Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz
We live to survive, eat, and reproduce. We just tend not to realize that.
|
That is the first thing people have to understand before thinking about this question. Humans are just smarter animals in comparison to all the other animals on this planet. My use of the word "smarter" was intentional. For all our "intelligence" approximately 85% of us are barely above the level of animals. This sounds controversial until you realize that most of humanity is so dumb that they don't understand the statement you made and never will.
And when I say "comprehend" I referring to the depth of that statement. The 85% have no clue that most of their actions that contribute to the above 3 categories are driven more by their emotions, biology and instinct then the so called "intelligence" that we give our species credit for having. If they did, the world would be a much better place to live in. This leads me back to the question the OP asked.
Animals are not noble by human definition. Very few of them have any altruistic capabilities. Conversely, very few of them go out of their way to needlessly make any other living being suffer. Animals are the closest thing to being morally neutral as you can get. On the other hand humans are a perfectly horrible mix of our innate biological desires/instincts that animals possess coupled with a bit of intelligence. We have just enough intelligence as a species to know we are better then animals in terms of capabilities; yet we are too stupid to realize how horrible of a species we are even when judged by our own moral standards.
So animals are not noble by any standard. However, when judged from the moral standard of "causing an untold amount of mass suffering, torture, destruction and pain" for reasons that do not involve the survival of their own species; animals are leagues above humans. Its not even a fair comparison because we are the worst in that category by a wide margin.