It's a philosophy forum, I'm exploring the philosophical question of the nature of rights. The fact that this is so dimly apprehended says something in my view. — Wayfarer
Kant's end-in-itself is reserved for rational beings, meaning humans. So, we can't cite Kant here. To overtly state that animals are innocent bystanders of our desires for the goods produced from their cultivation, just say so. No one can dispute it -- we just don't accept it that it is the way it is. We use the notion of rational human beings to justify our actions.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
No contest.Humans would need to sacrifice some (or much) of their comforts. Material ones, such as space and natural resources. And psychological ones, such as the feeling of human superiority over animals. — baker
It's a philosophy forum, I'm exploring the philosophical question of the nature of rights. The fact that this is so dimly apprehended says something in my view. — Wayfarer
[...]This completely changed their way of life. We did not domesticate wheat. It domesticated us. The word “domesticate” comes from the Latin domus, which means “house.” Who’s the one living in a house? Not the wheat. It’s the Sapiens. — Yuval Noah Harari (Book Sapiens - Agriculutural Revolution)
God moves in mysterious ways. — William Cowper
I have heard some arguments for animal rights....
* * *
There really is no perspective to prefer in terms of point of view on the matter. — Shawn
‘If God wanted us to be vegetarian, why did He make animals out of meat?’ ~ bumper sticker — Wayfarer
That said, there's a story breaking in Australia about shocking treatment of livestock in the live animal trade, by abbatoirs in Indonesia. I'm standing with the animal rights acitivists in calling for that abhorrent trade to be closed down, it is absolutely heart-wrenching to see animals treated that way, and completely inhumane. But it's not a matter of violation of the animal's rights, it's cruelty on the part of humans. — Wayfarer
That says something, doesn't it? So now, religious or philosophical conviction is 'special pleading', and the secular view is normative. Is that it? — Wayfarer
It's a philosophy forum, I'm exploring the philosophical question of the nature of rights. The fact that this is so dimly apprehended says something in my view. — Wayfarer
Fair assessment. I couldn't respond myself.Nevertheless, I found myself getting lost in who said what about what: You, Cavell, Diamond, Wittgenstein, Austin, Banno, Plato, Kant. So I removed the names and tried again to winnow the gist. The end result found me again embarrassingly wanting, and afraid to respond lest I sound even dumber than I am.
So I ask that it be re-written for my lay-eyes; barring that, I will graciously bow out and thank you for an offering, albeit too thick for me to eat. :chin: :smile: — James Riley
Cavell . . . takes a moral issue of this magnitude not as a matter of an intellectual argument . . . but that it takes re-imagining the world in a different way for ourselves, so that the form of claim I make is emotional and revelatory and calls you out to answer in kind (or be the lesser for it) — Antony Nickles
the comment is not about the subject so much as the form of discussion. — Antony Nickles
As well, the antipathy of philosophy is a parred down summary or "thesis"--thinking I could just "tell" you--because plowing through it and noticing what comes to your mind, seeing for and to yourself, is necessary for philosophy to be fruitful at all, to change how you think (not just what, like an opinion), — Antony Nickles
the possibility of getting you further interested — Antony Nickles
We may be in agreement; we may be in the same place. But if I must have company, I choose those who arrive by foot — James Riley
...In the actual use of expressions [compared to language imagined like math] we make detours, we go by side-roads. We see the straight highway before us, but of course we cannot use it, because it is permanently closed. — Wittgenstein, PI, #426
Fair assessment. I couldn't respond myself. — Caldwell
This hour I tell things in confidence,
I might not tell everybody but I will tell you...
All I mark as my own you shall offset it with your own,
else it were time lost listening to me. — Whitman, Song of Myself, 1855, p. 29
In Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein examines why we want the certainty of picturing language as words connected to objects (including a "meaning"). To unearth our desire he looks at example after example of the ordinary complicated ways the world is meaningful to us. — Antony Nickles
Whereas the words written on pages, made from the pulp of the wood from the trees[...] make no sound that an innocent can hear over the din of the felling. Nor should they. — James Riley
Sometimes even the logger will set down his tool and listen for a better sound. But it takes time; more for some than others. It’s not merely how long the ringing continues in the ear, but how innocent the ear is. — James Riley
So how do we "witness" a difference? — Antony Nickles
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.