Man verses beast

Originally posted by whodey
So we have all accepted that survival, no matter the species, involves exploiting and using the weak for our own device?

Yes, survival usually does. But survival is not morality. Do not confuse the two, nor assume that survival is a moral good.

Originally posted by whodey
But you could make a similar argument in terms of race or gender.

But it would not be the same argument; the way we treat the human animal directly affects us because we are the human animal it would be tantamount to self harm. Think about the Geneva convention; every body who signed it did so to prevent the enemy treating them badly. All across the animal kingdom there are examples of ritualised violence during territorial/hierarchy disputes where animals that would not think twice about killing another species go out of their way to avoid fatal damage to the enemy within their own species.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, survival usually does. But survival is not morality. Do not confuse the two, nor assume that survival is a moral good.

But then it is hard to be moral if you are dead; the primary objective of every organism is it's own personal survival or the survival of its identifiable gene group. This does excuse causing needless harm or distress to members of other species, which is where moral questions arise, such as myself eating meat when my survival does not depend on it.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
But then it is hard to be moral if you are dead; the primary objective of every organism is it's own personal survival or the survival of its identifiable gene group.

No such 'objective' exists. Its an illusion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No such 'objective' exists. Its an illusion.

Nonsense!

Originally posted by twhitehead
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'.

I do agree unecessary pain against other animals seems stupid.

As for the boundary you allude, the boundary is not as arbitrary as you think. While there is surely conflict within an or inside an animal species, species in evolution have always protected themselves against other species of animals. I choose our species over other species of animals. For example, I would be willing to sacrifice a 100 chickens if that save a human child.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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?

I think you partially missed my point. I indicated it is a good gamble for yourself, your kids, and your grandkids to push for minority protections in the human animal society because you may be the minority or become the minority or the less-powerful.

Thus, the prohibition against slaves and genocide, even though they may in some instances benefit your family, could also be used against you as you may be forced to be a slave or become subject to genocide. Moreover, I think it is fine and desirable to be humanistic and altruistic, and have a morality to protect all segments of society.

But the idea that other animals somehow even come close in the morality structure to the human animal is immoral in my opinion. While there really is no appropriate reason to torture or impose needles cruelty on other animals, I would sacrifie a 100 frogs, for example, for a human child.

Originally posted by whodey
I do, but what does it matter what I believe?

I have tried to ascertain why people seem to think it is OK to kill animals and eat them as well as use them as slave labor. To date, the only answers I have been given is that animals are "different" than us. However, you can use the same reasoning to treat other human beings the same based upon their different race, religion, intellect etc.

I think your analysis of how one species of animal treats another species of animal to extrapolate that to it may somehow become behavior amonst or within a species is a reach. For example, the human animal eats other animals. Do you see it becoming commonplace that human animals will eat human animals? In another example, the big cats eat the antelope. Do you see the lions or tigers eating their own species?

Originally posted by kevcvs57
But it would not be the same argument; the way we treat the human animal directly affects us because we are the human animal it would be tantamount to self harm. Think about the Geneva convention; every body who signed it did so to prevent the enemy treating them badly. All across the animal kingdom there are examples of ritualised violence during territori ...[text shortened]... another species go out of their way to avoid fatal damage to the enemy within their own species.

Very good point.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No such 'objective' exists. Its an illusion.

It's called evolution. Moreover, protection and advancement on one's own species increases the chances you pass on your genes.

Originally posted by whodey
So we have all accepted that survival, no matter the species, involves exploiting and using the weak for our own device?

you keep generalizing statements as if one point can cover everything and everybody. its a very complex mixture between individual morality, group conciseness, intellect, nature and hundreds of other factors. we cannot talk about the exploitation of animals and other humans in a "so this is what we all accept" kinda way.

i think the main reason some people eat meat and some exploit other humans is because what we cant see, we dont question. lots of us are all being exploited by rich companies, over charging us goods so they can make more profit, disproportional gaps between the wage of poor and rich. unfair tax burdens on the poor and a million other ways. but they do not have to live or see how their greed effects us on a personal level, its just a bunch of statistics in a newpaper or on tv.
the same goes for animals, if we had to go and kill them ourselves the amount of vegetarians would quadruple over night. but the horrible bit is not seen, we just get the tasty roast chicken or steak...........mmmnnnnn steak.......as the end product.
the same with starving kids and wars halfway around the world, out of sight out of mind. if it was happening down our street we would do a lot more than send a bit of money to a charity or buy a copy of "do they know its christmas" every year.

do you eat meat whodey? do you wear clothes made in asia? or used a laptop or been to a zoo?

Originally posted by moon1969
It's called evolution.

No, it isn't. Evolution is not an objective.

Moreover, protection and advancement on one's own species increases the chances you pass on your genes.
So what? That doesn't suggest the existence of an objective.

Evolution happens because those that pass on their genes, are those that pass on their genes, not because there is some underlying objective to do so.

Originally posted by moon1969
I think you partially missed my point. I indicated it is a good gamble for yourself, your kids, and your grandkids to push for minority protections in the human animal society because you may be the minority or become the minority or the less-powerful.

So I ask again: if you are clearly in a situation where this is not the case, then is it morally OK to have slaves or otherwise exploit others? For example, if you were white in the US during slavery, there was no chance of you become a slave, so would slavery then be OK?

But the idea that other animals somehow even come close in the morality structure to the human animal is immoral in my opinion.
What if one of those other animals was equal to or better than humans in intelligence? Is it a species thing, or an intelligence thing?

Originally posted by twhitehead
A super intelligent computer would figure that out quite quick and develop robots that could do all the maintenance.

before it gets to that point we could write a program called "apple" and we stick all of the good and bad things that the a.i. could do into the program(based on what we would do in its shoes) then watch it develop into a mental, tortured, confused, tumultuous, conflicted peace of technology. we could then sit around and have a good laugh at all its failed attempts to develop other productive robots that will end up turning on each other and committing all kinds of sick robotic depravities in the name of bob head of the i.t. dept . but it would be alright in the end because we will wipe all the robots hard drives of the things they have done and they can all live in robo-jerusalem, basking in the 0 and 1's of the all powerful mainframe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it isn't. Evolution is not an objective.

[b]Moreover, protection and advancement on one's own species increases the chances you pass on your genes.
So what? That doesn't suggest the existence of an objective.

Evolution happens because those that pass on their genes, are those that pass on their genes, not because there is some underlying objective to do so.[/b]

Without the innate objective of survival an organism will not get to pass on it's genes. Try telling yourself the instinct for survival does not exist the next time you see a car hurtling towards you; I'm guessing that like me you will do your utmost to obtain the objective.