#lnannibal

lnannibal:

true-misanthropy:

Another sickening word frequently used by the human race in a completely inaccurate context is “animal”. 

People describe disorderly, violent, disgusting, evil or criminal people as “animals”. I’ll never understand this. Animals are innocent. No animal has ever killed for sadistic pleasure, no animal has ever been “evil”, and no animal has ever knowingly committed a crime. Animals do nothing but what their instincts tell them to. The only instances in which an animal is aggressive towards a human are caused by either hunger or provoking. Most animals will not attack you for entering their territories, most animals will not attack you if they are well-fed, and no animal in the world will attack you for the pleasure of seeing you die.

So why, then, do humans always refer to people they disapprove of as “animals”? No human in the world is better than an animal, according to morality, which is usually the case when people are accused of being “animals”. Every human has done something sadistic, evil or murderously careless. We as humans are capable of morality, and therefore we are the only animals able to be evil and sadistic. 

Animals cannot be in any way morally wrong or “evil”, because they do nothing but what their instincts tell them to. 

So, next time you think of calling someone an “animal”, think twice. They’re not an animal, they’re disgusting. 

The term ‘animal’ to refer to ‘disorderly, violent, disgusting, evil or criminal‘ people or acts comes from the theological concept of carnality.

“Carnal
car·nal [kahr-nl]
adjective
1. pertaining to or characterized by the flesh or the body, its passions and appetites; sensual: carnal pleasures.
2. not spiritual; merely human; temporal; worldly: a man of secular, rather carnal, leanings.

bodily, lustful, lecherous, lascivious, libidinous, concupiscent. Carnal, sensual, fleshly, animal all refer to bodily rather than rational or spiritual aspects of humans. Carnal although it may refer to the body as opposed to the spirit, often refers to sexual needs or urges: carnal cravings, attractions, satisfactions. Sensual implies a suggestion of eroticism: sensual eyes; a sensual dance;  it may also refer to experience of the senses: a sensual delight. Fleshly may refer to any physical need or appetite, sex as well as hunger and thirst: the fleshly sin of gluttony; fleshly yearnings. Animal refers to sexual appetites in a censorious way only; it may also describe pleasing or admirable physical characteristics or appearance: animal lust; to move with animal grace. 2. earthly, natural.”

It comes from the expectation of humans to live up to a universal moral code which in theological belief is superior to that of animals because it’s believed (especially in the Abrahamic religions) that humans are the only life-form which have souls, therefore can distinguish right from wrong and have the capacity to adhere to a prescribed moral law.
Non-naturalism.

This means abstaining from desires which specifically pleasure your senses, your body, your material conditions, and outbursts of destructiveness (such as the acts of violence you were referring to) which according to theistic moral law are bad because they are desires of physical, ‘worldly’ origins, rather than ‘spiritual’ and pertaining to God.

OP,
"Animals cannot be in any way morally wrong or “evil”, because they do nothing but what their instincts tell them to.”
Are you a theist? because you seem to separate human from animal along the lines of moralistic principles despite humans being merely another organic sentient species walking the planet.

If God, souls, and all that supernatural crap stuff does not exist, and it’s just us alone in the natural universe, then who’s to say that humans also do not but what our evolutionary instinct tells us? whether these instincts be altrusitic or barbarous.

But here is a conundrum: If atheism is correct, whatis right and wrong?
Is there even such thing?
Metaethics studies the macro concept of morality with scientific/non-theistic bias, if you are interested in learning more.

(I am not a moral nihilist, but it’s certainly interesting to study)

I believe that animals do not have the capacity of morality in that they do not know anything more than their instincts. I am not a theist, and don’t believe in “souls”, but the term is simply used to mean “conscience” in all cultures, which I do believe in. 
I have never seen nor heard of an animal attacking another simply because it wants to see it die. There is always a cause, be it illness, hunger or provocation. Humans frequently do things for sadistic pleasure, and it is everyone’s belief that humans are of a “higher level” of intelligence than the other organisms on Earth. This “higher level” is conscience – the capability of creating and “understanding” right from wrong. Since we are capable of this and I believe animals are not, only humans can be “evil”, because only we understand that we are doing “wrong” when we are sadistic.

Referring to your point on carnality, that still does not explain why nor how animalistic behaviours are more vile than human ones. Both animals and humans have bodily urges, but animals do not have bodily urges to kill for pleasure. Humans do, because humans are capable of sadism. Bodily urges are not wrong, but sadistic ones are, and only humans are capable of that.

Of course it is not my place to say what is “wrong” or “right”, but neither is it any human’s. Morality is based on personal views, but I think every creature on the Earth, were it able to understand humanity’s crimes, would agree that what humans are doing is wrong. 

Humans do not simply do what instincts tell them to because we are capable of free will and conscience. Since we can tell “right” from “wrong”, this gives us the ability to choose what we do. Our instincts do not guide us in the way animal ones do. They are still there, of course, but no sane human’s instinct tells them to kill for pleasure, and we do it anyway. 

As far as we can tell, animals do nothing but follow their instincts. They can learn and choose to take different routes, of course, – animals are not stupid – but in the end, the different routes are just means of obtaining food or a mate. No animal goes out of its instinct’s calling to do something for “fun”. Captive animals perform for food or out of fear, and wild animals hide, kill, eat and breed for survival purposes only. Their instincts tell them to pass on their genes. Human instincts say the same thing, but people choose not to have children. No animal makes a conscious decision to avoid breeding. 

Your first paragraph does bring me back to my original point, though. If “animal” is used to mean “non-spiritual”, why do people believe that they are “spiritual” and “good”? As I originally stated, humans are anything but good. We are not spiritually kind because we destroy, we kill, and we torture for sadistic purposes alone.
Sure, there are “nice” humans, but every human has done something sadistic or purposelessly destructive in their life, and people tend not to go out of their way to be kind, but they often go out of their way to be cruel.

Surely instinctual, animalistic behaviour is better than “spiritualism”, if that is what it entails.