Man verses beast

Originally posted by whodey
So if there is precious little seperating animals and humans then I would presume that you defend animal rights like you do human rights.

Is this the case?

I defend this animals right eat other animals but i do not defend any needless cruelty to any animal. Its survival of the best adapted not survival of the nastiest if that is what you are getting at. But again you keep separating/ elevating yourself above the other animals; why? The only things that separate one animal from another is the details of their anatomy and physiology.

Originally posted by whodey
So if nothing seperates man from beast, why then is it OK for mankind to kill and eat animals?

Because its 'them' and 'us'. They think its OK to kill us.

I did explain it in the thread where I stated what morality consists of. We attach most importance to members of our own group, with 'species' being one of the larger groups. We still see it as morally wrong to cause needless harm to animals, but give harm to animals a relatively low rating and may set it off against benefit to our selves.
However, if we bring an animal closer into our group (a pet for example) we may be much less willing to cause it suffering.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because its 'them' and 'us'. They think its OK to kill us.

I did explain it in the thread where I stated what morality consists of. We attach most importance to members of our own group, with 'species' being one of the larger groups. We still see it as morally wrong to cause needless harm to animals, but give harm to animals a relatively low rating and ...[text shortened]... oser into our group (a pet for example) we may be much less willing to cause it suffering.

So in your view, the animal is akin to the slave in the deep south or the Jew in Nazi Germany?

Should there be a movement for the rights of animals to equal those of humans? Do you support such a movement?

Originally posted by whodey
So in your view, the animal is akin to the slave in the deep south or the Jew in Nazi Germany?

A similar situation, yes.

Should there be a movement for the rights of animals to equal those of humans?
For some animals, possibly, but not necessarily equal rights. I must add too, that rights and morals are not quite the same thing.

Do you support such a movement?
For some rights, yes. I think all animals that show intelligence should be granted some rights, and those that show high intelligence, should be granted more. I think we should, for example, refrain from killing dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees, gorillas and a few others.

However, I believe that how we evaluate the relative worth of groups we belong too, is different for each person. So I understand someone who sees a slave, or Jew as being of so little importance relative to the economic benefits from exploiting them. But that doesn't mean that I agree with them. Nor do I agree with the current world situation where countries exploit each other and the rich exploit the poor. In my evaluation, both are morally wrong. In fact, I personally think having countries at all is morally wrong.

Originally posted by whodey
Should there be a movement for the rights of animals to equal those of humans? Do you support such a movement?

No way.

We are all animals.

We should favor the human animal over other animals. After all, we are the human animal.

We should use other animals for our benefit.

Fairness and altruism for human animals. A world community. Not so for other animals. Needless, arbitrary, and capricious cruelty toward other animal seems stupid, but that's about the limit.

Originally posted by whodey
This is for all you agnostic/atheists out there.

What exactly seperates man from beast other than the obvious fact that mankind has a higher intellect?

Nothing separates 'man from beast'.

We are animals and are just as much a part of the animal kingdom as any other animal.

I know of no trait we have that some other animal somewhere doesn't also have or do,
Sometimes better than us.
Even if you look at intelligence there are a number of animals who have intellects that map
on to the human intelligence scale.
Admittedly they would probably be towards the lower end, but that still means that there are
animals out there who are literally smarter than some people...
But that's not surprising given that we are animals too.

The only thing I know of that we do, and nothing else does, is collectively store and share
knowledge externally.
Our exteligence is different.

But we are still animals, and not separate from all the other animals.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you support such a movement?
For some rights, yes. I think all animals that show intelligence should be granted some rights, and those that show high intelligence, should be granted more. I think we should, for example, refrain from killing dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees, gorillas and a few others.

Agree, but it goes back to the benefit of the human animal. We could benefit from other intelligient animals. For sure should avoid extinction of them. Plus, maybe your point, it does seem to feel better (a positive for the human animal) to avoid needless killing of other intelligeint animals. The dolphin is incredible and can be very connecting and helpful with the human animal.

Originally posted by moon1969
Agree, but it goes back to the benefit of the human animal. We could benefit from other intelligient animals. For sure should avoid extinction of them. Plus, maybe your point, it does seem to feel better (a positive for the human animal) to avoid needless killing of other intelligeint animals. The dolphin is incredible and can be very connecting and helpful with the human animal.

So do you take an entirely utilitarian stance towards this question?

If so, would you do the same for humans? ie if slavery would benefit you economically, would you support it? If not, why not?

Originally posted by whodey
So in your view, the animal is akin to the slave in the deep south or the Jew in Nazi Germany?

I think other animals are more akin to the slave in the deep south. In many ways, the slaves had it better. But whether animal or slave, no reason to needlessly beat them. I do take a stand that satisfying one's sadism is not a benefit for the world community of human animals.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A similar situation, yes.

[b]Should there be a movement for the rights of animals to equal those of humans?
For some animals, possibly, but not necessarily equal rights. I must add too, that rights and morals are not quite the same thing.

Do you support such a movement?
For some rights, yes. I think all animals that show intelligence sh ...[text shortened]... , for example, refrain from killing dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees, gorillas and a few others.[/b]

I second this.

While the idea of giving animals the same rights as humans is ridiculous, (the right to vote
being one that strikes me as being absurd) we should still recognise that there are animals
with intellects that overlap with the range of human intellects.
And that there are animals that have emotions and feelings like we do.

And thus morally we have a duty to treat such animals with respect and care.
And this respect and care should (in my view) scale with the intelligence of the animal in question.

I don't treat an ant with the same care as a dolphin or great ape.

Some animals are too smart to be morally acceptable food.
Quite where you draw various lines is a topic you can argue about, but the idea that there is some
magical distinction between 'us and them' is just wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So do you take an entirely utilitarian stance towards this question?

If so, would you do the same for humans? ie if slavery would benefit you economically, would you support it? If not, why not?

It's not about economic benefit, but just benefit, however one might one define that. Purely utilitarian when considering other animals, if that concept even fits. Again, however, needless cruelty seems stupid. Plus, there is a lot of synergy between human animals and other animals. A lot of win-win. Treating other animals well can be very beneficial including economically beneficial, and also emotionally beneficial especially when it comes to pets, for example. Yet, I would be willing to sacrifice a lot of animals to save a human animal.

As for human animal, it is much different because we are the human animal. I remember studying utilitarian ideas in philosophy class. I can't remember the philopsher's name but the idea was that if the net sum is pleasure, then the action is morally right. If the net sum is pain, then the action is morally wrong. There was also majority rule concept, in that if the majority wanted it, then it was good.

But I disagree with that utilitarian type, in that I think for us as an individual human animal, it's a good gamble for yourself, your kids and grandkids to promote fairness, equality, and minority protections in the human animal society.

Originally posted by moon1969
As for human animal, it is much different because we are the human animal. I remember studying utilitarian ideas in philosophy class. I can't remember the philopsher's name but the idea was that if the net sum is pleasure, then the action is morally right. If the net sum is pain, then the action is morally wrong. There was also majority rule concept, in that if the majority wanted it, then it was good.

I am just wondering if there is any justification for creating a boundary at the species level. Why should the net sum be over human pleasure instead of all animal pleasure?
Could it not also be made smaller eg 'slave masters pleasure'.

But I disagree with that utilitarian type, in that I think for us as an individual human animal, it's a good gamble for yourself, your kids and grandkids to promote fairness, equality, and minority protections in the human animal society.
So for you, its about living in society? But if your main concern is yourself, your kids and grandkids, then would you for example not benefit from participating in genocide (of a people not related to you)? Would you utilize slaves, if doing so would benefit your immediate family and there was little chance of your immediate family ever becoming slaves?

Originally posted by whodey
So if nothing seperates man from beast, why then is it OK for mankind to kill and eat animals?

humans have souls, is this what you are trying to prove? does having a soul justify the killing of an animal?

Originally posted by moon1969
No way.

We are all animals.

We should favor the human animal over other animals. After all, we are the human animal.

We should use other animals for our benefit.

Fairness and altruism for human animals. A world community. Not so for other animals. Needless, arbitrary, and capricious cruelty toward other animal seems stupid, but that's about the limit.

But you could make a similar argument in terms of race or gender.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
humans have souls, is this what you are trying to prove? does having a soul justify the killing of an animal?

You tell me.