We are looking at this issue for the sake of our interest only. — Caldwell

Because this is the only perspective that we can intelligibly have.

Treat animals with respect like us because they, too, have a will to live.

That's, basically, the Jain perspective, a recipe for a slow death by starvation.

That's, basically, the Jain perspective, a recipe for a slow death by starvation. — baker

Please explain.

Because this is the only perspective that we can intelligibly have. — baker

I just said it is not the only perspective. What you're saying is, that's the only acceptable perspective for you.

The problem with these kinds of arguments is that they externalize the justification.
— baker

I don't see anything wrong with that, do you? — Shawn

I do. It's a dishonorable perspective to take. Dishonorable for the person who takes such a perspective.

In other words, such externalizing lines of reasoning shift the focus of moral justification outside, on the object; they are based on the evaluation of the inherent value or nature. At the same time, this evaluation itself is a matter of debate and far from settled.
— baker

What kind of debate? I'm not sure I'm following the issue of externalizing the issue to blame or justification in comparison with any framework to operate with, which seems necessary to even begin discussing animal rights...

The debate around whether X is deserving of respect on account of X's inherent value or the lack thereof.

Well, I think I understand why it would be dishonest to say that pigs aren't intelligent enough to care for their plight. Yet, that's so commonly accepted that they aren't worth concerning oneself over.

Why do you think so many people behave this way?

That's, basically, the Jain perspective, a recipe for a slow death by starvation.
— baker

Please explain. — Caldwell

The Jains, ideally, believing in absolute harmlessness, end up not eating at all, and thus die of starvation.

Because this is the only perspective that we can intelligibly have.
— baker
I just said it is not the only perspective. What you're saying is, that's the only acceptable perspective for you.

Humans can only take a human perspective.

Why do you think so many people behave this way? — Shawn

Probably because they believe that their lives are worth more than those of animals.

Many people also believe that their lives are worth more than the lives of many other people.

The Jains, ideally, believing in absolute harmlessness, end up not eating at all, and thus die of starvation. — baker

This is the fallacy of false dilemma. Dramatic, yes, but fallacy nonetheless.

Probably because they believe that their lives are worth more than those of animals.

Many people also believe that their lives are worth more than the lives of many other people. — baker

I suppose this is true. Unfortunate and sad.

I just said it is not the only perspective. — Caldwell

I agree with you. However, it's not an either/or situation. It's a both/and situation.

I've likened it to the U.S. Constitution. It provides that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. Thus, rather than get all wrapped up in BS arguments about whether some Indians "deserve" it or not, or the whataboutism of the stupid people, we should simply honor our treaties with Indians because it is us to do so. It's supposed to be who we are, irrespective of what some individual Indians may have done in derogation of the treaty which they may not have, individually, agreed to.

However, we don't have to be so stupid as to think that is the only way to look at it: as if our perspective is the only perspective we can possibly appreciate or assume to exist, and then proceeding from there. For instance, we stipulate that we don't have a sovereign status over another like, say, the U.S. does with China or Russia, or, better yet, some tiny county we could stomp if we wanted to. We could realize that we are not "all that", and that we are dependent upon, subordinate to nature, and respectful of another. In the instant case, animals and the biodiversity of which they are a part.

Those who think they are better than animals are like whites who think they are better than Indians or blacks. They think whites should do right by nonwhites because that is who whites are: people who do right. But history proves otherwise. That is not who whites are. It's the same with animals. We are not better than them and we should not do right by them simply because we think we are "right-kind-of-people." We should do right by them because they are us and we are all one.

It's also stupid to think anthropomorphically. That ends up with some people imputing one feeling to prey and another feeling to predators. It pulls us back into that "right" vs "wrong" mentality. There is nothing wrong with killing and eating. There is nothing wrong with being killed and eaten. There is nothing wrong with resisting. In fact, a failure to resist does no good for either side. The natural order of things demands mutual improvement through evolutionary processes. But once we leave off of that, the improvement stops. Like the high school football team, up 106 to 0, running it in for 2 instead of kicking for 1. WTF?

Then nature comes along for a reset as part of a process from which we thought we were exempt, just like whites thought they were better than blacks and Indians. Oops!

Picking the "us = good" mentality alone is absent grace, gratitude and humble regard.

To think that mankind can only see through mankind's eyes is to see mankind as alone, isolated, separate from the world. He becomes insecure and afraid, devaluing and marginalizing all that is not him. To see himself as one with All is to see more.

This is the fallacy of false dilemma. Dramatic, yes, but fallacy nonetheless. — Caldwell

Why would that be a false dilemma?

Are you saying it is possible to live without eating? To eat without causing harm?

Are you saying it is possible to live without eating? To eat without causing harm? — baker

No. It is possible to live without eating animals. It is not either we eat or die. No one said you can't eat.

And eat what? Plants, because "they don't have any feelings" so it's okay to eat them?

Picking the "us = good" mentality alone is absent grace, gratitude and humble regard. — James Riley

Yes. And does this extend to the argument that we can therefore hunt like animals do?

↪Caldwell
And eat what? Plants, because "they don't have any feelings" so it's okay to eat them? — baker

Why do you argue in false dilemma all the time? Is this the only way you can think?

You're still not getting my point. Human will is the same as animal will. But the way we treat animals disregards this point.

Human will is the same as animal will. — Caldwell

How are you so sure?

Why do you argue in false dilemma all the time? Is this the only way you can think? — Caldwell

*sigh*

Farming plants for food still results in harm to animals. By plowing the soil, by using pesticides or other substances and techniques to minimize the populations of insects and other animals that would destroy the plants or the fruits. Then in the process of harvesting, again, animals are being killed.

And the people producing a vegan diet aren't necessarily vegan themselves either.

In short, no matter where you turn, animals are being killed in the process of producing food for humans, in one way or another, whether they are killed and eaten directly, or end up killed as competitors for human food or as collateral damage in the production of human food.

You're still not getting my point. Human will is the same as animal will.

So? What do you think necessarily follows from this?

But the way we treat animals disregards this point.

People kill eachother as well, or act without regard for the wellbeing of other people, thus disregarding that the will of another human is the same as one's own.

It is not the case that humans would only disregard will when it comes to animals; no, the disregard is far more universal.

And does this extend to the argument that we can therefore hunt like animals do? — Caldwell

Yes. We are animals. Omnivores, so I'm told.

How are you so sure? — Shawn

Because we are animals. We just aren't real good at it.

Yes. We are animals. Omnivores, so I'm told. — James Riley

So do we hunt like animals? Or farm and breed animals?

It is not the case that humans would only disregard will when it comes to animals; no, the disregard is far more universal. — baker

And so we cannot change?

And so we cannot change? — Caldwell

What's your plan?

What's your plan? — baker

Reduce consumption overall. It's not an overnight thing. But conscious deliberate mindfulness.

So do we hunt like animals? — Caldwell

Not even close. In fact, most people I've seen who "hunt" don't hunt anything like an animal.

Or farm and breed animals? — Caldwell

Yeah, mostly that.

But conscious deliberate mindfulness. — Caldwell

I think you just described hunting.

Yeah, most that. — James Riley

Do animals farm and breed animals?

I think you just described hunting. — James Riley

Not really.

Not really. — Caldwell

Yes, really. If you don't think conscious deliberate mindfulness is hunting then you've never hunted. Maybe you tried doing what most people I've seen do, and called it hunting. :sad:

Do animals farm and breed animals? — Caldwell

Well, some do. Some folks say plants and fungi are farming us, giving us oxygen until we eventually expire and turn into mulch which they can consume. I've also heard of some insects doing something similar to other insects.

But I'm just funnin' you. I know what you mean, and the answer is emphatically no. Animals don't treat other animals with so much disrespect, lack of consideration, lack of mindfulness, lack of conscious deliberation. Rather, they live in the now, and hunt with conscious deliberate mindfulness.

We think our will is different from animal will? No it isn't. — Caldwell

We are different to animals due to language and self-awareness.

Rights come with responsibilities, they're part of the social contract. If a human kills - murders- then his or her rights to freedom of movement are forfeited by imprisonment. I suppose it's true if an animal kills humans then they may be hunted and destroyed, but they are not morally culpable if they kill.

How are you so sure? — Shawn

Through observation. And if you're not sure of people's observations, including yours, then consult the animal behaviorists. Animals do not act out of random. There's a point to what they do.

We are different to animals due to language and self-awareness. — Wayfarer

And animal vocalization is not language? Okay. Maybe so. But it is communication, though not articulation.