Ahh, the old predator and prey argument.

Is that what's this about?

That was distressing to watch — Shawn

It's awful. It's happened in Australia before - farmers selling livestock to overseas markets where they're sent by ship and then slaughtered overseas. There has been some dreadful footage of sheep in the most appalling conditions penned below decks and literally dying of heat while being too tightly penned to fall. And their treatment in some of the overseas abbatoirs is absolutely dreadful. There's a public hue and cry after the footage is leaked and the politicians all say that the industry will be improved but as these latest exposes are showing, it never is.

But neither did you. That's the hilarious part of this. You started this whole thing telling me I can't possibly understand or know until I go and hunt and until then I'd be irredeemably blind. — Artemis

Let me refresh your memory. You started this with: "The idea that things like respect or grace could possibly matter when killing someone seems pretty far-fetched to me."

That is not an argument and there is no allegation of flaw. Nothing. I explained how I understood your position, based upon how far man has distanced him self from who he is. I told you how to get back to the animal that we are. You could not contest the wisdom of that recommendation without making some silly analogy to serial killers. That's sounds suspiciously as bad as the ADA cannibal thing you found so off-putting. Really, Aremis, why did you make that illogical leap? I know why. Because you cannot fathom the idea that a killer and eater of meat could possibly have respect for the animal he kills, or that his killing it could be in grace with it. Oakie Dokey.

I'm not even pretending to give evidence or arguments. So why you're griping about it ... I really cannot fathom. — Artemis

Precisely because you said "The idea that things like respect or grace could possibly matter when killing someone seems pretty far-fetched to me." If you don't want to engage, and you don't want an interlocutor and you don't want to demonstrate a flaw and if you don't want to state a position, then the answer is simple: Don't.

So yeah, that's my olive branch for today and my exeunt from this thread. — Artemis

Adios.

That's because you completely ignored me when I said: — James Riley

hahaha! :sweat: That's how I ruined something in my life. Good God, James! How the fuck! Sorry for the f-word.

Animal behaviours can be complex and sophisticated but they're not conscious agents in the sense that humans are, and that also is a difference that makes a difference. — Wayfarer

They have a will to live.

Sure. No disputing that. But it is not material to the question of whether animals have rights.

I've found a good encyclopedia article on the history of the concept of human rights which I'm in the process of reading. It notes:

The doctrine of human rights rests upon a particularly fundamental philosophical claim: that there exists a rationally identifiable moral order, an order whose legitimacy precedes contingent social and historical conditions and applies to all human beings everywhere and at all times.

and

For Kant, the capacity for the exercise of reason is the distinguishing characteristic of humanity and the basis for justifying human dignity.

I know it's a very unfashionable view to take, but I lean towards it. I think the alternative is to deprecate reason.

They have a will to live. — Caldwell

:100: They taught me what "will to live" means. While I have been depressed at times, I won't pretend to understand deep clinical depression. However, I can't help but think if a suicidal person could witness some of the animal demonstrations of a will to live that I have seen, they would turn away from killing themselves.

The doctrine of human rights rests upon a particularly fundamental philosophical claim: that there exists a rationally identifiable moral order, an order whose legitimacy precedes contingent social and historical conditions and applies to all human beings everywhere and at all times.

I agree with that. Some of those rights are the right to fight, the right to flight and the right to self-defense. It's not simply a human construct. Indeed, much of the common law is steeped in a concept of "natural law", which comes from nature and not simply the mind of man. The fact that man will articulate it for himself is not the flex he thinks it is. Animals don't need the articulation.

Evolutionarily speaking, draft and reared-for-meat animals are to be considered successful - they outnumber any wild animal, solitary or social, by a factor of at least a 100, perhaps even a 1000. The cost - short, painful lives - maybe something cattle, pigs, sheep, chicken, horses, are willing to bear so long as they can pass down their genes.

The cost - short, painful lives - maybe something cattle, pigs, sheep, chicken, horses, are willing to bear so long as they can pass down their genes. — TheMadFool

Interesting biological angle. Strike the word "willing" and it would be more interesting. The same argument has been made for those humans which would, under natural circumstances, be removed from the gene pool. Whatever their malady, they may possess that one gene that gets us through some as-yet unknown or unforeseen upset. It's a form of intraspecific diversity.

In the end, though, domestic animals have a dependence upon us such that if we ever wipe ourselves out, they probably won't last long in competition with those of the ilk from which they descended. They might make a good meal for them, though.

There could be exceptions, and interbreeding between domestic and wild, but since they have, like us, left off the honing of edges on hard surfaces, the majority won't be worth much to themselves. The jury is still out on us. It's only been a few hundred thousand years. Hardly long enough to have back-slapping party.

Interesting biological angle. Strike the word "willing" and it would be more interesting. The same argument has been made for those humans which would, under natural circumstances, be removed from the gene pool. Whatever their malady, they may possess that one gene that gets us through some as-yet unknown or unforeseen upset. It's a form of intraspecific diversity.

In the end, though, domestic animals have a dependence upon us such that if we ever wipe ourselves out, they probably won't last long in competition with those of the ilk from which they descended. They might make a good meal for them, though.

There could be exceptions, and interbreeding between domestic and wild, but since they have, like us, left off the honing of edges on hard surfaces, the majority won't be worth much to themselves. The jury is still out on us. It's only been a few hundred thousand years. Hardly long enough to have back-slapping party. — James Riley

The predator-prey relationship is more complex than it seems when viewed under the moral lens. I think Nietzsche had similar thoughts as me in this regard.

That said I don't endorse the view that goes I'm only torturing/killing you for your own good. If anything, it indicates a very disturbing lack of imagination even though the obviously elliptical way nature achieves balance bears the hallmark of creative genius albeit in a twisted, wicked sense. Nature is a psychopath!

Nietzsche — TheMadFool

Yes, the poor man went crazy after seeing a horse whipped too much. Empathy was very important for him.

Yes, the poor man went crazy after seeing a horse whipped too much. Empathy was very important for him. — Shawn

But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked. "Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad." "How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here. — Alice in wonderland

@schopenhauer1 - we must all be mad "or you [we] wouldn't have come here."

The predator-prey relationship is more complex than it seems when viewed under the moral lens. I think Nietzsche had similar thoughts as me in this regard. — TheMadFool

Any lens is only our own. The relationship is amoral, not immoral. And by that assessment, from our perspective, it must be moral.

That said I don't endorse the view that goes I'm only torturing/killing you for your own good. — TheMadFool

:100: There is no torturing/killing for "your own good." Torturing is training for the torturer and killing is for food for the killer.

bears the hallmark of creative genius albeit in a twisted, wicked sense. — TheMadFool

That's just us, or our impression of nature when we try to divorce ourselves from it. There is no "wicked." Nor is there any psychopathy.

Off to bed. Night.

No disputing that. But it is not material to the question of whether animals have rights. — Wayfarer

On the contrary, will is material to conferring rights to an entity. I said several posts earlier that while I am for animal rights, it is really our commitment to these rights that give them the power to stick. That's not cut it for me. Animals, with or without humans conferring them rights, should be allowed to live and let live.

:100: They taught me what "will to live" means. While I have been depressed at times, I won't pretend to understand deep clinical depression. However, I can't help but think if a suicidal person could witness some of the animal demonstrations of a will to live that I have seen, they would turn away from killing themselves. — James Riley

Talk to me then, like you mean it.

schopenhauer1 - we must all be mad "or you [we] wouldn't have come here." — TheMadFool

I'd be surprised if he wasn't a vegetarian. There is atrocious suffering in this world, all for the claim that something tasted 'good'.

:flower:

They have a will to live. — Caldwell

You still need to explain what you believe to be the correct inference from this.

Yes, the poor man went crazy after seeing a horse whipped too much. — Shawn

Or was that onset of mental illness due to syphilis?

Sometimes I wonder if the occasional omni reads these animal rights threads and.... though s/he is perhaps not yet convinced about animal rights... realizes that everything being said on the omni side is irredeemably flawed. — Artemis

I know meat eaters who say that humans must kill and eat animals, so as to make it clear who the boss is. That humans must continually assert their supremacy over animals and the natural environment, or else humans will be pushed out by them.

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

Reduction of human consumption does not change the nature of the relationship between humans and animals, only the mode of it.

As long as the nature of said relationship doesn't change, a change in its mode is a poor consolation, to say the least.


And, of course, a "live and let live" attitude will get you in trouble with other people, who want to live the way they want (which can include killing and eating animals), and not have anyone tell them how to do it.

I'm saying that humans are in a different category to animals - they have symbolic communication, and also rights, responsibilities, and duties. They are responsible agents. (I don't accept the scientistic crap about determinism.) Unlike animals, who do not have any of the above. Animal behaviours can be complex and sophisticated but they're not conscious agents in the sense that humans are, and that also is a difference that makes a difference. — Wayfarer

You are assuming too much uniformity and unanimousness for humans.

Look:

I'm saying that Gentiles are in a different category to Jews - they have symbolic communication, and also rights, responsibilities, and duties. They are responsible agents. (I don't accept the scientistic crap about determinism.) Unlike Jews, who do not have any of the above. Jewish behaviours can be complex and sophisticated but they're not conscious agents in the sense that Gentiles are, and that also is a difference that makes a difference.

Or

I'm saying that men are in a different category to women - they have symbolic communication, and also rights, responsibilities, and duties. They are responsible agents. (I don't accept the scientistic crap about determinism.) Unlike women, who do not have any of the above. Women's behaviours can be complex and sophisticated but they're not conscious agents in the sense that men are, and that also is a difference that makes a difference.

And so on.

The egalitarian idea that all humans are equal in some essential and important way is a humanist pipe dream which very few people actually believe in. For all practical intents and purposes, humans are as discriminating against other humans as they are against animals and plants.

Talk to me then, like you mean it. — Caldwell

I don't know how to link. I'm going to try it:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/519768#:~:text=This%20has%20probably,with%20the%20deer.

It kind of worked. Anyway, like I said before, you have to see it. Reading about it is one thing, but actually participating in it is another. When a man steels a loaf of bread to feed his starving child, the concept of morality is a luxury for those with leisure. If they want an alternative choice, they have to provide it. For the man, life has been reduced to living. The goal is to live and to get your offspring to live. I honor that and resolve to do it. That deer had no intent to teach me anything. Intent, like morality, is off the table in the now.

Suicide, like morality, is a leisure time activity.

When a man steels a loaf of bread to feed his starving child, the concept of morality is a luxury for those with leisure. — James Riley

No, it isn't a luxury for those with leisure. (It is morally hazardous to take examples like this and attribute it to false dilemma) Rather, in this situation, the subjective action of an individual -- stealing a loaf of bread -- needs to be examined if it fits in the moral codes of the community of moral agents. This is not anymore different than the action of lying. To moral philosophers, this is called the perturbation of the moral order. It's a modal test -- Can our moral system admit such variations of individual actions and still maintain a stable system?

What do you think? I mean you as a moral agent.

Revisit your moral belief and think which moral system -- universal moral code or pluralism -- works best. And please do not confuse this examination with relativism. Moral relativism is not on par with the above principles. Moral relativism is actually unstable.

Now for the link you provided regarding murder-suicide pact -- we have to start prior to the moral agency. We have think in terms of whether the individuals acted with their moral agency intact at the time or were they under the delusional state of mind, which is not fitting for the definition of moral agency. The analysis you would have to take is the prevention of such actions.

Rather, in this situation, the subjective action of an individual -- stealing a loaf of bread -- needs to be examined if it fits in the moral codes of the community of moral agents. — Caldwell

If there is a "need" to examine, then who has that alleged need? Certainly not the guy steeling the bread. That was my point. Only those with a full belly have the luxury of sitting around ruminating their cud on such things. If they think the guy had other options, or made bad choices resulting in his choice, etc. that is still irrelevant to him. If they are really worried about it, they can ask themselves if they, personally, presented him with another option, and if so, why didn't he take it? But that's still irrelevant to the now.

A person is offered a free vaccine. He doesn't take it. He get's sick and starts dying. He runs to the hospital and begs for help. We can sit around with our couldashouldawoulda all day long. That doesn't influence his actions.

Animals live life now.

Maybe we should start a new thread on this as we are hijacking Shawn's animal thread. What do you think? I will respond at the new thread.

Maybe we should start a new thread on this as we are hijacking Shawn's animal thread. What do you think? I will respond at the new thread. — Caldwell

I'm thinking that I was sticking to his question here:

This might sound strange, but how is a person to overtly state that animals are innocent bystanders of our desires for the goods produced from their cultivation? — Shawn

Where they *live* in the *now* without all the moral hand-wringing of men, that rings of innocence to me. I was merely trying to bring it home in a way that humans might understand. But if I failed, that's okay. I have to go buck some wood for winter. Peace.

In that case, no isn't against our moral system to treat animals as innocent, and with respect. All moral agents are presumed to have the ability to think about their actions, including the bread thief. Changing our behavior towards the animals does not make our moral system unstable. We could have a more detailed analysis if you'd like. But acknowledging that animals have a will to live, just like us, doesn't go against our moral system.

In that case, no isn't against our moral system to treat animals as innocent, and with respect. All moral agents are presumed to have the ability to think about their actions, including the bread thief. Changing our behavior towards the animals does not make our moral system unstable. We could have a more detailed analysis if you'd like. But acknowledging that animals have a will to live, just like us, doesn't go against our moral system. — Caldwell

My chain saw keeps quitting on me. Anyway, yeah, there is no argument on that. In fact, that is what I said: "Any lens is only our own. The relationship [predator/prey] is amoral, not immoral. And by that assessment, from our perspective, it must be moral."
Emphasis added. Same with the guy steeling bread and the guy seeking help when he failed to get vaxxed. Just as there is a place where the law can only operate after the fact, so too morality.