CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
9
Yes No
Debate Score:19
Arguments:22
Total Votes:20
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (9)
 
 No (8)

Debate Creator

xMathFanx(1742) pic



Are Dogs Naturally Morally Superior to Human Beings?

Are Dogs Naturally Morally Superior to Human Beings?

Yes

Side Score: 10
VS.

No

Side Score: 9
2 points

My dog says he’s better than your dog.

Side: Yes
1 point

They sniff each others' arses when they meet, no matter which gender, or whether friend or foe. Yep

Side: Yes

Yes. Similar to babies, dogs have no intrinsic sense of good and evil or "the greater good".

Side: Yes
1 point

Unlike humans, dogs do not feel biased to love those they have DNA ties to over those they don't.

This makes them automatically morally superior to racists, sexists and nepotists.

This is why when you take the children away from the mother, she doesn't mind and neither do the children.

Not all non-human animals lack family ties. Elephants and cows (and all descendants of the Manatee) have extreme family ties, superior even to that of primates. There is no animal even close to them in the sadness felt when you take their young and this is a primary reason why vegans oppose even the milk trade. Cows physically cry and show sadness when you take their calves and the sadness lasts for as long as their memory is (so not that long to us but very long to them).

Side: Yes
1 point

I don't think dogs are moral creatures, so the question may as well be "are stones morally superior to human beings?" Stones and dogs are morally neutral.

So to answer the question; it depends if the human being is on the good or bad side of morality, assuming such a thing exists. If a human is bad on the whole then the dog is superior, if a human is good on the whole, then they are superior to the dog.

I do not know how to measure if somebody is good or bad on the whole.

Side: Yes
xMathFanx(1742) Clarified
1 point

@Mack

I don't think dogs are moral creatures, so the question may as well be "are stones morally superior to human beings?" Stones and dogs are morally neutral.

Other mammals are very different than rocks. Yes, both are collections of molecules, though dogs have highly advanced nervous systems with brains that are clear quite intelligent (not human level, but still very aware of their surroundings, others, etc.).

Do you stick to this comparison?

Side: Yes
Mack(534) Clarified
2 points

Sure they have many differences from rocks, but the point I was attempting to make was that a dog doesn't understand the concept of right and wrong any more than a stone does.

Side: Yes
2 points

Dogs dont have morals, they act according to their instincts .

Side: No
AlofRI(2805) Clarified
1 point

Now THAT sounds exactly like a few human beings here on CD.

I HAVE known dogs that had naturally superior morals to THEM. (and better instincts) :-)

Side: Yes
1 point

Well. Yes and No. Their loyalty is unquestionable but they are animals. If left to their own devices they would allow their elders to die once they couldn't fend for themselves, even a rotten tooth would cause one to leave the pack to die since they couldn't eat, and any young who are less than prime would be destroyed after birth. There are great qualities to dogs that would benefit humans for sure but morally superior? I'd have to lean towards no.

Side: No
1 point

Some dogs are nasty , vicious brutes and a good match for several of life’s brutes , I think cats would be a far better example as they are mostly zen like creatures who exude an aura of chill

Side: No
Mingiwuwu(1481) Disputed
1 point

They are conditioned to be that way by selectively breeding the most naturally aggressive amongst the males with the most energetic amongst the females and then raising the offspring to be aggressive by only feeding them when they bite other dogs (this is genuinely how they are conditioned) if they really make their siblings bleed, you give them a nice treat.

Humans make fighter dogs what they are.

Side: Yes
Dermot(5453) Disputed
1 point

So what ? They’re still vicious brutes and do you not think the same applies to humans as in conditioned by society ?

Side: No
1 point

Something is only moral or “good” when it has the choice in a moral decision. Without the capacity to be morally “bad” there’s no such thing as an act of moral good.

Side: No