Ethics/morality is relative.

Ethics is not perfection.
If it were so, then those who are ethical would be perfect, no matter the period in time or circumstance. No humans are perfect. Ethics is aimed at harmonious relations/interactions. But, because circumstances change, then what resolves into harmony in one circumstance may not translate into another. For example, there was a time when a portion of humanity was okay with enslavement and inequality of others (this includes all forms of mistreatment, rape included) and it reflected in their associations, but, at present, that is not the case. And yet, in both of those periods, that humanity had ethical/moral guidelines. Your ethics/morality seems to ignore the learning curve. We can learn to be better but, knowledge does not just magically appear nor does it instantly manifest as action. It takes time and effort, and human history is evidence of that.
Humans (collectively) are doing what they think is best for themselves. At some point in the future, perhaps near or distant (relative to different communities), the ethics/morality you're referring to will become ingrained in all of humanity. At the moment, it is not. At the moment, it is not the ethics/morality of all humans.

I think what you asking is, if we, as a collective humanity, could revise our ethical/moral guidelines in a way that is more compassionate or less harmful to animals? I think it is possible. However, presently, not everybody shares the same concerns. And, no one has the right to impose their ethics/morality upon others.

How would you define ethics? — chatterbears

The guidelines which define the practice of harmonious relations/interactions.

How would you define personal ethics? — chatterbears

The ethical guidelines which a person follows.

How do you differentiate between right and wrong? — chatterbears

Right is that which causes harmony and wrong is that which causes disharmony.

I am not certain that I exist, but I believe I exist. It is an assumption. — Waya

It is impossible to doubt that which you constantly affirm. The certainty of your presence is clearly expressed by the designation of your identity as an "I". I think what you seek or doubt is the meaning/implication of that certainty.

I am skeptical that we as human beings can say anything at all of value about the nature of "God" . I know of no reasonable basis to believe that we poses the tools or capabilities to understand such a thing as what "God" can or can't do, be or not be, think or not think. It could well be no more accurate than a puppy's explanation of relativity. — Rank Amateur

I think because we understand relativity, we stand in good measure to develop a concept of 'not relative' or absolute. My point is that, if by God is meant that which is 'not relative', then, we should reject the limits of space and time as well.

Again, you are answering for other humans. I want to know about your personal subjective beliefs. I don't care what other humans are doing. I am in this forum to talk to people directly, not to talk about other people. — chatterbears

I think 'personal' ethics/morality is a misnomer, or better yet, an oxymoron. The very idea of ethics/morality is ingrained in the value of relationships or interactions with others. Even ideas such as mistreating oneself is based on the concept of a collective humanity which has certain values and standards and, to which, every human individual is expected to adhere to.
So, for me, the idea of a personal ethics/morality which is distinctly separate from that of all others does not compute. However, due to segregation of various collectives within the human whole, it becomes possible to have different standards of ethics/morality for the separated groups. Nonetheless, the ethics/morality applies to a collective.

Also, your initial question was about the ethics of 'our' dominion over animals. And, I've already given my personal opinions about that.

A person's ethical stance cannot be as follows:

- Humans should not be owned as property.
- I own black people as slaves. — chatterbears

True.
But it can be as follows:

- Some humans should not be owned as property.
- Other humans could be owned as property.
- I own black people as slaves.

Which is how it was before we got a bit enlightened.

I am not sure of myself and see no way to prove it. I simply assume I exist and what I see is probably true. — Waya

That "I" or "self" is the certainty of which I speak of. How did you arrive at an I which assumes, or which can be (un)certain of anything, or can observe to see what is (un)true. That self which you may or may not understand how it came to be is the certainty everyone has. And its the reference point from which everything else is perceived.

It is impossible to prove it. — Waya

The self is proved by its participation in all of a person's activities. When does a person lack the "I". Never. Therefore, it's impossible not to prove it. It is impossible to deny it.

Life could just be a grand illusion, all the interactions are just products of an overly active imagination. — Waya

Illusions, imaginations, interactions, etc, must exist somewhere real. If life is an illusion or imagination, then where is it taking place? In a mind? Whose/what mind?

Nothing is more certain than "I AM". Otherwise there's no reality, no existence, no truth, no illusions, no nothing. So, this argument in itself is proof of something, a certainty. We may not be able to comprehensively define it, but it is undeniable.

Sorry, the previous post was a bit of rumbling as I sought my footing. Anyway, in conclusion, you and anyone else, can only be absolutely sure of themselves. Regardless of whether you understand your circumstances or not, you must recognise your self. I believe that is the proof of certainty which you seek.

As one point made by Hume, what reason do we to have to suppose that things will continue on as they always have? What reason do we have to suppose that the laws of physics will be the same in 500 years? We can't prove this, except to say that that's the way things have always been. — Waya

Because reality is constant. If it wasn't then nothing, including the identity of our selves, would be constant.

Through many generations of investigation, humanity has acquired the concept of reality and its absoluteness. This reality is understood to be fundamental to everything as well as constant in its expression of everything. The constancy is expressed through principles or laws which govern how everything is designated to be. And because the fundamental cause is the same then the effects will mirror that consistency. Basically, like begets like. Therefore, a constant reality will reflect a constant array of phenomena.

Our (un)certainty is born of a state of relativity and therefore does not reflect the whole of reality. Nevertheless, relative certainty is still certainty, to a degree. Otherwise, why would you suppose there are things? Why would you suppose there's a Hume? Why would you suppose this forum exists? Why would anything be for which you interact with? Why would you be?

Isn't your beingness the object/subject of most certitude? And, hasn't everything else been derived in relation to that?

This is as heavy a topic as I've seen.

I've often thought about reality in terms of rationale or intelligence. From my observations, the more intelligent (possibly rational) a subject is made out to be, the closer it approximates to reality. This is especially seen in the evolution of the theories of the atom and is seen in its infancy in the theory of dark matter and energy.

To give it my own special twist of irony, there are branches of spiritualism which define spirit as the intelligent principle of life.

We can't deny the part intelligence plays in our understanding of reality and we can't deny that we 'know' more from our observations of the many aspects of reality than what is directly derived from sensory-inputs. And while reality is the undeniable part of what we are, it is still the most elusive part of what we know.

So, what determines whether we walk the rational path?

So it would seem that the sciences will have to import big-picture capacity from philosophy to make overall sense of what they are all up to. (And they should, because they are messing around with very basic, root-level stuff, as well as very high level phenomena.) How should they go about that? — Bitter Crank

Very slowly, I think. There's no necessity to invent or create anything within the next decade or even century. For those who have seemingly peaceful lives, I doubt they would attribute that to any of the human inventions or creations. I think we need to work on our ethics with as much vigour as we have applied in science. I believe the Buddha was more right on this one, we need to develop our 'dharma' first before we can hope to save the world.

I have always seen Philosophy as somewhat similar to math we haven't found a use for yet. It exists for the time being as useless but becomes important when we finally find a use for it. Philosophy is a study of the nature of our own minds and how that relates to the universe, (at least from my perspective) and Science is a study of the universe using our own minds. — TogetherTurtle

Before the term science was coined, philosophy encompassed the "study of the nature of our own minds and how that relates to the universe" as well as the "study of the universe using our own minds". The diversification that happened later resulting in science as a separate subject is specialisation, just a normal part of the progression of the fields of knowledge.

If we make art to explain ourselves and do Science to explain our universe, Philosophy is that missing link where we ask questions about ourselves to find out why we explain things. — TogetherTurtle

I think we make art to observe ourselves externally or from a less personal perspective, and participate in science in order to perceive ourselves as interacting in the part of the universe which we readily perceive. The art and science are both questions and attempts at answering them. I believe philosophy is both the questions and the answers, and the confusion in between.

Philosophy may not result in beautiful pieces of art or life-improving appliances, — TogetherTurtle

I think philosophy is what generates that beatitude which artists seek in beauty, which science seeks in knowledge, which the average person seeks in comfort and a sense of belonging, etc.
Those who would dig into the past will find that inventions and creations were just as much inspiring parts of our lives back when philosophy was the predominant field of study. And I'm not asking that it should retain its eminence, but that we should not forget its significance because there's much to be extracted from it yet.

I haven't read Shaw but I think I will like him more than Nietzsche. I have often thought that Nietzsche's irony was too much and a subtle way to mask his irresolution.

I think there is some truth in it, but of course the other side has its claims too. — sign

Unfortunately, we don't get to have a panacea for all of life's ills. I believe one answer gets us to one step, then it's back to the drawing board for another answer. It's a tireless process and we are exhausted beings.

Yes? No? — Bitter Crank

Yes.

I don't see professional philosophers being of much help here, because science did bud off quite a while back (several hundred years) and has since developed it's own body of knowledge which, on average, a philosopher-specialist probably doesn't have time to gain in one lifetime. — Bitter Crank

Not professional philosophers but professional courtesy to philosophy.
Just like the average person is willing to accept scientific values, so also professionals need to accept philosophical values.

[url=http://]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Methuselah[/url] — sign

This has quite captured my imagination,

Shaw also advocates what he calls homeopathy as a pedagogical method, arguing that society "can only be lamed and enslaved by" education. Shaw's "homeopathic" educational method consisted of lying to students, until the students were able to see through the lies and argue with the teachers.

I wish a part of my education consisted of this. It sounds fun and promising, in a way. However, I can't imagine what would happen to those who don't realise the lies.

Philosophy used in that way becomes much too large a blanket to be meaningful. — Bitter Crank

This may also be said of science. It's not that by interacting philosophically we should ignore the many diverse aspects, but we should also realise that the individual specifics without the larger unifying picture is the definition of lost.

So far, in this forum, I've seen people relegate philosophy to a kind of shell without any substance while at the same time commending the significance of domains of knowledge such as science and mathematics. What vexes me is that they fail to see how they are a part of philosophy. Without the larger picture which philosophy gives, science becomes too materialistic and fails to reveal meaning in the activities observed in reality. And mathematics becomes a play of numbers without any directivity. Because philosophy is a bigger picture than the other branches of study, it is best suited to act as a control measure for them. There may be a great degree of specialisation of knowledge but we need philosophy to mediate between those many seemingly diverse branches e.g. to remind us in scientific endeavours that ethics is important and an integral part of all undertakings, to remind us in mathematics that numbers have a relation to nature and to reality and therefore there is a way to interact with them and that they are a part of us.

Purely analytical practices, because they are based on comparative processes, have a tendency to be too focused in the mechanics thus alienating the subjects/objects. Because of this, one of the popular notions of scientists is that of cold and detached humans. I believe, if integrating practices (based on associative processes) are given as much attention as their counterparts, then, there's a likelihood of greater balance/harmony than is currently the case.

Philosophy can have its relevance without diminishing that of others.

Terribly interesting. Wikipedia might be my new favourite site. I can already foresee myself going back and forth through the chains. I'm gonna be so addicted to this. Thanks a lot for this! :starstruck:

One failure of so-called philosophers, myself included, is the inability to realise the domain of practice of our knowledge. We want to save the world, not by initiating one little step after another, but by one giant leap. Unfortuantely, that one giant leap for any individual human means very little for the collective whole.

I believe a true philosopher holds to their own personal ethics/morals regardless of others; they propagate harmony and integrity in their relation with others regardless of whether it is reciprocated; they work diligently for their own little ecosystem in direct contact with them without being thrown off-course due to the larger picture, because they know their place and its significance, etc.
Having perfected the small domain of their influence, whether it's the individual self, one's family, workplace, etc, it becomes possible to project that same diligence to other people and in other areas. That, I believe is the duty of a philosopher.

I believe true philosophers do not seek to solve problems for everyone. They work diligently to show everyone that each individual has the capacity to labour for the greater good out of a sense of personal duty instead of seeking acclaim. It's time we realise that applause from others means little when there's still work to be done and especially when those giving the approval do little themselves.

As long as wisdom is relevant, philosophy is relevant. — Tzeentch

That is the whole truth of it.

If, on the other hand, you restrict "philosophy" to what is studied in departments of philosophy, then no: philosophy is irrelevant except inside a narrow academic ditch. — Bitter Crank

Isn't this restriction an insult to real philosophy? Imagine if any branch of biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics declared itself a separate and unrelated field of study and knowledge from its source. Suppose we now declare genetics to be different from biology, or organic chemistry to be different from chemistry, etc. Or better yet, suppose we declared biology, physics or chemistry to be different from science.
It's the same with philosophy. None of the fields of knowledge spawned and nutured by philosophy can claim to be different and separate from it when the term philosophy itself implies a blanket embrace of them all.

You're defining philosophy so broadly that it applies to everything and thus fails to pick anything out non-trivially. — MindForged

Philosophy is that broad application of knowledge. However, as broad as it is, it converges when related to reality. No matter how diverse the fields of knowledge, the principles of reality remain the same regardless of language, perspective, culture, etc.

The failure to pick anything of significance is a failure of the so-called philosophers. If we study the old greek philosophers we find much that is significant even though their literature doesn't compare to that of modern day in terms of volume. Presently, we seem to have much words to speak with very little meaning.

Philosophy itself is worthwhile the same way Literature is worthwhile: studying it won't make you a philosopher any more than studying literature will make you an author. — Bitter Crank

Modern day education is yet to realise this fragment of truth. Unfortunately, there're too many unwitting victims of the con who're willing to succumb to self-deceit if only for the pride which the title bestows. And some, who understand this, are still unwilling to accept an endeavour that doesn't end in merit which sets them on a pedestal above others. We seem to want our academic merits to have the importance that we ourselves have not, and probably won't, earn.

Why, when we have access to so much knowledge and such incredible technology, can life seem so utterly bereft of meaning? I think that's a pretty central question for philosophy. — Wayfarer

The fact that we have access to so much knowledge may imply philosophy is playing its part accordingly. I think, just like in the past, most people don't know what to do with the information given and are not courageous enough to venture by themselves.

I think there's something in the way modern Western culture construes reality that is corrosive and dangerous, to the soul and to the planet. We're seeing that writ large in environmental degradation, and on a personal level in the kinds of problems referred to above. Again, philosophy ought to wrestle with why that is, why despite our amazing technology and privileges, such problems keep occuring. That is very much in keeping with the kinds of questions that Socrates would wander about Athens asking. — Wayfarer

I agree with this. I believe the problem with modern culture is the prevalence of the 'quick fix' or 'shortcut' mentality. If we have a problem with the environment, we start looking for ways to fix it right then and there. Most people don't consider that it is possible to start something that may take decades, perhaps centuries, of continuous effort just to get things back on track. And, often enough, as soon as the 'quick fix' seems to stall, it is often abandoned and another solution is sought out. In the end, it takes us decades just to realise we're taking the wrong approach towards a lasting solution. By then, most people, especially those with the capacity to work out solutions, have given up because they realise there won't be any significant degree of success during their lifetimes and, therefore, embark on a journey of self-ambition aimed at personal gains. Meanwhile, the problems persist.

In fact it's the very absence of such questioning that distinguishes what is taught as philosophy in Western universities... But a great deal of what is taught under the banner of philosophy in the Universities is the emaciated corpse of the grand tradition. — Wayfarer

From my perspective, modern education approach is aimed at initiating into predominant schools of thought instead of training people how to think for themselves and to eventually determine their own thought paradigms. It is not a failing of philosophy, rather a failure of those who are supposedly philosophers.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Philosophy doesn't interest most people, and isn't all that relevant to most problems outside some fairly specific cases. And the boons to, say, quality of life have no direct and obvious connection to philosophy outside an incredibly hamfisted "Everything is philosophy" idea, so I don't think it's unfair. — MindForged

Most people accept their philosophy in a language that is less academic. Fortunately, it is easier to express philosophy in such diluted means especially through narratives both fiction and fact.

Quality of life is directly related to the knowledge we apply to our life situations and, philosophy being more acceptable to society through its many diverse forms, has proven to be very significant in a very direct way as could be seen from the yoga trends, the healthy nutrition trends, spirituality trends, the many debates on what equality entails, the endless maxims in popular use, etc.

The 'everything is philosophy' idea is somewhat true considering philosophy was developed as a way of investigating reality and acquiring knowledge without uncritical bias. All current fields of knowledge have existed before as aspects of philosophy and it still plays a major part in bridging the gap between professional and layman understanding. That, I think, is one of the points in support of philosophy's relevance.

How closely philosophy resembles reality ought to be assessed on the prevalence or lack thereof of realistic positions in philosophy. To my knowledge, the more wacky positions, like idealism, and even more so solipsism and panpsychism, remain a relatively small minority. — S

I agree with this.

I don't think that philosophy is better than science as a method for acquiring knowledge. I think that philosophy has been superseded in that regard by science. Philosophy is too varied and at odds with itself, whereas science is more unified and more reliable. — S

I think science supersedes philosophy in terms of the materialistic approach. By this I mean that, science has exceeded in investigating the material or sensible (impacting the senses) realm of the reality we recognise. However, it seems to not care much about such domains as the ethics/morals which are involved in its own activities or any other significant influences it may have, e.g. psychological, social, environmental, etc. Science (or its propagators) seems to almost have a 'jump first look later' formula.

Just as a simple thought experiment, have you ever wondered what would happen if we discovered aliens of human-like intelligence on some other planet? Often, from our projected responses, it seems that we would not like to be disturbed, primarily because we're to raw to trust what we don't know or too ignorant (if not primitive) to know how/what to know so that we may develop the necessary trust. How or why, then, would we seek others? This is a flaw I predominantly attribute to the 'scientific mind' which is not balanced by the other fields of knowledge.
I think the field of philosophy is necessarily wide to prevent one side from becoming over-developed at the expense of others. Unfortunately, that is not the position many believe and choose to be in, in science.

So far, what has been said about the shortcomings of philosophy seems quite unfair considering philosophy has played its part of providing the necessary information. What we see, in the case of nuclear weapons, deteriorating ecosystems, global warming, etc is the underwhelming human response born of inertias beyond the reach of objective philosophy. To solve such problems, humanity as a whole, through its many individuals, must come to terms with their own negativity, their fears, anger, vanity, pride, ambition, etc.

Can anyone explain how God is the creator of time and remains changeless? — Walter Pound

There's an idea that eternal and infinite means existing outside of the frames of space and time as opposed to existing comprehensively within the full spectrum of space and time. The latter would still imply God is limited by space and time thus making Him relative. So, if by God is meant absoluteness, then God becomes such as is untouched by the influence of space and time.

Unfortunately, science does not have a concept of anything beyond space and time.

That's irrelevant to the point. Years ago, black people were believed to NOT have free-will as part of the equality package. This meant that, LIKE animals, black people did NOT get to determine their circumstances. — chatterbears

There is less utility in animal agriculture than there was in black slavery. Utilitarianism leads to Veganism, not away from it. Veganism benefits the world more than non-Veganism. Health, environment, and the animals themselves. — chatterbears

The above shows that ethics/morality is determined by popular consensus within a particular sphere of interaction. This means that, in some places, cultures, governments, etc, it was ethical/moral to practice slavery while in others it was not. Remember, even in those african communities, there was a lot of discrimination and denial of certain rights and freedoms. Just because they were enslaved by others doesn't mean they were ideal humans in themselves.
If by being ethical/moral you are asking if certain actions are ideal (perfect), then no human activity or choices are ethical/moral. There are no ideal humans.

Yet, even then when humans were relatively more ignorant compared to now, they still had edicts of ethics/morality. So, right now, is dominion over animals unethical? No. That's the way it is. I know it is not something others would approve but they don't get to decide ethics/morality for everyone else.

At best, the dominion over animals is unethical/immoral for those who believe animals deserve equal treatment to humans. This is because they have created their own sphere of interaction in which such dominion is unethical/immoral. However, other humans have other spheres of interaction in which such dominion is not. For them, even as they refine their treatment of animals according to certain values, they maintain their dominion.

So, do you think your rules of ethics/morals applies to everyone indiscriminately? Absolutely not.
You (or any other individual) don't get to determine ethics/morality for others. Every person determines their own ethics/morality or, at least, the sphere of interaction they belong to for the collective ethics/morality of a given group of humans (country, culture, religion, field of study, trend, etc).

And by the same "utility" standards, could I not justify slavery by saying "Some humans are bred into slavery (black people), some for companionship (white people), etc..." — chatterbears

All humans are, presently, believed to have free-will as part of the equality package. This means that, unlike animals, humans get to determine their circumstances.

While we have a tendency to govern animals by their utility, we are building momentum where we govern humans by choice.

But even if it were the case, that humans only treat other humans well, but not other animals, why is that? They would have to provide a justification for why one sentient being is deserving of life, and another sentient being is not. — chatterbears

Utility.

Some animals are bred for food, some for companionship, some for work, etc.

The arguments work for humans because it's clear that we're equal. That is not the same for animals, hence the current inconsistencies.

Imagine if we thought having knowledge meant omniscience. Then, we would be arguing whether we have knowledge or not. On the one hand, it would be obvious that we know some things and have the capacity to know more; on the other, what we know isn't everything to be known.

If we apply the above to free-will, then it is obvious that we determine some aspects of our lives by exerting our influence over them; however, our influence is not absolute.

So, if free-will means omnipotence, then we do not have it. If free-will means the capacity to exert our influence over circumstances, then we do have it albeit to a limited degree but which can also be improved upon.

Everything about our human relativity is subject to influence, including free-will. If free-will is something independent of everything else, then it does not exist. Even absolute reality is connected to every part of its relative representations.

I believe we have free-will the same way we have knowledge, that is, we can develop it as far as we can. Also, in the same way our application of knowledge and beliefs are subject to various influences, so also is our free-will. Different people have different degrees of exerting free-will under the various circumstances of our lives.
Free-will cannot imply something absolute when it is the possession of relative beings. I think most people mistake free-will for omnipotence.

Me thinks we see eye to eye. :eyes: :victory: :eyes:

You keep saying how selfish we are, but do you apply those beliefs into your own actions? Are planning on become Vegan, since it seems to me that you think it would be selfish not to, correct? — chatterbears

Strictly speaking, I'm not vegan. I practice a form of dietary 'ahimsa', that is, I feed in such a way that my habits do not cause harm to others. I eat plant-based food, milk and eggs. (The eggs are a rare delicacy since I'm mildly allergic to them.)

Unfortunately, I feed my cats meat in combination with plant-based diet. This is because I think it would be wrong of me to subject the cats to my way of nutrition when theirs is a little different.

You actually have not given me your personal views, at all. — chatterbears

I believe the following, from my previous posts, suffice as personal views:

personally, I think all animals should be under partial or complete domestication. This means that, even wild animals should be regulated through family planning methods until their numbers are greatly reduced and manageable. Also, we should tag all animals (if possible) so that we know where and how they are at all times for the sake of regulating their activities, like in times of natural crises or to protect them from human activities that may harm them. — BrianW

Personally, I think causing harm to animals is wrong. — BrianW

Personally, I agree that it's cruel to kill animals for food. — BrianW

How I determine ethics/morality is a combination of:
1. Precedence.
2. Personal analysis.
3. Reciprocity.

This doesn't mean I follow any precedence, just that I take it into consideration. — BrianW

For example, stealing. There's previous precedence that makes stealing a unanimous no no. Also, personally, I'm against it due to the negative effects it has. And, since I would not like to be stolen from, I think it would be wrong to steal from others. — BrianW

You conform to the social norm. — chatterbears

I am vegan in a predominantly 'omni-canivorous' society. How is that conforming? In somethings I conform, in others I don't.

I seek harmony with my environment. Part of that is understanding what it is, how it is, why it is, etc. I know I can't change anything by trying to use rationale that is not familiar. The way to make people take better care of animals is by showing them how animals are a significant (in terms of equality) part of their community. For example, how would you convince christians that it is wrong to kill animals for food when their religious teachings contrast that?

What I'm saying is there is a way and a time in which the results we aim for unfold. If one is going to accomplish something one better recognise what they're working with. It is wasteful to expect more from a situation than what can be achieved.

You, again, keep answering for society. Answer for yourself. Do you believe that laws should be based on equality, fairness and justness? — chatterbears

I've already given you my personal views. As to society, is there individual/personal equality? The laws of equality are for the collective whole. What does it matter if I'm the most compassionate/cruel being within a society of people contrary to myself? It's not just about being right as an individual, it's about helping others develop the capacity to be right.

Give a man fish and you'll feed him for a day; teach a man how to fish and he'll never go hungry.

Your opinions are decent but society isn't waiting for an individual to make decisions for them. Animals will have equality when enough of the individuals in the society are capable of perceiving them as equals. So, the question becomes, "how do we develop that capacity in others?"

As investigations into the nature of animals advance, we realise more and more how much they are like humans in terms of social needs and capacities. In this way, we learn that we can give them more consideration in terms of compassion, comfort, discipline/training, etc. This is why domestic animals which are primarily kept for companionship get the first taste of decent treatment. Because of their proximity to humans, their nature is more readily evident than that of others. Unfortunately, as a human collective, we're still slow to progress and not even one sincere man's appeal for expedition will change that.

The vast majority of humans already know what mistreatment is. We have put up laws against animal cruelty, especially regarding dogs or cats. There's a massive sense of cognitive dissonance here, where you can understand why a dog needs love and affection, but not why a pig would need the same thing. — chatterbears

That is the point I'm trying to make. The laws we enact are dependent upon our interaction but not on some fundamental equality for all animals. We decide according to what suits us and that makes it just as selfish and inconsiderate as can be. I am yet to see comprehensive impartial efforts for animal justice.

Our democracy is not just about equality, but about knowing the laws of nature and basing our decisions on them. — Athena

That's what I said in my previous posts. Here are some references to the above sentiment:

The value of equality, decency, compassion is written in huge flaming letters in every page of nature and how it nurtures everything despite the favourable and unfavourable flavours of experience it offers. — BrianW

I think we've done a great job to realise that if we don't conform to nature's wisdom we might just be left behind... — BrianW

It is about knowing who and what we are and have, and acting appropriately.
To have such an understanding and to express it harmoniously there is need for intelligence — BrianW

Democracy is based upon the idea of equality or that all humans can be equally cared for within the collective. But, equality is not similarity. This means that for equality to work we must accept others for who they are not because they resemble us or our ideas. This is what I mean by

It is about knowing who and what we are and have, and acting appropriately.

To have such an understanding and to express it harmoniously there is need for intelligence, otherwise, they're just words without significance.

In essence, my understanding is no different from yours or that of any other person. That 1939 report gave a very decent account of what democracy is but, when it came to practice, the level of ideas and experience were very different.

I'm saying that democracy is a very lofty concept which, though we may be on the path to realising it, judging by our present actions, it may be said to be 'something visible at the distant horizon'. There's still a long way to go which involves a lot of trials and errors before we make it.

So thought conceptually divides reality in to the "relative" and the "constant". — Jake

I don't know about this. I understand consciousness to be different from thought. Consciousness allows us to recognise thoughts but it can also transcend thoughts by going beyond the relativity of the mind.