Where do you draw the line?

[Dinwar]

Rights come with the responsibility to not violate the rights of others. And most animals simply cannot comprehend that. I'm not sure if chimps or other primates do or not (I've seen conflicting data), but something like a tapeworm, tsi-tsi fly, or floraplatihelmenties certainly doesn't grasp the concept. If those can harm--and even kill!--humans, why should I feel bad about harming or killing them? Simply put, I see no reason to show another organism more respect than it shows me.

As far as torturing animals goes, it's certainly not good to torture an animal merely for the sake of torturing it--pain for the sake of pain is never good in a non-concentual situation (we'll leave aside adult concentual situations; that's another issue). That said, there's often important information to be gained through such experiments. I think they need to be judged on a case-by-case basis. And no, harming a rabbit does NOT equate to harming a human in my mind, for the reasons outlined above.

 

[truethat]

Yes, Im sure my 10 year old labrador feels enslaved, as we run around picking up her poo off the lawn while she's eating her dinner or lying down in the loungeroom with 3 kids making a fuss of her - all the while merrily wagging her tail.

Im very sure she'd much rather have died at 4 years while scavenging in a flea-infested pack while slowly starving to death.

She wouldn't have been in that position except for the domestication of animals used as pets. Same with cats.

Sure the reality is what it sorta has to be now. But that doesn't justify it.

You might be a fantastic pet owner, but there are many animals that are abused and die every year because of the industry of pet ownership. People buy pets and then cannot afford to keep them.

Estimates are at about 2,000,000 animals are euthanized every year because of abandoment.

Each day sbout 10,000 humans are born. Each day about 70,000 puppies and kittens are born.

http://www.sniksnak.com/overpopulation.html

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

You cannot hold the animal in captivity unless you can demonstrate that the program in which it is held captive for exists primarily for the benefit of that animal for entertainment purposes. So for instance, it cannot be held captive in order to use it for entertainment (tv, carnival acts, etc) or as a pet.

Sorry for this clumsily worded sentence. I deleted something on an edit and did not delete it to completion apparently. That first sentence should end with "for the benefit of that animal."

Why draw the line at animals?

Well I'm a vegetarian (though I'm not one of those people who has a problem with meat eaters in general, just because I chose not to be omnivorous myself). For me the reason I'm okay with eating plants and not animals is the lack of a brain and central nervous system in plants. Which isn't to say that I don't have any regard for plant life. I do, but I don't feel any guilt about eating them.

We've established ethical and moral principles underlining our laws so that we feel justified when we decide that it's legal to have sex past 18 years old, drink alcohol at 21 and kill certain animals but not others... but in reality, these are all imaginary lines drawn on the sand. I accept that I'm no exception and I too draw arbitrary lines, so I don't try to impose my arbitrary limits on others, claiming that they are the definite ones.

Well, yes, but that's rather the point of that thread, asking what YOU think, not what you think other people should think on this topic. As has been stated, there isn't a definite right answer on a topic like this. IT really is a matter of subjective opinion.

When the animal takes the day off from his or her job, drives (or takes public transportation) to pick up his or her lawyer, then goes off with his or her lawyer to petition Congress for Same-Rights status.

I'd say that would be a good start.

Rights come with the responsibility to not violate the rights of others. And most animals simply cannot comprehend that.

This is probably the most common opinion I've heard when speaking with others on this subject, and an understandable one. But I wonder this...

What about a person who is disabled to the extent that they could not comprehend the concept of rights? I've met people who were so severely disabled that, while they could still feel pain, discomfort, sadness, and boredom, they were almost completely incapable of even rudimentary communication with others, and had almost no ability to interact meaningfully with their environment. So in other words, in terms of intelligence, emotional capacity, and social interaction, they were actually less capable of normative human behavior and abilities than your average great ape would be. Let's say you had such a person whose family had no qualms about selling them for cancer research or as a carnival attraction. Would that be okay, and if not, why not?


Also, again let's look at my hypo about a lost colony of early hominids. Let's look at the more advanced older homos that came right before homo sapiens. We already know they were capable of such complex behavior as controlling fire and fashioning stone age tools. It's possible they were capable of complex social interaction. Though we can't know for sure, anthropologists are fairly certain that at least the later forms of homo, like homo erectus, and perhaps even homo habilis had primitive language systems. So what if you had this island where you had homo erectus that was capable of having a fairly complex society of its own -complex tool use, language, advanced socialization, etc - but they still were not so complex that they could be integrated into homo sapien society and understand very complex concepts like rights and democracy. Would you extend protective rights to them or not?

Thanks for the responses, everyone!

[qimg]http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/Muppet-Movie-bv03.jpg[/qimg]

wins thread!

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Interesting. It just occurred to me (And even though I'm asking you this question, I'm only doing so out of curiosity, and so, would like to hear other people's opinions) What if it was fifty people we had to kill instead, to find the definite cure for HIV/AIDS? Would you consider it?

Myself, I think it would depend: If we could make sure that those fifty people are, say, the worse criminals and psychopaths then yes, I would use them. It would be kinda like a death row with an additional scientific/medicinal benefit for mankind.

But I wanna hear other people's answers on this: Would you consider killing fifty humans if it meant finding the cure for HIV/AIDS?

That reminds me of an exchange on a Simpson's episode:

Caleb: I'm Dr. Caleb Thorne. I would do anything to protect a manatee. Except harm another manatee.

Marge: What if by harming a manatee you could save two manatees? But before you answer consider this. The manatee you'd have to harm is pregnant!

Caleb: Those are the questions that keep me up at night.


I've also heard the same question you ask, but framed like this: what if by killing one child you could end world hunger (or war or some other great plight). Would you do it? And honestly, I just don't think I could, even if I knew millions of people would be saved by the act. It's something of a "deal with the devil" I just don't think I could go through with. Especially when you start to wonder how you pick which child to kill. Which isn't to say it would necessarily be wrong to do it, just that I couldn't do it personally.

 

[Trent Wray]

As has been stated, there isn't a definite right answer on a topic like this. IT really is a matter of subjective opinion.

Hmm ... maybe. Or perhaps something beyond subjective/objective.

Strip me down, completely naked, and remove any and every possible tool at my disposal from me .... and keep it that way indefinitely .... and then the questions perhaps become moot or trumped by something else that makes them as meaningless and impractical as whether or not the tea in the cup floating around Jupiter should be warmed or cooled for possible space traveling mosquitos.

As far as the "would you kill a human to save humans"/manatee discussion:

I am reminded of a show I watched awhile back (you can rent it on the online Netflix immediate watching thing) called The Nature of Evil or something to that effect. In it they discussed some tests that were done on people to try and locate the area of their brains responsible during ethical thought processes .... and how one area might win over another area in order to help a person ultimately decide what to do. So they took MRI scans or something while asking people what they would do in the following scenario:

--------

You live in a village, and are hiding secretly with a group of villagers inside a hut from invading marauders. If discovered, the marauders will most certainly kill all of you, as you are all defenseless ... so staying quiet and hidden is the key.

But you have a baby in your arms. And the baby starts to wake up, crying. You have ONLY one of two choices:

1) Cover over the babies mouth, suffocating the baby to death to prevent it from crying and alert the marauders to your whereabouts .... thus, you WILL protect the entire group.
2) Let the baby cry, alerting the marauders as to your whereabouts and they will, without a doubt, kill you.

It's an either or scenario with results that will take place one way or another (IOW, there are no other options ... no one is going to kill the baby for you, you don't knock the baby unconscious, etc): you suffocate your own baby and save everyone, or let the baby cry and everyone dies.

What do you do?

---------

One of the goals of the test, was to see what caused people to make rational as opposed to irrational choices ... where logic verses feeling crossed the threshold of each other, and morality became vague due to a no-win situation.

And basically, they found most people initially "froze". Sort of like a Windows based computer freezing up . Subjective/objective/rational/irrational .... in a situation like that does it even exist?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Hmm ... maybe. Or perhaps something beyond subjective/objective.

Strip me down, completely naked, and remove any and every possible tool at my disposal from me .... and keep it that way indefinitely .... and then the questions perhaps become moot or trumped by something else that makes them as meaningless and impractical as whether or not the tea in the cup floating around Jupiter should be warmed or cooled for possible space traveling mosquitos.

As far as the "would you kill a human to save humans"/manatee discussion:

I am reminded of a show I watched awhile back (you can rent it on the online Netflix immediate watching thing) called The Nature of Evil or something to that effect. In it they discussed some tests that were done on people to try and locate the area of their brains responsible during ethical thought processes .... and how one area might win over another area in order to help a person ultimately decide what to do. So they took MRI scans or something while asking people what they would do in the following scenario:

--------

You live in a village, and are hiding secretly with a group of villagers inside a hut from invading marauders. If discovered, the marauders will most certainly kill all of you, as you are all defenseless ... so staying quiet and hidden is the key.

But you have a baby in your arms. And the baby starts to wake up, crying. You have ONLY one of two choices:

1) Cover over the babies mouth, suffocating the baby to death to prevent it from crying and alert the marauders to your whereabouts .... thus, you WILL protect the entire group.
2) Let the baby cry, alerting the marauders as to your whereabouts and they will, without a doubt, kill you.

It's an either or scenario with results that will take place one way or another (IOW, there are no other options ... no one is going to kill the baby for you, you don't knock the baby unconscious, etc): you suffocate your own baby and save everyone, or let the baby cry and everyone dies.

What do you do?

---------

One of the goals of the test, was to see what caused people to make rational as opposed to irrational choices ... where logic verses feeling crossed the threshold of each other, and morality became vague due to a no-win situation.

And basically, they found most people initially "froze". Sort of like a Windows based computer freezing up . Subjective/objective/rational/irrational .... in a situation like that does it even exist?

That's not quite the same thing though, because in your scenario, the baby dies no matter what choice you make. The question is whether you would be able to be the one to kill the doomed baby to save everyone else. And what's more, you would probably kill the baby in a far more humane way than however the murderous marauders were going to kill it. They might even rape the baby before they kill it, or torture it for sport. If they're so vicious that we know they will kill the village to the last man, woman, and child, then who knows what horrors they are capable of. Smothering the baby could actually be seen as a mercy killing.

When it comes to inhumane experimentation, we're talking about taking individuals (be they rabbit, chimp, or man) who would otherwise be unharmed and knowingly causing them harm or death for the benefit of others.

But I agree with your point about freezing up. I feel like that's honestly what I would do in such a situation.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

That reminds me of an exchange on a Simpson's episode:

Caleb: I'm Dr. Caleb Thorne. I would do anything to protect a manatee. Except harm another manatee.

Marge: What if by harming a manatee you could save two manatees? But before you answer consider this. The manatee you'd have to harm is pregnant!

Caleb: Those are the questions that keep me up at night.

I've also heard the same question you ask, but framed like this: what if by killing one child you could end world hunger (or war or some other great plight). Would you do it? And honestly, I just don't think I could, even if I knew millions of people would be saved by the act. It's something of a "deal with the devil" I just don't think I could go through with. Especially when you start to wonder how you pick which child to kill. Which isn't to say it would necessarily be wrong to do it, just that I couldn't do it personally.

Well, see, I think that if we are given the opportunity to choose any child, then we shall choose one that was born with a deathly disease so that he was gonna die anyway. Sure, this sounds cold and calculated, but maybe there was a quick, painless way to.... you know what? I think I'll stop cause you won't wanna hang out with me next time you're down in NY

 

[Piggy]

So, how would you improve on that?

I agree that in the US things are done pretty well. Temple Grandin, of course, has introduced some wonderful innovations to cut down on fear and physical injury resulting from panic.

 

[Piggy]

Which raises another question I was wondering ...

How many of us would willingly admit, "I'm a hypocrite" ?

Well, I already did, so there's one.

 

[Piggy]

Have you ever intentionally killed an animal?

I don't like killing animals myself.

But I certainly cause a lot of animals to be killed by participating in the market for meat, leather, medical products, and such.

 

[Loss Leader]

I was faced with such a "choose or die" scenario in a philosophy class in college. Everyone agreed that murder was morally wrong. Then, when the professor asked about the marauders who offer to leave the entire village alone if you shoot one person, every student in the class said the moral thing to do was to shoot the one villager.

I disagreed. I would just walk away into the woods. I can't control who anybody else kills, but I can control whether I choose to kill. Let them murder everyone in the village. None of that will have been caused by me.

When I got to law school, I found out I was right as far as the law is concerned. Only in very rare and special circumstances can inaction make someone culpable. The person who walks away into the woods to let the villagers be murdered has committed no tort and no crime.

 

[Trent Wray]

That's not quite the same thing though, because in your scenario, the baby dies no matter what choice you make. The question is whether you would be able to be the one to kill the doomed baby to save everyone else. And what's more, you would probably kill the baby in a far more humane way than however the murderous marauders were going to kill it. They might even rape the baby before they kill it, or torture it for sport. If they're so vicious that we know they will kill the village to the last man, woman, and child, then who knows what horrors they are capable of. Smothering the baby could actually be seen as a mercy killing.

When it comes to inhumane experimentation, we're talking about taking individuals (be they rabbit, chimp, or man) who would otherwise be unharmed and knowingly causing them harm or death for the benefit of others.

But I agree with your point about freezing up. I feel like that's honestly what I would do in such a situation.

And this is something that has always sort of fascinated me .... something your post is pointing out very well.

Suppose you only had 10 seconds to make that decision ... kill your baby, or have someone else do it for you.

It's easy for us to reflect on possible things that should be done, or could be done ... when we have the luxury of time and reflection and introspection and trying to look at multiple angles.

But when it's happening, right there and then .... it's a different ball game all together. We might freeze up ... or behave in a way completely unpredictable to ourselves. Or, we might have "trained" for moments such as that, so a response from us is more or less "automatic". It's sort of the flip-side to the freezing ... it's still carrying out a task without actually considering the consequences of that task at every point.

So ... in trying to nail down a "right answer" ... is it best to look at that first few seconds of choice/decision making? Or is it best to spend hours examining every possible angle, and coming to a conclusion: "yes ... kill the baby mercifully. Do it yourself. And take comfort in knowing that you did the most humane thing possible" etc and so forth, for example.

It's partly why I am somewhat jealous of creatures that don't sit around and reflect on s*** all the time. There is no "right or wrong way" to do things. There is just "doing things" and moving on, moving forward .... blissfully ignorant, whilst at the same time oblivious to possible ways of bettering your quality of life in the long run.

Sometimes, I think our greatest weakness is trying to accumulate as much "time" as possible in preparation for something .... so that when that something comes, we'll "get it right" the way we want it. Time is a luxury that we often waste contemplating things that haven't happened or already have happened. IMHO.

 

[Trent Wray]

Well, I already did, so there's one.

LOL

And for the record, I freely admit I'm a hypocrite as well ... depending on the topic ...

 

[Trent Wray]

I was faced with such a "choose or die" scenario in a philosophy class in college. Everyone agreed that murder was morally wrong. Then, when the professor asked about the marauders who offer to leave the entire village alone if you shoot one person, every student in the class said the moral thing to do was to shoot the one villager.

I disagreed. I would just walk away into the woods. I can't control who anybody else kills, but I can control whether I choose to kill. Let them murder everyone in the village. None of that will have been caused by me.

When I got to law school, I found out I was right as far as the law is concerned. Only in very rare and special circumstances can inaction make someone culpable. The person who walks away into the woods to let the villagers be murdered has committed no tort and no crime.

Great post. It makes me want to amend the no-win scenario and add one more choice:

You may only do one of THREE things:

* Kill your own baby, and save the everyone hiding in the room.
* Let your baby scream, and everyone in the room will be killed by marauders, including you and your baby.
* Leave the baby in the room with everyone else ... but you escape. You cannot take the baby with you. Everyone in the room, including the baby will die ... but you will live, having escaped just before the marauders come.

In this way, in the eyes of the law, there is an option for you to commit no tort no crime, yes? Plus you get to live. All you have to do is turn your back on everyone, even your own baby.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Meh, babies are overrated anyway.

 

[Trent Wray]

Esp. the ugly ones

 

[devnull]

Meh, babies are overrated anyway.

Youve obviously never tried them with a decent bolognese.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Youve obviously never tried them with a decent bolognese.

Ew! Why the hell would I wanna do that?....


Marinara sauce is much better.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You'd have better luck laying curled up in a ball submissively. IIRC and this may be the documented case, a researcher on wolves who's name escapes me ( I heard this story in a Mammalian History class) that a leading researcher of wolves got attacked by one of his wolves, but because he knew that as an evolutionary instinct to "act submissively" can trigger the predatory response to end in the attacker, as if he's already won.

"Playing dead" is probably safer than trying to work your way into the pack hierarchy like that. The chase response needs something to chase.

Is that the documented case?

Yeah, he was studying wolves that were raiding a dump in Canada and ran when he noticed he was being hunted as he returned from observations. Alone, remote area, did something he knew he shouldn't have done.

 

[phantomb]

I think humans should rightfully be considered separately from other animals. Humans are highly intelligent, self-aware/reflexive, and socially and emotionally similar to myself. These are what I think is important. Because of these, I have great empathy for other humans, and it makes sense to construct societies and moral systems around humans.

In comparison, even the most intelligent, most similar non-human animals are nowhere near as intelligent as we are, often fail the best tests we have for self-awareness, and have at best an underdeveloped theory of mind (understanding that other individuals are independent, thinking agents), let alone the advanced empathic and social abilities that we have. Some animals do very well at some of these, I understand that dogs are highly socially intelligent, often solving theory of mind problems that our great ape relatives fail, but no animal seems even close to our level in the majority of them.

I would say we should try to limit animal suffering because killing animals and causing them pain seems unhealthy mentally. I would be scared of someone who spends their free time butchering animals. Ditto for someone who really wants to kill, say, a brain dead human. I'm sure the experts would agree with me that our society is better off not allowing people to do this kind of thing. And of course, as a socially conscious empathetic member of a society, I would never try to kill your pet, and in exchange I expect that you will grant me the same and not kill mine.