Basic HTML Version
February 1972
what it meant? Animals have been
known to sacrifice their lives for their
young or to run off cliffs en masse, but
these events did not involve a cognizant
decision to forever cease to exist.
At the other end of the freewill
spectrum is the capability for
self·
control-
self-control for its
oum
sake,
without any other related reward being
considered.
Among the uniquely human phenom·
ena are suicide and self-sacrifice.
Objectively self-sacrificial behavior is
certainly oot very cace among ani–
mals. For example, aots are evec
ready to act as "heroes" in defense of
their nesu. This is, however, some–
thing quite different from human be·
haviors to which similar names are
applied: man can choose to cenounce
and
forfeit
his life for sorne "cause,"
oc
not to do so. An ant, a bird, or a
monkey defending its progeny
or
its
nest has no such freedom of choice.
In other words, human aluuism and
self·sacrifice are products of human
self-awareness, while similarly named
(oc, rather, mis·named) behaviors of
animals are reactions to certain
re·
lease stimuli. (Theodosius Dobz.han–
sky)
Free will is a unique, human-level
experience.
Capacity for
W
ísdom
Do animals have wisdom? The mate·
rialist would answer "yes" - and tben
offer the following experiment as his
proof. "Animals can be conditioned to
choose quinine (an unpleasant stimu–
lus) instead of sugar water (a pleasant
stimulus) after learniog to associate the
sugar water with a painful shock ( an
unpleasant reward) and the quinine
with a sexually receptive female (a most
pleasant reward)."
And that, to the materialist, is
supposed to be rudimentary "wisdom."
But it's actually the involuntary trans–
ference of drive-satisfying stimuli to
o~her
stimuli. Nothing more. There is
no discernment of what is
"Right"
or
"Good"
or
"Fair"
-
that capacity
belongs exclusively to man.
Wisdom implicitly requires the con–
sideration of
other peopie's welfare
in
the decision - without
any
surrep·
titious plan or ulterior motive for "kick–
back welfare" to "the self." Animals
can
oniy
consider (what they do not
even know as) "the self." They are not
concerned with any other animal's wel·
fare - except as it would produce a
directly beneficial result for themselves.
So- do animals have wisdom? No!
Th~
PLAIN TRUTH
Obsessíotl for W orshíp
The
worship
of a "higher reality" has
characterized every human society. This
worship has, more often than not, been
irrational. But that's irrelevant for the
present purpose. It is likewise irrelevant
whether the
desire
to worship has been
due to heredity or environment.
The point is that animals
don'J
wor·
ship. And man does. Every known
human society has been characterized by
sorne form of worship directed toward
47
Higher Purposes
The word "purpose" allows for many
interpretatioos. Animals have "pur·
pose"
in
that they search for food,
desire to mate, avoid bodily pain, pro–
tect their young and strive for every
creature comfort. These same "pur·
poses" in life epitomize the struggles of
the human cace.
But, in man, these need not be so.
Animals have no choice. Human beings
do.
Sorirko Solomon
Man aspires to reach the slars, but will he take with him the wisdom and se(f.
control that are needed lo govern such a vast domain?
a "higher" leve! of existence. This does
not mean that every human being in
each society has "believed." As far as
the individual is concerned, the choice
is open. But no choice is open for ani·
mals. Animals don't worship.
Now an animal
does
exhibit a fervent
respect for a group leader or will per–
manently follow its mother (the "im·
printing pbenomenon"). But in all
cases,
ther~
exists a
ta1zgible
object
which draws the animal's subservience.
Man, though often
ming
tangible
objects, looks to a higher source of
power wbich defies investigation by the
physical senses. Whether or not this
"higher reality" - this non-tangible
object of worship -
really
exists is
presently inconsequential.
It
does
exist
in the human mind - and it
does not
exist
in the animal brain.
U
ltímate Capacity for Love
Love,
properly defined, is a selfless,
outgoing concern for others. Human
beings have the potential - though
rarely expressed - of attaining it:
merey without self-gain, compassion
without guile, charity without self–
righteousness.
Animals are surely attracted to
"things," but this attraction is simply a
self-centered craving for, and associ–
ation with, their compulsive needs such
as maternal instinct, sex, food, atten–
tion, etc. This is the direct
opposite
of
outgoing love.
The fact that man can even com–
prehend the
possibility
of selRess love is
remarkable in itself - and unequivo·
cally sets us apart from the animal
kingdom. O
(To be continued)