Spain to recognise great ape rights

[James R]

SouthStar:

At this stage, your ridicule of Singer is just hot air, without substance.

 

[James R]

Buffalo Roam:

Your post appears to be completely irrelevant. Maybe you ought to read the thread.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

The way you are talking about rights for the large apes, I thought it would help to show that they are anamals after all and not some warm fuzzy play thing, they are wild and they are dangerious, and they have no moral compunction on killing, so to give them rights as humans is totally absurd, as they are not human, and do not think in human terms.

: Folia Primatol (Basel). 1977;28(4):259-89. Related Articles, Links

Infant killing and cannibalism in free-living chimpanzees.

Goodall J.

Male chimpanzees at the Gombe National Park were twice seen to attack 'stranger' females and seize their infants. One infant was then killed and partially eaten: the other was 'rescued' and carried by three different males. Once several males were found eating a freshly killed 'stranger' infant. A similar event was observed in Uganda by Dr. Suzuki and Dr. Nishida reports an incident from the Mahali Mountains, Tanzania. A different kind of killing occurred at Gombe when a female and her daughter killed and ate three infants of other females of the same community during a 2-year period. There is evidence suggesting that other infants may have died in this way. The paper draws attention to puzzling aspects of infant killing and cannibalism in chimpanzees.

PMID: 564321 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[James R]

The way you are talking about rights for the large apes, I thought it would help to show that they are anamals after all and not some warm fuzzy play thing, they are wild and they are dangerious, and they have no moral compunction on killing, so to give them rights as humans is totally absurd, as they are not human, and do not think in human terms.

But humans are wild and dangerous, and have no moral compunction on killing either. So, I guess you're against human rights, too.

No need to respond. Your views are already confirmed by your statements on Guantanamo, etc.

 

[James R]

funkstar:

It is interesting the test you apply to eating meat. Here, you weigh up your nutrition against the lives of the animals killed for you, and you decide that you take precedence. Unsurprising.

Of course it is unsurprising. We need food to live.

You don't need to eat animals to live.

Untrue. For instance, in the case of bull-fighting, the interest of the bull to avoid suffering outweighs the interests of the audience to be so entertained, in my opinion.

But this doesn't extend to hunting. The interests of a deer don't outweigh the interests of the hunter to be entertained, according to you.

Another clear double-standard.

Hunting is what we did before raising livestock. I don't see that there's a great enough difference between them to support one and not the other: They ultimately end with killing the animal and eating it.

Do you believe that hunting is only permissible if the animal is killed for food? What about killing for fur? Or just for the fun of it?

I'm interested in just how you draw your arbitrary lines.

Would it be ok for humans to hunt other humans? If not, why not?

You're not listening, are you? It is detrimental to human society, and ultimately myself, if we don't have ground rules which makes it safe for us to work together.

Hunting is certainly detrimental to animal society. But then, that is irrelevant to you. How convenient for you.

Many human beings have rights but no responsibilities. I cannot kill a human child and eat it. It has a right to life, even though it has no capacity for fulfilling moral duties. So, how is a cow or an ape different?

A human child will grow up and assume those responsibilities once it is an adult. Cows and apes will not.

So, the potential to fulfil a responsibility is enough to grant a right?

What about mentally disabled humans who have no potential capacity for fulfilling moral duties? Do they have any rights?

The fact of the matter is that we do treat animals as objects, whenever we want to. Sure, sometimes humans act magnanimously towards animals, but only when it suits them. If a human wants to shoot a cow and eat it, that's acceptable, apparently. The cow is property which the human can dispose of as he sees fit. How is this not treating the cow merely as property for exploitation?

Treating it as an object suggests treating it as we see fit in every circumstance.

Yes - which is exactly what we do. Isn't it?

I could argue that cruelty to animals (which includes arbitrarily killing them for food) sets a bad example for humans, and therefore is equally harmful to human society.

That suggests that your morality is a good measure of what is, and isn't good for human society. I disagree. Good measures are things like lifetime expectancy, infant deaths, disease frequency, population etc. "Setting a bad example" is a hopelessly subjective measure.

I was just trying to put things in your terms. It is you who has been arguing that value to human society is the only thing that matters. Remember?

Human ethics are applied to human actions, as I said. The Spanish law which is the subject of this thread concerns human treatment of great apes, not great apes' treatment of each other.

But then you're saying that humans are special and that we therefore are justified in differentiating between humans and great apes. You can't have it both ways.

You need to be a little more specific. I have been talking specifically about basic rights, using as an example the right not to be shot. Regarding that right, I do not think there is any difference between a human and a chimpanzee such as to justify the human having a right not to be shot, while denying the chimp the same right.

Do you see any important difference?

When it comes to other rights, such as the right to vote, for example, there probably are important differences between chimps and humans.

The Spanish law deals only with certain basic rights, not the complete set of human rights. So, be specific about what you wish to discuss.

Does this mean you will refuse to confer any rights on another person if they cannot or will not confer the same reciprocal rights on you?

No. You don't seem to understand: Everybody gets those rights, even the infirm and elderly, even babies, because it is a more optimal choice than having to protect ourselves against everybody else. Those who are able to take responsibility must do so.

Why is it not a "more optimal choice" to give the same rights to great apes, then? That would protect the apes, for a start.

There's the very good reason to draw the line at humans that the rights originated within human society for explicitly human benifit.

So, this is an argument from tradition: things have always been this way, so why change. Tradition need not be correct, funkstar. Sometimes, traditions need to change in the light of advances in ethics.

They're there for cultural and evolutionary purposes: It makes us more fit to the environment. If you want to extend it beyond humans, you have to explain where you want the line to be drawn and why. It's not good enough to say "Let's do this first and worry about the rest later." Where do you want the line to be drawn?

Regarding basic rights of the kind I've been discussing, I'd like the line to be drawn so as to include all sentient creatures (i.e. those capable of feeling pain and suffering, and appreciating those things for what they are).

But great apes is the first big hurdle - to break silly humans out of their traditional speciesism.

No. I already admitted that my interests take precedence. That's how things are in nature - any species that chooses otherwise goes extinct.

On the one hand, you talk about evolution as being independent of individual choices (let the tigers die, because that's how evolution works). But on the other hand, you advocate that a species chooses to exclude other species from moral consideration, because that choice has survival benefits.

So, which is it? Is it ok to interfere with evolution on moral grounds, or not?

Your assumption that your rights are more important than the rights of the cow still needs to be put on some defensible footing.

If I don't eat food I die. I don't want to die. Defensible enough for you?

No. This is patently stupid and dishonest, and you know it.

Sure, you need to eat food to live, but you don't need to eat animals.

Why try to deflect the discussion in such a manner? Is it because you know that eating meat is morally indefensible?

Yes. But those situations are vastly different from you taking your gun and shooting a deer which is not threatening you in any way. Can you spot the difference?

Yes, of course. However, that doesn't invalidate the argument. I still need food to live. If that makes is defensible for a lion to kill a gazelle, why isn't it true for humans?

Well, for one thing, lions are carnivores and cannot survive without meat. You can. You don't need to eat deer.

Human infants and disabled people are not "equals" to human adults, and cannot take equal responsibility for upholding rights and the law. Yet you agree that they have basic rights, such as the right not to be arbitrarily shot.

You have a clear double standard here, as I said before.

No, because you're still thinking in individuals. The rights apply to individuals for the benefit of the species (originally groups/tribes/societies). Even those individuals which are not up to the task of the responsibility because they either will be (as in the case of infants), or they already have (as with many disabled people.)

We are talking about individual rights here, funkstar. The right of an individual not to be shot is just that: an individual right. In the case of human beings, that right is enforceable against the interests of an other person who wishes to abrogate it. That is why murderers are put in jail.

The right not to be shot is not possessed by some abstract "species", but by individual persons.

Again, I wonder at your motives in trying to remove this discussion from the individual level.

I didn't say it was ok for one chimpanzee to kill another. But it does not follow that I have a right to prevent one chimp from killing another.

Why not? If you support the notion that it is evil enough for a human to kill a chimpanzee to warrant punishment, on the grounds of the interest of the chimpanzee, why won't you protect the interest of the chimpanzee to not be arbitrarily killed by another chimpanzee? It seems to be a particularly hollow kind of right you want to extend to the chimpanzees. In fact, you're not really interested in their rights, are you?

Humans have a system of justice which is mutually agreed to apply to all humans in a society. Similarly, I am sure that chimpanzees have their own moral codes and boundaries which they enforce in their own ways. Chimps did not elect me to interfere in their relationships with each other. So, why should I have that right?

On the other hand, the issue we are discussing in this thread concerns the actions of humans towards other animals. Like any other area of human action, it is appropriate that humans regulate this for themselves.

Finally, I might say that this issue is debateable, but takes us far from the topic of the thread. And you're not even past square one, yet: how humans ought to treat apes. Therefore, you're unlikely to be ready to cope with the one-more-step-removed issue of how chimps should treat each other.

What puzzles me is that you think it is ok for a human being, such as yourself, to arbitrarily kill a chimpanzee.

Did I say that? Did I say that it was ok to arbitrarily kill a chimpanzee? No, I didn't.

But you could kill one in a hunt, and that would be fine. Right?

You think that "You need to get out more." somehow invalidates my argument?

What argument? There's nothing to be argued about how you personally value animals (or not). There's no logical basis for that; it's just a personal idiosyncrasy, born of lack of experience. Only time and experience can cure that.

Again, I can only urge you to get out and experience nature. Go hiking. Get a pet.

What you fail to appreciate, or at least to worry much about, is that it is humans who are largely responsible for species decline at present.

You speak of this as if this is somehow a bad thing in and of itself. How much do you really know about evolution? (Note: I'm not advocating the extinction of species by this.)

This is a bad thing in and of itself. What gives humans the right to drive other species to extinction, for nothing but short-term self-interest? Even taking a completely human-centric position (which you should be able to appreciate), this is not in humanity's long-term interests.

How much do I know about evolution? A lot. (Does it matter?)

You're very persistent in ascribing me motives I have not expressed support for. I didn't say that I wanted to live in a world without those animals, nor did I say that we should wipe them out: I have as deep a cultural affection for them as you. I would find it saddening to recite "Tiger, Tiger" without any actual tigers alive. I just said that their extinction is inevitable, and that I will not weep for that in itself.

But their extinction is not inevitable. Human beings have the power to prevent their extinction.

You say you care, but you really don't. Or you have another bad case of double-think.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Mother nature has done a lot extinction her self, I've read that something like 95% of all life became extinct before man even walk upright, and a lot of it was because the speices couldn't compete with other spieces. The other problem is when a species numbers become to small the inbreeding genitics takes care of the rest.

 

[Billy T]

...The interests of a deer don't outweigh the interests of the hunter to be entertained, according to you...

I have not read yet all your post but want to note, that although I have never shot a deer and do not think I would feel good about doing so, I am very much in favor of deer hunting, if properly regulated. Deer are very abundant on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, a very agricultural area. - Flat low land between the Atlantic Ocean and the Chesapeake Bay.

The deer do some destruction of the crops, but I doubt if that is economically significant, especially if compared to what insects do. Insecticides are used to kill the insects by the trillions and no one complains about that, (except for the fact the insecticide is released into the environment etc.) The deer do so well during most of the year, that their population expands beyond the "carrying capacity" of the remaining forests during the winter. If some are not killed, all will starve. There are deer registration stations and most kills are reported. (I think that if you have a dead deer tied on your car, you may be stopped and asked for the registration certificate etc. Perhaps if it is still warm, you have no problem if saying you are on your way to register it.)

I know that there is a "doe-only" season of a few days and a couple of weeks before it opens the archers get to safely* hunt, but doubt if they get more than 20 deer. The registration data is used to control the kill. If it is not high enough in the initial period, as is the usual case, after a few days delay 2 to 5 days more will be open. No one likes to see deer so weak that they can not jump over fences. I once saw one impaled on a fence post while driving.

I once went to a "hunter’s ball" at fancy country club (as guest of my date, not member)**. Most there did not keep to eat any of the deer or other animals they killed but gave them way (via the local volunteer fire station, I think) to hospitals, old folks homes etc. so the meat would be used. I do not know, but think about 50% of the kill goes this route and other half is eaten by the hunter's family and friends. Deer are a natural meat resource available in some areas that should feed humans in need of protein, not buzzard picking it off their bones in some harvested corn or soybean field, after starvation has killed them.

by edit: read more ofyour post now. You say:
"Hunting is certainly detrimental to animal society. But then, that is irrelevant to you."
But as shown above, that is not necessarily true.

2nd edit: you give Funkstar a hard time, asking "I'm interested in just how you draw your arbitrary lines." etc. I will do the same to you:
You also say:
"I do not think there is any difference between a human and a chimpanzee such as to justify the human having a right not to be shot, while denying the chimp the same right. Do you see any important difference?"

While I agree that unusual circumstances are required to justfy killing a Chimp, where do you "draw the line?" Ok for my rat killing above? - It did reduce rat population, and that is generally public supported, especially when one has knawed the ear off a sleeping slum baby etc. If rats have a right to life, what about those "trillions of insects" annually killed on the Eastern Shore? They only die to make food production more economical. - No insecticide methods are well know, using nature means. (Some other plants in alternate rows, Lady bugs, etc.) Are you very careful when walking (not to step on ant)? Where and how do YOU draw the line?
------------------------------------------
*They must be hard to detect, very slow and quitely moving while trying to stay "down wind" while getting close enough for a clean shot, etc.

**I sat next to young man who hunted alligators at night, (in another state, I think) just for the sport. I think they became food for some fish or crayfish in the bottom of the swamp. I have a pump air rifle, which did not make much noise when fired. As graduate student, a couple of times each month, I went in the alley behind the near by A&P food store and tried to kill rats. I am sure I must have hit several, but they are so tough that never did I see a dead body. - Some how they crawled away into a hole. He was not impressed with my hunting skills.

 

[funkstar]

You don't need to eat animals to live.

We're omnivores. Meats are beneficial nutrition sources. The fact that it's possible to survive without eating animals does not in itself justify not eating animals. There's an argument to be made that not eating meat (at least occationally) leads to lower overall fitness in evolutionary terms. That's not an option for the species as a whole: So, yes, I do need to eat animals to live.

Besides, bears are pretty much omnivorous, too: Do you consider it wrong for a bear to eat salmon seeing as it can survive on non-animal nutrition sources? Why are humans special?

But this doesn't extend to hunting. The interests of a deer don't outweigh the interests of the hunter to be entertained, according to you.

Another clear double-standard.

Only a double-standard by your morals.

Do you believe that hunting is only permissible if the animal is killed for food? What about killing for fur? Or just for the fun of it?

I'm interested in just how you draw your arbitrary lines.

Well, historically we would have killed for food first, and then realized the potential of the fur later. I don't particularly have a problem with either as a current phenomenon. The "just for the fun of it" is a bit different: I don't like bull-fighting, for instance. But on the other hand, the hunters I know certainly do it for excitement as well, and I don't consider that immoral. And there's plenty of precendence in nature: Cats "toying" with weak prey probably releases all kinds of nice pleasure hormones in their brains. The fact that it trains them for survival apparently doesn't matter to you - you didn't accept that I eat meat for nourishment but only considered the gratification it gave me. Are cats evil? Why are humans special?

And, by the way, my lines are no more arbitrarily drawn than yours.

Hunting is certainly detrimental to animal society. But then, that is irrelevant to you. How convenient for you.

You seem adamant in misunderstanding my argument: Human rights aren't there because they are right; the ethics you're so preoccupied with aren't there because they are right. They are there for human benefit. That's why I don't consider it at all strange to argue ethics in terms of human benefit.

So, the potential to fulfil a responsibility is enough to grant a right?

What about mentally disabled humans who have no potential capacity for fulfilling moral duties? Do they have any rights?

Think this one out for yourself. It shouldn't be difficult. (Hint: Yes, they have rights.)

Yes - which is exactly what we do. Isn't it?

Not from my point of view, it isn't. Not anymore than we treat everything else in the world (including other humans) as objects. You keep bringing up this objectification and "economic resource" etc. as if those terms are somehow evil, and that this somehow supports your argument. It doesn't.

You need to be a little more specific. I have been talking specifically about basic rights, using as an example the right not to be shot. Regarding that right, I do not think there is any difference between a human and a chimpanzee such as to justify the human having a right not to be shot, while denying the chimp the same right.

Do you see any important difference?

It should be clear from the discussion we're having that, yes, I do. And besides, you are denying the chimpanzee that right in general: You're limiting it to human interaction with chimpanzees. Your rights are, to use your term, a sham, and not really rights at all.

Why is it not a "more optimal choice" to give the same rights to great apes, then? That would protect the apes, for a start.

Again, you seem to think the rights have some justification in themselves. They don't: They're for human benefit, and are based on human social interaction. As such, I think it's a non sequitur to extend them to apes.

So, this is an argument from tradition: things have always been this way, so why change. Tradition need not be correct, funkstar. Sometimes, traditions need to change in the light of advances in ethics.

Ethics aren't like science. There's not necessarily convergence, nor are you likely to find two people agreeing on anything more than the basics, if that.

Regarding basic rights of the kind I've been discussing, I'd like the line to be drawn so as to include all sentient creatures (i.e. those capable of feeling pain and suffering, and appreciating those things for what they are).

Why draw an arbitrary line at sentience? Isn't it just because you, yourself, are sentient? Why it the sentient suffering of an orangutan any more "evil" than the non-sentient suffering of say, a beetle?

How convenient for you to ignore the interests of the non-sentient. Unsurprising, I might say.

On the one hand, you talk about evolution as being independent of individual choices (let the tigers die, because that's how evolution works).

I hope not. That would be falling directly into the trap that we are somehow "above" or "excempt" from nature/evolution. Of course, we're not.

But on the other hand, you advocate that a species chooses to exclude other species from moral consideration, because that choice has survival benefits.

So, which is it? Is it ok to interfere with evolution on moral grounds, or not?

What makes you think you even can?

Sure, you need to eat food to live, but you don't need to eat animals.

Why try to deflect the discussion in such a manner? Is it because you know that eating meat is morally indefensible?

Don't be silly.

Well, for one thing, lions are carnivores and cannot survive without meat. You can. You don't need to eat deer.

What about bears, then? Or the chimpanzees? Is it evil for them to eat meat? Why are humans special?

Humans have a system of justice which is mutually agreed to apply to all humans in a society. Similarly, I am sure that chimpanzees have their own moral codes and boundaries which they enforce in their own ways. Chimps did not elect me to interfere in their relationships with each other. So, why should I have that right?

This is exactly what I'm talking about: You really aren't concerned with the interest of the chimpanzee (which in any case seems to be based on an anthropomorphism). You're only interested in forcing your personal morality on the rest of humanity.

And you're not even past square one, yet: how humans ought to treat apes. Therefore, you're unlikely to be ready to cope with the one-more-step-removed issue of how chimps should treat each other.

Your personal morality isn't any higher on the "steps to enlightenment" than mine. I don't consider your morality to better, or even coherent. So don't give me that master/apprentice you-have-much-to-learn-bullshit.

But you could kill one in a hunt, and that would be fine. Right?

Not necessarily. Do you understand that my stance is a little more nuanced than what you make out, yet?

What argument? There's nothing to be argued about how you personally value animals (or not). There's no logical basis for that; it's just a personal idiosyncrasy, born of lack of experience. Only time and experience can cure that.

Just because your personal (romantic and wrong) idea of what is and isn't nature isn't shared by me does not mean that you have the right to patronize me. Please don't do it again.

This is a bad thing in and of itself.

Why?

What gives humans the right to drive other species to extinction, for nothing but short-term self-interest?

Exactly the same that gives every other species the right to fight for survival and reproduction. Nothing. But we'll damn well do it anyway.

How much do I know about evolution? A lot. (Does it matter?)

Yes, it matters. If you do know a lot about evolution you obviously didn't see fit to consider your viewpoint in light of it. Otherwise the origin of ethics and altruism in human society; predator/prey relationships; the Red Queen effect; etc. should all have popped into your mind as relevant. It seems they didn't. That's why I ask.

But their extinction is not inevitable. Human beings have the power to prevent their extinction.

No. We really don't. We might be able to postpone it for (probably) a very short time in geological terms, but that doesn't mean they won't go extinct.

In any case, doesn't the interest of the tiger to stay alive conflict rather heavily with the interest of it's prey to not be eaten? Why does one weigh heavier than the other (especially considering the large amount of victims the tiger needs to stay alive)?

You say you care, but you really don't. Or you have another bad case of double-think.

You also say you care, but you really don't either.

 

[James R]

Billy T:

I have not read yet all your post but want to note, that although I have never shot a deer and do not think I would feel good about doing so, I am very much in favor of deer hunting, if properly regulated.
...
If some are not killed, all will starve.

So, in that case the killing benefits the deer. I don't know whether there would be better options than killing them off...

This is very different to most of the animal slaughter which occurs in America, of course. That is done solely to benefit humans, one way or another.

Deer are a natural meat resource available in some areas that should feed humans in need of protein, not buzzard picking it off their bones in some harvested corn or soybean field, after starvation has killed them.

It is reasonable that if these deer need to be killed, then they should be used productively.

Again, this is very different from most of the meat production which occurs in America.

"Hunting is certainly detrimental to animal society. But then, that is irrelevant to you." But as shown above, that is not necessarily true.

You're right. It is not necessarily true. There are a few, rare exceptions where it might benefit animals.

"I do not think there is any difference between a human and a chimpanzee such as to justify the human having a right not to be shot, while denying the chimp the same right. Do you see any important difference?"

While I agree that unusual circumstances are required to justfy killing a Chimp, where do you "draw the line?" Ok for my rat killing above?

I would draw the line at sentience in most cases. In the case of rats, whether killing them is right or wrong depends very much on what damage they are causing or likely to cause. For example, rats were a major transmission vector of plague in the past.

Nevertheless, there is obviously no excuse to kill rats in a way that causes them excessive pain.

If rats have a right to life, what about those "trillions of insects" annually killed on the Eastern Shore? They only die to make food production more economical.

Insects are probably not sentient. They have short life spans. They are also a pest in threatening human food production.

I am sure there is such a thing as over-killing insects...

Are you very careful when walking (not to step on ant)? Where and how do YOU draw the line?

Yes, I try to avoid killing ants, other insects and spiders, where that is practicable. I certainly do not kill insects for fun, as many humans do.

 

[James R]

funkstar:

We're omnivores. Meats are beneficial nutrition sources. The fact that it's possible to survive without eating animals does not in itself justify not eating animals.

Neither does the fact that it is possible to eat animals justify eating them.

You really can't consider this question in a non-moral framework. As soon as you start to ask whether a particular action is right or wrong, ethics steps in.

There's an argument to be made that not eating meat (at least occationally) leads to lower overall fitness in evolutionary terms.

Nonsense. There are millions of successful species which do not eat meat.

That's not an option for the species as a whole: So, yes, I do need to eat animals to live.

Thousands of human beings in this world get by just fine without meat. So, obviously humans do not need to eat meat.

Interesting rationalisation you have there, though.

Besides, bears are pretty much omnivorous, too: Do you consider it wrong for a bear to eat salmon seeing as it can survive on non-animal nutrition sources? Why are humans special?

Humans have developed ethical standards - well, some of them, anyway.

We are all proud of our powers of reason and intelligence, aren't we?

So, why shouldn't we use those powers to do the right thing?

But this doesn't extend to hunting. The interests of a deer don't outweigh the interests of the hunter to be entertained, according to you.

Another clear double-standard.

Only a double-standard by your morals.

What a strange comment. Who else's morals would I refer to?

Well, historically we would have killed for food first, and then realized the potential of the fur later. I don't particularly have a problem with either as a current phenomenon.

So you support the illegal ivory trade, presumably? And the killing of harp seals? And the killing of big cats for their fur?

The "just for the fun of it" is a bit different: I don't like bull-fighting, for instance. But on the other hand, the hunters I know certainly do it for excitement as well, and I don't consider that immoral. And there's plenty of precendence in nature: Cats "toying" with weak prey probably releases all kinds of nice pleasure hormones in their brains. The fact that it trains them for survival apparently doesn't matter to you - you didn't accept that I eat meat for nourishment but only considered the gratification it gave me. Are cats evil? Why are humans special?

I have owned several cats. I prevent them from hunting the local wildlife as far as possible. For example, my current cat is kept indoors at night. Why? Because my cat doesn't need to hunt native animals to eat. She is already well fed. She only hunts for fun, and that results in cruelty to other animals.

And, by the way, my lines are no more arbitrarily drawn than yours.

You've given nothing other than speciesism as a reason for drawing lines the way you draw them, so far. That's much more arbitrary than my reasoning. It has as much basis as saying all blue-eyed people can be shot on sight, but all brown-eyed people have basic rights.

Human rights aren't there because they are right; the ethics you're so preoccupied with aren't there because they are right. They are there for human benefit. That's why I don't consider it at all strange to argue ethics in terms of human benefit.

Human slavery benefits some people, though at the expense of others - just as our current treatment of animals benefits human beings at the expense of the animals. By your argument, slavery would be a good thing, because it produces some benefits for some people.

What about mentally disabled humans who have no potential capacity for fulfilling moral duties? Do they have any rights?

Think this one out for yourself. It shouldn't be difficult. (Hint: Yes, they have rights.)

I'd prefer to hear your answer, rather than attempt to imagine what you might think. You haven't shown a great deal of consistency in your views so far.

Why do these people have rights, while animals of the same mental capacity (e.g. great apes) do not? And why is that the way things ought to be?

You keep bringing up this objectification and "economic resource" etc. as if those terms are somehow evil, and that this somehow supports your argument. It doesn't.

Do you support human slavery? If so, I think we're done here, as any further discussion will be fruitless.

If not, then why not? I will tell you why most people do not support it. They don't support it because it involves reducing a class of people (slaves) to the status of mere economic resources for the exploitation of others.

And, in case you missed it, yes, that is wrong. Or maybe you think it's fine...

Now, compare the situation of animals. It should require only a small mental effort.

Again, you seem to think the rights have some justification in themselves. They don't: They're for human benefit, and are based on human social interaction. As such, I think it's a non sequitur to extend them to apes.

You assume that rights can and should only benefit human beings. You are wrong. You need to extend your moral circle, and think a little beyond yourself. It may be that other creatures have interests, even though you refuse to acknowledge them.

Ethics aren't like science. There's not necessarily convergence, nor are you likely to find two people agreeing on anything more than the basics, if that.

Wrong. Moral philosophy is a well-developed area, in which there is widespread agreement on certain issues. You might like to research this for yourself. Much moral philosophy is now enshrined in laws which we consider fundamental.

Regarding basic rights of the kind I've been discussing, I'd like the line to be drawn so as to include all sentient creatures (i.e. those capable of feeling pain and suffering, and appreciating those things for what they are).

Why draw an arbitrary line at sentience? Isn't it just because you, yourself, are sentient? Why it the sentient suffering of an orangutan any more "evil" than the non-sentient suffering of say, a beetle?

Explain "non-sentient suffering" for me. Isn't that an oxymoron?

How convenient for you to ignore the interests of the non-sentient.

Which interests, in particular, are you thinking of? (This should be interesting. If you can't recognise the interests of a chimpanzee, I wonder what interests you consider a beetle might have, in a moral sense.)

Sure, you need to eat food to live, but you don't need to eat animals.

Why try to deflect the discussion in such a manner? Is it because you know that eating meat is morally indefensible?

Don't be silly.

It was you who made the silly comment. Remember? This was a response to prod you to think.

Well, for one thing, lions are carnivores and cannot survive without meat. You can. You don't need to eat deer.

What about bears, then? Or the chimpanzees? Is it evil for them to eat meat? Why are humans special?

Can a bear consider the moral implications of its actions? Can a chimp? What follows from that? Anything?

You really aren't concerned with the interest of the chimpanzee (which in any case seems to be based on an anthropomorphism). You're only interested in forcing your personal morality on the rest of humanity.

That would be a good start, wouldn't it?

How, pray tell, would I force my personal morality on someone? Interesting concept.

Your personal morality isn't any higher on the "steps to enlightenment" than mine.

Sure it is.

I don't consider your morality to better, or even coherent.

I know. But who knows? One day you might start thinking.

So don't give me that master/apprentice you-have-much-to-learn-bullshit.

Then start showing some evidence of thought, rather than knee-jerk self-protection. Recognise that some of your views are unethical. Understandable and not uncommon, but unethical nonetheless.

What gives humans the right to drive other species to extinction, for nothing but short-term self-interest?

Exactly the same that gives every other species the right to fight for survival and reproduction. Nothing. But we'll damn well do it anyway.

You're sounding like the right-wingers on this site who say that America should invade Iran, basically because it can.

If you do know a lot about evolution you obviously didn't see fit to consider your viewpoint in light of it. Otherwise the origin of ethics and altruism in human society; predator/prey relationships; the Red Queen effect; etc. should all have popped into your mind as relevant. It seems they didn't. That's why I ask.

Explain the relevance of these things, if you think they are relevant. (And yes, I know what they are.)

But their extinction is not inevitable. Human beings have the power to prevent their extinction.

No. We really don't. We might be able to postpone it for (probably) a very short time in geological terms, but that doesn't mean they won't go extinct.

A very short time ... in geological terms. You do make me laugh.

In any case, doesn't the interest of the tiger to stay alive conflict rather heavily with the interest of it's prey to not be eaten? Why does one weigh heavier than the other (especially considering the large amount of victims the tiger needs to stay alive)?

Who said one weighs heavier than the other in this case? Here we have a classic case of competing interests with limited alternatives. Even if the tiger could make a moral choice, its choice would be largely determined by circumstance.

On the other hand, when you choose to eat a deer, your freedom of action is orders of magnitude less constrained. And you're supposed to be able to make moral choices, too.

 

[Hapsburg]

Neither does the fact that it is possible to eat animals justify eating them.

You really can't consider this question in a non-moral framework. As soon as you start to ask whether a particular action is right or wrong, ethics steps in.

Nature doesn't function morals and ethics. It functions on balance and survival. If humans were supposed to be herbivores, we wouldn't have evolved to be omnivores, and we would've evolved to be able to digest grasses completely.

Human slavery benefits some people, though at the expense of others - just as our current treatment of animals benefits human beings at the expense of the animals.

The difference is, human slavery is humans mistreating other humans. You know, of the same species.
Eating other animals is something entirely different.

 

[funkstar]

Sure it is.

I know. But who knows? One day you might start thinking.

Then start showing some evidence of thought, rather than knee-jerk self-protection. Recognise that some of your views are unethical. Understandable and not uncommon, but unethical nonetheless.

And we're done. You seem unable to want to even try to understand my arguments which in itself makes discussion futile. Coupled with your self-righteous moralism and misplaced feelings of superioty, I'm not interested in continuing this.

 

[Billy T]

...Nevertheless, there is obviously no excuse to kill rats in a way that causes them excessive pain.

The most common way, I think, to kill rat is a posion that produces death in a several days of internal hemorage. That can not be very plesant. How would you suggest?

Insects are probably not sentient. They have short life spans. They are also a pest in threatening human food production.

(1) Can you define "sentient" for me? I think it must mean more than sensing your evironment and clearly exhibiting "likes and dislikes" as it changes in various ways (for example cock roaches like dark and many insects like the light and warmth of the sun)
(2) Humans have short lives compared to some turtles. What does "short life" have to do with the the subject? If anything the arguement might go: Every life form is entitled to one year, after that .....
(3) Certainly as I noted in prior post, we know how to raise food without pesticides, and probably would be better off in the long run if we did so. It might be a little more expensive, but the main way to reduce the cost of food people eat is to allow free trade in food items. US annually pays 20billion dollars in farm support - part of it for not growing crops!

The Doha trade round is dead. Clever the way this was done. First the US blaimed Europe as not offering big enough reductions and keeping special quotas etc for former collines while US was offering an immediate 34% "across the board" reduction, if Europe would go along and drop the specail deals etc. Now US is rejecting Europe's offer to cut its supports price raates slightly more than 50%. They take turns trying to appear the "good guys." No doubt the politicans on both sides of the pond will point out how how hard they worked to make Doha a success, citing the offers they made when they were the "good guys." The stupid voters will fall for it all again. See my thread "How DUMB can US voters be?" in the politics forum for more on this.

On your "I avoid steping on ants etc." That just shows what a consistent guy you are. I have heard Brazilians, mainly framers, say that there is war constantly going on in Brazil and some fields do look like the ants are winning. You raise a lot of beef "down under" and must also have these large clay mounds, made by ants, in the pastures. I think you may be opposed to beef production, so if there is a similar war in Austraila, whose side are your on?

...I certainly do not kill insects for fun, as many humans do.

I am with you here, 100%. NO KILLING FOR FUN. imho THAT IS NOT EVEN FUN - I think it more fun to carefully cut off the tip of one wing of a fly so then it can still live and can still fly, but in a downward spiral. This is an old trick I learned while doing same to tip feathers of a chicken's wing. - It unbalance them so the "clipped chicken" can not fly out of the fenced in yard. I do that too for the chickens own good - foxes in the near by woods etc. :bugeye: The clipped fly is not likely to get into a spider's web. It is for his own good that the tip of wing is clipped.

PS - hope you know I like to joke here too.

 

[Billy T]

Most interesting part of the thread may be over, so I will just add couple of remarks on comments that have appeared.

On cats hunting for fun:
I once was drinking a beer on back porch after cutting grass when I noticed a bird on ground eating bugs etc I had probably crippled etc and a cat about 30 meters away, looking at the bird. Cat advanced towards the bird one or two quick steps and then froze. This happens so frequently that I could confirm that the cat only moved when bird's head was turned well away from cat. In about half an hour, the cat was only about 30 cm from the dumb bird and then cat suddenly turned and walked away!

I probably took Hapsburg's "If humans were supposed to be herbivores, we wouldn't have evolved to be omnivores,..." too seriously as error instead of just a careless statement, but cannot let "supposed to be" pass without comment:
IMHO, no creature is "supposed to be" anything. In the human case, it is clear from our teeth that we became omnivores. (molars and canines), but this was not according to some plan. Just that with ability to process more diverse food sources our ancestors had better success than strictly the grass eating or meat eating only options. Eating meat is efficient for the eater but expensive for the food chain compared to eating the grains etc. that produced the meat. About 30 year ago, there was an English lady vegetarian who walked across the US one summer and her only food was grass she processed in some sort of hand crank grinder she carried. (I think she mainly drank the extracted juices) God bless the English - they are a principled but often crazy lot.

I read a little about Thoreau, author of Walden Pond. He walked to Concord from the pond and passed a farm on the way where he often stopped to chat with the farmer who was anti-vegetarian (a seller of meat). Once farmer was telling Thoreau how essential meat eating is: makes you strong and healthy etc. but he had to break off the discussion and return to his team of oxen (About 1200 pounds of solid muscle produced solely from eating grass, vegetarian Thoreau noted in his notebook later.)

 

[James R]

funkstar:

And we're done. You seem unable to want to even try to understand my arguments which in itself makes discussion futile. Coupled with your self-righteous moralism and misplaced feelings of superioty, I'm not interested in continuing this.

What a cop out.

I understand exactly where you're coming from, funkstar. And I know why you really want to pull the plug.

Don't worry. It's ok.

 

[James R]

Billy T:

The most common way, I think, to kill rat is a posion that produces death in a several days of internal hemorage. That can not be very plesant. How would you suggest?

I'm not an expert on how to kill rats. Thankfully, I've never needed to worry about it.

(1) Can you define "sentient" for me? I think it must mean more than sensing your evironment and clearly exhibiting "likes and dislikes" as it changes in various ways (for example cock roaches like dark and many insects like the light and warmth of the sun)

Sentient means "consciously perceiving". That requires an ability to perceive (especially pain) and the consciousness to recognise that perception as applicable to a self.

Sentience is not to be equated with a mere ability to respond to stimuli. At least, not the way I'm using the term.

(2) Humans have short lives compared to some turtles. What does "short life" have to do with the the subject? If anything the arguement might go: Every life form is entitled to one year, after that .....

It seems to me that the life of an insect which lives for two days is less valuable than the life of a cow which might live 30 years. But maybe you have a different view...(?)

(3) Certainly as I noted in prior post, we know how to raise food without pesticides, and probably would be better off in the long run if we did so. It might be a little more expensive, but the main way to reduce the cost of food people eat is to allow free trade in food items. US annually pays 20billion dollars in farm support - part of it for not growing crops!

I agree.

Australia has been fighting US domestic protectionism for years.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

How do you deal with a rat problem the same way you deal with teriost problem, you track them to their hole and destory them.

 

[s0meguy]

Does this mean that apes will have their own house instead of a cage in the zoo, and that not hiring an ape just because hes an ape is considered discrimination?

 

[s0meguy]

James R,

"It seems to me that the life of an insect which lives for two days is less valuable than the life of a cow which might live 30 years. But maybe you have a different view...(?)"

Why? A life is a life. What you're saying means that the life of a turtle who lives more than 200 years is more valuable than that of a human?

"You really can't consider this question in a non-moral framework. As soon as you start to ask whether a particular action is right or wrong, ethics steps in."

I don't think so. Nature doesn't function on ethics, it's invented by man.

Most food components that humen need can be artificially created. Does that mean that we should just stop eating animals and plants?

 

[firecross]

It seems that apes will finally have the right to life and freedom in Spain. Next they'll be in your neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces as your equals.

Buy why not, as they are genetically 99+% similar and have more in common with us than what is dissimilar? We can all live together in shared brotherhood, while society continues to pursue progress.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FBCFE1B1-1994-4EDE-95CF-AAD664F9CCA2.htm