Big Bang

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is all a matter of value, as I was attempting to get out of you.
At some point, do you value them as much as you do humans?
If you do okay fine! If you value all life that? If you do fine!
If you value them because they are life, it is okay, if you value them because
they are food, as far as I'm concern that is okay too. With you it may not be
that ...[text shortened]... ters into it, but as the world in every area of life is concern life
devours life here.
Kelly

I think like suffering should count for like suffering no matter the species. To trade in an animal's life for the temporary satisfaction of one's stomach is, I feel, morally objectionable; especially when a vegetarian diet satisfies all your nutritional requirements.

The difference between human animals and nonhuman animals is that we don't exist in a "state of nature" and we claim to be moral creatures. So appeals to the way of the world and "life devour[ing] life" fall flat.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
I think like suffering should count for like suffering no matter the species. To trade in an animal's life for the temporary satisfaction of one's stomach is, I feel, morally objectionable; especially when a vegetarian diet satisfies all your nutritional requirements.

The difference between human animals and nonhuman animals is that we don't exist ...[text shortened]... oral creatures. So appeals to the way of the world and "life devour[ing] life" fall flat.

I'm not interested in how you view how I eat! You are not that important to me.
I like eating what I like eating, and you telling me that I should favor one food
source over another is just a sound in the wind, meaningless dribble. You are
more than welcome to eat what you will, you are more than welcome to value
all life as equally as you do human, but that is as far as it goes.

Life devouring life is the way it is, you don't make the rules for everything else!
You may feel free to dislike it, but so what? I dislike a lot of things too, and I'm
also powerless to change the views of those that do them. Even our laws fall on
ground to those that view themselves above the law, we are not even able to
change how we act by placing laws in place. It is only the changing of the hearts
that matter, placing value where there wasn't before.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not interested in how you view how I eat! You are not that important to me.
I like eating what I like eating, and you telling me that I should favor one food
source over another is just a sound in the wind, meaningless dribble. You are
more than welcome to eat what you will, you are more than welcome to value
all life as equally as you do human, but ...[text shortened]... nly the changing of the hearts
that matter, placing value where there wasn't before.
Kelly

"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."
Genesis 9:1-3

I reckon that's the "hand" that Bentham had in mind.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that l ...[text shortened]... ven you all things."
Genesis 9:1-3

I reckon that's the "hand" that Bentham had in mind.

That does present a natural order of things.
Kelly

Originally posted by Green Paladin
[quote]Again, you use of the word “interest” is vague.
It can be said, I think without being too vague, that they have evolved to have a predisposition to behave in certain ways that, within the typical environment they live in, maximise their chances of survival. -but what exactly does it mean to say “animals have an “interest” to carry on living”? - an jump through your hoops. Good day.

“...For someone who claims that the innermost feelings and states of mind of nonhuman animals is unknowable ...”

I am claiming we cannot be sure although that does not rule out making some educated guesses (like I did).

“...

There is no rational connection; there is no evidence that most animals (excluding humans) are aware of their own emotional states of their brain so there is no obvious reason why we 'should' give them the same legal rights as the rest of us.
(my quote)

So should mentally deficient humans qualify for MORAL consideration? How about infants? ...” (my emphasis)

Did I say anything about “MORAL” considerations?


“....
Yes, I read that, and it is pseudo-science. So exactly what evidence can there be that “Poultry can suffer by FEELING pain, fear and stress.” -now think about this VERY carefully before answering this! -how can you have evidence of what an animal is actually “FEELING”? Answer, you can't. Science can only observe an animal's behaviour and physiological responses BUT real science can NOT show “evidence” of what they are “FEELING”!
(my quote)

The professional opinion of a poultry ethologist is pseudoscience? ...”

That depends; in this case it is because he is talking about something that might be outside his profession:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology
“the scientific study of animal behaviour “

-although it can have other meanings, the fact remains, you cannot scientifically study the inner feelings of animals that they are consciously aware of because you cannot know that.

“...How do we know that anyone else besides ourselves feel emotion? ...”
By reasonable inference; I feel emotions and other people claim to feel emotions so it is a reasonable hypotheses that we all feel emotions.

“...These impulses, emotions, and feelings are located in the diencephalon, which is well developed in many other species of animals, especially mammals and birds. ...”

Yes; but does that mean that all mammals and birds are aware of those feelings? Answer, no.

“...The anthropocentric requirement that nonhuman animals be like humans to have moral status is just the sort of thinking that motivates sexists, racists and homophobes: ...”

Did I say anything about “moral status”? Answer, no. Stop putting words into my mouth! I do NOT believe nor have I said that “ anthropocentric requirement that nonhuman animals be like humans to have moral status”!

“...first you acknowledged that animals feel pain with remarks like, "I can believe there is often animal cruelty in many meat-farm methods", ...”

Actually, I acknowledged that some animals MIGHT feel pain AND be consciously aware of it so, just in case they ARE consciously aware of “pain”, I would want the corresponding caution when handling animals.

“...Then you adopt the absurd position of denying that animals can feel pain ...”

No, that is not what I said nor is this my position. I said we cannot be SURE that they are consciously aware that they are in pain and I am not even claiming that all animals are definitely NOT aware of such a thing -we can only make an educated guess.

“...Your argument is viciously circular: in order to have moral status nonhuman animals must be like humans ...”

This is NOT my argument! Where did I say “ in order to have moral status nonhuman animals must be like humans”? I never mentioned morality!

“...On top of this you deliberately misrepresent my position by using flies and nematodes as an example when it is clear that I've been arguing for sentient vertebrate species. ...”

Once you claim that science can somehow show all vertebrate species have conscious awareness of their own feelings (assuming that this is what you actually claim? ) then why can you not use exactly the same logic to claim that science can somehow show all flies and nematodes have conscious awareness of their own feelings? ( and using the same 'evidence' for this ) .

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...For someone who claims that the innermost feelings and states of mind of nonhuman animals is unknowable ...”

I am claiming we cannot be sure although that does not rule out making some educated guesses (like I did).

“...

There is no rational connection; there is no evidence that most animals (excluding humans) are aware of their own emot ...[text shortened]... conscious awareness of their own feelings? ( and using the same 'evidence' for this ) .

How do you know any other individual, human or otherwise feels pain? By the way they communicate it. If I say I am feeling pain, you need to take that on face value, which some people don't, even from humans. But if you poke an animal with a stick and that animal jumps away and howls, what exactly is it about that that would make you conclude you can't know what an animal feels? I am talking about upper animals, not slugs. They have minds that some approach human ability. They communicate and communicate with humans to a degree. What is there about them that would lead you to conclude an animal doesn't feel pain when it is as clear as the nose on your face it is in pain, maybe bleeding, just like humans. What is different about that?

Originally posted by sonhouse
How do you know any other individual, human or otherwise feels pain? By the way they communicate it. If I say I am feeling pain, you need to take that on face value, which some people don't, even from humans. But if you poke an animal with a stick and that animal jumps away and howls, what exactly is it about that that would make you conclude you can't know e on your face it is in pain, maybe bleeding, just like humans. What is different about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind


“....Theory of mind is a theory insofar as the mind is not directly observable. The presumption that others have a mind is termed a theory of mind because each human can only prove the existence of his or her own mind through introspection, and no one has direct access to the mind of another. ...”

So without introspection we cannot and would not develop a theory of mind.
I believe it is a reasonable assumption that we evolved introspection so that we can develop a theory of mind because a theory of mind gives us social advantages that indirectly gives us survival advantages.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/[WORD TOO LONG]

“...The ability to infer other persons' mental states and emotions has been termed ‘theory of mind’. It represents an evolved psychological capacity most highly developed in humans. The evolutionary origins of theory of mind can be traced back in extant non-human primates; theory of mind probably emerged as an adaptive response to increasingly complex primate social interaction. This sophisticated ‘metacognitive’ ability comes, however, at an evolutionary cost, reflected in a broad spectrum of psychopathological conditions. ...”

So, to summarise, I think it is reasonable to assume:

1, we evolved to have the ability of introspection to give us a theory of mind that, in turn, gives us social advantages that, in turn, gives us survival advantages (which explains why natural selection would select for introspection).

BUT

2, there is an evolutionary cost of having this ability of introspection to give us a theory of mind thus natural selection would only select for this ability if the social benefits in complex social interactions out-way these costs.

From 2, I would guess that, say, chickens, would not evolve with the ability of introspection because, now I could be wrong here, but I find it hard to imagine their social interactions to be sufficiently complex as to make the social benefits of having introspection outweigh the evolutionary costs.
And since introspection includes awareness of ones own states of mind which includes emotional states, for all we know, they may well have no conscious awareness of there own emotions or feels but rather they just automatically and mindlessly respond to states of their own brain with those brain-states being analogous to emotions and pain etc but, in effect those brain-state not being REAL emotions or pain etc because they are not consciously aware of them.
So if a typical non-human animal is poked and yells, for all we know, that yell could be just a mindless response that, to us may merely appear to be an expression on conscious pain but is illusionary because although such a yell in a human would be an expression on conscious pain in a human because humans have introspection , the same is not true for the animal because that animal may not have that same introspection. It may be more like a knee-jerk reaction.

Now don't misunderstand me here; I am not saying this is definitely the case that, generally, non-human animals are not ever aware of 'pain' or 'fear' etc; I am merely saying we cannot currently know for sure either way.
And; because, currently, we cannot be sure, as a precaution, in case animals really ARE aware of 'fear' and 'pain' etc, I am against “animal cruelty”. Of cause there wouldn't be such thing as “animal cruelty” to an animal that has no such awareness of 'pain' etc but, until science finds the exact relationship between neurological processes and awareness of pain and fear etc (which I suspect will take a few more hundred/thousand years), I would not condone animal cruelty (in case there is really such a thing!).