how can Animal Farm be seen as a fable even though it does not have a moral?
399309
But it DOES have a moral! The moral is that Communism does not work. Communism seems like a great idea at first, but eventually natural heirarchies evolve and the government becomes autocratic.\n\nIn Animal Farm the pigs incite a revolution against the tyrannical Farmer Jones, but by the end of the book they themselves have become the tyrants - indistinguishable from humans.\n\nMost of the characters in the book represent real individuals or organisations from the Communist Revolution in Russia. \n\nFarmer Jones is Tsar Nicholas, Old Major is Marx, Snowball is Trotsky, Napoleon is Lenin or Stalin, Squealer presents the propanda machine, the horses are the people (Boxer representing the working class Proletariats and Molly representing the aristocratic Bourgoise), the raven represents the church, the dogs represent the Red Army, and so on.
765359
animal farm was a good book about Stalin's regime and commuism. as u probably already read, not all animals were created equally. the differences showed the ability of the animals to think and their intelligence. the pigs were the most articulate and therefore the obvious leader animals of the barn animals. they could get thier piont across  and could. none of the other animals could write or read as well as the pigs. the speech made by major showed that the animals were not al equal because the pigs sat in the first row, you could see from the begining that pigs thought they were better than the other aniamls.
325151
animals didn't torture slaves and criminals, people did, they used animals to do it.  Oh lions were the main ones.
656300
Well the bible talks about Noah too--a story plagarized from the babylonian epic of Gilgamesh.  There was never enough water for a great flood, to load all the species on earth--Noah would have had to load 5 a second for 30 years.  Not enough genetic diversity, not enough water.  Point is--the story is untrue--they are fables designed for primitive people. It is not a book of science--much of it is allegorical---soo with an allegorical thought--Adam and Eve leaving the garden of eden could well be an allegorical representation of a hominid species becoming self aware.
1058199
Yea me to.  I guess because there helpless little creatures and people have a tendency to be mean.  You get to thinking they deserve it.  But cows don't shoot people or cut off their testicals.\nDeer don't shoot people they just try to run away.l\nWoW  I killed him before he could get away.  What! so that makes you a man?  You killed bambi with a high powered riffle and now your a man?  WoW  I'm impressed.  See I didn't say Butt head.  I'm getting better.
683390
The writing in the bible is one-dimensional and often immorality is portrayed as moral.\n\nMost importantly, Mr. Brown lists his book as fiction.  The Bible claims it's ludicrous stories are absolutely true.
588741
Living creatures are souls.  Animal life exhibits will all of time.  I have horses.  Sometimes they do not want to come in from the pasture.  It is fascinating to observe just how willful they really are.  Animals, though, vary in their thought processes depending on the species and their individual instincts that God gave them.  \n\nAlthough animals are living souls, they do not have individual moral responsibility to God.  It is the spirit of God's intelligent creation (angelic beings and mankind) that sets them apart from the animal kingdom.
158406
I don't know if it has a moral, exactly.  If so, it might be the line "yes there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on"...  but there are a lot of themes in the song!
1185274
I saw that docomentry called "Animal Farm", oh that was a cartoon, but still!\n\nAt least animals wouldn't pretend to fall over all of the time, might actually be a decent match for once!\n\nHe does have rather large teeth, maybe used to locate the ball, like a lateral line for a fish lol
1085413
No Gods\nOnce, flipping through a book on child psychology, I came across a chapter about adolescent rebellion. It suggested that in the first phase of a child's youthful rebellion against her parents, she may attempt to distinguish herself from them by accusing them of not living up to their own values. For example, if they taught her that kindness and consideration are important, she will accuse them of not being compassionate enough. In this case the child has not yet defined herself or her own values; she still accepts the values and ideas that her parents passed on to her, and she is only able to assert her identity inside of that framework. It is only later, when she questions the very beliefs and morals that were presented to her as gospel, that she can become a free-standing individual. \n\nI often think that we have not gotten beyond that first stage of rebellion. We criticize the actions of those in the mainstream and the effects of their society upon people and animals, we attack the ignorance and cruelty of their system, but we rarely stop to question the nature of what we all accept as "morality." Could it be that this "morality," by which we think we can judge their actions, is itself something that should be criticized? When we claim that the exploitation of animals is "morally wrong," what does that mean? Are we perhaps just accepting their values and turning these values against them, rather than creating moral standards of our own? Maybe right now you're saying to yourself "what do you mean, create moral standards of our own? Something is either morally right or it isn't-morality isn't something you can make up, it's not a matter of mere opinion." Right there, you're accepting one of the most basic tenets of the society that raised you: that right and wrong are not individual valuations, but fundamental laws of the world. This idea, a holdover from a deceased Christianity, is at the center of our civilization. If you are going to question the establishment, you should question it first! There is no such thing as good or evil. There is no universal right or wrong. There is only you... and the values you choose for yourself. \n\nWHERE DOES THE IDEA OF "MORAL LAW" COME FROM? \n\nOnce upon a time, almost everyone believed in the existence of God. This God ruled over the world, He had absolute power over everything in it; and He had set down laws which all human beings had to obey. If they did not, they would suffer the most terrible of punishments at His hands. Naturally, most people obeyed the laws as well as they could, their fear of eternal suffering being stronger than their desire for anything forbidden. Because everyone lived according to the same laws, they could agree upon what "morality" was: it was the set of values decreed by God's laws. Thus, good and evil, right and wrong, were decided by the authority of God, which everyone accepted out of fear. One day, people began to wake up and realize that there was no such thing as God after all. There was no scientific evidence to demonstrate his existence, and few people could see any point in having faith in the irrational any longer. God pretty much disappeared from the world; nobody feared him or his punishments anymore. But a strange thing happened. Though these people had the courage to question God's existence, and even deny it to the ones who still believed in it, they didn't dare to question the morality that His laws had mandated. Perhaps it just didn't occur to them; everyone had been raised to hold the same beliefs about what was moral, and had come to speak about right and wrong in the same way, so maybe they just assumed it was obvious what was good and what was evil whether God was there to enforce it or not. Or perhaps people had become to used to living under these laws that they were afraid to even consider the possibility that the laws didn&#
302469
Well, when the Animals in 1984 got together, they overthrew the pigs who imposed rules without consideration from the farm animals.  The American revolutionaries did the same to the British monarchy for the same reasons.
650632
Studying the works of Jacques Derrida will help to clarify this for you. Essentially, deconstructionism refers to different interpretations of the same story. For example, In the story Little Red Riding Hood we are taught that RH is good and the wolf is evil. Deconstructionism would say that it's not that simple--life is not a dichotomy. We can say that RH was petulant and rebellious by straying from the path in the first place. That the wolf was just a poor, starving animal doing what he had to to survive. The grandmother was cruel in insisting that poor, defenseless RH take the dangerous journey into the woods to bring her bread, and on and on. There are multiple stories within a story, and the reader is the one who brings meaning to a story through his/her unique interpretation. If you'd like an overview of post-modernisim and deconstructionism in a nutshell, check out the children's book "The Three Pigs" by David Wiesner.
669232
I don't understand that either because I sure don't.  Animals may be less evolved than we are but they still have emotions and feelings and can show them.  To me, I would rather be around animals and appreciate them more than I do most humans!  They are more simplistic than we are and don't have the same egos we do but they are equal in every way and deserve respect, compassion and love just as we do.  They are a living breathing spirit just like we are and need to be treated as such.
879304
There is no moral compass for the Dummyrats even when they are not in control. They believe everything is morally relative. There are no black and white morals. Pretty pathetic mindset but it does clear their conscious to do whatever they feel like they want to do.
1034216
Well, it seems that part of the morality of people could be attributed to what is beneficial to the species, what will keep us going.  Kind of  a pack mentality. But what is beneficial for the species isn't always conducive to harmonious sharing of the planet.  That's where what we teach our children comes in, how to live and function as a part of society.  Morals could be seen as the grease that helps us slide through life without any major snags, like prison, being ostracized, or a painful, lonely existence.
89638
Less than a circus animal?
759776
I'm vegetarian, and i'm no extremist or anything but here's how I feel:\nKilling animals is something that humans have done for a long time. period.  I think we should stop, because we don't need to do it anymore to survive, but that hasn't always been the case.  If anyone gets all up-in-arms about killing animals in a fantasy game, they're an idiot.  That's just my opinion as a doctor.  They would be the same kind of person that would take sex out of shakespeare to make it PC.  I would kill animals for food or points in a game, and I would let my kids do it, too.