John Stossel Goes After PETA Tonight...

[jj]

If you were to change 'animals' to 'plants' in my arguments, they would no longer be instructive, because they would no longer make sense or be true in any way. Plants do not have desires; or do you believe they do?

So, a false analogy is ok when you do it, but not when I do it?

That's lame, bud, that's just lame.

You get that chicken to express abstract desire to me, go ahead. I don't mean "feed me, seymour" I mean abstract desire.

Ditto the cow.

Now, a primate, well, yes, but we don't eat them, and that's good. I might even worry about pigs a bit, given some of the behavior I've seen in pigs, but chickens? Cows? SHEEP???? Turkeys??? Deer?

You shot back at me with a completely misbegotten rhetorical cheat, but you don't like my suggestion that I could (but didn't) respond in kind.

When you feel like actually discussing an issue, get back to me.

P.S. Any ethics or morality discussion that does not substantially account for nature is useless. Get back to me when you realize that, too.

 

[jj]

And abolitionists weren't particularly tolerant of those who engaged in the slave trade.

I'm starting to think this is getting Godwin'd here.

Your statement insinuates that eating meat is equal to slavery. That's dishonest, misleading, and conciously insulting.

I conclude that you intend to offend, rather than convince. You're just here for the argument.

Watch out, you might turn to stone when rays of the sun hit you.

I've never told anyone to become a vegetarian, but I do take exception to the claim that these differing belief systems are equivalent, which I think some people interpret as a demand that they be like me.

No, they aren't the same, and I'm not aware anyone has suggested that. Vegetarians unnecessarily limit their food availability. They have that right, but they have no reason to either demand others do as they do OR to denigrate others who disagree.

You have both insisted that you hold a high ground, which insinuates that people who don't agree are lesser, as well as deliberately denigrated those who disagree by equating them to slavers.

Your arguments are dishonest, deceptive, and appear malicious. You make it clear that you have less regard for the human being than the chicken in the pot.

 

[jj]

IYou cannot reasonably respond to an ethical argument with a biological argument and then say you aren't talking about ethics.

Of what good is an ethical argument that ignores reality?

 

[Paulhoff]

Don't fool yourself, unless an animal is a true herbivore, and it was big enough, it would eat you in a second and not think anything of it. Eat them before they eat you.

Paul

 

[mumblethrax]

So, a false analogy is ok when you do it, but not when I do it?

I don't think I said that. Your analogy was false, and mine wasn't.

Your argument and the modified argument I presented are sufficiently similar (they are both predicated on a belief that that which is natural is morally acceptable) that the modified argument can help convey why I consider this belief is wrong.

The content of my argument and that of the modified form you presented, however, don't have a lot in common, and my argument isn't that it's wrong to kill animals because they're alive, or whatever it is that you're trying to point out.

You get that chicken to express abstract desire to me, go ahead. I don't mean "feed me, seymour" I mean abstract desire.

I don't know exactly what you mean by abstract desire, I assume you mean something like the ability to symbolically communicate desire for something that isn't present. But you've now put yourself back in square one. All the same marginal cases won't be able to express this desire; are their more immediate needs, desires, preferences therefore not relevant?

You shot back at me with a completely misbegotten rhetorical cheat, but you don't like my suggestion that I could (but didn't) respond in kind.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The analogy? As I've explained, yours was fallacious, and mine was not. I don't mind you using analogies, as long as they make some degree of sense.

But argument by analogy is always problematic, so let me state this in simple terms: you cannot justify a practice by arguing that it is natural. Certain acts that I suspect you will agree are unquestionably repugnant (like genocide) have occured frequently in human history, frequently enough that they can only be 'natural'. If you hope to argue your case, you cannot simply assert that a practice is acceptable because it is natural, while simultaneously acknowledging that another practice is not acceptable despite being natural.

When you feel like actually discussing an issue, get back to me.

And you accuse me of rhetoric? This is contentless posturing.

P.S. Any ethics or morality discussion that does not substantially account for nature is useless. Get back to me when you realize that, too.

It seems to me like the field that is responsible for accounting for nature is science, and that ethics is concerned only with accounting for the nature of morality (not consistent with the sense of 'nature' you're using). This is not to say that ethics is not informed by science.

 

[mumblethrax]

Your statement insinuates that eating meat is equal to slavery. That's dishonest, misleading, and conciously insulting.

It was intended to point out that we sometimes 'force' our morality onto others (by way of, for example, expressing disapproval), regardless of whether they would like us to, and that you probably agree that this is acceptable, at least in limited cases. At no point did I argue or imply that one practice is as wrong as the other.

No, they aren't the same, and I'm not aware anyone has suggested that. Vegetarians unnecessarily limit their food availability. They have that right, but they have no reason to either demand others do as they do OR to denigrate others who disagree.

The equivalence I was talking was moral equivalence, which you have just again suggested above: your choice to eat meat, you argue, is as justified as mine not to. That your belief system is inconsistent must have registered for you by now, but you have elected to resolve that dissonance by getting angry at me.

You have both insisted that you hold a high ground, which insinuates that people who don't agree are lesser, as well as deliberately denigrated those who disagree by equating them to slavers.

I think it is rather that you have inferred that, not that I have implied it. I don't think I am your better, although I do think you're not being rational.

Your arguments are dishonest, deceptive, and appear malicious. You make it clear that you have less regard for the human being than the chicken in the pot.

I wonder how you can utter these two sentences in the same breath. I think I have been fair with you and have tried to understand your arguments and point out why I think they're flawed, and you are attributing utter twaddle to me.

 

[jj]

I don't think I said that. Your analogy was false, and mine wasn't.

Uh, you want to try that again?

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The analogy? As I've explained, yours was fallacious, and mine was not. I don't mind you using analogies, as long as they make some degree of sense.

You've ASSERTED that mine is fallacious. You haven't proven it, or even offered evidence, you've asserted that it's fallacious.

 

[jj]

I wonder how you can utter these two sentences in the same breath.

I presume you mean "type on the same keyboard", but it's simple, I do it. You think they are contradictory, I don't. You assert various things, I don't accept your assertions.

You need evidence for your assertions, remember?

I think I have been fair with you and have tried to understand your arguments and point out why I think they're flawed, and you are attributing utter twaddle to me.

Well, then, you may assume that the "utter twaddle" is what your argument looks like. Sorry, that's how it is.

 

[RandFan]

This is another interesting fabrication. Look at what I put in quotes and then look at what you put in quotes. If you want to see where you used the turn of phrase, then I suggest looking at page four, searching for the relevant key terms, and then following the threading.

Not a clue dude. I said nothing that had anything to do with species factually substantive no matter where you put the quotes. Talk about vague.

I'm saying the argument you put forth appears hurried...

This is just nonsense. Either the argument is cogent or it is not. "Hurried" is not a rebuttal to an argument.

"What is my belief system?" This is still another red-herring that I laugh and roll my eyes at.

If you don't know what my belief system is then don't make assumptions. But this is a non-argument isn't it. Laughing and rolling your eyes is not an argument.

Returning to more relevant concerns, the Cohen argument seeks to give exclusive concern to human beings -- all of them -- while trying to minimize concern for other species. But the need to reconcile concern for infants (say) while dismissing the interests of chimps (for example) results in a rather arbitrary, contorted moral outlook.

No, it does not seek to give exclusive concern to anything or anyone. It seeks to give rights and the responsibility of those rights to humans. Pointing out that infants are incapable of the responsibility of those rights does not mean that chimps should have rights independent of responsibility.

For arguments against this mode of reasoning see my earlier posts and Mumblethrax's reply.

{sigh} If you want me to address an argument then post it or post the link to it.

I see; you don't really have any clue as to what you're talking about.

Non-argument.

In any case the second sentence in the above quote is not exactly a model of clarity.

"Speak to" is a figure of speech, which means "speak in regards to". Not difficult to figure out really.

The first statement falls under the label of "descriptive", and I do not disagree. Yes, that happens, and it is mundane; philosophically uninteresting.

Mundane as it may be it is central to the point.

Earlier you said we have anti-cruelty laws because humans feel bad (as a matter of empathy) when they see animals tortured (I'm not going to use the loaded term "mistreated").

Fair enough, yes.

Now I interpret this to be a sort of public anti-obscenity law. If the reason is that it makes people feel bad, then it shouldn't matter if one does it in private and no one on the outside learns about it.

How could it matter? That is not the relevant question. Morals do not exist in a vacuum. A society of one has no morals. Does my philosophy make torturing animals in private ok? No, by my philosophy if it is ever discovered it will be penalized. If it is never discovered then it is moot.

Let us, in order to understand the fundamentals at work, replace the cat with a human. What "axiomatic" reason, if any, can you cite? I can name a rather simple one: the interests of the victim.

Yes, but what does that have to do with anyone besides the victim? What do you care about my interests? Why should I care about yours? I have my own answers to these questions but it is important to understand what your answers are.

Animals do not enjoy being tortured anymore than human beings. Torturing animals is wrong regardless of how humans "feel" about the matter. If by some quirk in our biology, our evolutionary heritage, we were all sadists who loved torturing felines, would that make it OK?

This raises more questions than it answers. It is easy to say that something is wrong. But wrong from who's perspective? Do cats comprehend right and wrong? Do they believe that torturing a bird or mouse for its own pleasure is wrong?

Ok, if we eliminate the cat then who is left? The humans. If humans think that torturing cats is not wrong then pray tell, how is it wrong?

I see. So instead of clarifying the question you'd rather rant on, ironcially leaving your leaving your last sentence incomplete (which is what I thought of your second question). The first had a response inside the quote.

This is not an answer to the questions.

I'm afraid it is not so simple. First, not all infants and children will grow into beings capable of exercising moral reason. Consider the terminally ill, for example. Second, your distinction rests on potentiality confusion: if an X is a potential Y, it does not have the rights of Y (because it's still an X). Third, why bother talking about infants? Would about an eight month old fetus? Four months old? An embryo?

Morality is that which humans define it as. If I exist in a society of two rational moral agents and I don't want to be tortured and I understand that my companion doesn't want to be tortured then we can create a compact, an agreement as to what is and is not wrong. We can also include in that compact some animals (dogs and cats in some nations cows in others) and we can exclude some animals (pigs and chickens). We are of course free to write into the compact non-normative humans.

You're right! I failed to consider the truly awesome threat animals pose to humans.

Straw man. No one is arguing that animals are an awesome threat only that they do not comprehend moral responsibility.

You want to give a right to something that can't accept the responsibility of that right. And what of the responsibility of the lion to the antelope or zebra?

 

[mumblethrax]

You've ASSERTED that mine is fallacious. You haven't proven it, or even offered evidence, you've asserted that it's fallacious.

I cannot show you that your analogy is fallacious if you do not understand the fallacy in question.

Here is what wikipedia has to say on the subject:

In an analogy two concepts, objects, or events proposed to be similar in nature (A and B) are shown to have some common relationship with another property. The premise is that A has property X, and thus B must also have property X (due to the assumed similarity of A and B). Unfortunately, in the case of a false analogy, A and B are only superficially similar (if that) and are different in some fundamental way which influences their relationship with property X.

The property that I propose makes the two arguments (yours and the modified version) similar is that they depend on essentially the same premise: that which is natural is morally acceptable.

Plants and animals, with regard to the morally important property that I have identified (that at least some animals have desires) are not similar. No plants have desires.

Do you consider this sufficient proof?

 

[mumblethrax]

I presume you mean "type on the same keyboard", but it's simple, I do it. You think they are contradictory, I don't. You assert various things, I don't accept your assertions.

No, I meant what I said, but somehow I knew that you would raise this petty objection. I should have sealed it in an envelope and done a Carnac act.

You need evidence for your assertions, remember?

The evidence I present is that nowhere did I argue or imply that I care more about chickens than humans, that my arguments (in what follows from the critical moral properties I have identified) do not support this conclusion, and that my behavior (in which charities I choose to support and which conversations I choose to engage in, for example) indicates that I believe precisely the opposite. It is, in fact, a malicious invention, precisely the kind of thing you've attributed to me (for some reason), which rather makes the statements hypocritical (not contradictory).

Well, then, you may assume that the "utter twaddle" is what your argument looks like. Sorry, that's how it is.

I think the universe of rational people likely has a different perspective here.

 

[jj]

No, I meant what I said, but somehow I knew that you would raise this petty objection. I should have sealed it in an envelope and done a Carnac act.


The evidence I present is that nowhere did I argue or imply that I care more about chickens than humans, that my arguments (in what follows from the critical moral properties I have identified) do not support this conclusion, and that my behavior (in which charities I choose to support and which conversations I choose to engage in, for example) indicates that I believe precisely the opposite. It is, in fact, a malicious invention, precisely the kind of thing you've attributed to me (for some reason), which rather makes the statements hypocritical (not contradictory).


I think the universe of rational people likely has a different perspective here.

No evidence, straw man, removal from context, and ad-hominem.

Sorry, that's not very convincing.

 

[mumblethrax]

No evidence, straw man, removal from context, and ad-hominem.

Um. What?

I will not continue this conversation with you, because you are impossibly recalcitrant. Please do not take this as a personal attack, but a description.

 

[jj]

Um. What?

I will not continue this conversation with you, because you are impossibly recalcitrant. Please do not take this as a personal attack, but a description.

Then you do not understand what removel from context, straw man, ad-hominem, and a lack of evidence are, yet you're attempting to argue from a philosophical position?

Gimme a break!

 

[Cain]

Oh, how indicative. Why does it matter who the insults were directed to?

Because you are presumably talking about my reply to you...

At the same time you're railling on about selflessness and letting animals be, you want to appeal to selfishness when caught with both hands in the ego? Right. Sure.

It's not a matter of selflessness any more than refraining from harming humans can be characterized as "selfless" behavior.

Yes, I find your insults about others just as annoying. They are deliberately, willfully destructive, they intentionally seek to derail discussion, and they demonstrate that you consider the animals you defend to be more deserving of respect, and one might even suspect life, than other human beings.

I cannot say this aside rises to the level of being "interesting."

Your contempt is clear, you are a traitor to your own species.

This is a new one for me! I'm used to being a traitor to my country and my race.

Don't worry, evolution will take care of you, most likely. (I don't know, have you reproduced? Have they emancipated themselves yet?)

Here again the phrase "substantially lacking" pops into mind.

You initiated the series of claims, not I. I repeat the common understanding. You make an extraordinary claim. Heal thyself, oh maker of extraordinary claims.

Ah, now you wish to characterize my claims as "extraordinary". Can you be more specific as to the claims in question? You're the one who took the initiative to say animal rights folks are silly because," duh, stressed meat don't done taste no good." After your economic "reasoning" was dispensed of (without much effort, I might add) you've resorted to more bluster. I mean, it was not long ago that the Humane Slaughter Act was updated because of investigative reports from inside slaughterhouses. You can consult the facts and see they do not comport to your world view.

I take a rather different approach to the issue of animal rights. As Michael Shermer observed in his last "skeptic" column for _Scientific American_, paradigms alter perceptions. I'm not going to bother citing specific abuses on factory farms any more than I am going to bother quoting specific parts of the Bible. People are socialized into both religion and diet starting at an early age. The anecdote, in my view, is to identify inconsistencies, fundamental philosophical problems, which will (hopefully) spur a more circumspect reading of the central issues. Unfortuantely, I think you're something of a lost cause. When your deductive errors are pointed out -- whether they relate to deriving an "ought" from an "is", or claiming economic self-interest results in a specific state of affairs -- you point your sanctimonious finger at your opponent's character.

Which makes this kind of comment all the more interesting:

Let's see, here you've appealed to selfishness, tried to shift the burden, deliberately tried to turn an argument into personality...

Malice?

________________________________________________________

RandFan:

Not a clue dude. I said nothing that had anything to do with species factually substantive no matter where you put the quotes. Talk about vague.

OK, if you say so. I've pointed to the page, a person can search for "factually", see your reply, see what you're replying to and determine the answer for herself. I'm not going to copy/paste the entire exchange because you've already exhibited a preternatural ability to evade the arguments at hand.

Speaking of worthless digressions:

This is just nonsense. Either the argument is cogent or it is not. "Hurried" is not a rebuttal to an argument.

I never pretended to claim that characterizing your argument as "hurried" constituted a form of rebuttal. You may want to answer my actual rebuttal -- which, not surprisingly, you are loathe to do. And do you not see the possible connection between "hurried" and "cogent"? May I add that it is "muddled". More on this in a moment (hint: look to where I quote Mumblethrax for a second time).

Randfan earlier: "What is my belief system?"

Shorter Cain: Red-herring.

Randfan current:
If you don't know what my belief system is then don't make assumptions. But this is a non-argument isn't it. Laughing and rolling your eyes is not an argument.

I'm afraid describing your belief system does not advance the arguments at hand. Are you through with your delay tactics, or are we going to discuss your favorite color?

No, it does not seek to give exclusive concern to anything or anyone. It seeks to give rights and the responsibility of those rights to humans. Pointing out that infants are incapable of the responsibility of those rights does not mean that chimps should have rights independent of responsibility.

No, it means there is an inconsistency. That is to say, you are arbitrarily assigning rights to one group while denying them to another. What is the significant difference between chimps and humans that justifies the different kinds of treatment. Incidentially, this does pertain to the above "factually substantative" nonsense.

Later in your reply you state:

Morality is that which humans define it as. If I exist in a society of two rational moral agents and I don't want to be tortured and I understand that my companion doesn't want to be tortured then we can create a compact, an agreement as to what is and is not wrong. We can also include in that compact some animals (dogs and cats in some nations cows in others) and we can exclude some animals (pigs and chickens). We are of course free to write into the compact non-normative humans.

The first proposition, incidentially, is what most moral philosophers would consider an "extraordinary claim" (are you paying attention, JJ?). Let us introduce a third party: a feral human is discovered. Can the two rational moral agents decide to kill him for food? Experiment on him? If you're uncomfortable considering a feral human, then we can replace him with someone who suffers from severe mental retardation, or other marginal cases mentioned earlier.

Just to be clear, you're saying that these two people can decide that it is OK to torture pigs and chickens, right? Furthermore, such torture is not bad because they have decided it is perfectly OK...?

Finally, I have no idea what "non-normative humans" means. Is this possibly a reference to marginal cases? Are you implying that it is OK to write them out of the compact (meaning we can torture them, experiment on them etc).

One more scenario to cover all of our bases. What if they stumble upon a third moral agent, but no agreement can be reached. Can two people decide the third person does not have rights? If not, then why not?

Here's the threading on the infamous "second question".

Cain from earlier (p. 4, I believe)
If you recognize these [anti-cruelty] laws as legitimate then what argument can you provide if a lot of people decide that eating meat imposes unnecessary suffering?

The answer, of course, is other citizens.

[snipped - I will just agree you answered this question and not press the matter as it is now wholly irrelevant.]

{sigh} If you want me to address an argument then post it or post the link to it.

It didn't do me much good the first time!

Mumblethrax wrote (Emphasis [i.e., italics] are lost in the copy/paste) :

The philosopher that RandFan cited above, Carl Cohen, argues that all humans have rights because some humans have moral agency, and all humans are of the same kind. Leaving aside definitions here and assuming this is valid, can't I say then that some animals have moral agency, and therefore all animals have rights? We can use this method to identify any number of categories into which people fit, and then claim that all such things have rights.

If we instead argue that all humans have rights because most humans have moral agency, we can then point out that most animals do not have moral agency, and using the same logic above, humans don't either. This is just a bad argument.

RandFan:

How could it matter? That is not the relevant question. Morals do not exist in a vacuum. A society of one has no morals. Does my philosophy make torturing animals in private ok? No, by my philosophy if it is ever discovered it will be penalized. If it is never discovered then it is moot.

I'm afraid the mistaken notion herein -- (arbitrarily) delimiting those worthy of moral concern to humans -- is from where all other problems spring forth. Yes, of course, if I was the only animal on the planet, then there would be no such thing as morality because my actions will not influence anything of moral significance. However, there is still such a thing as morality if I am the last human on earth and I interact regularly with non-human animals. The idea that the last human can legislate morality -- which is what you more or less concede in your example of TWO people -- is absurd. It means that I can capriciously decide that it is wrong to torture dogs, and then decide that it is permissable to torture dogs. It means that if a theretofore unknown human emerged from the wilderness, the idea of torture could suddenly become morally ambiguous because of our failure to achieve consensus. Note: this does not mean I am advancing what you mistakenly believe to be an "absolute" morality. An absolute morality means torture is wrong under ALL circumstances; that may or may not be true.

Yes, but what does that have to do with anyone besides the victim? What do you care about my interests? Why should I care about yours? I have my own answers to these questions but it is important to understand what your answers are.

You're omitting an even more provocative question: Why should I care about my own interests? Because they're mine? I care about the interests of others -- irrespective of gender, nation, race, or species -- because interests are relevant. I don't care about rocks, socks, or blocks because these are inanimate objects incapable of having their own interests (though they might be of instrumental importance: the Grand Canyon, socks as a possession, etc). The obvious follow up question from a person flirting with nihilism: but why are interests important? Because we'd rather be happy than sad (as a matter of preference, which closely tracks with "interest"). And this goes right back to my "provocative question": if you can dismiss the interests of others (human or otherwise), then on what grounds can you support your own?

This raises more questions than it answers. It is easy to say that something is wrong. But wrong from who's perspective? Do cats comprehend right and wrong? Do they believe that torturing a bird or mouse for its own pleasure is wrong?

Ok, if we eliminate the cat then who is left? The humans. If humans think that torturing cats is not wrong then pray tell, how is it wrong?

Cats are not moral agents, so we cannot assign them moral responsibility. What perspective do we take? As suggested by my above comments, we attempt to take a neutral position: one that transcends race, gender, species, and even ego.

Moved out of order:

You want to give a right to something that can't accept the responsibility of that right. And what of the responsibility of the lion to the antelope or zebra?

What responsibilities am I assinging to animals? Presumably you want infants to have rights, yes? And what responsibilities are you giving to them? You think children should have rights, yes? What are their responsibilities? Moral agents are burdened with responsiblity; moral patients are not.

Cain writes:
You're right! I failed to consider the truly awesome threat animals pose to humans.

RandFan:
Straw man. No one is arguing that animals are an awesome threat only that they do not comprehend moral responsibility.

Maybe, just maybe, I was being sarcastic.

 

[mumblethrax]

Gimme a break!

That you think you have presented a sufficiently cogent argument to wrap up with this tabloid-style device is repulsive enough for me to reconsider my promise to myself and continue this conversation, but only long enough to retract my previous admonition: please do consider your recalcitrance an attack, on my intelligence and that of anyone reading this thread.

 

[RandFan]

OK, if you say so. I've pointed to the page, a person can search for "factually", see your reply, see what you're replying to and determine the answer for herself.

Which I have done and it does not clarify your point or non-point as it where.

The first proposition, incidentially, is what most moral philosophers would consider an "extraordinary claim" (are you paying attention, JJ?). Let us introduce a third party: a feral human is discovered. Can the two rational moral agents decide to kill him for food? Experiment on him?

Sure, they could do that.

Just to be clear, you're saying that these two people can decide that it is OK to torture pigs and chickens, right? Furthermore, such torture is not bad because they have decided it is perfectly OK...?

Yes.

Finally, I have no idea what "non-normative humans" means. Is this possibly a reference to marginal cases?

Yes.

Are you implying that it is OK to write them out of the compact (meaning we can torture them, experiment on them etc).

It is possible yes, we could.

One more scenario to cover all of our bases. What if they stumble upon a third moral agent, but no agreement can be reached. Can two people decide the third person does not have rights? If not, then why not?

Sure they can. It's not a very good strategy though. If the two turn against the third then there is reason for the remaining two to be distrusting of each other. Moral codes work best when they are equitable for all moral agents.

{convoluted sentences snipped}

The philosopher that RandFan cited above, Carl Cohen, argues that all humans have rights because some humans have moral agency, and all humans are of the same kind. Leaving aside definitions here and assuming this is valid, can't I say then that some animals have moral agency, and therefore all animals have rights?

No. Well you can say it but it wouldn't be valid. First off this is misleading because the vast majority of humans have moral agency.

This is the first time that I have seen this post btw.

If we instead argue that all humans have rights because most humans have moral agency...

But this is where the argument falls apart. All animals do not have rights because most humans have moral agency. All humans who are moral agents have rights. We extend those rights to those who we choose to grant those rights.

However, there is still such a thing as morality if I am the last human on earth and I interact regularly with non-human animals.

What is right or wrong is whatever you think is right or wrong.

The idea that the last human can legislate morality -- which is what you more or less concede in your example of TWO people -- is absurd. It means that I can capriciously decide that it is wrong to torture dogs, and then decide that it is permissible to torture dogs.

Yes it does and there is no reason to assume otherwise.

It means that if a theretofore unknown human emerged from the wilderness, the idea of torture could suddenly become morally ambiguous because of our failure to achieve consensus.

That is correct.

You're omitting an even more provocative question: Why should I care about my own interests?

Bad question. Will you ignore your own interests? If yes then who cares? If no then who cares? It's only when two or more people care about each others interests that those interests become relevant to any significant degree. By yourself you are simply ruled by your own interests and what you think is right or wrong.

Because they're mine? I care about the interests of others -- irrespective of gender, nation, race, or species -- because interests are relevant.

Why are interests relevant?

And this goes right back to my "provocative question": if you can dismiss the interests of others (human or otherwise), then on what grounds can you support your own?

I care about the interests of others because a society that cares about the interests of others will care about mine. But to do so that society must be populated by citizens capable of caring about my interests. If I am the only human and share the planet with other animals it will not improve my society to care about the interests of the animals. In fact my goals might conflict the interests of the animals.

Cats are not moral agents, so we cannot assign them moral responsibility. What perspective do we take? As suggested by my above comments, we attempt to take a neutral position: one that transcends race, gender, species, and even ego.

No, you attempt to take a neutral position.

What responsibilities am I assinging to animals?

That's the point, it wouldn't do any good.

Presumably you want infants to have rights, yes? And what responsibilities are you giving to them? You think children should have rights, yes? What are their responsibilities?

The younger they are the fewer the rights to none for infants.

Moral agents are burdened with responsiblity; moral patients are not.

My philosophy: Animals have no responsibility.
Your philosophy: Animals have no responsibility.

According to your philosophy the predator has no responsibility and its prey has no rights whenever it encounters the predator.

 

[Freakshow]

You want to give a right to something that can't accept the responsibility of that right.

That is a good one. I'm remembering that one. And I'll give you credit for it, too! Just don't expect any royalties.

 

[armageddonman]

It is hard for me to not ridicule ANYONE that tells me how to live. When someone tells me what to do, they have just painted a huge bullseye on themselves, and all pretences of nicety are called off. Doesn't matter if it is conservatism, liberalism, something religious, vegetarianism, whatever.

"Whatever" would also include the laws of your country?

 

[armageddonman]

Now, a primate, well, yes, but we don't eat them, and that's good. I might even worry about pigs a bit, given some of the behavior I've seen in pigs, but chickens? Cows? SHEEP???? Turkeys??? Deer

So, where do you draw the line and why do you draw it?