NationStates Jolt Archive

In the hunting thread, rights for animals have been mentioned.

Is it correct that we treat other sentient species we share the planet with, with mutual respect? Should we make laws to protect the interests of the great apes(for example)?

Or is it moral as the highest form of life on this planet to use all other life forms how we like, with no regard to any feelings they may have?

the problem here comes in defining highest. not to mention the minor little detail of the delusions of the dominent culture.

the only thing observably unique about our species is its proclivity for creating and surrounding itself with artifacts.

and of course it is because of our having done so, that it becomes easy to immagine ourselves something seperate and appart, and thus able to pretend to be above, the rest of nature.

so no. everything that exists does so for its own, or the univers' purpose, not for our own. we are a part of all that. relatively unique on our own little planet in our own little solar system perhapse, but not otherwise any greater or lesser then any other part of it.

(we also seem to be the part that is capable of screwing everything up for all the rest of the parts on our planet, except maybe the rocks, and in the proccess of doing so.)

=^^=
.../\...

In the hunting thread, rights for animals have been mentioned.

Is it correct that we treat other sentient species we share the planet with, with mutual respect? Should we make laws to protect the interests of the great apes(for example)?

Or is it moral as the highest form of life on this planet to use all other life forms how we like, with no regard to any feelings they may have?

Our first loyalty must be to our own. That's not being selfish, it's just being realistic - if wiping out the Great Apes saves a single human, call me the exterminator.

But if we can keep a species alive without harming ourselves, then we might as well.

Should we make laws to protect the interests of the great apes(for example)?


No. We should make shoes from them. The apes I mean.

Our first loyalty must be to our own. That's not being selfish, it's just being realistic - if wiping out the Great Apes saves a single human, call me the exterminator.

But if we can keep a species alive without harming ourselves, then we might as well.

The problem with this stance of course means that you would agree to some hypothetical alien species landing on Earth, and viewing us as fair game because of their higher brain functions.

I'm talking morally here, is it morally correct that we use the other sentient species as we like with no regard to their feelings?

What "rights" could an animal possess?

What "rights" could an animal possess?

That's the question isn't it. Presently none other than what we confer on them.

the problem here comes in defining highest. not to mention the minor little detail of the delusions of the dominent culture.


Thank goodness all cultural delusions are equally valid. Also, much gratefulness that mine has more guns than all the others.

What "rights" could an animal possess?

That depends on how you believe rights should be ascribed.

If you believe that certain things or concepts are inherently valuable (for instace the prevention of suffering) and should be protected through callig them rights - animals can qualify for some.

If you similarily believe that rights are earned by having the capacity to do something with them, some animals can also qualify for a few. A right to freedom for instance. Of course, voting rights would be silly.

If you believe that rights are given by humans as we see fit... well then, it is our choice which to extend to them.

The problem with this stance of course means that you would agree to some hypothetical alien species landing on Earth, and viewing us as fair game because of their higher brain functions.

I'm talking morally here, is it morally correct that we use the other sentient species as we like with no regard to their feelings?

Yes.

Morality is a human construct; it has no applicability beyond those that believe in it. Rights, likewise, can only possibly apply to those who can (or can potentially) understand and take advantage of them.

We can say "Don't kill that." But we are then doing so for own reasons, not for anything about the animals. Their feelings, cares, wants are ultimately irrelevant, whichever way we decide.

Thank goodness all cultural delusions are equally valid. Also, much gratefulness that mine has more guns than all the others.

well in cameroi we do support the right to arm bears, and bambees, and little fuzzy bunny rabbits. (we don't mass produce balistic projectile ordinance though. just energy field tunneling machines that make REALLY BIG holes. of course we only use them in the minerals extraction industry, but if we had to ... )

the cameroi'n lion bear is a squirell sized creature with the psychic force of a major demigod, thus not needing physical armiment, even of the more common natural kind. needless to say, it has no natural preditors, though in pre-historic times it might have.

=^^=
.../\...

Yes.

Morality is a human construct; it has no applicability beyond those that believe in it. Rights, likewise, can only possibly apply to those who can (or can potentially) understand and take advantage of them.

We can say "Don't kill that." But we are then doing so for own reasons, not for anything about the animals. Their feelings, cares, wants are ultimately irrelevant, whichever way we decide.

Can you be certain that morality is purely a human thing? There are many studies that show many animals know the rudimentary difference between good and bad, and act in concordance with behavior that rewards or not.

So can you be 100% sure that what you claim is true?

If you mean "act in a way which benefits them", you're right. But morality is more than that.

Morality is an abstract concept, a choice based on beliefs and valuations. And no animal other than human beings has ever shown any glimpse of true abstract thought.

Again though, you have just said that, are you certain that it is true?

What would say is an applicable indication of abstract thought?

Can you be certain that morality is purely a human thing? There are many studies that show many animals know the rudimentary difference between good and bad, and act in concordance with behavior that rewards or not.

So can you be 100% sure that what you claim is true?

If you mean "act in a way which benefits them", you're right. But morality is more than that.

Morality is an abstract concept, a choice based on beliefs and valuations. And no animal other than human beings has ever shown any glimpse of true abstract thought.

The purpose of life is to thrive. It is each man's duty to thrive as an individual and make reasonable efforts to see that his species thrives. From nature it is logically determined that for a man to have the highest potential to thrive he must have a right to life and freedom. Nobody can rightfully make a decision for him, nobody can rightfully threaten his life. In the interest of his own life, man must protect these rights in himself and in the interest of the thriving of his species a man must observe these same rights in other men.

In other creatures of Earth, we also make the logical determination from nature that it is proper for animals to have a right to life and freedom. So an animal, on an ethical scale, does have rights.

However, in the human duty to thrive it is necessary for a man to place himself and his species as priority over all other species. A man does not have to refuse to hunt for food if he is hungry, protect his home from cockroaches or allow his family to be mauled by a bear in the name of respecting an animal's right to life and freedom.

The ideal is to let every animal live in a state of freedom. Unfortunately, nature does not allow us to strictly adhere to that ideal. If a man was to try, he would likely die. So the most ethically, morally sound practice in relation to animals is to come as close as possible to that ideal without sacrificing your own life and freedoms.

In practice, this means hunting for food rather than sport. If an animal must be killed, it should be killed in the quickest and most humane way possible. An animal's habitat should be left in its natural state if possible. If an animal must be domesticated, it should be kept in a condition that allows it to live as closely as possible to its nature. And so on.

Morality is a human construct; it has no applicability beyond those that believe in it.

demonstrate this.


by kicking a whole bunch of puppies.

Morality is an abstract concept, a choice based on beliefs and valuations. And no animal other than human beings has ever shown any glimpse of true abstract thought.

I vaguely recall an experiment with apes, where some -without reason- were consistently given much nicer fruits than the others. The apes that received the lesser food soon stopped accepting it; even though that meant they now got nothing.

Anyone have a link ?

And no animal other than human beings has ever shown any glimpse of true abstract thought.

even if true, so what? why should we believe that only moral agents can be moral patients?

Forgetting rights for a moment (as other posters have mentioned, rights theory is not by any means definite), I do believe there should be certain safeguards for animals with greater ‘intelligence’; again ignoring the puzzling definition of intelligence.

Great apes, dolphins and elephants seem to display signs of an awareness of self, which would suggest that we should treat said animals and their environments with respect.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t treat other, non-‘sentient’ animals with respect.

Thank goodness all cultural delusions are equally valid.
Pish and nonsense!

Enough of this woolly cultural relativism, I say. True, there is no one ‘best’ culture, and conversely no one ‘evil’ culture, but we can certainly rank tolerate cultures which stress political and civil freedoms (if such cultures exist) ‘higher’ than those cultures which are oppressive, prey on minorities, etc.

demonstrate this.


by kicking a whole bunch of puppies.

Well, my morality does apply to me. So, no.

But note that this is because it would make me feel bad, not because it would violate the puppies' rights.

Well, my morality does apply to me. So, no.

But note that this is because it would make me feel bad, not because it would violate the puppies' rights.


Now that is interesting. Your own morality it seems would bar you from unesicary cruelty to some animals. Why? If you don't care about the feelings of the puppies, what moral principle is at work here?

Problem 1: What does it mean to be sentient?
Problem 2: Which species can be said to be sentient?
Problem 3: What should be done in cases where sentience is not species-wide? Is this even possible?

This is not a complete and exhasutive list of all the problems associated with giving sentient creatures rights.

Not my point.

We can apply our morality to ourselves to not do nasty things to animals. But we are doing so for reasons of our own, not out of any inherent value of the animal. Our morality could say "leave it be", it could say "interfere", it could even say "KILL IT!", but in every case it is a choice WE make that the animal has no input into.

We should not try to fool ourselves that we are acting in the animal's best interests. We are only ever acting in our own interests.

But should we be acting only in our best interest? If we see that other species share a modicum of sentient self aware intelligence, then do we not have a moral duty to ensure that they enjoy some of the same rights that we do?

even if true, so what? why should we believe that only moral agents can be moral patients?

Not my point.

We can apply our morality to ourselves to not do nasty things to animals. But we are doing so for reasons of our own, not out of any inherent value of the animal. Our morality could say "leave it be", it could say "interfere", it could even say "KILL IT!", but in every case it is a choice WE make that the animal has no input into.

We should not try to fool ourselves that we are acting in the animal's best interests. We are only ever acting in our own interests.

Generally, the smarter the creature, the more rights it deserves. Probably because we can relate to that animal more.

The heirarchy usually is as follows.

Domesticated pets
Animals in captivity
Animals in the wild
Trees and Plants
Insects
Fungi
Bacteria
Protizoa*
Viruses
Liquids
Rocks
Gases
Plasma?

*Only behind bacteria because most people don't know what one is. I've always thought highly of Amoebas though.

Now that is interesting. Your own morality it seems would bar you from unesicary cruelty to some animals. Why? If you don't care about the feelings of the puppies, what moral principle is at work here?

In this case? It feels wrong to hurt cute puppies.

If, on the other hand, it was a clutch of baby scorpions, I could stomp them with nary a qualm.

In this case? It feels wrong to hurt cute puppies.

If, on the other hand, it was a clutch of baby scorpions, I could stomp them with nary a qualm.

I'm after the why here? Why does it feel wrong to hurt the cute puppies?(are you taking into account their feelings, the feelings of the their parents? or simply coz they look cute?) By taking this moral stance are you showing that you put a higher value on the puppies than on the scorpions?

We should not try to fool ourselves that we are acting in the animal’s best interests. We are only ever acting in our own interests.
Of course we can act in the animal’s best interests; it’s interests to survive, have food, shelter if it needs it etc. All animals, including humans, have interests. They may not be particularly grand, but they are still interests.

That’s the whole point of Peter Singer’s modern utilitarian theory; a theory that lead to Singer’s Animal Liberation, the bible of the animal rights movement.

Hmmm... Protected species (not to be hunt for food etc.):

1. Humans
2. Dogs
3. Cats
4. Dolphins & Whales
5. Great Apes

Every other species is unprotected. Simple.

If you feel they do, then for you they do. But that's you imposing your moral code, not objective fact, or innate value.

heh way to avoid the question. What about your morality what would your answer be?

But should we be acting only in our best interest? If we see that other species share a modicum of sentient self aware intelligence, then do we not have a moral duty to ensure that they enjoy some of the same rights that we do?

If you feel they do, then for you they do. But that's you imposing your moral code, not objective fact, or innate value.

Or is it moral as the highest form of life on this planet to use all other life forms how we like, with no regard to any feelings they may have?

What does 'moral' mean? Until you answer that, the "highest form of life on this planet" can do whatever it wants.

I'm after the why here? Why does it feel wrong to hurt the cute puppies?(are you taking into account their feelings, the feelings of the their parents? or simply coz they look cute?) By taking this moral stance are you showing that you put a higher value on the puppies than on the scorpions?

Yup. I value puppies higher than scorplings because they look cute. Because they look cute, puppies give me a nice feeling inside, I go all "awwwww." Scorplings don't.

That's it. Entirety of moral stance. Hurting cute puppies makes me feel bad, so I don't do it.

That’s it. Entirety of moral stance. Hurting cute puppies makes me feel bad, so I don’t do it.
Is your entire moral code this individualistic?

Would you apply this to humanity as well?

Hmmm... Protected species (not to be hunt for food etc.):

1. Humans
2. Dogs
3. Cats
4. Dolphins & Whales
5. Great Apes

Every other species is unprotected. Simple.

This seems to be a somewhat culturally biased list.

Dogs are eaten in some cultures, especially in some regions of south-east Asia.

If someone from India was making the list, cows would be on it.

What does 'moral' mean? Until you answer that, the "highest form of life on this planet" can do whatever it wants.

Moral - what is good or bad, right or wrong.

heh way to avoid the question. What about your morality what would your answer be?

Well, I honestly do not believe that any creature that cannot understand the concept of rights possesses them. Nor do I believe they suffer from the lack.

We can, of course, impose restrictions on our actions toward animals; in fact, we do, with such things as animal cruelty legislation. I see nothing wrong with being humane, nor of protecting species that may be in danger of extinction.

But I do see humanity as being more than the other species. We truly think, in abstraction, and in self-awareness.

To apply the same values to other species that we do to humans reduces the human, but does not elevate the beast.

Well, I honestly do not believe that any creature that cannot understand the concept of rights possesses them. Nor do I believe they suffer from the lack.

We can, of course, impose restrictions on our actions toward animals; in fact, we do, with such things as animal cruelty legislation. I see nothing wrong with being humane, nor of protecting species that may be in danger of extinction.

But I do see humanity as being more than the other species. We truly think, in abstraction, and in self-awareness.

To apply the same values to other species that we do to humans reduces the human, but does not elevate the beast.

So basically you're sticking with, no other animal apart from humans have the ability to think in abstract and so it is a moot point?

What about if we could show that this is false, what about suffering? If it could be shown that certain behavior causes suffering in some 'higher functioning' animals how would you advocate that we treat them?

Is your entire moral code this individualistic?

Would you apply this to humanity as well?

No, I value humans somewhat higher. Humans can communicate, think in abstractions, act in modes of self-sacrifice and altruism.

That said, if it's a choice between me and you, then unless there's a damn good reason otherwise, kiss your ass goodbye.

No, I value humans somewhat higher. Humans can communicate, think in abstractions, act in modes of self-sacrifice and altruism.

That said, if it’s a choice between me and you, then unless there’s a damn good reason otherwise, kiss your ass goodbye.
At least your honest! :p

Back to animals... I don’t think it’s hard to show animals acting in ways that are self-scarificing; the old story of a mother and her cubs, pups, chicks, etc. I agree that not all animals act this way–many parents will abandon their young–but many animals will sacrifice themselves for their young or, perhaps more rarerly, for the pack, warren, pride, etc.

If a creature could be shown to conduct itself with true abstract thought, and we could communicate with it (and how else could we be certain of abstract thought?), then I would recommend it be treated as it chooses to be treated.

Ahhhhh yeah I agree there. Have you heard about the machine for dolphin and human communications?

So basically you're sticking with, no other animal apart from humans have the ability to think in abstract and so it is a moot point?

What about if we could show that this is false, what about suffering? If it could be shown that certain behavior causes suffering in some 'higher functioning' animals how would you advocate that we treat them?

If a creature could be shown to conduct itself with true abstract thought, and we could communicate with it (and how else could we be certain of abstract thought?), then I would recommend it be treated as it chooses to be treated.

At least your honest! :p

Back to animals... I don’t think it’s hard to show animals acting in ways that are self-scarificing; the old story of a mother and her cubs, pups, chicks, etc. I agree that not all animals act this way–many parents will abandon their young–but many animals will sacrifice themselves for their young or, perhaps more rarerly, for the pack, warren, pride, etc.

That is true, but most such behaviour can be characterized as protecting the individual's genetic legacy.

Only humans regularly sacrifice hemselves for beings they aren't even related to.

That is true, but most such behaviour can be characterized as protecting the individual's genetic legacy.

Only humans regularly sacrifice hemselves for beings they aren't even related to.

Not quite true, but we wont quibble on that score.

That is true, but most such behaviour can be characterized as protecting the individual’s genetic legacy.
So animals can’t think in abstractions, but can think about the genetic legacy of it’s species and act accordingly, on some grand plan to preserve said genetic legacy?

How strange.

The idea of animals as robots being controlled by their genetic overlords is one of the many misguided notions propagated by Monod, Dawkins and the like. Does it not seem strange that animals are automatons, entirely dedicated to the genetic procreation, yet humans are these wonderfully free creatures? What ‘magical’ (for it must be some sort of magical ‘spark’) separates humans and non-human animals?

I find it very strange to think of humans as somehow separate from the animal kingdom. Unless one believes in a literal Biblical interpretation of life, as the essence of God breathed into humans, then what accounts for this vast separation between non-human animals and humans?

Ahhhhh yeah I agree there. Have you heard about the machine for dolphin and human communications?

No, I haven't. Interesting! How much success have they had?

That's it. Entirety of moral stance. Hurting cute puppies makes me feel bad, so I don't do it.

so in other words, ethics inclusive of animals are not a problem for you. you are instead concerned about the more general issue that morality is 'merely' emotive. of course, in so far as this is a problem, it is a problem for all moral claims, not just those applied to non-humans.

Hmmm... Protected species (not to be hunt for food etc.):

1. Humans
2. Dogs
3. Cats
4. Dolphins & Whales
5. Great Apes

Every other species is unprotected. Simple.

yes, it is always simple to just declare things and run off. would you care to argue for this position?

so in other words, ethics inclusive of animals are not a problem for you. you are instead concerned about the more general issue that morality is 'merely' emotive. of course, in so far as this is a problem, it is a problem for all moral claims, not just those applied to non-humans.

That is true, but there is also the issue that when animals are involved people tend to justify themselves as acting "in the animal's interests" or "for the animals". The reality is that they are acting in the interests of feeling better about themselves, or are projecting their wants and needs on animals that neither want nor need such interference. It is a fundamental dishonesty that many people don't even realise they are perpetrating.

You’re begging the question; what does “good” mean? “Bad?” “Right” or “wrong?”
Welcome to ‘An Introduction to Metaethics’. :p

Moral - what is good or bad, right or wrong.

You're begging the question; what does "good" mean? "Bad?" "Right" or "wrong?"

No, I haven't. Interesting! How much success have they had?

Ahhh I can't answer that, I first saw it in a magazine or summit about two years or so back, I have goggled it but don't really have the time nor will to trawl through the net.

Sorry.

That is true, but there is also the issue that when animals are involved people tend to justify themselves as acting “in the animal’s interests” or “for the animals”. The reality is that they are acting in the interests of feeling better about themselves, or are projecting their wants and needs on animals that neither want nor need such interference. It is a fundamental dishonesty that many people don’t even realise they are perpetrating.
But, as I have said before (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13116467&postcount=28), animals do have interests, quite obviously.

A cow has interests in having sufficient food and water, a limited amount of shelter, etc. It may not be able to enunciate such interests, but they certainly have them. Most animals (if not all) have similar interests.

The question is not whether certain, or all, animals have interests, it’s whether these interests should be protected by laws and/or rights.

w00t!! 2000th post!

So animals can’t think in abstractions, but can think about the genetic legacy of it’s species and act accordingly, on some grand plan to preserve said genetic legacy?

How strange.

The idea of animals as robots being controlled by their genetic overlords is one of the many misguided notions propagated by Monod, Dawkins and the like. Does it not seem strange that animals are automatons, entirely dedicated to the genetic procreation, yet humans are these wonderfully free creatures? What ‘magical’ (for it must be some sort of magical ‘spark’) separates humans and non-human animals?

I find it very strange to think of humans as somehow separate from the animal kingdom. Unless one believes in a literal Biblical interpretation of life, as the essence of God breathed into humans, then what accounts for this vast separation between non-human animals and humans?

I don't think animals think about their genetic legacy. I don't think animals THINK about anything at all.

Animals protect their genetic legacy because it's a genetic survival-positive trait to do so. Those animals that do so transmit their genes more effectively than those which do not.

As an atheist, I do not see a huge difference between humans and other mammals biologically. The huge difference is in (again) abstract thought and communication. I can talk to my cat; I can have a conversation with you.

Ahhh I can't answer that, I first saw it in a magazine or summit about two years or so back, I have goggled it but don't really have the time nor will to trawl through the net.

Sorry.

Not to worry, I'll take a look at it later myself. Thanks!

Animals protect their genetic legacy because it’s a genetic survival-positive trait to do so. Those animals that do so transmit their genes more effectively than those which do not.
Again, why do inert pieces of gloop inside animals exert so much influence over their lives? You seem to be saying that animals preserve their genes because those that do, preserve their genes; a rather circular statement.

Genes are not some mystical overlords who command animals to do their bidding; again I point the finger of blame at biologists like Jacques Monod and Richard Dawkins, who seem to attribute all action, be it human or non-human, to genes and their survival ‘habits’. They do not, as Dawkins especially suggests, as a are you, have some sort of intelligence or power that can exert over behaviour.

As an atheist, I do not see a huge difference between humans and other mammals biologically. The huge difference is in (again) abstract thought and communication. I can talk to my cat; I can have a conversation with you.
I wouldn’t disagree much with you here.

But, as I have said before (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13116467&postcount=28), animals do have interests, quite obviously.

A cow has interests in having sufficient food and water, a limited amount of shelter, etc. It may not be able to enunciate such interests, but they certainly have them. Most animals (if not all) have similar interests.

The question is not whether certain, or all, animals have interests, it’s whether these interests should be protected by laws and/or rights.

w00t!! 2000th post!

Certainly animals have interests. And can deal with them perfectly well with no help from us, generally.

If we choose, as we do, to ban cruel practices, we are not doing so for the animals, but for ourselves. We feel bad about it, so we ban it. There is NOTHING wrong with that! I just have no time or patience with the idea that we are doing so out of some innate value of the animals involved, when we are actually doing so to salve our own conciences.

This seems to be a somewhat culturally biased list.

Dogs are eaten in some cultures, especially in some regions of south-east Asia.

If someone from India was making the list, cows would be on it.



Ah well... They're simply wrong. Eating a dog is (almost) analogous to cannibalism if you ask me...

yes, it is always simple to just declare things and run off. would you care to argue for this position?


Well, let's argue, then. What exactly bothers you in my list?

Ah well... They're simply wrong. Eating a dog is (almost) analogous to cannibalism if you ask me...

Um, why?

Again, why do inert pieces of gloop inside animals exert so much influence over their lives? You seem to be saying that animals preserve their genes because those that do, preserve their genes; a rather circular statement.

Genes are not some mystical overlords who command animals to do their bidding; again I point the finger of blame at biologists like Jacques Monod and Richard Dawkins, who seem to attribute all action, be it human or non-human, to genes and their survival ‘habits’. They do not, as Dawkins especially suggests, as a are you, have some sort of intelligence or power that can exert over behaviour.


I wouldn’t disagree much with you here.

I have read Dawkins, but I think you malign him a little. I don't believe (and I don't think he believes) that genes control animal behaviour anything like that closely.

I didn't mean "animals preserve their genes because those that do, preserve their genes"; what I mean was "some animals take actions to preserve their genetic legacy. Those which do, are more likely to pass on their genes; therefore, such behaviour is rewarded with greater chance of genetic survival. Thus, those animals are more likely to pass on the trait for self-sacrifice to protect genetic legacy, and that trait is more likely to survive than the competing trait of NOT self sacrificing to protect the genetic legacy".

Those creatures which will sacrifice are more likely to pass on their genetics. That IS natural selection, in a nutshell.

The question is not whether certain, or all, animals have interests, it’s whether these interests should be protected by laws and/or rights.

Laws are created solely by and for what is thought to be the good of the people (in power).

If any laws are created to protect animal rights they're decreed because they either make people feel more comfortable, enhance the survival of mankind (for example through preserved and functioning environment) or protect a species from extinction.

The last option is in human self interest in similar way as protecting a piece of outdated and well documented junk, like the Colosseum or Mona Lisa, is.

If we choose, as we do, to ban cruel practices, we are not doing so for the animals, but for ourselves. We feel bad about it, so we ban it. There is NOTHING wrong with that! I just have no time or patience with the idea that we are doing so out of some innate value of the animals involved, when we are actually doing so to salve our own conciences.
Not necessarily. Some metaethical positions, especially the aforementioned modern utilitarian theory as described by Peter Singer, would argue that interests are at the heart of morality, and thus animals can legitimately be included in moral theory, as they too have interests.

Following Singer’s theory, right actions are the ones that maximise interests. Thus we can include animal interests in the equation. Furthermore, the idea that all thoughts towards the welfare of animals is conscience-saving seems spurious, as does the idea that animals have no intrinsic value.

Certainly, if all the animals of the Earth disappeared tomorrow, very few would argue that nothing of value had been lost.

Not necessarily. Some metaethical positions, especially the aforementioned modern utilitarian theory as described by Peter Singer, would argue that interests are at the heart of morality, and thus animals can legitimately be included in moral theory, as they too have interests.

Following Singer’s theory, right actions are the ones that maximise interests. Thus we can include animal interests in the equation. Furthermore, the idea that all thoughts towards the welfare of animals is conscience-saving seems spurious, as does the idea that animals have no intrinsic value.

Certainly, if all the animals of the Earth disappeared tomorrow, very few would argue that nothing of value had been lost.

Mm. Except that without communication, animals cannot form a consensus as to what their true interests are, and without abstraction, they cannot form the conceptualization of those interests.

At which point, we are left only with our ASSUMPTIONS as to their interests and needs. I am not willing to base my moral code on assumptions regarding creatures that cannot even share in said assumptions.

Mm. Except that without communication, animals cannot form a consensus as to what their true interests are, and without abstraction, they cannot form the conceptualization of those interests.

At which point, we are left only with our ASSUMPTIONS as to their interests and needs. I am not willing to base my moral code on assumptions regarding creatures that cannot even share in said assumptions.

So you expect Wildebeest to form some kind of pressure group "Say no to being eaten by lions" before you accept that it may be in their true interests to not be chewed on by a large feline predator?

I am not willing to base my moral code on assumptions regarding creatures that cannot even share in said assumptions.

So sleeping and/or comatose humans are free game?

So you expect Wildebeest to form some kind of pressure group "Say no to being eaten by lions" before you accept that it may be in their true interests to not be chewed on by a large feline predator?

But it's in the interests of the lion to have the snack, so to speak.

Mm. Except that without communication, animals cannot form a consensus as to what their true interests are, and without abstraction, they cannot form the conceptualization of those interests.

At which point, we are left only with our ASSUMPTIONS as to their interests and needs. I am not willing to base my moral code on assumptions regarding creatures that cannot even share in said assumptions.

I don't know if it follows that because animals cannot converse with us, they can't inform us of their needs or wants. We also cannot meaningfully convey our wishes to animals.

If of course you disregard such things as cats trailing around your legs when hungry, or dogs barking by the back door to be let out to have a shit.

As to whether or not animals can think in the abstract, I did ask what would you say is adequate behavior to show this?

For example, monkeys teaching their children(and the rest of the troop) how to use tools that 10 years ago the troop did not use?

Or the Japanese crows that make use of human traffic, and traffic lights to open nuts, and safely retrieve them from the road?

That is true, but there is also the issue that when animals are involved people tend to justify themselves as acting "in the animal's interests" or "for the animals". The reality is that they are acting in the interests of feeling better about themselves...

it is the acting in the animal's interests that makes them feel better. if this is a problem, then so is the fact that, for example, helping my mom makes me feel good too. your claim here seems to approach a hyper-kantian idea that things can only be moral if we do them entirely out of duty or some such - we can only be moral if doing a moral action leaves us feeling indifferent or even makes us feel bad. this seems silly.

I have read Dawkins, but I think you malign him a little. I don’t believe (and I don’t think he believes) that genes control animal behaviour anything like that closely.
He certainly suggests it.

From the Selfish Gene, page 2:

“The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes.”

And again, this time from page 36:

“[the gene] does not grow senile; it is no more likely to die when it is a million years old than when it is only a hundred. It leaps from body to body down the generations, manipulating body after body in its own way and for its own ends, abandoning a succession of mortal bodies before they sink in senility and death. The genes are the immortals.”

Finally, from page 64:

“By dictating the way survival machines and their nervous systems are built, genes exert ultimate power over behaviour... Genes are the primary policy-makers; brains are the executives.” (emphasis mine)

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. London, Oxford University Press, 1976.

Those creatures which will sacrifice are more likely to pass on their genetics. That IS natural selection, in a nutshell.
Um, not really.

A non-human animal that dies protecting it’s offspring may well pass on the genes for self-sacrifice (and here I must protest again; modern genetics has shown that there isn’t a single gene for a single behaviour, it’s far more complicated than that; more like a number of interacting genes that may possibly control some aspects of behaviour. We can’t simply say that gene X controls behaviour Y.), if such genes exist, but that doesn’t mean her offspring will survive. Nor does it mean that the animal that didn’t defend it’s offspring won’t run off to have more offspring, and in the long run producing much more offspring.

But it’s in the interests of the lion to have the snack, so to speak.
Exactly, animals have interests.

Those interests may well conflict, as they do in humans as well as non-human animals, but they are still interests.

Of course, the answer is, you don’t even try. Just trying to balance the competing interests of humans is insanely difficult; adding more species, especially ones that can’t speak for themselves, would simply make any decision making impossible.
:p

Well, the answer might be, “find a better metaethical position than utilitarianism”, rather than just giving up.

Goooooooooooo Time Warp!

So you expect Wildebeest to form some kind of pressure group "Say no to being eaten by lions" before you accept that it may be in their true interests to not be chewed on by a large feline predator?

Why assume that is the important thing to a Wildebeest? A full grown Wildebeest is a match for a full grown lion.

To a Wildebeest, Tsetse Fly might be the greater threat. Or safe river crossings; more Wildebeest die of drowning when herds cross rivers than ever get killed by lions.

In some cases, we can make a pretty damn good guess as to their best interests - salmon don't want dams, Polar Bears don't like global warming. But in other cases, it's just a wild-ass guess. And what's great for one species could be death to another - I don't think the Lions would be overpositive about a ban on them hunting Wildebeest. How do you resolve conflicts?

Of course, the answer is, you don't even try. Just trying to balance the competing interests of humans is insanely difficult; adding more species, especially ones that can't speak for themselves, would simply make any decision making impossible.

Exactly, animals have interests.

Those interests may well conflict, as they do in humans as well as non-human animals, but they are still interests.

But the lion doesn't care about the interests of its prey.

Why should humans have less rights than other animals?

But the lion doesn’t care about the interests of its prey.
And?

That doesn’t negate the fact that the prey has interests.

Why should humans have less rights than other animals?
Who’s suggesting that?

But the lion doesn't care about the interests of its prey.

Why should humans have less rights than other animals?

Or why should animals have less rights than humans?

There was a piece in New Scientist a few weeks back about such rights, specificaly for the great apes.

We are talking such rights as non ownership(for example). No Chimp for example can be owned by any human or human interest. What this means is that all zoo's etc would have a legal responsibility to provide surroundings in line with the chimps needs, and that these responsibilities would be on a par say with a councils 'standard of housing' rules.

I don't know if it follows that because animals cannot converse with us, they can't inform us of their needs or wants. We also cannot meaningfully convey our wishes to animals.

If of course you disregard such things as cats trailing around your legs when hungry, or dogs barking by the back door to be let out to have a shit.

As to whether or not animals can think in the abstract, I did ask what would you say is adequate behavior to show this?

For example, monkeys teaching their children(and the rest of the troop) how to use tools that 10 years ago the troop did not use?

Or the Japanese crows that make use of human traffic, and traffic lights to open nuts, and safely retrieve them from the road?

I'm not certain that ANY sort of behaviour could do it. Only high level communication (well beyond non-verbal cues such as any pet owner learns to read) can truly pass on the understanding of the abstract.

All of the actions you mention have concrete, physical aspects. The Chimp teaches by showing, not telling; the crow has made a connection between cars moving and the color of the light.

Now, if the crow starts using a discarded piece of metal to TRIGGER light changes, I might be willing to concede something.

But the lion doesn't care about the interests of its prey.

Why should humans have less rights than other animals?

because we can consider the interests of others. anything that can do so, should do so.

moral patients vs moral agents

Who’s suggesting that?

well, unless we are going to charge beavers with habitat destruction and lions with violations of endangered species protection laws, we are.

He certainly suggests it.

From the Selfish Gene, page 2:

“The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes.”

And again, this time from page 36:

“[the gene] does not grow senile; it is no more likely to die when it is a million years old than when it is only a hundred. It leaps from body to body down the generations, manipulating body after body in its own way and for its own ends, abandoning a succession of mortal bodies before they sink in senility and death. The genes are the immortals.”

Finally, from page 64:

“By dictating the way survival machines and their nervous systems are built, genes exert ultimate power over behaviour... Genes are the primary policy-makers; brains are the executives.” (emphasis mine)

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. London, Oxford University Press, 1976.


Um, not really.

A non-human animal that dies protecting it’s offspring may well pass on the genes for self-sacrifice (and here I must protest again; modern genetics has shown that there isn’t a single gene for a single behaviour, it’s far more complicated than that; more like a number of interacting genes that may possibly control some aspects of behaviour. We can’t simply say that gene X controls behaviour Y.), if such genes exist, but that doesn’t mean her offspring will survive. Nor does it mean that the animal that didn’t defend it’s offspring won’t run off to have more offspring, and in the long run producing much more offspring.

I must admit, that seems a little more "waldoish" than I'd be confortable pushing (his position in The Ancestor's Tale is somewhat milder). My position is only that this behaviour appears to be a positive one for continuation, and thus favoured for survival. Dawkins' position is one that may be more justifiable from statistical populations; I prefer to see the individual.

because we can consider the interests of others. anything that can do so, should do so.

There is absolutely no precedent or imperative to do so.

...except for the prolonged survival of humans through thriving ecosystem

Of course there's the secondary motive for protecting other species and that is the increased happiness of mankind (akin to cultural preservation).


It's interesting though that you raise humans above other animals in order to promote the rights of other animals.

There is absolutely no precedent or imperative to do so.

really? not even in our treatment of, say, human children? or in our assigning of moral blame to the insane?

Or why should animals have less rights than humans?

There was a piece in New Scientist a few weeks back about such rights, specificaly for the great apes.

We are talking such rights as non ownership(for example). No Chimp for example can be owned by any human or human interest. What this means is that all zoo's etc would have a legal responsibility to provide surroundings in line with the chimps needs, and that these responsibilities would be on a par say with a councils 'standard of housing' rules.

Hunh. I definitely wouldn't support that.

Aside from the moral implications, you're just asking for the Law of Unintended Consequences to come along and bite you on the butt. The obvious result will be zoos getting rid of their Chimpanzee populations as not being worth keeping - too expensive, money that could go to other animals and programs. It'd be a good way to hurry them into extinction, I'm thinking.

well, unless we are going to charge beavers with habitat destruction and lions with violations of endangered species protection laws, we are.
Only if we believe that a lion hunting and killing a gnu (or an actually endangered species) is analogous to a human hunting and killing one.

A position that is somewhat shaky. Recognising that non-human animals have interests doesn’t mean recognising that humans and non-human animals are exactly the same.

The obvious result will be zoos getting rid of their Chimpanzee populations as not being worth keeping - too expensive, money that could go to other animals and programs. It'd be a good way to hurry them into extinction, I'm thinking.
I doubt the cost to care for Chimps and other Great Apes would overtake the revenue that visitors bring into the zoos. Chimp, gorillas and orangs are the most popular attractions at any zoo, bar perhaps pandas.

I'm not certain that ANY sort of behaviour could do it. Only high level communication (well beyond non-verbal cues such as any pet owner learns to read) can truly pass on the understanding of the abstract.

All of the actions you mention have concrete, physical aspects. The Chimp teaches by showing, not telling; the crow has made a connection between cars moving and the color of the light.

Now, if the crow starts using a discarded piece of metal to TRIGGER light changes, I might be willing to concede something.

In short then, you are willing to admit that no evidence other than that which shows up an intelegence or understanding of abstract or conceptualisation on a par with humanity is sufficient to you?

I think that is a bit harsh. Surely the degree of sentient intelligence is not the issue?

Going back to the hypothetical alien argument, if I have you correct then you would see no immorality if higher order aliens descended on earth and used us in what ever way they wished?

Surly the thing is suffering, if something can suffer, is self aware enough to know that it is being mistreated, then we must have a moral obligation for it's proper care?

As to the teaching/learning methods of crows and monkeys(does anybody else think that is a great name for a band BTW?), we learn the same way you know; babies are not born being able to speak with their mothers.

Hunh. I definitely wouldn't support that.

Aside from the moral implications, you're just asking for the Law of Unintended Consequences to come along and bite you on the butt. The obvious result will be zoos getting rid of their Chimpanzee populations as not being worth keeping - too expensive, money that could go to other animals and programs. It'd be a good way to hurry them into extinction, I'm thinking.

That is a valid point, although I'm not sure if that is the most obvious outcome. I don't know if it would make me change my mind though. There are all sorts of bumps in the road to all of our plans and endevours. Heh but bloody typical of us to place financial success above the life of another huh!

Only if we believe that a lion hunting and killing a gnu (or an actually endangered species) is analogous to a human hunting and killing one.

A position that is somewhat shaky. Recognising that non-human animals have interests doesn’t mean recognising that humans and non-human animals are exactly the same.


I doubt the cost to care for Chimps and other Great Apes would overtake the revenue that visitors bring into the zoos. Chimp, gorillas and orangs are the most popular attractions at any zoo, bar perhaps pandas.

They're also some of the most expensive and difficult to maintain. In most Zoos, as I understand it, only the Big Cat departments require greater funding.

Further, a strong source of revenue for many Zoos is the sale of surplus animals to other Zoos. With a doctrine of non-ownership, this would be contra-indicated.

I'm not sure that many of them wouldn't just decide enough is too much and quietly get rid of their Great Ape departments.

really? not even in our treatment of, say, human children? or in our assigning of moral blame to the insane?

We are only aware of the condition of a functioning human creature and only because we are one.

Even so, we are only working through guess work and worldview based on our personal experience: We model the world according to ourselves and how we're educated and treated. We can extend this view to other humans but it's still guess work how a person feels, reacts, knows or thinks in a different situation.

The empathical relationship between humans is also not imperative but open to variation, interpretation and situational pressure as is very well shown by existence of poverty, famine, bullying, violence and cultural values.

We are capable of treating people well but there's no absolute imperative to do so, in some cases treating people badly is not only accepted but encouraged.

Again, why should we *give* more rights to animals than we give ourselves?

Surly the thing is suffering, if something can suffer, is self aware enough to know that it is being mistreated, then we must have a moral obligation for it's proper care?

How about building a robot that feels pain?

In short then, you are willing to admit that no evidence other than that which shows up an intelegence or understanding of abstract or conceptualisation on a par with humanity is sufficient to you?

I think that is a bit harsh. Surely the degree of sentient intelligence is not the issue?

Going back to the hypothetical alien argument, if I have you correct then you would see no immorality if higher order aliens descended on earth and used us in what ever way they wished?

Surly the thing is suffering, if something can suffer, is self aware enough to know that it is being mistreated, then we must have a moral obligation for it's proper care?

As to the teaching/learning methods of crows and monkeys(does anybody else think that is a great name for a band BTW?), we learn the same way you know; babies are not born being able to speak with their mothers.

Actually, I think the degree of Sentient Intelligence is the entire issue.

Humans are sentient. We think abstractly, we use high-level communications. Your hypothetical aliens could detect that with ease, and yes, I would expect them to deal with us on a more equal basis, just as I would expect US to deal with a fully sapient species on a more equal basis.

But non-sapients are not our equals. The only obligations we have towards them are those we choose to take on.

Only if we believe that a lion hunting and killing a gnu (or an actually endangered species) is analogous to a human hunting and killing one.

why then?

the question was of some things having more 'rights' than others, yes? well, prior to restriction, everything has the right to kill a gnu. we wish to restrict that for humans but not for lions. the lions retain a right we have surrendered.

why then?

the question was of some things having more 'rights' than others, yes? well, prior to restriction, everything has the right to kill a gnu. we wish to restrict that for humans but not for lions. the lions retain a right we have surrendered.

What if we say that everyone is allowed to kill a gnu for survival ?

As far as I can tell, there's no reason not to allow the killing of animals for food - all carnivorous creatures do it and we ourselves are omnivorous and as such meat is kinda important for our health, but we should not be allowed to cause any undue suffering in any creature, there's no reason to make any animal die slowly and painfully or subject them to any fear beyond what is "necessary"

I believe all animals should have rights, just as all humans should have the right to defend themselves from animals if they are in danger from said animal (and by danger I mean "it's coming at you with the intent to harm you", not "it's on my land and I don't like the way it smells")

Our first loyalty must be to our own. That's not being selfish, it's just being realistic - if wiping out the Great Apes saves a single human, call me the exterminator.

But if we can keep a species alive without harming ourselves, then we might as well.

There are close to 7 billion people on the planet. There are less than 1000 Mountain Gorillas (as I recall). You'd really kill all 1000 mountain gorillas to save one person, when we have billions of people on the planet?
I agree that if push comes to shove, the survival the human race, as a whole, would most likely be more important than the survival of mountain gorillas. But this is not the case. Mountain gorillas live in small pockets of Africa. Humans cover the globe. Let the gorillas live.

I believe animals have the right to live free and in their natural habitat. I am fine with hunting, as long as it is for food, and not for trophy hunting. The species of the Earth are our only known fellow life forms in the galaxy. Each species that goes extinct impoverishes us, and the world. (extinctions caused by man, not natural extinctions)

We are only aware of the condition of a functioning human creature and only because we are one.

Even so, we are only working through guess work and worldview based on our personal experience: We model the world according to ourselves and how we're educated and treated. We can extend this view to other humans but it's still guess work how a person feels, reacts, knows or thinks in a different situation.

yeah, and? why would we need to have perfect empathy?

anyways, the claim you made was that there is no precedent for my ethical claim that those that can consider the interests of others are obligated to do so. this is clearly false. we treat that as the basis of moral responsibility in most human ethics. additionally, we extend that consideration of others to those that can't reciprocate that consideration all the fucking time, as seen in the special leeway and protection we are obligated to give children.

the next move in this argument is to claim that that is different because children will one day grow up to be able to reciprocate moral consideration. but i already played the 'crazy people' card, and will follow that up with the comatose and mentally handicapped. so that's out. and "they deserve special consideration because they are members of our species" just sounds like special pleading unless you have a particularly good argument to back it up.

The empathical relationship between humans is also not imperative but open to variation, interpretation and situational pressure as is very well shown by existence of poverty, famine, bullying, violence and cultural values.

is/ought

Our first loyalty must be to our own. That's not being selfish, it's just being realistic - if wiping out the Great Apes saves a single human, call me the exterminator.

But if we can keep a species alive without harming ourselves, then we might as well.

Humans kill more humans than Great Apes do.
Wipe out the humans!! (Then no more humans will die =D)

What if we say that everyone is allowed to kill a gnu for survival ?

except that we shouldn't say that if the gnu are endangered (which they aren't). there are other food sources available, and one ought to choose those before killing an endangered animal. besides, the lion won't starve to death if it doesn't eat this particular gnu. the principle that gives the lion and the person the same rights is that everyone gets to kill a gnu if they are hungry. and that won't work.

As an atheist, I do not see a huge difference between humans and other mammals biologically. The huge difference is in (again) abstract thought and communication. I can talk to my cat; I can have a conversation with you.

Does a lack of the ability to communicate mean the lack of abstract thought?

Does this mean that Greeks have no abstract thought? I have never successfully communicated with a Greek... hmm
^ Translated: Maybe Cats just don't speak english?

Our first loyalty must be to our own. That's not being selfish, it's just being realistic - if wiping out the Great Apes saves a single human, call me the exterminator.

But if we can keep a species alive without harming ourselves, then we might as well.

taking this thought the rest of the way - should we wipe out the great apes if they form a minor inconvenience to a single person? after all, first loyalty is to our own...

They’re also some of the most expensive and difficult to maintain. In most Zoos, as I understand it, only the Big Cat departments require greater funding... I’m not sure that many of them wouldn’t just decide enough is too much and quietly get rid of their Great Ape departments.
I believe the proponents of rights for Great Apes and other animals would perhaps suggest that if Great Apes etc. were given rights, then the role of zoos would diminish in respect to preserving species of animals. IIRC, the idea is that the rights, and their enforcement, would prevent humanity either killing the apes outright, or destroying their territory.

Perhaps more fundamentally, I imagine a large number of supporters of rights for Great Apes would take issue with zoos enclosing apes and other animals.

Humans are sentient. We think abstractly, we use high-level communications. Your hypothetical aliens could detect that with ease, and yes, I would expect them to deal with us on a more equal basis, just as I would expect US to deal with a fully sapient species on a more equal basis.

How could they? Our language is grunts and mooing sounds, we spend most of our time killing each other, they might notice that we had the capability to notice that we were able to make our own tools but many animals can, perhaps not to the same extent that we can but they still do.

What do we do that would make aliens believe us to be their equals?
No, the US firing missiles at them does not count as convincing them of our equality.

How could they? Our language is grunts and mooing sounds, we spend most of our time killing each other, they might notice that we had the capability to notice that we were able to make our own tools but many animals can, perhaps not to the same extent that we can but they still do.

What do we do that would make aliens believe us to be their equals?
No, the US firing missiles at them does not count as convincing them of our equality.

We would be actively attempting to communicate. Unless we are postulating something so alien that we have no frame of reference in common, that attempt, in itself, would be de facto proof of sapience.

A no-frame alien is not beyond the realm of possibility, of course. But in that instance co-existence is probably impossible anyway.

That's not being selfish, it's just being realistic

What's "realistic" about that moral principle?

Sorry... it just screams "selfish" to me. :rolleyes:

What's "realistic" about that moral principle?

Sorry... it just screams "selfish" to me. :rolleyes:

Humans are our species. Putting your own species first is not selfish - it's survival.

We would be actively attempting to communicate. Unless we are postulating something so alien that we have no frame of reference in common, that attempt, in itself, would be de facto proof of sapience.

The dog walking towards you with wagging tail is sapient then ?

The dog walking towards you with wagging tail is sapient then ?

"High-level communication" then, pedant.

"High-level communication" then, pedant.
Mathematical sequences and such ?
Chances are somewhat high that a race advanced enough to get here would consider everything we throw at them in the ways of communication to be no more advanced than the tailwag.

Mathematical sequences and such ?
Chances are somewhat high that a race advanced enough to get here would consider everything we throw at them in the ways of communication to be no more advanced than the tailwag.

Quite right. "High" and "low" level communication are relative. To an alien race, our attempts at communicating with them, while we would consider them "high" level, could appear to them the same way the shrieking of a monkey appears to us, as a "low" level communication. If the aliens were advanced enough.

Try this analogy. If you grow up in a very small town, without ever seeing a big city, your idea of a "tall building" might be a 3 or 4 floor edifice.

However, to someone from Manhattan, such a building would appear small.

How about building a robot that feels pain?

That is of course an old yet good example of the morality of the situation. If we could build a sentient, self aware, pain feeling robot, then it too would have to be given certain rights.

Actually, I think the degree of Sentient Intelligence is the entire issue.

Humans are sentient. We think abstractly, we use high-level communications. Your hypothetical aliens could detect that with ease, and yes, I would expect them to deal with us on a more equal basis, just as I would expect US to deal with a fully sapient species on a more equal basis.

But non-sapients are not our equals. The only obligations we have towards them are those we choose to take on.

And you see no contradictions in this stance? Remember I said higher order aliens. So if these aliens landed and saw that we where of a lesser degree of sentience, then it is morally correct for them to use us in any way they see fit? After they would not see us as their equals.

From what I've read so far, people are saying it's OK to exploit sentient beings simply because they may not have the ability to think abstractly. First, let's define what sentience is.
Sentience is simply the ability to be aware of one's surroundings. Sentient beings are not necessarily sapient (although some sentients are sapient), but all sentient beings have the ability to suffer and feel pain the same way we do. This alone is enough of a reason to not inflict suffering upon a sentient being unnecessarily, and sentience should be the only prerequisite for the full membership of the moral community.
The thinking behind trying to justify exploitation of sentient beings based on their intelligence level is problematic because you can use that mentality to justify oppression of disabled people, as well as setting up categories and hierarchies for both humans and non-humans.
Furthermore, many people have made an assumption that consuming animals is a necessary part of human survival. It is not, and we have no reason to consume animals when we are not in a state of scarcity besides pleasure and convenience.
Many people have companion animals, and realise that they are thoughtful and intelligent creatures. Cognitively, these animals are identical to the ones that we exploit in farms in that they feel pain, they have natural desires etc.
We set up hierarchies for animals where some are "food animals", while others are "companion animals".
Omnivore means we are physiologically capable of surviving on both or either meat and plants (this includes a vegan or plant-only diet). Humans can eat just about anything.
Not only can we survive on a vegan diet, we can be healthy on a vegan diet.
It makes sense both ethically and logically to not consume animals in a time of global warming, drought and human hunger. The global meat industry is simply unsustainable, and can not support a world population of 6 billion people (Although we also need to take into account the global system of distribution). 40% of the worldwide grain harvest lands in the factory farms of industrial nations. We have brought about deadly diseases through our farming practices like avian flu and mad cow disease - these are not naturally occurring diseases, but they are strains that have adapted to the conditions that we have created.
Non-humans have their own natural desires, wants and needs (like dust bathing - something that is denied to them in factory farms), and are not ours to use. However, humans have reduced their value in life to their economic value to humans by breeding and commodifying them, and using them as mere resources for generating profit.
It is not a question of whether or not we treat animals nicer, or make their cages bigger but why we breed animals in the first place. We do not need to consume animals. If you genuinely care about non-humans, the first step is to oppose the property status of animals (that means stop consuming them). For every animal you don't eat, demand goes down and therefore less animals will be bred into existance in the first place.


Peace,
Citizen of Librustralia

PS.I recommend everyone watch a movie called "earthlings"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GhxKnys7Ryw

PPS. As for the Great Apes Project (GAP... the name alone is a reason to boycott it ;) badaboomp...), I think it is anthropocentric and speciecist in that it puts great apes above other sentient beings simply because they're like us.

PPS. As for the Great Apes Project (GAP... the name alone is a reason to boycott it ;) badaboomp...), I think it is anthropocentric and speciecist in that it puts great apes above other sentient beings simply because they're like us.


Whilst I do agree with this, I also think we have to start somewhere, and it seems logical that we do so with a species we perceive to be closest to us.

And you see no contradictions in this stance? Remember I said higher order aliens. So if these aliens landed and saw that we where of a lesser degree of sentience, then it is morally correct for them to use us in any way they see fit? After they would not see us as their equals.

First, I have doubts that there is a higher order, period. But assuming there is for the sake of argument, then I don't think it matters what we think is morally correct.

If any such "higher order aliens" ever appear, all that will matter is what they think. The only morality that will matter is theirs.

First, I have doubts that there is a higher order, period. But assuming there is for the sake of argument, then I don't think it matters what we think is morally correct.

Why? Is there really so much proof that our intelligence is at the universal peak?


If any such "higher order aliens" ever appear, all that will matter is what they think. The only morality that will matter is theirs.

Personally I would hope that they would have advanced beyond the point where they can't see beyond their own noses...

First, I have doubts that there is a higher order, period. But assuming there is for the sake of argument, then I don't think it matters what we think is morally correct.

If any such "higher order aliens" ever appear, all that will matter is what they think. The only morality that will matter is theirs.

That is madness, so you truly believe then that might is always right? That if a child is suffering because of the actions that it's parents take for example, it doesn't matter because an adult's brain is fully functional and thus the adult's sense of morality takes precedent over that of the child?

Outrageous man. Could it just be that you have not realised the implications of your stance, or are you truly that malign?

Humans are our species. Putting your own species first is not selfish - it's survival.

"I am myself. Putting myself first is not selfish--it's survival. So I'm going to destroy all of you if you get in my way."

:rolleyes:

I believe we should respect other organisms that inhabit the planet because if we wipe out too many species, bad things start to happen.

See my vest
See my vest
Made from real gorilla chest

"High-level communication" then, pedant.

So the great apes are all sapient.

I believe we should respect other organisms that inhabit the planet because if we wipe out too many species, bad things start to happen.
But there is a greater biodiversity today than at any time in the geological history of the planet. And there have been massive extinctions before and things are just fine now. I'm not advocating the intentional destruction of everything but you can't be frightened of moving forward because of the potential consquences.

But there is a greater biodiversity today than at any time in the geological history of the planet.
Evidence?

That is madness, so you truly believe then that might is always right? That if a child is suffering because of the actions that it's parents take for example, it doesn't matter because an adult's brain is fully functional and thus the adult's sense of morality takes precedent over that of the child?

Outrageous man. Could it just be that you have not realised the implications of your stance, or are you truly that malign?

"He who has the power, makes the rules."

It's not nice, or pleasent, and it certainly doesn't make me feel good, but it's the universe we live in, and I don't ever see that changing.

It's why democracy is so important. By vesting final power in the populace as a whole, and creating government that is responsible to that and limited in scope, we can reduce the natural malignancy of power.

'Power Corrupts. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.' Thus, it is in all our interests that no one has absolute power. Because if someone does, then the ONLY morality that counts, is his.

Nope. I know American Sign, and no "signing ape" has ever really gone beyond basic physical/mental concepts - wants, feelings. No Abstracts.

Define "abstract thought", then.

So the great apes are all sapient.

Nope. I know American Sign, and no "signing ape" has ever really gone beyond basic physical/mental concepts - wants, feelings. No Abstracts.

It is immoral to kill sentient life forms except in self-defense.

Anything that goes beyond the immediate and the emotional. Mathematics at above the basic level; concepts of community and social organization beyond the instictual; attempts at explanation of observed phenomena (whether correct or not); basically, anything which requires calculation, logic, or a sense of time beyond the immediate or short-term.
Which really isn't a very good definition, since now you have to define "above the basic level" and "beyond the instinctual".

Define "abstract thought", then.

Anything that goes beyond the immediate and the emotional. Mathematics at above the basic level; concepts of community and social organization beyond the instictual; attempts at explanation of observed phenomena (whether correct or not); basically, anything which requires calculation, logic, or a sense of time beyond the immediate or short-term.

I'm willing to give Apes (and Cetaceans) credit for being close. But they aren't true sapients, at least, not yet.

Yes.

Morality is a human construct; it has no applicability beyond those that believe in it. Rights, likewise, can only possibly apply to those who can (or can potentially) understand and take advantage of them.

We can say "Don't kill that." But we are then doing so for own reasons, not for anything about the animals. Their feelings, cares, wants are ultimately irrelevant, whichever way we decide.

Just because morality is a human construct (it is more over a biological construct, we are the only ones who understand it as a concept, however) does not mean that it has nothing to say about ethical treatment of animals.

The nature of morality that we can only judge people (although I don't really think there is any delineating feature between animals and people as far as moral judgment is concerned); it does not say that it is OK to harm animals.

not because it would violate the puppies' rights.

How about punting a baby?

No, sentience doesn't guarantee anything a right to anything.

Possession of a brainstem is super, but I'm still gonna eat 'ya if you're not human and taste good. :p And that means most animals (well, except caribou. Never again will I eat caribou. Terrible.)

How about punting a baby?
Good. The fewer of those screeching, snot-faced hellspawn the better.

Now as for the treatment of animals and animal rights:
No one gets off on, and certainly doesn't advocate slapping their mut, stepping on their snake, or roughing up their clam, but just like a lot of animals, we humans think that some animals taste good and chow down. When you start talking about animal liberation and giving animals rights you have to take into account the responsibilities associated with those freedoms. If all animals were liberated and treated equally under the law with humans then they'd all end up in animal prison for killing other animals, fucking and shitting all over the shitty fucking place, public nudity, not paying their taxes, etc.

And what is it with people trying to use words like ethical in the name of their organization? Ethical means moral or proper and differs for every person. It's something to discuss, it's not an absolute.

The fact is that animals kill. They have since the dawn of life on this planet and will continue to be the norm till the sun sheds its layers and fries the Earth during its transition to white dwarf and even then maybe after that. Life works by waring upon itself in some form or another. Nature isn't some Disney bullshit where lion's, boar's, and meerkat's all get along and sing songs in the jungle. Nature is a harsh and unforgiving place and humans are saints by comparison. Nature has killed probably 99% of all life that has been on this planet. Only 9 of the endangered species were de-listed because they were killed off by people and 7 of those were dead by the time they got on the list which was signed into law by Nixon. It is one fucked up law that has not saved a signle species and has cost at least one crippled teacher a lot.

The Universe is Consciousness.

The Universe is Consciousness.
That is quite possibly the dumbest and unfunniest thing I've ever read.

That is quite possibly the dumbest and unfunniest thing I've ever read.

I dunno. I thought it was funny. :p

Anything that goes beyond the immediate and the emotional. Mathematics at above the basic level; concepts of community and social organization beyond the instictual; attempts at explanation of observed phenomena (whether correct or not); basically, anything which requires calculation, logic, or a sense of time beyond the immediate or short-term.

Would you consider understanding the concept of a mirror and consequently the concept of "self" to qualify ?

Orleannia believes that Humans should not have dominion over animals but rather they should protect them and use them with the utmost utility in mind. Though we do not chastise the use of animals as food, much of our sustenance is provided by the nutritious mongongo nut.

Anything that goes beyond the immediate and the emotional. Mathematics at above the basic level; concepts of community and social organization beyond the instictual; attempts at explanation of observed phenomena (whether correct or not); basically, anything which requires calculation, logic, or a sense of time beyond the immediate or short-term.

I'm willing to give Apes (and Cetaceans) credit for being close. But they aren't true sapients, at least, not yet.

So tool using monkeys count. Especially the kind that use a tool now that the troop didn't 10 years ago.

"He who has the power, makes the rules."

It's not nice, or pleasent, and it certainly doesn't make me feel good, but it's the universe we live in, and I don't ever see that changing.

It's why democracy is so important. By vesting final power in the populace as a whole, and creating government that is responsible to that and limited in scope, we can reduce the natural malignancy of power.

'Power Corrupts. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.' Thus, it is in all our interests that no one has absolute power. Because if someone does, then the ONLY morality that counts, is his.

Yes it is true that he who has the power makes the rules.

It is this very thing that I am talking about. We(humanity) currently have the power, and so the rules we make can(if we so choose) include giving certain rights to other sentient species, especially those closer to our own level.

Now the question that I ask is should we morally do this? I think yes, and the answer you give 'Power belongs to the strongest' doesn't really answer the question.

So tool using monkeys count. Especially the kind that use a tool now that the troop didn't 10 years ago.

It is the monkey using tools you have to worry about.

It is the monkey using tools you have to worry about.

Bwhahahh now that is funny on sooo many levels that I'm gonna give you two bwhahaha's!

So tool using monkeys count. Especially the kind that use a tool now that the troop didn't 10 years ago.

So do the bluetits that learned to open milk bottles ;)

So tool using monkeys count. Especially the kind that use a tool now that the troop didn't 10 years ago.

No. Tool using is close, but not quite good enough.

Tool making, on the other hand, that is, the forming or use of two or more dissimiliar objects in order to create a third object capable of doing what neither/none of the previous objects could do, would be sufficient.

Practically any animal can use a tool. I've seen film of a Hawk using a rope to drag a plate of food to where it could get at it, and I've personally seen a squirrel use a rock to break walnuts. MAKING a tool is something more.

In the hunting thread, rights for animals have been mentioned.

Is it correct that we treat other sentient species we share the planet with, with mutual respect? Should we make laws to protect the interests of the great apes(for example)?

Or is it moral as the highest form of life on this planet to use all other life forms how we like, with no regard to any feelings they may have?

All animals have the following rights:

(1) the right to run away
(2) the right to being faster than humans on foot
(3) the right to maul stupid people to death

seriously, rights for animals? that's a little too much...

Yes it is true that he who has the power makes the rules.

It is this very thing that I am talking about. We(humanity) currently have the power, and so the rules we make can(if we so choose) include giving certain rights to other sentient species, especially those closer to our own level.

Now the question that I ask is should we morally do this? I think yes, and the answer you give 'Power belongs to the strongest' doesn't really answer the question.

Basically, I disagree with giving rights to any creature incapable of fundamentally understanding what those rights are.

A human (or other true sapience) could use those rights to guarantee certain things for himself; he can make use of those rights.

A non-sapient could only rely upon OTHERS to make use of those rights FOR him. Ultimately, you aren't giving the animal anything at all - you're just giving people the power to use the animal for their own ends.

Which may or may not have anything to do with the wants and needs of said animal.

In the hunting thread, rights for animals have been mentioned.

Is it correct that we treat other sentient species we share the planet with, with mutual respect? Should we make laws to protect the interests of the great apes(for example)?

Or is it moral as the highest form of life on this planet to use all other life forms how we like, with no regard to any feelings they may have?

Absolutely. Just because we are unable to communicate with chimps does not mean they are not as intelligent. Also, maybe they see what human technology is like and don't want to pursue it themselves, or just haven't gotten that far yet.

All animals have the following rights:

(1) the right to run away
(2) the right to being faster than humans on foot
(3) the right to maul stupid people to death

seriously, rights for animals? that's a little too much...

Why is it a little too much?

Basically, I disagree with giving rights to any creature incapable of fundamentally understanding what those rights are.

A human (or other true sapience) could use those rights to guarantee certain things for himself; he can make use of those rights.

A non-sapient could only rely upon OTHERS to make use of those rights FOR him. Ultimately, you aren't giving the animal anything at all - you're just giving people the power to use the animal for their own ends.

Which may or may not have anything to do with the wants and needs of said animal.

I don't think you have got my point at all. You keep coming back to this idea of imposing such rights as we may feel nessicary onto animals.

That is not what I'm talking about at all. You also talk about a certain level of sentience, yet insist you know how sentient animals such as the great apes are.

What I'm talking about really has more to do with morality than anything else.

Is it wrong to treat thinking, feeling, species in any manor we choose to?

I don't think you have got my point at all. You keep coming back to this idea of imposing such rights as we may feel nessicary onto animals.

That is not what I'm talking about at all. You also talk about a certain level of sentience, yet insist you know how sentient animals such as the great apes are.

What I'm talking about really has more to do with morality than anything else.

Is it wrong to treat thinking, feeling, species in any manor we choose to?

I don't know how sapient the Great Apes are. I do have a very good idea of how sapient they have been demonstrated to be.

As to your question: I would say yes, it is wrong. We should treat a sapient species as they choose to be treated, and we could hope that a more powerful sapient species would feel the same.

The Universe is Consciousness.
That is quite possibly the dumbest and unfunniest thing I've ever read.

And your shortcomings are your own problem. The fact that in your world just "funny" equals "not dumb" by no means implies that it is so for everyone.

Indeed it is quite idiotic to assume so, for there are people who find enjoyment in endeavours other than silly giggle at "funny" things.

No. Tool using is close, but not quite good enough.

Tool making, on the other hand, that is, the forming or use of two or more dissimiliar objects in order to create a third object capable of doing what neither/none of the previous objects could do, would be sufficient.

Then chimpanzees qualify, since they make spears.

Then chimpanzees qualify, since they make spears.

THAT I'm not going to take on faith, as I've never heard that either described or claimed before.

Proof, please.

Our time is up! (http://http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28315)

If all animals were liberated and treated equally under the law with humans then they’d all end up in animal prison for killing other animals, fucking and shitting all over the shitty fucking place, public nudity, not paying their taxes, etc.
I don’t believe there are many people who would wish non-human animals be treated completely equally under the law as humans. The idea, as I’m aware of it, is to make activities such as poaching, capturing, enclosing, etc. great apes and the like more serious criminal offences, in light of supporters’ views of the sentience of such 'intelligent' non-human animals.

Life works by waring upon itself in some form or another. Nature isn’t some Disney bullshit where lion’s, boar’s, and meerkat’s all get along and sing songs in the jungle. Nature is a harsh and unforgiving place and humans are saints by comparison. Nature has killed probably 99% of all life that has been on this planet.
‘Nature’ hasn’t ‘done’ anything.

True, the natural world, including ourselves, isn’t a Disney cartoon, and shouldn’t be personified as such. But we shouldn’t slide to the other end of the scale, personifying the universe as something “red in tooth and claw”, as Tennyson mistakenly put it.

The universe is neither a sing-a-long, nor a “harsh and unforgiving place”. It has no persona, neither merciful nor cruel; to characterise it as such is misleading at best, dangerous at worst.

The idea of the universe as a harsh place, constantly amidst a war where only the strong can survive, has influenced the idiotic notion of Social Darwinism and the hateful politics that spawned from it. A strong testament to keep clear of such muddled ideas.

Our time is up! (http://http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28315)

Link's only going to http.com.

http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThisShitAgain!.jpg

This comes up every fall, when hunting season starts. If they can prove that any game animal can think senitently I'll stop hunting*

*I am not a trophy hunter. I hunt to manage game population and because Deer meat is far heathier than beef and has no secret ingredients.