Edit: And underdeveloped is a matter of opinion. Hydra, for instance, function as well as any land animal that eats grass, and probably is on par with predatory animals. Just because they don't look cute doesn't mean they're not functioning wonderfully.
Edit: And underdeveloped is a matter of opinion. Hydra, for instance, function as well as any land animal that eats grass, and probably is on par with predatory animals. Just because they don't look cute doesn't mean they're not functioning wonderfully.
But it's ok to eat things that eat grass.
As opposed to bugs?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
That's what creeps me out. This is a huge issue. I'm a quarter through my life, a decade into adolescence. And I don't know where I stand, really. I'm honest to myself about the fact that I don't really have an argument.
Hey that's fine. Just don't get into some philosophical funk and stop eating or wearing completely hemp clothing because you can't decide.
If anything I lean towards the opposite end of the spectrum. I essentially advocate any human action (w.r.t. animals) as long as it doesn't negatively come back to humans. For example I don't really care if we tear down the habitat of some caribou for our benefit. If their disrupted migratory patterns will biologically circle around and bother us, then yeah that's something to note- but if it doesn't I don't care. Humans first, without question.
Edit: And underdeveloped is a matter of opinion. Hydra, for instance, function as well as any land animal that eats grass, and probably is on par with predatory animals. Just because they don't look cute doesn't mean they're not functioning wonderfully.
That's what creeps me out. This is a huge issue. I'm a quarter through my life, a decade into adolescence. And I don't know where I stand, really. I'm honest to myself about the fact that I don't really have an argument.
Hey that's fine. Just don't get into some philosophical funk and stop eating or wearing completely hemp clothing because you can't decide.
If anything I lean towards the opposite end of the spectrum. I essentially advocate any human action (w.r.t. animals) as long as it doesn't negatively come back to humans. For example I don't really care if we tear down the habitat of some caribou for our benefit. If their disrupted migratory patterns will biologically circle around and bother us, then yeah that's something to note- but if it doesn't I don't care. Humans first, without question.
I'm just not sure why.
I am generally with this. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to do some things just because we can though. Sure, we can tear down the habitat, but if we can do it without doing that, but it costs more money, well too bad.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I agree. But why is it any better because their nervous system is, let's say, less sophisticated? It probably works better than a cow's.
efficiency is not the same thing as sophistication.
A roach's nervous system may be a lot more efficient then a dog's but dogs are more sophisticated and can do things like learn, and "love". As a result dogs are on a higher tier of the selective food chain then bugs.
how short or how long a particular person wants to make that chain is up to them but things like "feeling pain" and "intelligence" are an important factor and should be an important factor. Otherwise it's just arbitrary.
edit: and of course there's the obvious reason for not eating non-renewable food sources like Fish. But that's just because there won't be any left if we keep things up.
I think I can say, with a little fact, that any nervous system can establish a "feeling pain" signal. I fail to see reason as to why it's more okay to eat an ant because it can't learn like a dog can. It's a gray line to determine that "This is okay to eat because it doesn't feel pain in a sophisticated way." They still feel it, I'm sure, and how much or how powerful it is isn't even something you can measure.
Their nervous system might amplify pain, much like ours amplifies pleasure. Sophistication might be a better judge, but anything lower than a human could be fair game because what determines the sophistication? Surely there are sophisticated nervous system outside of the higher-ups on the food-chain.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
can do things like learn, and "love". As a result dogs are on a higher tier of the selective food chain then bugs.
Can I just point out how blatantly anthropocentric this is? Don't get me wrong, I love my dog and I often feel like she loves me, but I highly doubt there's any kind of genuine emotional consideration there. Dogs make us feel good so we don't eat them, that's about it.
As an aside, I'm having some delicious porkchop leftovers for lunch later today, so don't get me wrong, I'm not an animal rights advocate. But that's just because I recognize if I wanted to take the stance that stuff less than human has equivilent rights, I can't find an exact spot where to draw the line even at plants. The only thing I think is 100% alright for someone to eat if they believe in a right to life is fruit.
I think I can say, with a little fact, that any nervous system can establish a "feeling pain" signal. I fail to see reason as to why it's more okay to eat an ant because it can't learn like a dog can. It's a gray line to determine that "This is okay to eat because it doesn't feel pain in a sophisticated way." They still feel it, I'm sure, and how much or how powerful it is isn't even something you can measure.
sure you can. You can even guess by looking at the anatomy of the animal.
There's a hand full of animals where it's hard, like the Dolphin who has a lot of protective cells as part of their brain which makes it look bigger then it actually is.
If you feel that no amount is an acceptable amount, that's up to you, but there is a hierarchy.
Raiden- that's why I put "love" in quotes. there's no reason NOT to eat dogs aside for liking them as pets.
DanHibiki on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Am I right in thinking that the consensus is that this baby, although unable to do things that animals can do, is still a person?
You're bringing to light one of the big problems with the cogito. If someone is not cognating their cognitions, do they exist as humans?
That's the worst non sequitur I've ever heard with regard to Descartes, Podly, you should be ashamed.
The cogito has nothing to do with being human, and nothing to do with existing, it only relates to what can and cannot be doubted.
According to Descartes, you cannot doubt that you are doubting, hence you can be sure that you think and therefore exist.
haha, Apo you are so wrong. Have you even ventured outside of Discourse on Method? The cogito has everything to do with being human, because humans ARE thinking things. Yes, Descartes centered philosophy on epistemology, but he could only do so by making extreme categorical [though never existential] ontological affirmations.
I WILL now close my eyes, I will stop my ears, I will turn away my senses
from their objects, I will even efface from my consciousness all the images
of corporeal things; or at least, because this can hardly be accomplished, I
will consider them as empty and false; and thus, holding converse only with
myself, and closely examining my nature, I will endeavor to obtain by
degrees a more intimate and familiar knowledge of myself. I am a thinking (conscious)
thing, that is, a being who doubts, affirms, denies, knows a few
objects, and is ignorant of many,-- [who loves, hates], wills, refuses, who
imagines likewise, and perceives; for, as I before remarked, although the
things which I perceive or imagine are perhaps Nothing at all apart from me
[and in themselves], I am nevertheless assured that those modes of
consciousness which I call perceptions and imaginations, in as far only as
they are modes of consciousness, exist in me.
I don't think it's pain = rights. Pain is a concept that you can simplify down to "feels signals from environment". Obviously pretty much anything with DNA is grouped into there.
The question should be, "do they suffer?" Many pro- animal rights people have a stance that boils down to something similar. A common stance is: does it have a central nervous system? If yes, then it's capable of feeling pain anologous (perhaps not identical, but similar) to our own feelings of pain. Since we know causing undue pain in others is immoral, why would causing pain to a dog, cow, or rabbit be any different?
Why do I think it's immoral to cause suffering to humans? You know, I've never really fleshed out the logic behind that. I just took it for granted as something that is inherently immoral. Well, first I should add the caveat that I think it is immoral to cause humans suffering for no reason. There are extenuating circumstances where'd I cause suffering (self defense, protection of family, bdsm, etc). But I think it's immoral to walk down the street and kneecap a stranger out of the blue. Or allow the kneecapping of said person.
As for the why? Hmm, I'll have to think about that. I'm having a hard time getting around the logic of "undue suffering is just wrong, duh."
In the meantime, maybe you can help me by giving me an example of why someone would think harming a human is immoral that wouldn't apply to animals?
Joe Chemo on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Am I right in thinking that the consensus is that this baby, although unable to do things that animals can do, is still a person?
You're bringing to light one of the big problems with the cogito. If someone is not cognating their cognitions, do they exist as humans?
That's the worst non sequitur I've ever heard with regard to Descartes, Podly, you should be ashamed.
The cogito has nothing to do with being human, and nothing to do with existing, it only relates to what can and cannot be doubted.
According to Descartes, you cannot doubt that you are doubting, hence you can be sure that you think and therefore exist.
haha, Apo you are so wrong. Have you even ventured outside of Discourse on Method? The cogito has everything to do with being human, because humans ARE thinking things. Yes, Descartes centered philosophy on epistemology, but he could only do so by making extreme categorical [though never existential] ontological affirmations.
I WILL now close my eyes, I will stop my ears, I will turn away my senses
from their objects, I will even efface from my consciousness all the images
of corporeal things; or at least, because this can hardly be accomplished, I
will consider them as empty and false; and thus, holding converse only with
myself, and closely examining my nature, I will endeavor to obtain by
degrees a more intimate and familiar knowledge of myself. I am a thinking (conscious)
thing, that is, a being who doubts, affirms, denies, knows a few
objects, and is ignorant of many,-- [who loves, hates], wills, refuses, who
imagines likewise, and perceives; for, as I before remarked, although the
things which I perceive or imagine are perhaps Nothing at all apart from me
[and in themselves], I am nevertheless assured that those modes of
consciousness which I call perceptions and imaginations, in as far only as
they are modes of consciousness, exist in me.
Humans are thinking creatures AND The cogito is about thought != The cogito is about being human
Also, your chosen quote in no way supports your contention that the cogito relates to being human as opposed to epsitemology.
My point is that because they share similar elements doesn't mean they're the same thing. That is, hey in both cases I'm swinging a knife through the air. In both cases I'm causing pain. However is it immoral, every time, to swipe a knife horizontally? Is it immoral, every time, to cause pain? What are the like characteristics? What are the unlike characteristics? etc.
Why do I think it's immoral to cause suffering to humans? You know, I've never really fleshed out the logic behind that. I just took it for granted as something that is inherently immoral. Well, first I should add the caveat that I think it is immoral to cause humans suffering for no reason. There are extenuating circumstances where'd I cause suffering (self defense, protection of family, bdsm, etc). But I think it's immoral to walk down the street and kneecap a stranger out of the blue. Or allow the kneecapping of said person.
As for the why? Hmm, I'll have to think about that. I'm having a hard time getting around the logic of "undue suffering is just wrong, duh."
In the meantime, maybe you can help me by giving me an example of why someone would think harming a human is immoral that wouldn't apply to animals?
I personally am still struggling with this, so I'm not sure how informative any of my posts will be.
The obvious thing that comes to mind is it's wrong to cause undue pain to humans because of the human nervous system and how we value human life.
(This is obviously a loose and broad statement, but I'm just running with a particular parallel).
However, it's not the "causing undue pain" part that is necessarily the kicker, or the determinant of right/wrong. It's causing undue pain to humans. Meaning there are certain characteristics possessed by humans that introduce ethical import in this situation... and those characteristics don't necessarily apply to non humans.
Punching a wall isn't wrong, punching a human face is. Both cause damage to a physical object, but one of the objects possesses characteristics that are ethically significant.
However, it's not the "causing undue pain" part that is necessarily the kicker, or the determinant of right/wrong. It's causing undue pain to humans. Meaning there are certain characteristics possessed by humans that introduce ethical import in this situation... and those characteristics don't necessarily apply to non humans.
Punching a wall isn't wrong, punching a human face is. Both cause damage to a physical object, but one of the objects possesses characteristics that are ethically significant.
So, IMO, a pro animal rights stance would be: the ability to suffer is that ethically significant characteristic you mention.
Punching a wall: no problem, no one suffers (but you, maybe).
Punching a plant:no problem.Tthe plant is damaged, and receives biochemical signals as such. Is it pain? maybe. Suffering? not really.
Punch a human: This person suffers.
Punch a dog: The dog suffers in a manner that is not qualitatively different than the human above. So why should this suffering be condoned?
Punch a human: This person suffers.
Punch a dog: The dog suffers in a manner that is not qualitatively different than the human above. So why should this suffering be condoned?
Two unresolved points.
1.) Is it shown that the suffering is qualitatively very similar?
2.) Again, even if you show that the suffering is comparable it doesn't close the case. The former is wrong because a human suffers in a human manner. Even if a dog suffers in a 'human' manner, does a dog possess those other faculties that makes us care about human suffering in the first place?
Punching a plant:no problem.Tthe plant is damaged, and receives biochemical signals as such. Is it pain? maybe. Suffering? not really.
Here's what bothers me. How can we say that for sure? Just because plants don't have a nervous system like we do doesn't mean they aren't experiencing something akin to what a pig experiences if you stab it. There would be absolutely no way for the plant to express if it suffers, so I don't feel comfortable making the leap to 'animals suffer, plants don't, period.'
1.) Is it shown that the suffering is qualitatively very similar?
2.) Again, even if you show that the suffering is comparable it doesn't close the case. The former is wrong because a human suffers in a human manner. Even if a dog suffers in a 'human' manner, does a dog possess those other faculties that makes us care about human suffering in the first place?
1. I believe so. However I am about to go to bed so I'm not going to look up the peer-reviewed articles on pain. Maybe tomorrow, if you want? However, one thing to think about is that a dog and a person are both mammals. Our nervous systems, like almost every other organ/system, are quite similar. But I can't give you statistics tonight. Sorry =/
2. Ok, working off the position that there is no qualitative difference in suffering: a pro AR stance would argue that the suffering is the only important "faculty." Doesn't matter that the dog can't reason, communicate, or think abstractly on a level similar to humans -- causing suffering for no reason is amoral regardless of species. I believe this idea is related to Speciesism
Here's what bothers me. How can we say that for sure? Just because plants don't have a nervous system like we do doesn't mean they aren't experiencing something akin to what a pig experiences if you stab it. There would be absolutely no way for the plant to express if it suffers, so I don't feel comfortable making the leap to 'animals suffer, plants don't, period.'
Totally. So, I think one needs to consider what we mean by suffering, in this context. One way to look at it is: the feeling of distress caused by a central nervous system registering injury. Can plants be injured? Absolutely. Do they register that injury in the same manner as a pig or human? I think the answer is an unequivocal no. Our biologies are too vastly different.
Posts
But it's ok to eat things that eat grass.
As opposed to bugs?
If anything I lean towards the opposite end of the spectrum. I essentially advocate any human action (w.r.t. animals) as long as it doesn't negatively come back to humans. For example I don't really care if we tear down the habitat of some caribou for our benefit. If their disrupted migratory patterns will biologically circle around and bother us, then yeah that's something to note- but if it doesn't I don't care. Humans first, without question.
I'm just not sure why.
good source of protein.
I am generally with this. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to do some things just because we can though. Sure, we can tear down the habitat, but if we can do it without doing that, but it costs more money, well too bad.
efficiency is not the same thing as sophistication.
A roach's nervous system may be a lot more efficient then a dog's but dogs are more sophisticated and can do things like learn, and "love". As a result dogs are on a higher tier of the selective food chain then bugs.
how short or how long a particular person wants to make that chain is up to them but things like "feeling pain" and "intelligence" are an important factor and should be an important factor. Otherwise it's just arbitrary.
edit: and of course there's the obvious reason for not eating non-renewable food sources like Fish. But that's just because there won't be any left if we keep things up.
Their nervous system might amplify pain, much like ours amplifies pleasure. Sophistication might be a better judge, but anything lower than a human could be fair game because what determines the sophistication? Surely there are sophisticated nervous system outside of the higher-ups on the food-chain.
Can I just point out how blatantly anthropocentric this is? Don't get me wrong, I love my dog and I often feel like she loves me, but I highly doubt there's any kind of genuine emotional consideration there. Dogs make us feel good so we don't eat them, that's about it.
As an aside, I'm having some delicious porkchop leftovers for lunch later today, so don't get me wrong, I'm not an animal rights advocate. But that's just because I recognize if I wanted to take the stance that stuff less than human has equivilent rights, I can't find an exact spot where to draw the line even at plants. The only thing I think is 100% alright for someone to eat if they believe in a right to life is fruit.
There's a hand full of animals where it's hard, like the Dolphin who has a lot of protective cells as part of their brain which makes it look bigger then it actually is.
If you feel that no amount is an acceptable amount, that's up to you, but there is a hierarchy.
Raiden- that's why I put "love" in quotes. there's no reason NOT to eat dogs aside for liking them as pets.
haha, Apo you are so wrong. Have you even ventured outside of Discourse on Method? The cogito has everything to do with being human, because humans ARE thinking things. Yes, Descartes centered philosophy on epistemology, but he could only do so by making extreme categorical [though never existential] ontological affirmations.
Cogito ergo sum = I think therefore I am.
Didn't he sleep with the girl he was tutoring?
Don't even get me started. Descartes is singlehandedly, SINGLEHANDEDLY, responsible for a great deal of the world's problems right now.
edit* well, she was the Queen of Sweden.
The question should be, "do they suffer?" Many pro- animal rights people have a stance that boils down to something similar. A common stance is: does it have a central nervous system? If yes, then it's capable of feeling pain anologous (perhaps not identical, but similar) to our own feelings of pain. Since we know causing undue pain in others is immoral, why would causing pain to a dog, cow, or rabbit be any different?
There are different conditions in place.
For example swinging a blade in the air isn't wrong but swinging a blade in the air while someone's neck is in the way is.
I guess it depends on why you think it's wrong to cause pain in humans. Why do you? Do those reasons apply here?
Why do I think it's immoral to cause suffering to humans? You know, I've never really fleshed out the logic behind that. I just took it for granted as something that is inherently immoral. Well, first I should add the caveat that I think it is immoral to cause humans suffering for no reason. There are extenuating circumstances where'd I cause suffering (self defense, protection of family, bdsm, etc). But I think it's immoral to walk down the street and kneecap a stranger out of the blue. Or allow the kneecapping of said person.
As for the why? Hmm, I'll have to think about that. I'm having a hard time getting around the logic of "undue suffering is just wrong, duh."
In the meantime, maybe you can help me by giving me an example of why someone would think harming a human is immoral that wouldn't apply to animals?
Humans are thinking creatures AND The cogito is about thought != The cogito is about being human
Also, your chosen quote in no way supports your contention that the cogito relates to being human as opposed to epsitemology.
My point is that because they share similar elements doesn't mean they're the same thing. That is, hey in both cases I'm swinging a knife through the air. In both cases I'm causing pain. However is it immoral, every time, to swipe a knife horizontally? Is it immoral, every time, to cause pain? What are the like characteristics? What are the unlike characteristics? etc.
I personally am still struggling with this, so I'm not sure how informative any of my posts will be.
The obvious thing that comes to mind is it's wrong to cause undue pain to humans because of the human nervous system and how we value human life.
(This is obviously a loose and broad statement, but I'm just running with a particular parallel).
However, it's not the "causing undue pain" part that is necessarily the kicker, or the determinant of right/wrong. It's causing undue pain to humans. Meaning there are certain characteristics possessed by humans that introduce ethical import in this situation... and those characteristics don't necessarily apply to non humans.
Punching a wall isn't wrong, punching a human face is. Both cause damage to a physical object, but one of the objects possesses characteristics that are ethically significant.
So, IMO, a pro animal rights stance would be: the ability to suffer is that ethically significant characteristic you mention.
Punching a wall: no problem, no one suffers (but you, maybe).
Punching a plant:no problem.Tthe plant is damaged, and receives biochemical signals as such. Is it pain? maybe. Suffering? not really.
Punch a human: This person suffers.
Punch a dog: The dog suffers in a manner that is not qualitatively different than the human above. So why should this suffering be condoned?
Two unresolved points.
1.) Is it shown that the suffering is qualitatively very similar?
2.) Again, even if you show that the suffering is comparable it doesn't close the case. The former is wrong because a human suffers in a human manner. Even if a dog suffers in a 'human' manner, does a dog possess those other faculties that makes us care about human suffering in the first place?
Here's what bothers me. How can we say that for sure? Just because plants don't have a nervous system like we do doesn't mean they aren't experiencing something akin to what a pig experiences if you stab it. There would be absolutely no way for the plant to express if it suffers, so I don't feel comfortable making the leap to 'animals suffer, plants don't, period.'
1. I believe so. However I am about to go to bed so I'm not going to look up the peer-reviewed articles on pain. Maybe tomorrow, if you want? However, one thing to think about is that a dog and a person are both mammals. Our nervous systems, like almost every other organ/system, are quite similar. But I can't give you statistics tonight. Sorry =/
2. Ok, working off the position that there is no qualitative difference in suffering: a pro AR stance would argue that the suffering is the only important "faculty." Doesn't matter that the dog can't reason, communicate, or think abstractly on a level similar to humans -- causing suffering for no reason is amoral regardless of species. I believe this idea is related to Speciesism
Totally. So, I think one needs to consider what we mean by suffering, in this context. One way to look at it is: the feeling of distress caused by a central nervous system registering injury. Can plants be injured? Absolutely. Do they register that injury in the same manner as a pig or human? I think the answer is an unequivocal no. Our biologies are too vastly different.