According to same laws the efforts and expense needs to be taken by the goods and money he or she left in the inheritance. If these are not sufficient, it needs to be paid by the goods of the successors and ultimately, public funds if the state is held accountable. — javi2541997

Well, that law needs changing. It's wrong. It's as if the state barged in, wrecked a dead guy's house, and then charged the survivors for rubble removal. If they take the benefit, they should absorb the cost.

So there is the added question of: should these brain-dead people be kept alive, used as incubators, so that someone else may become a mother? — NOS4A2

No.

Should they be kept alive so that we may harvest their organs should the need arise? — NOS4A2

That's why I have stuck to the organ issue. I have a strong aversion to suspending the animation of brain-dead people in any situation (but for a few special exceptions: to delay death so that a distant loved one can say good-bye; to bring her own viable foetus to term; to preserve expressly donated organs in optimal condition for transplant.)
But I admit here: my objection to reproductive use of the undead is aesthetic and practical, rather than eithcal.

But the law is not enacted to solve ethical issues but to reach equity. That's why I see it is fine if a judge needs to make a decision because we consider judges and courts as third parts who resolve problems of the societies and they interpret what should be someone's wishes if the interests of a person is at risk. — javi2541997

The law is a result of legislation within a constitutional framework, which is based on stated moral principles. Every new law is assessed by a series of legal entities for concordance with those constituted principles. Jurists themselves swear to uphold a code of ethics when administering the law. So, when a judgment in law is carried out, it's done within those stated ethical standards.

they interpret what should be someone's wishes if the interests of a person is at risk

Only it's not interpretation in these cases; it's arbitration. If person whose religion professes the sanctity of the body died without knowing that he could be parcelled out like bushels of wheat, because he did not explicitly forbid it in writing, his interest would be violated by the harvesting policy. If the judge ruled in the favour of the dead man, several patients waiting for his organs would be at risk. Their interest can only be served by denying his interest.
But several patients, plus the medical institution plus the state would be better served by overruling the dead man's wishes - even if he did write them down.
And we don't even know the judge's moral convictions.

One of the main debates is to consider if a third person can decide on someone's interests when such individual is no longer available to do it by himself. — javi2541997

A dead person has no 'interests'. Yes, the law needs to consider, and if necessary, arbitrate matters pertaining to the care and treatment of persons who are incapable of making their own decisions, and have no personal advocates to represent their interest. And persons who are absent from the scene - in hospital in a coma, or missing in some action, but not yet legally presumed dead, need their interest safeguarded - this generally refers to property or familial rights.
None of those apply to a dead person. His interests are not under consideration, unless he made a legally binding will. The law does provide for a dead person's property to be disposed according to his will. In the absence of a written will, the state has the right to apportion whatever property is not legally claimed by an heir. If there are no heirs, the state becomes the beneficiary.
It seems to me the same rule applies to dead bodies.
The matter of ownership is decided between the heirs and the state. If there is no legal claim to the remains, the state can take possession.
There are only two ethical issues that seem me unclear:
1. Is this clause generally known by the population as part of their civic obligation? I.e. is it explicitly articulated in law?
2. Does this policy contravene standing policy regarding religious rights and privileges?
3. Having taken possession of the body for harvesting, does the state undertake the responsibility for dignified disposal of whatever is left? Or, having appropriated the useful bits, does it download that effort and expense on the family? (I know that in the forensic arena, where the body is examined for cause, means and manner of death, the state has a right to open the body and remove parts, but the body is then returned to the family for disposal.)

It should be noted that if one's body is made property of the state, that "state" is in fact only a surrogate term for a collection of (usually highly corrupt) individuals who hold power. In other words, one's body becomes the property of other individuals - slavery. — Tzeentch

To some degree, that has always been the case. Under all legal system I know of, any person may be called to civic service, conscripted, detained, interrogated, imprisoned, and, if the death penalty is still on its books, executed by the state.
But the present question concerns power over dead bodies, when slavery is no longer an issue, only the allocation of parts.

If it is consider as one’s possession with the status as property, why suicide is condemned by both religion and laws? — javi2541997

Because in Christianity, humans, locks, stock, body, soul, progeny and livestock are the property of God, and only God has the authority to decide when and how they live, when and how they die. well, God and the king and the magistrates. The laws of modern western countries were all founded in Christianity. Even Islam has its roots in the Old Testament.
Those religious precepts, which also inform secular legislation and jurisprudence - hence the decades of legal struggle over women's rights, children's rights, ethnic rights, gender rights - did not anticipate the transplanting, farming, selling or harvesting of organs.

In the other hand, I still think that the only third part capable of deciding on other someone’s interests can be the judges. As I said, each of us have a lot of private interests but the public order is over to self care. — javi2541997

How is the public order affected by someone giving or not giving up their corpse for dissection? In fact, the awareness of potential transplantation is far more likely to cause law-breaking than the lack of that possibility. You get sick; your organs fail; you die; the state continues on without missing a beat.
Nobody owes you a kidney, not even the government. However, if you need a kidney and a transplant is almost certain to save your life, there is a great temptation to knock off your brother and take his, or buy a healthy young girl's from Bangladesh. The less rigorous legal and medical oversight is practiced, the more easily such illicit transactions take place.

if you grant that opt out organ harvesting is unethical, — fdrake

I didn't. I made no ethical determination.
I asked what the legal position is as to citizenship, religious privilege and ownership of human bodies. It could be argued, for example, that if the family is responsible for legal and hygienic disposal of the body, they own it, once the occupant has departed, just as they inherit his house. If the state owns all unoccupied bodies of its citizens, it should also be liable for their dignified post-harvest disposal.

Otherwise, interpreting our bodies as property it looks like a religious belief rather than ethical one... — javi2541997

But the treatment as an object, or consumer item, whose possession is to be legally decided presupposed its status as property. It is presumed the property of the occupant as long as he's in possession; his to leave in a will, like anything else he owns. There is nothing either ethical or religious about that: it's a thing that can be argued over, arbitrated, cut up, portioned out and used.
The only question here, who has a right to decide how it will be used, absent the owner's explicit instruction.

My initial problem is with the word 'harvesting'. The citizenry as a crop; the government as reaper. There is something very skewed about that concept, even before the ethics of the situation - properly called dismemberment of dead bodies.
The ethical consideration rests on one question:
Is leaving one's body to the nation an articulated condition of citizenship?
A secondary question would be: Is the dead person's religion taken into account? Because a lot of religious people believe that their bodies, as well as their souls, are lent out by a heavenly entity, not an earthly one. They render their taxes onto Caesar, not their livers.

However it begins, if the relationship between life partners doesn't become a close friendship, it's doomed to a short life.

A Mayfly experiences everything a Greenland shark experiences but in a fraction of the time. — Agent Smith

I have trouble picturing that. Their lives are very different. One is short, yes, and in that short time, the mayfly goes through the cycle of birth, maturation, reproduction and death. But it doesn't have very much more experience than that: warm or hot day, sunny of cloudy; good night. The shark has to evade predators when young, become a predator and chase its food when older, find receptive/productive sexual opposites, master the intricacies of mating, evade human hunters, find its migration routes and feeding grounds, and live through another cycle, and another, and another... in varying and changing conditions. In a long life, those conditions may change quite radically and call for a series of adaptations.
A bacterium doesn't experience very much in its brief lifetime; it doesn't need to prepare for or learn much. A human does, if it's to be successful. I think the size and complexity of the brain gives us some indication of how much experience a creature is capable of.

Can't love develop from friendship? — RBS

It not only can, I believe the best long-term relationships do. Even if there was an immediate physical attraction, keeping enough distance to know and understand each other before physical intimacy is a good idea. I'm not saying that it's impossible for two people who fell into bed, or crazy love, at first sight can't go on to become friends - just that the odds are against it. That first encounter leaves a very deep impression and colours almost everything you think and feel about that person from then on.

But not all friendship can bear the weight of marital commitment. To mean that much to someone - always have to be available to support, encourage, applaud, forgive, console, cheer and listen to - listen with both ears, whenever the need arises, no matter that you may be preoccupied with some issue of your own - that's a challenge you might not take on for every friend.
Overlooking someone's faults, mistakes, annoying mannerisms and bad habits for a few hours a week is quite different from being duty bound to do it 24/7 for the rest of your life - especially knowing, from the example of your parents and grandparents that these things tend to magnify in old age.
Add procreation - discussing, deciding about, preventing or promoting, going through the process, carrying out the duties of parenthood as a unit - is an even bigger challenge.

Most friendships, like most romantic liaisons, simply can't carry that much freight.

Or he was just unlucky? — RBS

No, he was probably wise. It would have been far more damaging if they married. Once the commitment has been made, people are usually reluctant to admit that it was a bad decision; they paper over the cracks and compound the error until they can't pretend anymore. By then it's a big, complicated divorce, instead of a clean, simple parting of ways; others are involved, in-laws, children, pets, mutual friends, property. A lot more is broken than just two resilient young hearts.

The idea that such starkly different consciousness could exist would make it very difficult to define what consciousness is. — Benj96

I think each being would define consciousness - would define everything that it encounters, learns and experiences - according to its own understanding. These beings could never communicate with one another, never share descriptions or concepts, so they would content with their own species-centric explanation of the world in which they live, just as vines and whales do.

Genetic alterations will have long-term consequences -- perhaps very beneficial, perhaps not. — BC

Depends on the species. Do it on microbes and the results are very quick: biological weapon in fifteen minutes; global pandemic in two years.

But there are lots of benefits that happen very quickly, too. If we splice out the gene that causes Huntington's disease, it will have results immediately, but they won't be seen at all: the people who would have had it will simply live normal lives.

So do I.

This is the crux of the difference between computers and us. Computers don't forget so long as they have sufficient storage. Perhaps automatic forgetting is a necessary feature of programming required to give AI more human attributes, — Benj96

Forgetting is necessary to emotional creatures. I think it's a very big mistake to program emotion into computers. They don't need it in order to survive and raise young and have communities; it would serve no purpose except our vanity. Wanting to make it in our own image, we might also make it insane.

I am afraid for my children. — T Clark

I don't have that problem anymore: my children are in their middle, most powerful years, among the decision-makers. And they have - to my way of antiquated thinking, made many of the wrong ones. Now, I can fear for their children, who are in their teens and who will inherit... the wind?

Personally, I don't think it matters very much what's done with genetics, because I don't believe the future of our kind of society is long enough to affect the world more than we already have.
But many people believe in the future; many believe we will just keep on keeping on in the same path. I was wondering what they thought about this branch of science - but they don't seem particularly interested...
(....or else there's nobody here but us old curmudgeons. Ain't that a scary thought?)

So you know, the question is why would unknowingly fumbling around with selection be better than more conscious and precise selection? In principle it isn't, would be my answer. — ChatteringMonkey

In principle, it may not be. In results, it certainly is. Nature selects for what is most likely to survive and thrive. Man selects with quite different motivations, and I find some of them suspect. It's okay to select out hemophilia - though nature would have done that faster, left alone - but I doubt it's a good idea to select out heavy melanin pigmentation, in a warming world.

The reason to exercise restraint anyway, is more of a general objection to any potent technology.... because it implies a lot of power, and so it creates bigger rifts between haves and have nots. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't see how that's going to get any worse through medicine than it's already getting through politics and economics.

Another more general objection would be that we are simply not mature/smart/wise enough as societies to deal with technologies that are this powerful. — ChatteringMonkey

That's it, the big question. What if it gets away from us? What if it's suborned by the evilest entities among us? Or the least socially responsible? What kind of monsters will be created? For what purposes?

We are viewing things from within evolution, and cannot do otherwise really... but to answer that question sensibly it would seem we need a perspective from outside? — ChatteringMonkey

We have to use imagination. There are plenty of departure-points. What do people who resort to artificial insemination ask for? What do Couples hiring a surrogate mother demand? What were the bad old eugenics programs aimed at? The most nearly perfect, healthy, clever, beautiful, talented, potentially successful baby they can possibly get. Superman and Uberwench. Will that generation of perfect children also be bred/spliced for empathy, fairness, humility, affection, generosity, aesthetic sensibility?

I think we are on the same page on this issue. — PhilosophyRunner

Pretty much. People - also water buffalo and sunflowers - are ends in themselves as far as karma is concerned; to evolution, we are all either means or useless byproducts. But we don't just end when we die. Everything is interconnected, every act and event sets more acts and events in motion.
There is no end, until the universe shrivels up into a point of overheated nothing, at which time, I've been told, something begins.

Well I gave a number of examples. John want to save one person - Mark. This is an end, do you agree? — PhilosophyRunner

It's an emotional one. He's not calculating costs or justifying means; he's just following paternal instinct.

To do so he kills 100

100 what? Terrorists who were holding his son hostage? Soldiers, guarding a fortification in which his son was prisoner, possibly tortured? Innocent bystanders who just happen to be in the way?

, this is the means to his end, do you agree?

Maybe.

Each time he kills someone, he says "for Mark!"

If they're hostiles, yes; if they're bystanders, he says, "Sorry, I have no choice"

He now comes to you and wants your advice - does his means justify his end. What do you say?

It's too late, John. You have done evil. Your son is worth no more to me, or to the world, than each one of those people you killed. NO - and more:
Each one of those people you killed has a father, brother, mother, wife, husband, son, daughter or comrade who now lives for revenge.... even if they have to fight their way through 100 strangers to get to you.

What've they got to be grateful for? Working dogs might lick your hand and draft horses might snort happily into their feedbag, but this is an intelligent possession, the kind of slave that's more likely to spit in your soup than say thank you. You'll just have to learn to stop treating them like servants and learn to call them Sir.

I have heard the phrase, "ends justifying the means" in contexts in which the means are questionable. Is there a clear line where the ends do justify the means in general? — TiredThinker

In the mind of the one decides to take a destructive action. Not because his back is against a wall, or his child is in immediate danger, and he's running out of options, but in cold daylight. A general, calculating how many dead soldiers will fill up the moat so that the rest of the army can cross. A municipal official defunding school lunches, in order to beef up the police force. A contractor, deciding to take shortcuts on waterproofing, to get his building finished before the refugees arrive. And heads of state, daily weighing the human cost/benefit ratio of economic/diplomatic/military responses.

But that is only if you succeed in getting it in the first place. — TiredThinker

The functional element is always IF.

If the decision is based on sound enough intel, risk is minimized to the fullest possible extent, nothing unforeseen goes wrong and all the other participants behave as predicted, the outcome is good, and the decision appears justified.
Objectively, however, nothing is justified before the fact - only after. There are always unknown factors and quantities; unintended consequences and byproducts, including collateral damage that wasn't figured in. There are no ends. An episode is finished; a hurdle passed, a goal reached, a battle won, but the process continues. Every interim "end" is the result of the means used to achieve it: The means determine the ends.

Would it evolve away from its primal programming (whatever benefits humanity) towarfs whatever benefits AI survival. — Benj96

I should imagine so. That is what evolution does. So it behooves us to make sure we develop a symbiotic relationship with AI. Even when it no longer needs humans for instruction or sustenance, perhaps we can act as its peripherals - mobile units capable of physical experience to share.

The morality of the weak and meek, those who can only be victims is the most gentle, and the morality of those who can harm yet also be harmed is harsh but measured, but the morality of those who can harm without fearing harm is monstrous. — Judaka

I like that! Excellent summary.

The cycling of governments in particular is incredibly powerful because if a party is voted out of power, someone else comes into office and looks over everything the previous party has been doing. — Judaka

Of course, there is a down-side. No long-term plans or policies. And if the opposition is ruthless enough, they'll find evidence of wrongdoing whether it exists or not.
They had a pretty good idea in the US, trading off different parts of the legislature at different intervals, but it's nullified by a rigid two-party system.

Why some countries are more corrupt than others, is not a reflection of the personal characteristics of the people there. Do you agree? — Judaka

Absolutely. It seems to me the ones that are most open to corruption are the countries that didn't establish their own government. They were colonies, maybe cobbled together from mutually hostile ethnic groups, or puppet governments set up and supported by interested empires. So the patriotic, conscientious citizens never get a whiff of power, even in the civil service. Because that's the second line of defence: even if the rulership is corrupt or incompetent, a decent civil service can keep a nation functioning - at least, until it coffers are robbed dry.

Is corruption the fault of the corrupting influence or the one who was corrupted? — Judaka

I think it's a mutually agreed contract. If the corrupting influence is something like a patron state - the US or the USSR or China - they pick the governing body from those men they've already enlisted. Everyone else is intimidated or disappeared out of the political picture. If the corrupting influence is a vested interest, like a mining consortium or chemical manufacturer, they dazzle the existing government with promises of prosperity - starting with the top tier of official, and never trickling down very far. If the corrupting influence is money, only the greediest, and therefore most compliant to the demands of money, have sufficient backing to succeed.
The common people, who just want a day's pay for a day's work, a half pint with mates on the way, a quiet evening with their families and Sunday afternoon by the lake or at a ball game, never get near wealth or power and have very little opportunity to be corrupted.
The very smart people, who might do some good in government, are mostly busy pursuing productive interests and don't want power.

Because this thread was initiated asking the question whether Descartes was an "evil genius", which can only be about what he meant or thought. — RussellA

Okay. He may not* have been an evil genius, but he was an evil influence.

(* I don't find the apologists very convincing; it's hard to imagine a thought or meaning so at variance with what he actually wrote... unless those were fake documents and letters... but if that were the case, his entire body of work is called into question.... and in that case, whether he was personally evil would be of secondary importance to the question of whether his work should really be attributed to John Locke... See the problem? )

From John Cottingham's measured argument, we can conclude that not only for Descartes but philosophers today, feeling and sensation is not part of any dichotomy between animals and humans. — RussellA

Sounds kind of like washing the clay feet of one's idol. At the time, vivisection was considered normal and necessary to the advancement of science, and Descartes explicitly declared it all right, and that had an influence on scientists of later generations, whose anatomical work is well documented. So, why nit-pick what he may have really meant or thought - unless you think he shouldn't have?
If it turns out he didn't actually participate (Though it would seem odd for someone so active in scientific endeavour to refrain from participation in cutting-edge science, writing have been p[resented here that cast doubt on my previous reading.), that wouldn't mitigate his philosophical influence on the modern age.

Don't forget that in ancient Greek philosophy, science and philosophy where one. — Alkis Piskas

They were called by one name, the real and the BS, in Athens, and we Eurocentric moderns inherit their language as holy writ, because we take 4th c BCE Athens as the origin of everything - whereas, in fact, it's a late-comer, even among sophisticated civilizations.
But what's that to do with cavemen? Early humans explored the physical world, observed, compared, experimented, remembered - scientific activities which led them to the use of natural resources and the invention of clothing, tools, and eventually agriculture. They also questioned their relationship to their environment and its other denizens - philosophical inquiry, which led to the making of symbols, pictures, stories and eventually, mythology. At some point, they attributed supernatural powers to forces of nature and the ghosts of their revered elders, which led to ceremonious burials and other rituals, which is religion, an offshoot of philosophy. They combined the symbology with clever use of tools, pigments and surfaces, which is art. All these human impulses run parallel, from the very beginning all the way though human history, whatever they are called at any given point.

"Systematization", as an attribute of philosopy, came much later. — Alkis Piskas

The label did. Just as Taxonomy came much later than the species it classifies.

Here's what to me is a point in favor of Descartes - at least he was being consistent. — Agent Smith

Yes, we're certainly more hypocritical. We have anesthetics, but we're still experimenting on cats, dogs, rabbits, monkeys and countless rodents. We're still being entertained by spectacles of pain and degradation. We're still causing unimaginable, unimagined, completely invisible and inaudible suffering to whatever is trying to live in the lands and forests and waters we lay waste with our wasteful consumption. The harm we do hasn't changed since Assyria. We're just better isolated from it by technology. (That doesn't excuse Descartes' philosophy.)

I am disappointed to learn about this aspect of Descartes’ character, but that doesn’t mean I want him struck from the history books. — Wayfarer

Nobody gets out of the history books. If they're influential, they're in there, for good or ill, whitewashed or besmirched, nailed to the past forever, subject to scrutiny and judgment by future generations.

Understanding something of Descartes’ philosophy is important for understanding modern culture. — Wayfarer

That's the reason I hate the bastard. For what he did to our culture. Not all by himself, obviously: Paul and Constantine did more and worse.

Here is a passage from the web page that calls into question Descartes’ participation in the torture of dogs. — Wayfarer

Right. So, all the anatomists were doing it; Descartes gave them philosophical absolution, but did not practice it himself, because A He was too nice a guy or B He was too busy doing math or C He didn't want to tarnish his reputation with future fans. Well, that's all right then.

I agree, totally different actions. — Moliere

How do you think they could study circulation and the working of muscles? And how do you keep the subject still while you're uncovering organs and muscles?

Although vivisection dates from antiquity, early modern experimenters expanded the range of practices and epistemic motivations associated with it, displaying considerable technical skills and methodological awareness about the problems associated with the animals being alive and the issue of generalizing results to humans.

I wouldn't be surprised if the people inspired by Descartes did something along those lines. (though that's not the same as demonstration, either -- something about knowledge. it's hard to obtain sometimes!) — Moliere

It was a university dissecting theater. The demonstrations were for doctors, students and the paying public. In the quest for knowledge. This is from later, but the method hasn't changed much since the the 1600's.
But maybe Descartes didn't, and people just think he did.

Many practitioners expressed great discomfort at the suffering of the animals; however, many remained convinced that their investigations were not only indispensable from an epistemic standpoint but also had potential medical applications.

And to that, my quick answer would be: from logic and the need for knowledge. — Alkis Piskas

I think that applies to science. Philosophy emerges from the need to organize the world into a discernible pattern. (And religion, to control its forces)

'm a bit skeptical about the trace from Descartes to us still. — Moliere

Can't be helped, I'm afraid. Some people on this thread have demonstrated his influence on modern times, but you can only go by what people say. You can find something useful in here, maybe.

He did have an interest in, and sometimes participated in, vivisection (dissection of live species) but that is a different matter to public displays of torturing animals. — Wayfarer

Except that dissection of human corpses were generally open to the public.

Across Europe, anatomical theatres affiliated with the early universities steadily became tourist attractions, due to the public dissections they held. From Leiden to Paris, Amsterdam and London, these unusual urban sites opened their doors to an enthused and interested public. As the 17th century progressed, the anatomical theatre became a focal point of city life, where the fashionable elite would gather.

So why would the public be barred from vivisections?

Rather than some scholars, or rather than a most vigorous set of debates held within a 100 year period, I was curious if there's a more direct connection between Cartesian philosophy, including those following along in his path — Moliere

If the Wiley article doesn't give enough references, here is another possible source: https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-philosophy-and-animals
and a correspondence https://philosophynow.org/issues/108/Descartes_versus_Cudworth_On_The_Moral_Worth_of_Animals

The working class is no longer needed, therefore it must cease to exist. — unenlightened

Officially, it ceased to exist circa 1980, following a decade of decline. Politicians, even progressive ones, started appealing to "the middle class", in which they swept up everyone who wasn't filthy rich or dirt poor. (Our PM amended his version to "the middle class and those working hard to join it") the assumption being that nobody in the entire country wanted to be working class. (In the UK, the war on chavs started long before the infamous Thatcher....) Of course, this made the long siege against trade unions easier to disguise. It made defunding welfare and social services easier to justify. It made enacting yet another tax-cut for high earners a breeze: the middle class needs relief; entrepreneurship must be encouraged to create jobs.... bbbbbssss
(The upside - unions are making a comeback in both countries and even winning some victories. But that's another topic.)

Statistics are easy.
For one thing we know about the big Covid spike. 1,103,615
Aside from that anomaly:
Suicide
See where people got locked away from work and one another for a little while? It isn't always obvious whether a death is accidental or deliberate; suicides are often documented as accidental, to spare the family and the dead person's reputation, and sometimes deliberately covered up by next of kin for several reasons.
Homicide Bet you can relate the bars to contemporary news headlines.

More Americans died of gun-related injuries in 2020 than in any other year on record

Drug overdose deaths.


Drawing conclusions from them is more problematic. There is no doubt in my mind that economic insecurity is a major factor. There are less direct contributing aspects of the economic and political system (in the US, it's the same structure) Social malaise also manifests in polarization, alienation, isolation, loss of trust, undirected or misdirected anger, paranoia, skewed perception, disorientation, disillusionment, damaged self-regard, inability to plan or change - none of which are good for people.

Happy to learn more about Sulawesi but isn't it arbitrary? — Benkei

What aspect of philosophy isn't? I simply chose to draw the line of definition at the earliest known evidence of abstract thinking.

And cave art is complex so why not lesser steps leading up to cave art? — Benkei

Exactly because it is complex, and deep in a cave. A drawing on a rock outside, or in the sand, could simply be a depiction of what the artist was seeing. The only way the artist could carry great big wild animals into that cave was inside his or her head. And it also shows a planned, purposeful communication: somebody had to make and bring the art supplies.

So why not that earlier behaviour? — Benkei

There obviously had been earlier bahaviour of some kind, and quite a lot of thinking, but I couldn't justify calling it philosophy. We do know about rock paintings and etching from many places around the world https://www.kateowengallery.com/page/Rock-Art, but they're not as old. So, while all early painting may be symbolic and significant, as far as I know, these are the earliest example yet discovered. Note that both the Sulawesi and Australian examples include stencilled human hands, strongly suggesting a kinship: part of the Indonesian population migrated on to Australia. The hands, too, signify a sense of identity, self-assertion and reflection.

it's even more unclear that Descartes philosophy is the reason we treat animals the way we do. — Moliere

His intention is quite clear. Here it is again: “[My] view is not so much cruel to beasts but respectful to human beings… whom it absolves from any suspicion of crime whenever they kill or eat animals”

Obviously, it's not the reason we do it; we had always done it. In the bible, they figure prominently as wealth and as sacrifice. Even Jesus, who didn't seem to offer sacrifices, had no compunction in chasing demons into a herd of swine and driving them off a cliff (a stranger's entire livelihood - but the stranger wasn't an Israelite, so who cares?) In the seventeenth century, as it had been from the beginning of civilization into our own times, the sadistic appetites of emotionally stunted humans were satiated with spectacles of bloodshed; the taunting, harassment, degradation, torture, mutilation and killing of both animals and other humans.
This is not about killing to obtain meat for survival, though some people keep trying to conflate the two concepts; this is particularly and explicitly about the suffering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullfighting https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/
https://wildlife-rescue.org/services/advocacy/animals-in-entertainment/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071402/
Humans have always been cruel, as well as kind. Since they know - instinctively and empathetically - that it's wrong to abuse any sentient creature, they find cover stories for their dark craving. The invention of machines, automata, was one such (evidently absurd) story, used by Descartes.

During the Enlightenment, some scholars were beginning to doubt the divine right of man and the dumb bestiality of beasts. Because scientific study had recently shifted to direct observation and experimentation, some observers were writing about the similarities they could no longer overlook. (They were approaching dangerously - and in those days, the danger was clear and present and looming - close to an inkling, if not a theory, of evolution.)

The chapter examines different theological and philosophical paradigms of rights in the early modern period. It shows that, contrary to initial appearances, animals were not totally excluded from any kind of right, and that violence against them was not always regarded as legitimate.

And so, reassurance from their spokesman-hero was extremely welcome to anatomists of that time, and even more so, to the 18th and 19th century ones who faced more social opposition. For Descartes himself, it may also have been another layer of insulation against the wrath of the church; he had been skating on some thin ice for years.
But not everyone was convinced, even then.

The seventeenth century was also the time of one of the most vigorous debates on the characteristics of animals and the possibility of moral duties toward them. The main reference point in this debate was the Cartesian theory of the ‘beast-machine’, which viewed animals as senseless automata.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8365.00183

Many people will acknowledge that animals feel pain these days, so it's not obvious that Descartes philosophy is connected to how we treat animals even though there are some Christian traditionalists still about. — Moliere

It doesn't have to be directly connected to have an influence. A whole powerful movement's mind-set was established in that time, though not by Descartes alone, he was very distinctly a leader in his own day, and has been revered ever since. He told his colleagues and students exactly what they wanted: with his blessing, they could pretend that they were not doing anything wrong. Our entire world-view, attitudes and approach are, to a considerable extent, the result of what was decreed by Descartes' generation and immediate followers.
Once a structure of thought and organization of knowledge is established upon a set of principles, it will take another revolution in thinking - and probably in physical conditions, as well - to change it. Some cosmetic touches have been given to the surface, but the edifice is still solid. Not least, because it supports the vested interests of wealth and power.

I don't want to be allowed to murder if it means others could — Judaka

There is one point of major corruption for people in power. They can, while others are prevented from doing likewise. Dictators seem to acquire a taste for it, like an addiction. Of course, they were probably inclined that way before they fought their way to the top.

Perhaps I'm just a cynic, but I don't ever expect people with the ability to misuse their power to not misuse it. If they don't, great but that can never be our expectation. — Judaka

Perhaps the best solution is not to let any person have too much power in the first place. Or too much responsibility, which can cause a whole different set of problems. We need to spread governance among more people, who all have to co-ordionate their efforts in order to make government work; that way, each of their activities would be known to all the other members of the team: no secrets.
Other safeguards could be put in place, if the people and their representatives really wanted it clean, efficient and accountable.

Money permeating every aspect of every system has its share of damage. So have social media, and before that broadcasting and print media.

Individually, most people are sensible, reasonably competent and decent - or at least harmless. In large numbers, we mess up everything and periodically go rabid en masse.

There's a risk of us exploring this topic with the view that humans are entirely able to control their behaviours, in a way that isn't the case. — Judaka

I didn't claim that. I merely reiterated that it is not power that does the corrupting. Nor is chance, or even games of chance, that cause gambling addiction.

I'm not saying I have the answer on how much control we do have in this issue, but I am asserting that it's a factor. — Judaka

Yes. And the early childhood environment also has influence on how much self-control a person has. One they're grown, people can be influenced less and also able to change less about their own behaviour, though both continue to be factors.

Individuals with characteristics that help resist social pressures, lower risk aversion, heightened impulsivity and so on I'd argue are more susceptible to corruption. — Judaka

A wise electorate would never allow an immature person with poor self-control anywhere near a position of power, because that is the type of personality on whom all corrupting influences will have the most effect. (But then, if that's that only personality type seeking the position, the electorate can only try to choose the lesser of evils. I suggest it's the one who throws least mud at his or her rivals. )

Temptation and opportunity are not present while establishing the rule, which could explain why their introduction would cause us to want to break the rule. — Judaka

Nor is the risk of having the rule badly enforced. I mean, the legislators and jurists who make laws are usually not in the line of temptation to commit the crimes, but nor are they likely to suffer police brutality or wrongful conviction.
However, legislators may well be swayed in their decision-making by vested interests that want a law to favour themselves to the detriment of others, so they contribute to the campaign funds of biddable candidates; jurists may be guided by ethical principles that are easy for them to uphold, but not for those who have lacked their advantages in life. The result would be bad laws and unfair enforcement, and in those cases, the law must be challenged in order to be corrected.
This is a process of push and pull, negotiation, ups and down - it's never complete.

I think this is a modern problem, as the rate of change of the world wasn't always as fast as it is now, but it's true today. — Judaka

Depends how far in the back-water you lived from conquests, wars of succession, revolutions, religious and ethnic persecutions, natural disasters that displace populations.... Shit can happen pretty fast, in even a slow world.

I'm sure people who torture animals have Descartes in mind, and his conception of body too. — Manuel

All the generations of vivisectionists and sponsors use his philosophy as their justification, yes. Plus:

“[My] view is not so much cruel to beasts but respectful to human beings… whom it absolves from any suspicion of crime whenever they kill or eat animals” (reprinted in Penguin Classics’ edition of Mediations and Other Metaphysical Writings,

If people want to feel morally righteous with people that lived 400 years ago, that tells you something about them. — Manuel

Not really. Descartes was not 400 years ago: Descartes is among us, still exerting influence. As you have seen in this very thread.
What you characterize as 'moral righteousness' is something quite else. The father of modern science gave moderns license to torture, degrade and use all other species to serve their own ends. He provided the philosophical [moral, ethical] basis for much of the atrocity that has taken place ever since his time and continues today.