Animal Cruelty - Why should we care?

[RandFan]

That's a fair point, if mirror neurons do not exist.
If they do, then we may have no choice as we have no choice about (eg fear of the dark).

I'm not actually sure there is an answer to the should question. We're back to the moral absolute v relative debate, which , lets face it , we have had here many times without resolution. Having an answer (possibly) to why we do seems better than nothing to me.

The one problem I have with your argument is that a good case can be made that humans have for thousands of years been on a social and moral trajectory. It seems that as we have reduced suffering and increased well being through technology and policies we have become more and secure in our views that to cause unnecessary suffering is is a bad thing. Peter Singer calls this the expanding circle. As we increase the number of others into our group that we think should be deserving of empathy society seems to be moving closer to justice.

Let me put it this way. There was a time when I believed in god and a number of things that had no basis in reality. I suffered stress and neurosis because I was unable to reconcile my internal senses with my belief. Since abandoning my belief in god the stress is gone. No more cognitive dissonance. That does not mean that there is no god. Only that what is evidently true is less likely to cause internal conflict.

You could argue that there is some universe where it is perfectly normal and in fact favored to torture handicapped children and to kill them. Perhaps in that universe doing so is benificial to the society and it reduces cortisol while releasing dopamine, Oxytocin and vassopressin in the brain of most of the members of the tribe thus bonding members in the society and helping to ensure their propagation. I could accept such an argument.

I want to be careful to simply appeal to tradition, novelty or to ad populum. However, if what is best for the propigation of our species, for increased well-being, lower levels of cortisol, increased levels of dopamine, oxytocin, vassopressin, etc.. is in expanding our circle of empathy, if that in the end makes us happier and healthier then perhaps we could argue that it is rational to do that.

Martin Luther King Jr. — 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.'

 

[RandFan]

I cannot edit the above post. It should read:

I want to be careful NOT to simply appeal to tradition, novelty or to ad populum. However, if what is best for the propigation of our species, for increased well-being, lower levels of cortisol, increased levels of dopamine, oxytocin, vassopressin, etc.. is in expanding our circle of empathy, if that in the end makes us happier and healthier then perhaps we could argue that it is rational to do that.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I'm still not sure. With some of the animal abuse cases I hear of, and have worked with, I have to wonder whether these people were able to derive some sort of sick pleasure from causing pain and suffering to innocent animals. There have been cultures in history that have sacrificed cats. Dogfighting is a longstanding tradition in other cultures. Obviously people get some kind of enjoyment and gratification out of these practices.

I remember when the Michael Vick case was made public, people tried to defend him by saying that it's a cultural thing, and outsiders have no right to step in and say that dogfighting is morally wrong. So how exactly do you argue against that?

 

[RandFan]

I'm still not sure. With some of the animal abuse cases I hear of, and have worked with, I have to wonder whether these people were able to derive some sort of sick pleasure from causing pain and suffering to innocent animals. There have been cultures in history that have sacrificed cats. Dogfighting is a longstanding tradition in other cultures. Obviously people get some kind of enjoyment and gratification out of these practices.

I remember when the Michael Vick case was made public, people tried to defend him by saying that it's a cultural thing, and outsiders have no right to step in and say that dogfighting is morally wrong. So how exactly do you argue against that?

Statistical outliers and cultural variable. It's the larger trend that I'm talking about. The Holocaust, Stalin's purges, Pol Pot's killing fields, The Spartans who left handicapped children to die, of course there are going to be reversals but the societies in which these things occur will in fact produce stress in many and given time society will be more and more repulsed by the actions. The environment that facilitates these sentiments, fear, hunger, war, etc., do not continue unabated and reason, empathy and compassion win out in the long run, Hence the quote from MLK.

 

[angrysoba]

Statistical outliers and cultural variable. It's the larger trend that I'm talking about. The Holocaust, Stalin's purges, Pol Pot's killing fields, The Spartans who left handicapped children to die, of course there are going to be reversals but the societies in which these things occur will in fact produce stress in many and given time society will be more and more repulsed by the actions. The environment that facilitates these sentiments, fear, hunger, war, etc., do not continue unabated and reason, empathy and compassion win out in the long run, Hence the quote from MLK.

Errr...really? It's taking its time about it.

 

[Belz...]

Excuse me, RandFan, but I've lost the conversation a bit. What are you arguing for with regards to the topic ?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Excuse me, RandFan, but I've lost the conversation a bit. What are you arguing for with regards to the topic ?

He's arguing that society / civilization is trending towards a decrease in animal cruelty and increased sensitivity towards the plight of tortured animals. I'm saying, perhaps, but given the kinds of things I see on a regular basis, I'm not so sure.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm still not sure. With some of the animal abuse cases I hear of, and have worked with, I have to wonder whether these people were able to derive some sort of sick pleasure from causing pain and suffering to innocent animals. There have been cultures in history that have sacrificed cats. Dogfighting is a longstanding tradition in other cultures. Obviously people get some kind of enjoyment and gratification out of these practices.

I remember when the Michael Vick case was made public, people tried to defend him by saying that it's a cultural thing, and outsiders have no right to step in and say that dogfighting is morally wrong. So how exactly do you argue against that?

I think the cultural relativism argument is bunk. It is incoherent to argue that "it's a cultural thing" therefore it's okay. When does one cultural norm change to another cultural norm? Is slavery okay when a culture permits it? Should foot-binding and FGM be accepted in some cultures because, hey, it's culture, man!? What it someone within the culture disagrees with a cultural practice?

He's arguing that society / civilization is trending towards a decrease in animal cruelty and increased sensitivity towards the plight of tortured animals. I'm saying, perhaps, but given the kinds of things I see on a regular basis, I'm not so sure.

I agree with a weak form of this. It is hard to disagree that historical trends favour greater rights for more people and other animals. I also think that people's attitudes have changed, and yes, improved from what they were in the Middle Ages.

It is, however, difficult to agree with the suggestions that this will inevitably continue or that there is some "moral arc of the universe" (Sorry RandFan, that's just "woo") which tends towards justice. In fact, "justice" can often be in opposition to consequentialist ethics and it is not clear that justice is favoured above outcomes by the majority of people.

 

[RandFan]

Errr...really? It's taking its time about it.

Oh hell yeah. It's slow. Slooooooooow. Look how long it took to end slavery. Look how long it took to end segregation. Look how long it took for women to get the right to vote. Look how long it took for civilizations to reject the divine rights of kings and even begin to consider that the individual is a noble creature and that it is in our interest to grant rights equally to all.

“Evolution has meant that our prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder.” --Hitchens

 

[Belz...]

Oh hell yeah. It's slow. Slooooooooow. Look how long it took to end slavery. Look how long it took to end segregation. Look how long it took for women to get the right to vote. Look how long it took for civilizations to reject the divine rights of kings and even begin to consider that the individual is a noble creature and that it is in our interest to grant rights equally to all.

And let's not assume that these advances can't be reversed.

 

[RandFan]

Excuse me, RandFan, but I've lost the conversation a bit. What are you arguing for with regards to the topic ?

Social and moral progress is inevitable given sufficient resources, empathy, compassion, reason and the dialectic. However, that progress is not a smooth steep slope but rather a very gradual trend with lots of reversals along the way.

Natan Sharansky makes the case brilliantly in his book The Case For Democracy. In a society with a market place of ideas and moral agents with different goals and desires, better ideas will eventually emerge and synthesize with current modalities. These perceptions, morals, truths, ideas, evolve slowly and as they do they provide for us new perspectives and the means to advance even better ideas that will synthesize with previous ideas. Technology gets better and more efficient. Medicine gets better.

However, we are not immune from interfering with our own advancement. We burned down the library at Alexandria. We refined and weaponized VX Gas. A substance with no known use but to exterminate large populations of people

 

[RandFan]

And let's not assume that these advances can't be reversed.

Of course they can. The Dark Ages being a prime example.

 

[angrysoba]

Social and moral progress is inevitable given sufficient resources, empathy, compassion, reason and the dialectic. However, that progress is not a smooth steep slope but rather a very gradual trend with lots of reversals along the way.

Natan Sharansky makes the case brilliantly in his book The Case For Democracy. In a society with a market place of ideas and moral agents with different goals and desires, better ideas will eventually emerge and synthesize with current modalities. These perceptions, morals, truths, ideas, evolve slowly and as they do they provide for us new perspectives and the means to advance even better ideas that will synthesize with previous ideas. Technology gets better and more efficient. Medicine gets better.

However, we are not immune from interfering with our own advancement. We burned down the library at Alexandria. We refined and weaponized VX Gas. A substance with no known use but to exterminate large populations of people

Well speaking of dialectics, I think that popular science and the "smart thinking" publishing industry often lurches in a bipolar fashion from extreme pessimism to extreme optimism; one minute claiming that we will all starve to death, and the next that we have conquered poverty and hunger; then we have environmental catastrophism and galloping overpopulation, then the greening of the environment and population slow-down; imminent nuclear war is followed by the End of History where we are all friends; then terrorism and biological peril etc... and it seems to be ever thus with various predictions of doom and utopia competing for each other from Leibniz to Malthus; Kropotkin to Spengler; Paul Erlich to Matt Ridley; Early Fukuyama to Later Fukuyama, etc...

 

[RandFan]

Well speaking of dialectics, I think that popular science and the "smart thinking" publishing industry often lurches in a bipolar fashion from extreme pessimism to extreme optimism; one minute claiming that we will all starve to death, and the next that we have conquered poverty and hunger; then we have environmental catastrophism and galloping overpopulation, then the greening of the environment and population slow-down; imminent nuclear war is followed by the End of History where we are all friends; then terrorism and biological peril etc... and it seems to be ever thus with various predictions of doom and utopia competing for each other from Leibniz to Malthus; Kropotkin to Spengler; Paul Erlich to Matt Ridley; Early Fukuyama to Later Fukuyama, etc...

Given any point in history to live and any country to live I would choose now and in a modern liberal democracy. You?

 

[angrysoba]

Given any point in history to live and any country to live I would choose now and in a modern liberal democracy. You?

Yes, I would choose to live in Japan at this moment. Thanks.

Now, if I could give you a one-way ticket that transported you 100 years into the future, would you take it?

 

[RandFan]

Yes, I would choose to live in Japan at this moment. Thanks.

Now, if I could give you a one-way ticket that transported you 100 years into the future, would you take it?

Yes.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes.

Okay, well I would not so I am not sure what your thought experiment was supposed to reveal.

 

[RandFan]

Okay, well I would not so I am not sure what your thought experiment was supposed to reveal.

If you think human progress simply ebbs and flows then the future is no more likely to be better or worse. If you believe that technology and social progress have been trending upward (better) since ancient civilization then the prospect for a better tomorrow are good. I wouldn't want to live without medicine or to see people in slavery. Someday citizens will likely look back at the time when there were people living in third world nations unnecessarily. I think that is likely given our history. It's easy to think that nothing ever changes. Yet we live in a virtual utopia compared to times when most people struggled just to survive.

 

[angrysoba]

If you think human progress simply ebbs and flows then the future is no more likely to be better or worse. If you believe that technology and social progress have been trending upward (better) since ancient civilization then the prospect for a better tomorrow are good. I wouldn't want to live without medicine or to see people in slavery. Someday citizens will likely look back at the time when there were people living in third world nations unnecessarily. I think that is likely given our history. It's easy to think that nothing ever changes. Yet we live in a virtual utopia compared to times when most people struggled just to survive.

Yeah, I'm not necessarily disputing that, but rather I was skeptical of the utility of your thought experiment. If you said would you rather live now or in stinking Biblical times, most people would say "Now!" but that doesn't mean you have proved your point as some people would prefer to live in these times because it is what they are familiar with. Similarly some people would prefer to live where they are (in Russia, in China, in North Korea, in Thailand or in India) despite the fact that these places are not first world liberal democracies but because they are home to them.

 

[RandFan]

Yeah, I'm not necessarily disputing that, but rather I was skeptical of the utility of your thought experiment. If you said would you rather live now or in stinking Biblical times, most people would say "Now!" but that doesn't mean you have proved your point as some people would prefer to live in these times because it is what they are familiar with. Similarly some people would prefer to live where they are (in Russia, in China, in North Korea, in Thailand or in India) despite the fact that these places are not first world liberal democracies but because they are home to them.

I cannot agree with you. Mortality rate is much, much lower. The ability to mitigate suffering is much, much better. Social justice is better. We are far closer to the Veil of Ignorance thought experiment than ever before. It's not simply familiarity, I like indoor plumbing, anti-biotics, the ability to travel accross the united states in hours. There was a time, not that long ago, it took months and people died along the way. There was a time when surgery was performed without anesthetic. Parents lived in fear of their children contracting polio, mumps or many other diseases that regularly took the lives of children. Hell, it was not uncommon for children to die from diseases that are largely eradicated today. Suffering was much, much higher. Well being was much, much lower.

I think it is just too easy to take all of our modern conveniences and technology for granted. We honestly don't realize just how good we have it.

Familiarity has little to do with it. I don't like suffering. I like modern medicine. I contracted cellulitis and was in the hospital for more than a week. It was hell. My prognosis was near septic. My doctor ordered a pick line. I had antibiotics delivered straight to my heart to be pumped throughout my body. In the past there was a good chance I just would have died. It's a fact that people died all of the time from diseases that are today treatable.

I think you far too easily hand wave away all of these seemingly miraculous procedures and treatments and you do not understand just how good your life is now compared to what it might have been had there been no antibiotics, no modern medicine, no advanced diagnostic technology.

Never mind diseases and illness as a result of iodine deficiency, thiamin deficiency, vitamin C deficiency (real problems in times past) etc, etc.. These are not tabulated in most people's balance sheets. Hell, most people have no idea how well they have it.

You are afforded the luxury to shrug your shoulders in ignorance and say "meh".