Is it right to put people first?

[Pandaemoni]

Pandaemoni, I really think that that kind of defense of the dignity of plants and animals is inspired by contempt and hatred for humans, not by any love of life. A person cannot truly love animals and hate humans.

I disagree. If you read the Swiss report on the matter (and the accompanying one on the dignity of animals) there is shown both a concern for humans *and*other living things. The report is nothing more than an argument that plants have an innate value (as humans do in this way of thinking). Following from that the ethical conclusion drawn is that plants are not and should not be open to wanton exploitation. They do agree, for example, that it is okay to eat them (as they do with animals), though that would plainly, it seems to me, be because there is no purely synthetic alternative. Barring a cataclysm I would imagine that synthetic, non-biological, foods can't be all that far off.

James R. underlying point (from prior debates) seems to me to be that "animals" have no intrinsic value, but rather than consciousness, however slight, does. He defines consciousness (for this purpose) as "possessing a central nervous system." I argue that that is an arbitrary distinction (and counts out many animals, like all insects, lobsters, etc.) Under that view he dismisses it as obvious that plants have no value, but under many very rational ethical systems you can imagine that they would. It is not beyond conception to believe that even inanimate objects can have a certain "spirit" as that (the more inclusive forms of animism) is a common belief in many cultures even in modern times (as in the Shinto religion).

If one believes that spirit, kami or whatever is the source of true consciousness, then the same rules of respect should ally to them. No one would take that to the point where people are required to starve rather than harm plants, but alternatives to eating plants are not yet available. When technology changes, those at the bleeding edge of ethics (or, in my view, those beyond the bounds of all good sense) will decry the practice of eating plants as wrong, for reasons likely the same as that identified in the report of the Swiss government.

 

[swarm]

No, because other animals aren't allowed to kill and eat humans.

Allowed? Excuse me while I laugh.

Stop eating me you nasty animal, its not allowed!

 

[swarm]

Man the hunted
http://books.google.com/books?id=Sn...a=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA2,M1

 

[Enmos]

It is responsible to breed animals and raise meat. What they suffer in the course of that enterprise is necessary suffering. Ethics only forbids unnecessary suffering.

Would you stop confusing animals in general with livestock and/or pets :bugeye:

 

[swarm]

ok, but why?

 

[Enmos]

 

[MetaKron]

Would you stop confusing animals in general with livestock and/or pets :bugeye:

Livestock and pets are animals. They have just as much right to live and propagate as everyone else. They deserve equal consideration, without the bias that says that they should not exist.

My respect for humanity is such that I can see the good in what we have done for livestock and pets.

 

[MetaKron]

I disagree. If you read the Swiss report on the matter (and the accompanying one on the dignity of animals) there is shown both a concern for humans *and*other living things. The report is nothing more than an argument that plants have an innate value (as humans do in this way of thinking). Following from that the ethical conclusion drawn is that plants are not and should not be open to wanton exploitation. They do agree, for example, that it is okay to eat them (as they do with animals), though that would plainly, it seems to me, be because there is no purely synthetic alternative. Barring a cataclysm I would imagine that synthetic, non-biological, foods can't be all that far off.

Watch out whether they actually respect humans or pay lip service to respect to humans for cosmetic reasons. Be sure that you know what they believe constitutes respect because we're dealing with people who advocate saving animals by killing them and by preventing them from breeding.

 

[Pandaemoni]

we're dealing with people who advocate saving animals by killing them and by preventing them from breeding.

I believe in that. We've eliminated their natural predators and habitat and wind up leaving them to disease and starvation. One obvious fix (since "bring wolves and cougars to populated areas" is not a good option) if for humans to step in in the role predators once filled.

Fun for the humans, better for the animals.

 

[MetaKron]

I believe in that. We've eliminated their natural predators and habitat and wind up leaving them to disease and starvation. One obvious fix (since "bring wolves and cougars to populated areas" is not a good option) if for humans to step in in the role predators once filled.

Fun for the humans, better for the animals.

Another fix is to make the predators pets and livestock. Then they have a lower infant mortality rate, the ability to maintain large populations safely, medical care, lots of friends, and a really sweet deal.

The people who dis us for that are not very nice, to say the least.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Another fix is to make the predators pets and livestock. Then they have a lower infant mortality rate, the ability to maintain large populations safely, medical care, lots of friends, and a really sweet deal.

So the solution is...fox hunting? I have no issue with using dogs to hunt, though again, given a choice myself, I'd rather go by gunshot that be mauled and have my throat torn out.

Cougars, lynxes and many other cats, and wolverines and bears my understanding is, are difficult to impossible to domesticate. I don't think it's that our ancestors never tried.

 

[James R]

Pandaemoni:

You still limit yourself to animals...but your are being surpassed by those who basically agree with you. We must protect the dignity of plants

http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-Broschure-Wurde-Pflanze-2008.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122359549477921201.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

There's little point trying to debate somebody like MetaKron, or yourself for that matter, on plant rights, when you do not even accept that a cow has a right not to be arbitrarily killed and eating by a human being.

James R. underlying point (from prior debates) seems to me to be that "animals" have no intrinsic value, but rather than consciousness, however slight, does.

As a first step, I think we need to look at large mammals such as cows. If we can't agree that a cow has intrinsic value, we're unlikely to be able to agree that a worm or a petunia has intrinsic value.

So, I choose to start at the easy end of the argument, especially for people who have never apparently given any thought to the question of whether anything non-human might have interests of its own.

He defines consciousness (for this purpose) as "possessing a central nervous system." I argue that that is an arbitrary distinction (and counts out many animals, like all insects, lobsters, etc.) Under that view he dismisses it as obvious that plants have no value, but under many very rational ethical systems you can imagine that they would.

I don't think that I have never claimed that plants have no value. Or insects or lobsters.

Personally, when I find a spider in my house, I do not squash it or swat it. I capture it and take it outside. If I thought the spider had no value, why would I do that?

It is not beyond conception to believe that even inanimate objects can have a certain "spirit" as that (the more inclusive forms of animism) is a common belief in many cultures even in modern times (as in the Shinto religion).

There's no evidence of that, though. Nor is there evidence of any form of "plant consciousness", for that matter. (Note: this does not mean that plants have no value).

When technology changes, those at the bleeding edge of ethics (or, in my view, those beyond the bounds of all good sense) will decry the practice of eating plants as wrong, for reasons likely the same as that identified in the report of the Swiss government.

That is possible. You haven't shown that it is wrong, either.

 

[MetaKron]

So the solution is...fox hunting? I have no issue with using dogs to hunt, though again, given a choice myself, I'd rather go by gunshot that be mauled and have my throat torn out.

Cougars, lynxes and many other cats, and wolverines and bears my understanding is, are difficult to impossible to domesticate. I don't think it's that our ancestors never tried.

Have you actually not looked around and seen how well these animals do as pets? There are a lot of people out there who tell outrageous lies about this and who don't know spit but just like to play that game. No one knows of any pet cougar that has killed any human and they seem to get along fantastically even with people they have never met before. Whether they are possible to domesticate depends on your definition of domestication, and AR people play games with that so their information is useless, as usual.

What people do manage to do is keep these animals in situations that are at least as safe for the humans involves as if things were left wild, but at least theoretically, without the deliberate intervention of other humans, it's very safe for the animals. Anything breeds well in captivity these days because private owners know more about them than the large institutions do and because they've learned how not to make it more difficult than it has to be.

Look around carefully at things like the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Look at the disruptions and the kind of control of humans that would be needed to "re-wild" large areas, and how that is opposed to the ideals of human rights. Taking risks with human lives so that we can domesticate and propagate big cats, water buffalo, rhinoceroses, and so on, is a lot less risky, a lot less damaging, and more certain to work. Rearranging human domains and killing off human freedoms will set of a civil war, that or they will drag us out of our houses at gunpoint and the human reservations will essentially become concentration camps. Keeping pets and livestock is a far better option and it puts people first. Forcing masses of people to relocate, or killing masses of people, denies them this "equal consideration" that some people promote while using it as an excuse. That kind of contradiction is itself a good reason to scuttle the animal rights program.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Have you actually not looked around and seen how well these animals do as pets? There are a lot of people out there who tell outrageous lies about this and who don't know spit but just like to play that game.

That's interesting...would you rather die by shooting or cougar attack? I still say "shoot me." Why would a deer feel any differently? Plus the annual cost for me to keep and use a gun is minimal. Cougars eat 3-5% of ther body weight per day, and it's all meat. A few pounds of meat per day is a might expensive for a pet. And that doesn't count health care, costs of replacing furniture for those whose cats claw the crap out of the place or spray on everything in sight. The damage caused by those scales up from the btypical housecat (though not linearly, thank god).

How would they be used to hunt anyway? Open the door and put them outside on their own? Force them to hunt on a leash? I have a sneaking suspicion that your plan ais as crazy as it sounds.

We might as well just wait for time machines and stop humans from altering the environment, as wait for society to adopt a "cougar in every hundreth home" policy. You'd be better off encouraging dog owners to train them to kill animals. Again, that is not a great kindness to the animals that would be killed, and will cause problems in any area with livestock (perhaps not to the same extent as cougars though).

We have an elegant, inexpensive, fun and efficient solution already, traditional hunting.

 

[MetaKron]

Well, they keep talking like animals are important enough to make sacrifices and take risks for, so here it is. Humans have already been doing the right things.

 

[MetaKron]

Pandaemoni:
There's little point trying to debate somebody like MetaKron, or yourself for that matter, on plant rights, when you do not even accept that a cow has a right not to be arbitrarily killed and eating by a human being.

Using the word "arbitrary" as a stick rather than to shed light on the subject.

As a first step, I think we need to look at large mammals such as cows. If we can't agree that a cow has intrinsic value, we're unlikely to be able to agree that a worm or a petunia has intrinsic value.

I know what the term intrinsic value means. It doesn't mean what animal rights screed says that it means. Real intrinsic value includes the nourishment that its body can provide. This use of the term is coined to create a verbal device to further an agenda. It means nothing more than "the value that animal rights activists place on something using their own arbitrary criteria."

So, I choose to start at the easy end of the argument, especially for people who have never apparently given any thought to the question of whether anything non-human might have interests of its own.

Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean that they haven't given thought to the question. Having given thought to it is likely to be the reason why they don't agree with you.

Humans are entitled to make use of the intrinsic value of animals, as are other natural predators. The fact that your argument is regressive is how the question of plant rights even came up.

 

[James R]

[enc]intrinsic value[/enc]

 

[MetaKron]

[enc]intrinsic value[/enc]

I don't have to accept the definition that you wrote, and your definition isn't what most people use as the definition. The intrinsic value of stock, precious metals, or commodities is commonly defined as the worth that people can get from those things. Animal rights activists like to change the definitions of common terms and try to foist them on the rest of us. This is a way to tip the playing field.

You went with some interpretation of this idea that certain philosophers have worked out over the centuries:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/

In relation to the rights of animals you place "intrinsic worth" in the realm of things that only special people can see, like the people who could see that the emperor was in fact wearing a fine new set of clothes. We still haven't reached a place where it is proven that the intrinsic worth of an animal takes precedent over a human's obligation to service his own intrinsic worth. In fact it looks like the criteria for any such proof are taken out of my hands and put in the realm of "Sit down, shut up, bend over and take it." That's the reason to use vague and obfuscatory terminology and precepts.

In other words, just because an animal has intrinsic value does not mean that I should not eat it. It does not mean that you get to dictate to me the proper manner of respect for that intrinsic value. You may think you have good reasons to do so, but I have the right to think for myself and disagree. You produce a new term and demand compliance that it may vaguely appear to justify, and some people get abusive when they don't receive the kind of compliance that you demand. That abusiveness proves my point: They don't have any clothes on.

I choose my own way to respect the intrinsic value of animals and this includes breeding as many individuals and species as is practical to maintain their existence. Animal rights activists consistently, persistently, and violently attack people who do it my way, which proves that they don't know when the animals are getting a good deal.

 

[Baron Max]

intrinsic value

Having humans define their own "value" is sorta' like asking convicted criminals to set their jail sentences!

A human has "value" only if he is productive for his society (usually referring to his "immediate" and personally-social group).

To a person in New York City, a man in Siberia probably has no "value" - because he is NOT productive to the society of NYC. And, just so you know, the opposite is also true. "Value" is relative and not, or should not be, automatically set at birth!

Baron Max

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Oh cmon Max, let's just start stamping people at birth with a dollar value, once they use it up, we kill them. It'd solve some problems, anyway.