James R said:
funkstar:
You seem to hold several sets of mutually contradictory views. I wonder how you manage the double-think required.
Right back at you...
In light of the remainder of your comments, I must ask: why?
I'm serious. According to your argument, isn't this just "nature's way"? If animals die due to human cruelty, why does that matter to you?
Well, I'm only human. The evolutionary and cultural pressures that have made humans moral have certainly worked on me as well. It "feels" wrong.
Cosmetics in bunnies' eyes is ok, then? Why?
How is this not "disturbing and vile"?
I'm talking medical toxicity tests.
So, it comes down to self-interest, does it? If an animal dies and it doesn't affect you either way, that's ok? And if it benefits you, I guess its death is desirable.
If it doesn't affect me, it isn't necessarily ok, either. If it benefits me (say, for its nutritional value) and it's done in an 'ethical' way, then yes, it's desirable. I like my meat.
I am constantly intrigued as to how often in these kinds of discussions people claim that morality is unimportant, or that they don't care about it. Then in the next breath they will agree that rape is wrong, murder is wrong, etc. etc. (You do think murder is wrong, don't you? Or are you truely "not interested" in the morality of murder?)
Again, I'm not excempt from morality. But I just can't use "It's wrong." as a rational argument for much of anything. But I recognize that there are certain benefits to acting morally, not least of which the benefits to myself (whether directly or indirectly.) Which is why murder and rape are wrong. Not because it's somehow "universally true" that they are wrong, but because it ultimately benefits humans to act accordingly.
Then why is slavery wrong? Or do you think it is neither good nor bad, but just is?
See above.
I was giving my understanding of your argument. I personally don't think humans are separate.
Well, it certainly seems that way given what you write below...
What kinds of rules or laws (if any) have "intrinsic value" to you? Can you explain what you mean by intrinsic value?
I mean that they are either "universally true" or at least applicable in most other contexts then the default one. For instance, "The strong protecting the weak"
is a good guiding principle in many cases, but certainly not all. For instance, at the end of WW2, Germany was the weak party, but did not warrant protection from the Allies.
Again, I must ask: what do you think is wrong with killing animals for sport (deer hunting, bull fighting, duck shooting etc.)?
You say there is no moral issue at stake, so what other reason is there?
Deer hunting and duck shooting are hunting, so I don't see much wrong with that. Bull fighting I regard as antiquated, and since we know the bull suffers greatly during the ordeal, I consider it a nasty practice. As I've made clear, I'm not excempt from morality, even if I presume to have some idea of it's origins.
How do you know that setting the same ground rules for animals would not also improve human society?
Because there's absolutely no way that those ground rules will be followed. With rights come responsibility, and animals simply won't be aware of that.
Because there's no meaningful distinction that can be made between humans and apes (for example), such as to justify treating one species as persons and the other as objects.
Who said they were to be treated as objects? Just because we don't treat them as humans doesn't mean that we treat them as objects.
Again, I am puzzled. You say you're not concerned about morality. So, why is slavery unacceptable? On purely economic grounds, perhaps? Or for some other reason?
Again, slavery is harmful to the overall state of human society (IMO.)
And on what basis do you distinguish human misery from animal misery, exactly?
It's dependent on the animal. But generally, the more the animal is like us, in some respect, the less difference there is. But you seem to think that I don't want to limit animal misery. Well, to the extent of human influence and within reason (mine obviously, not yours) I do. That's why I support animal welfare.
What penalties should apply? Depends on the violation, of course. We have a range of penalties for human against human crimes - assault, battery, murder, theft, etc. If we take animal rights seriously, the same kinds of penalties would apply to the assault, battery, murder etc. of animals. (Note: I have not said the same penalties. I am not arguing for absolute equality here, just a recognition of basic rights which are currently not recognised or respected.)
Ah, but there's the rub. With rights come responsibilities: This is the whole upshot of my argument about human societies. Not because it's everything that matters (as you accuse me of thinking) but because we are given those rights with the condition that we not violate the rights of others. Without that basic ground rule and a way to uphold it, rights are worthless, and
will be broken.
As for imprisoning lions for killing gazelles, we must be aware that human ethics and laws apply to humans. As humans, we don't have a responsibility or right to determine how other animals treat each other. Our concern should be how we treat each other, and how we treat animals. If lions want to enact their own moral or legal codes regarding the treatment of gazelles, they can do it.
But then you're being horribly inconsistent. On the one hand, you want to penalize humans for killing, say, chimpanzees, on the grounds that there are no good reason for morally distuinguishing between us and therefore humans ethics can be applied to chimpanzees. But on the other, you
don't want to penalize
chimpanzees for killing chimpanzees, because human ethics apply only to humans. Isn't that exactly the speciesism you accuse me of? And, btw, it seems to me to be a pretty good reason to morally distinguish between us: One will respect the rights, the other will not.
Take a basic right to life, for example the right not to be arbitrarily shot.
Now, it seems to me that you most likely accept that I do not have a right to go out into the street with my gun and shoot another human being at random. And yet, at the same time, you advocate that I should have the right to go out into the forest with my gun and shoot a deer at random.
Now, explain to me the difference in your two points of view.
The sanctity of human life is a right given to us on the condition that others respect it. With that right in place, human societies benefit from being able to work together (ideally) without having to worry that members of their society will kill them at whim or for personal gain. Therefore we punish those that violate this rule, maybe even depriving them of their rights (by, say, the police shooting you.) As social (intelligent) animals this rule has been selected for, and can even culturally be extended far beyond our Monkeysphere (the specific individuals we care) even as far as every other human (as in the human rights we're discussing.)
In the case of the deer, the deer isn't part of the society in which those rights are given. Because this morality is ingrained in us, we still choose to extend certain rights in a degenerate form to the deer. Recognizing the differences, however, we condition these rules to human interaction with the deer, and with humans as arbiters. Deer don't have the right to life under these circumstances (mainly because venison tastes good).
The important word in that sentence is "unwarranted". The question is what you regard as warranted. For example, if you desire a nice, juicy steak, you think that killing a cow is "warranted". I disagree. And if that cow had a basic right to life, you could not kill it purely for the pleasure you gain in consuming it.
Well, I wouldn't be doing that, would I? I like steak for the reason that it's an extremely good nutrition source. The fact that I get personal enjoyment from it is a trait that will have been selected for, because it would have increased the chances of survival, but it is secondary to the fact that eating meat is good for me.
The thing is: while you claim to support animal welfare, your idea of animal welfare is a sham at its base. If ever your interests conflict with the potential interests of an animal, your interests automatically take precedence. You can't have true animal welfare while at the same time retaining the absolute right to treat the animal solely as a resource for your exploitation.
I simply disagree.
Of course my interests take precedence. But that's true even in
human interactions as well: If a human attacks me with a knife, I have the right to possibly kill him in self defense. If a lion attacks me, do I not have the right to defend myself?
Rights are extended between equals with equal
responsibility for upholding them. Animals cannot be given
rights, because they will not, and
cannot take up the responsibility that follows.
We're talking about basic rights here. Such rights include the right not to be arbitrarily killed, as I discussed above.
What about the chimpanzee whose right not to be arbitrarily killed is violated by other chimpanzees? Why is it ok for a chimpanzee to kill another chimpanzee, but wrong for a human?
They also include a right not to be kept as the property of another. Rights to medical care, access to food and water and so on are non-basic rights. In fact, many human beings do not have those rights.
Well, they have the rights, but they aren't being upheld, for shame...
I find this point of view very sad. I'm guessing you probably live in a city, with little contact with the natural world.
Again, this is based on a strange concept of what is, and isn't, "the natural world". A city is
every bit a part of the natural world. The fact that we humans shape our environments does not make them unnatural, unless your idea of nature is "untouched by human hand" (a foolish romanticism). You wouldn't say that a termite tower isn't part of the natural world, so why is a high-rise? You might say that a city doesn't look much like the country, but a mountain-side doesn't look much like a lake, either. The notion that we are
separate from nature is as arrogant as the one that says we are above it. We are neither. It is an idea of the same school as the "noble savage living in harmony with nature", which, of course, turned out to be simply wrong.
The point I was making with the tiger going extinct is that nature is continually changing, and that this is neither sad nor preventable. The idea that the status quo is especially worth preserving is either a romantic notion that there's something "special" about it, or a pragmatic (but ultimately futile) notion that humans are especially fit to the current environment, and that we should therefore keep it that way. Both betray a poor grasp of how nature works.
I am sorry you have such a limited appreciation of nature.
And I'm sorry you have such a limited
understanding of it.