Do animals that are self-aware have a soul?

[nursebenjamin]

Assuming that there is such thing as a soul, would animals that are self-aware have one? Why or why not…

[AquinasD]

In terms of Scholastic philosophy, animals have material souls, simply because "the soul" is the principle of animation of any living body. This doesn't mean there is "self-awareness" as you mean, and I'm sure this doesn't help to answer the question you mean to ask, but there could be some clarification.

What do you mean by "soul?" What is "self-awareness?"

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

On self-awareness and souls in animals.

All animals, it seems, are self-aware, though to varying degrees. Pain is a measure of self-awareness, and even red wiggler's'll squirm when you jab a hook through 'em.

I tend not to consider animals as having "souls", in the religious sense, due to lack of evidence.

[McCulloch]

I agree with AquinasD, there could be some more clarification.

What is meant by soul? How is soul different from spirit? What is a material soul? Are there immaterial souls?

If the soul is the principle of animation of a living body, then would not the proper field of study to investigate questions of soul be biology, the science involved with all processes regarding living bodies?

Maybe I am particularly dull or amazingly smart, but I have no problem with the meaning of self-aware. Aware of ones self. Perhaps the difficulty comes with people thinking of self-awareness in Boolean terms rather than as a range of possible values.

[JayDeist]

To me, being alive means having a soul/spirit. Anything that is alive, has a soul. Not just the ones that are self aware. From to the tiniest insect, to the biggest animal, or the smartest human, I believe every living thing has a soul. I believe that every soul goes back to being a part of God after it is gone from this world. Don't ask me to explain this, because it is just my personal opinion. But everything in existence, that lives, is connected to each other, through their soul. And once dead, our souls become reconnected, to become one with God again.

Either that or we die, and there is nothing else.

[EduChris]

Assuming that there is such thing as a soul, would animals that are self-aware have one? Why or why not…

Humans (many of them, anyway) exhibit higher-order cognitive abilities than any animal. Animals, to my knowledge, do not ask themselves, "Do I have a soul?" That indicates to me that whatever "soul" they may have, it is nothing like a human soul. Now to generalize your question, "Is it possible that other rational, higher-order beings exist in the universe, and if so, would they have souls?" Probably they would, if such beings existed, which is doubtful. So we are left with the likelihood that humans souls are unique in the universe.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 6:

Humans (many of them, anyway) exhibit higher-order cognitive abilities than any animal.

How are you able to determine the cognitive abilities of animals with which you can't converse?

Animals, to my knowledge, do not ask themselves, "Do I have a soul?"

Which animals have you examined to determine this?

That indicates to me that whatever "soul" they may have, it is nothing like a human soul.

Have humans been shown to posses a "soul"?

Now to generalize your question, "Is it possible that other rational, higher-order beings exist in the universe, and if so, would they have souls?" Probably they would, if such beings existed, which is doubtful. So we are left with the likelihood that humans souls are unique in the universe.

Though we are unable to establish humans as actually having "souls".

[McCulloch]

To me, being alive means having a soul/spirit.

And since biology is the science of life, soul or spirit would then be the province of the biologists to study. What do biologists say about soul or spirit? What you say about soul or spirit does not help me to understand what it is you are talking about.

Anything that is alive, has a soul.

Plants too? Mold, yeast, plankton ...

I believe that every soul goes back to being a part of God after it is gone from this world. Don't ask me to explain this, because it is just my personal opinion.

Then don't post it in a public debate.

But everything in existence, that lives, is connected to each other, through their soul.

How does that work? Why do you believe this?

And once dead, our souls become reconnected, to become one with God again.

This sounds like wishful thinking. Or do you have a reason to believe this?

Either that or we die, and there is nothing else.

This option does seem the most likely.

Humans (many of them, anyway) exhibit higher-order cognitive abilities than any [other] animal. [Other] animals, to my knowledge, do not ask themselves, "Do I have a soul?" That indicates to me that whatever "soul" they may have, it is nothing like a human soul.

Other animals, to my knowledge do not ask themselves, "Do I have a reason to be happy?" That would then indicate to you the their happiness is nothing like human happiness. Right? Is it that soul is the ability to ask whether one has a soul? Or maybe soul is the ability to understand recursion.

Now to generalize your question, "Is it possible that other rational, higher-order beings exist in the universe, and if so, would they have souls?" Probably they would, if such beings existed, which is doubtful. So we are left with the likelihood that humans souls are unique in the universe.

This question is premature. Without knowing what it is we're talking about, we cannot meaningfully ask whether other entities have it. I might say that you don't have a soul or that I don't have a soul. Could you refute such an assertion? If so, how?

[EduChris]

...How are you able to determine the cognitive abilities of animals with which you can't converse?...Which animals have you examined to determine this?...

If you have evidence to overturn the prevailing scholarly consensus on this matter, please present such evidence. Otherwise, I have no choice but to dismiss your question as vapid.

...Have humans been shown to posses a "soul"?...

No, but we can't even prove that cause-and-effect is truly (ontologically) the case either; therefore, given the human condition of radical ambiguity and uncertainty, we shouldn't be too surprised if we can't empirically prove non-empirical concepts which nevertheless have longstanding relevance within human culture and tradition.

Sometimes, given the human condition of radical ambiguity and uncertainty, we simply choose the concepts which seem most fruitful in terms of their logical consequences. Obviously it is the case that reasonable people (or even unreasonable people) can disagree in such matters, and where they do, each side must assume responsibility for their respective choices.

[JayDeist]

McCulloch you present a logical fallacy everytime you bring up the fact that it is just someones opinion. Everything on this site is opinion. You can't back up any of your claims. Basically you say, everytime you post, that there is no way to know whether something is true or not. Really? Religion is a matter of belief, or disbelief. There are no absolutes that anyone can point out. So if you don't have an opinion, then just shut up and stop knocking everyone elses. Once you have an opinion, or absolute truth that you seem to want everyone else to have, then you can debate. In order to debate, both sides have to bring something to the table. All you do is come on here and call people liars, without any sound advice, or opinion on your part.