in the area called the limbic. However, hormones have a lot to do with it as well and not all mammals have an advanced enough delivery system or brain to "demonstrate" emotions.

It is not until you reach the higher primates and perhaps pinnipeds that you will see "higher" emotions.
 
wolfman24 said:
Incorrect - People in my field have been doing research into this for almost a hundred years. there is a lot out on the net explaining this. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It is brain development.
Our earliest common ancestor was a rodent like creature if you want to stop there. I doubt it had emotions.

From the research done. the ability to "feel" emotions exists only in higher mammals which have a higher brain development in the area called the limbic. However, hormones have a lot to do with it as well and not all mammals have an advanced enough delivery system or brain to "demonstrate" emotions.

It is not until you reach the higher primates and perhaps pinnipeds that you will see "higher" emotions.
Click to expand...

who said anything about 'higher' emotions. THere are the basics. Fear, affection, anger. Those are very instinctual.
 
RAMOSS said:
who said anything about 'higher' emotions. THere are the basics. Fear, affection, anger. Those are very instinctual.
Click to expand...

No they are not. They are base emotions but not instinctive. Instinct is for lack of a better phrase an autonomic response to a certain situation or set of conditions. ALL emotions are both neurological and metabolic (hormones).
You can disagree with me all you want or stick with your idea but it is just that an idea which has no basis in science or what we know.
 
wolfman24 said:
No they are not. They are base emotions but not instinctive. Instinct is for lack of a better phrase an autonomic response to a certain situation or set of conditions. ALL emotions are both neurological and metabolic (hormones).
You can disagree with me all you want or stick with your idea but it is just that an idea which has no basis in science or what we know.
Click to expand...

This article in the journal of Animal Cognition says that Cats can interpret and understand human emotion. .. and you can't do that unless there is a corrospondence there

Man?s other best friend: domestic cats (F. silvestriscatus) and their discrimination of human emotion cues | SpringerLink
 
I don't think anyone whose ever developed a bond with an animal (as opposed to those who simply see animals as things to use) would actually think animals are without feelings and emotions.
 
X Factor said:
I don't think anyone whose ever developed a bond with an animal (as opposed to those who simply see animals as things to use) would actually think animals are without feelings and emotions.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Maybe they are not complex feelings and emotions like we experience but to deny that animals don't have them is not something I agree with.
 
americanwoman said:
Exactly. Maybe they are not complex feelings and emotions like we experience but to deny that animals don't have them is not something I agree with.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that our emotional needs are that much 'higher' than animals. I see emotional needs and instincts over riding common sense and rationality all the time.
 
RAMOSS said:
I am not sure that our emotional needs are that much 'higher' than animals. I see emotional needs and instincts over riding common sense and rationality all the time.
Click to expand...

Good point. As humans I think we tend to think of ourselves as on a higher level but if you really sit down and think about human nature sometimes, it does seem we are often not much higher.
 
americanwoman said:
Good point. As humans I think we tend to think of ourselves as on a higher level but if you really sit down and think about human nature sometimes, it does seem we are often not much higher.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many times I have seen people in relationships/marriages that obviously isn't working, and it lasts just long enough to produce a kid, and then breaks up? The urge to reproduce is strong, even if it is with someone who is inappropriate with.
 
americanwoman said:
Exactly. Maybe they are not complex feelings and emotions like we experience but to deny that animals don't have them is not something I agree with.
Click to expand...

My little dog is so expressive, there's no doubt she feels certain ways about certain things.
 
Deuce said:
I think purpose is an entirely human concept.

Lobsters lack the brain capacity to think on such a level.
Click to expand...

You wouldnt be saying that if you speak their language.
 
JC Callender said:
Do you believe it makes a difference to those lobsters whether they're in the tank or in the ocean?
Click to expand...

On some level they will react to the differing stimuli in a different fashion, but I wouldn't say it makes a difference to them.

It can be hard for an intelligent creature like ourselves to imagine the concept of an animal that doesn't really think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom