Small children and mentally handicapped people aren't held responsible to same degree as the average adult. I am therefore not quite sure what "added responsibility" comes with merely "being a human animal".
I'm thinking you are the one misusing the term. At first I thought you took my analogies as my claiming the other people were posting such silly things. But in a response to citizenzen you say that my analogies were characterizing the arguments. If you think the survival or omnivore arguments I quoted are secretly more nuanced or that I mischaracterised them in trying to make equivalent scenarios, please show it.
I also note you only objected to my two analogies, yet dismissed my entire post and insulted vegans. This is closer to a fallacy, I think .
I'm pretty sure she said as much in subsequent posts. In any event assuming she was would be absurd in the extreme (the right to vote, drink at a certain age, pay taxes etc.)
It's not possible to bring an animal up to human standards because they lack the ability to empathize. You have to marginalize the importance of empathy in human on human "treatment" in order to begin equating them to animals. Remember, humans lacking empathy aren't treated like humans, they're treated like animals.
Small children and mentally handicapped people aren't held responsible to same degree as the average adult. I am therefore not quite sure what "added responsibility" comes with merely "being a human animal".
Well let's see; you're not supposed to eat you stepkids as a way of preserving your genetic heritage, walking into your neighbors house and physically forcing him out is strictly forbidden, pushing a sick infant outside and leaving them for dead is frowned upon, killing your neighbors kids and then replacing them with your own only to have your neighbor raise them is totally taboo
Seriously though, it boils down to empathy doesn't it? That adds a considerable amount of responsibility to being human that animals could never experience.
Throwing tea into the Boston harbour to protest taxation without representation is not the same as brutally bludgeoning a scientist because you don't agree with animal testing.
One, If you haven't already, you should provide a link to this "brutally bludgeoning a scientist". I don't recall this incident, and would be interested in following it up.
Two, you'd be hard-pressed to not find extremists on any issue as emotionally charged as animal rights. But you're letting the position of the extremist override all other concerns.
For instance, in my estimation, far more abortion doctors have been killed than scientists who test animals, however, if I were in a discussion with a pro-life advocate, I wouldn't focus the bulk of my discussion on those acts of extremism. There would be plenty of other aspects of the issue to talk about beyond that. I'd personally find it much more interesting to delve into the questions about conflicting rights and personhood than merely ask over and over, "So ... do you think it's okay to kill abortion doctors?"
It seems to me that you're putting way too much emphasis on the acts of an extreme few and haven't show any capability to move beyond what I believe most people would agree are inappropriate acts. No scientist should be bludgeoned over animal testing. No buildings should be burned. There are far better ways to affect change than to commit violent acts.
My issue with this is that this argument depends on the assumption that there is no intrinsic value placed on being human. I simply don't, and won't believe this.
Hi there You are correct, I do not believe species membership or the ability to breed with others with similar DNA has any special moral status, at least not in any greater or lesser sense than race or sex membership has a special moral status.
A lot of people are uncomfortable with the comparisons between non-rational humans and non-rational animals. Comparisons like this conflict with what we're all taught from birth: that humans have an inherent specialness, humans and animals have their place, and animals place in society is to be used by us. Cultural norms prevent us from even making comparisons between the two, as if there's some huge, insuperable gulf between animals and humans.
I personally find the huge, insuperable gulf between animals and humans non-existent. Darwin's theory showed that differences between humans and animals were a matter of degree, rather than kind. Rather than humans being made specially and separately from animals by God in God's own image, it turns out that humans are animals in a literal sense.
Suddenly there's no metaphysical boundary between humans and non-human animals. What can we appeal to? The uniqueness of the human experience and human minds? Well, the bulk of animal behavioral science, at least in the post-behaviorist days, weighs strongly in favor of many animals (vertebrates and cephalapod in particular) having mental lives substantially similar to humans, which includes self-awareness, a capacity to feel pain, pleasure, satisfaction, suffering, they can be bored, excited, suffer from despair or depression, can develop addictions. Jane Goodall's fantastic study of the great apes revealed complex social relationships, personalities, a kind of proto-morality. All of these things are well-documented in psychological and medical literature, they aren't anthropomorphic fantasies.
The private mental lives of humans aren't unique or special at all. The metaphysical distiction based on being a special creation of God pretty speculative at best. What accounts for this huge gulf between animals and humans? I don't know. I've seen a lot of arguments, I even made most of them I started participating in arguments on animal rights years ago; but over time I grew really unhappy and uncomfortable with the arguments against animal rights, its really hard to explain why non-rational animals have no rights but non-rational humans are the special exception.
Over the years, I eventually concluded that there's no moral distinction between humans and non-human animals whatsoever. I don't even believe there's a distinction between animal rights and human rights -- I view them the exact same thing, two sides of the coin. Animal rights is just a logical extension of the principles that everyone already accepts regarding the ethical treatment of humans.
Look at it removed from the issue of meat animals for a second- as I think there is an argument there that is separate from the Human rights vs animal rights argument.
A cat, 5 years old in a shelter has very little chance of being adopted. If said cat were to become sick- say it gets leukemia, it is not going to be treated. It is going to be euthanized. This will save the cat from a long time of suffering or painful treatment that it can not understand, and it will free up the resources of the shelter to better care for other animals who have a better chance.
Now imagine that instead of a 5 year old cat in a shelter, it is a 10 year old child in an orphanage, and just for the sake of making the comparison as close as possible, say the child has a mental handicap that will not allow them to comprehend the reason for a painful treatment, or grow to be a productive adult. This child has a similarly low chance of being adopted, a similarly low chance of contributing to our society, and will suffer in similar ways by being treated-operations, chemotherapy, etc. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue that that child should therefore be euthanized. I see no reason for this, unless we accept that that child's humanity grants it a greater right to life than that of the cat.
Perhaps people are more willing to euthanize cats because there is a strong cultural bias ingrained in our culture that animal life isn't as worthwhile as human life. I think times are changing. 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable for pet owners to go to tremendous lengths to help their pets live long and comfortable lives.
I can think of many situations where people are granted rights singular to them, simply for being human- neuter and spay programs come to mind- again acceptable to do to animals but not to mentally similar humans, simply because the humans are human.
That's not necessarily true. China implemented a one-child policy on 35% of its population for 20 years to control its incredible population growth. As a result, there exists gender-biased and forced abortions, female infanticide, a gender disparity between males and females in the region, huge financial penalties for having more than one child -- a definite human rights concern. Still, 80% of the Chinese population remains in favor of the one-child policy. I admit to knowing very little about the subject, but overpopulation became a serious problem, what else could you do?
I also don't think we spay and neuter pets because they happen to be animals, but for the sake of population control. Cats reproduce explosively fast, a female can give birth to her first litter of kittens at the age of 5 months (compare that to rabbits who can reproduce as early as 6 months). Ferals cats will reproduce year after year if left to their own devices, they can have a pretty severe impact on the wildlife of other animals.
Remember, humans have a very romantic and idealistic picture of parenthood, a view which (to my knowledge) is not shared by our pets. People voluntarily limit their reproduction by using birth control and condoms, a form of elective population control which is otherwise not accessible or even comprehensible to non-human animals. I think there are good arguments for spaying and neutering pets which may not necessarily carry over to humans.
(Not yet, at least. Unchecked human population growth will inevitably use resources faster than they can be renewed. The resulting in scarcity of drinking water, oil, farmable soil, natural resources required for environmental stability will eventually exceed planet's the carrying capacity of humans.)
This is why this argument bothers me. I find the assumption that there is no intrinsic value of a human to another human to be. . . strange, to say the least, and I think that framing an argument against animal cruelty in this way winds up detracting from the argument by allowing those who don't agree to wave the whole argument away because they, like me, find this argument extremely flawed. Really, the argument, in my eyes, is whether we can justify killing animals to eat them. I certainly think reasons may exist why many people can not justify this, but I don't agree with any reason based on the assumption that there is the same value placed on life and suffering with no regard to species.
I think this is basically the argument for speciesism. I think if we accept speciesism as a normal part of our decision making, we'd be hard-pressed to come up with arguments against racists appealing to racism or sexists appealing to sexism for the exact same reasons. Speciesism is a hot-button topic in the animal rights community, I think most of us regard it as an out-dated form of tribalism, perhaps some day the expanding circle will regard animals and mentally similar humans as moral equals.
Well, the bulk of animal behavioral science, at least in the post-behaviorist days, weighs strongly in favor of many animals (vertebrates and cephalapod in particular) having mental lives substantially similar to humans, which includes self-awareness, a capacity to feel pain, pleasure, satisfaction, suffering, they can be bored, excited, suffer from despair or depression, can develop addictions.
Although I've recently committed again to vegetarianism, I have to say that this was a disturbing passage to read. I used to really enjoy eating calamari. I think people are going to look back in horror at the 20th century and the industrial scale slaughter of sentient animals that we engage in
Hey Dessi - We're apart on this, that's just how it is and I won't press you further on most of the issue.
I wanted to ask: My example, pages ago, where I stated that I wouldn't even have something to consider should you, or in fact ANY human, and an animal both be mortally endangered simultaneously. I can save only one, but it's my decision. I'd go for the human every time.
Same scenario for you, with a twist: A human infant and a 5-year-old German Shepherd are simultaneously endangered and you can save only one. Your decision?
Same scenario for you, with a twist: A human infant and a 5-year-old German Shepherd are simultaneously endangered and you can save only one. Your decision?
Hi there You are correct, I do not believe species membership or the ability to breed with others with similar DNA has any special moral status, at least not in any greater or lesser sense than race or sex membership has a special moral status.
Let me get this straight. A little thought experiment to help clarify: There were two groups of two people and you have to pick one member of each group to die. Group one consists of a one year old baby girl, and a house cat. The second group consists of a one year old baby boy and a dog.
Which member of each group would you choose to be put to death and why?
I've posted about this before, using the question one might ask an abortion opponent:
If you came upon a burning fertility clinic, and could only save a live child, or a box of frozen embryos, which would you save? I think most abortion foes would choose the live child. I know that I would. Likewise, if I could only save a live child or a box of puppies from a burning animal shelter, I'd save the child.
But this only further supports my earlier point. The decision to eat animals isn't at all like the decision to save a child from a burning building over a box of puppies. In that scenario, you have to let one or the other die. Harm is inevitable. Pain is inevitable. This is not the case for most people who live in first world countries. Eating animals is a choice that can be avoided, and no one else has to bear the brunt of the offset pain and suffering. This is the rub. It's perfectly doable for everyone on this thread. So the dichotomy of the burning building bears no resemblance to our actual lives.
It´s perfectively doable if people want to follow it. And since the vast majority doens´t seem all the interested in that, there´s nothing major changing. I for one have no interest in doing so.
It´s perfectively doable if people want to follow it. And since the vast majority doens´t seem all the interested in that, there´s nothing major changing.
I know, you've already expressed this. What we're discussing now is the idea of choosing between harming two classes. We're discussing the equation of people vs. animals and their respective rights and this might play out in ethical choices. You're entirely too defensive about this.
Same scenario for you, with a twist: A human infant and a 5-year-old German Shepherd are simultaneously endangered and you can save only one. Your decision?
Speciesism will win out for most people. It is an undeniably strong force.
But people are also tribal on a number of levels. Imagine these scenarios ...
You're traveling in a foreign land. At a port of call a passenger who you recognize from the ship is shot along with a shopkeeper. The passenger cries for help. The shopkeeper cries out in a language you don't understand.
You can only save one. Who do you save?
You're at a high school reunion picnic. You haven't seen seen or kept up with these people for decades. Shots ring out and there are two people lying on the grass bleeding. One you recognize from their name tag was an old high school acquaintance who used to sing with you in chorus. The other person appears to be a stranger who just happened to be walking through the park.
You can only save one. Who do you save?
You're at a large family reunion in a resort. Shots ring out and two people lie bleeding. One is a cousin who you never knew until you were introduced to that very night. The other is a busboy at the resort.
You can only save one. Who do you save?
I could go on. But my point is that it doesn't take much to forge some kind of connection and affiliation with people or a group. I tend to think we're hard-wired to do it.
On the other hand it doesn't mean you're wrong if you saved the shopkeeper, the stranger, the busboy or the dog. Although if you do save the dog, when retelling the episode to the authorities, make sure you tell them that the person was already dead.
If that's your goal you're not being very successful. How about we stop dragging this thread into the personal? It's actually a very interesting discussion.
Speciesism will win out for most people. It is an undeniably strong force.
But people are also tribal on a number of levels. Imagine these scenarios ...
You're traveling in a foreign land. At a port of call a passenger who you recognize from the ship is shot along with a shopkeeper. The passenger cries for help. The shopkeeper cries out in a language you don't understand.
You can only save one. Who do you save?
You're at a high school reunion picnic. You haven't seen seen or kept up with these people for decades. Shots ring out and there are two people lying on the grass bleeding. One you recognize from their name tag was an old high school acquaintance who used to sing with you in chorus. The other person appears to be a stranger who just happened to be walking through the park.
You can only save one. Who do you save?
You're at a large family reunion in a resort. Shots ring out and two people lie bleeding. One is a cousin who you never knew until you were introduced to that very night. The other is a busboy at the resort.
You can only save one. Who do you save?
I could go on. But my point is that it doesn't take much to forge some kind of connection and affiliation with people or a group. I tend to think we're hard-wired to do it.
On the other hand it doesn't mean you're wrong if you saved the shopkeeper, the stranger, the busboy or the dog. Although if you do save the dog, when retelling the episode to the authorities, make sure you tell them that the person was already dead.
The dog is the distinction in this debate. All the other scenarios are purely human ethics and that's a separate discussion.
For me? I'd be very wrong to have decided to save the dog over the human infant. No gray area there. Regardless of which label is applied - speciesism, tribalism, humanism, whateverism. Gonna save the bawling kiddie and that's that.
Although I've recently committed again to vegetarianism, I have to say that this was a disturbing passage to read. I used to really enjoy eating calamari. I think people are going to look back in horror at the 20th century and the industrial scale slaughter of sentient animals that we engage in
hahahaha that's one of the dumbest things I've read on this forum (yes let that sink in)!!!
No, no they won't. Because they were OUR FOOD!!! Maybe some silly vegans will look back and gasp with their ridiculous dogmatic voices... But most people are reasonable. I think that's the crux of obnoxious veganism. (vegans who feel the need to babble endlessly about their "cause" like a corner preacher...). It sounds so horribly unreasonable.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
.
You are correct, I do not believe species membership or the ability to breed with others with similar DNA has any special moral status, at least not in any greater or lesser sense than race or sex membership has a special moral status.
