Because there is a distinction with the "natural world" and the human world. The natural world is that which does its thing without human (beings who are self-aware and can reason) influence and conversely, doesn't directly influence humans. — schopenhauer1
there can be a case that, if humans have the time and resources, why not go above and beyond (supererogatory actions) and preserve that which might be saved? — schopenhauer1
There is a distinction between redheads and blondes. It doesn't imply we have a different ethical responsibility to each. Simply pointing to a difference in property isn't an argument for difference in ethical treatment. — Isaac
Well, if you're asking me directly, my answer is because it would be ridiculous. Same answer as I'd give to most such ethical extremes. I think it's absurd to pluck an ethical principle out of our intertwined biological and cultural milieu and then, for no reason at all, follow it through to whatever ends, even the destruction of the very wellspring which birthed it. What would be the point? — Isaac
Because were are not kings with dominion over the earth with all animals as our subjects for protection. That's an odd and antiquated way of looking at it. — schopenhauer1
Because there is a distinction with the "natural world" and the human world. The natural world is that which does its thing without human (beings who are self-aware and can reason) — schopenhauer1
Everything we do, and everything that happens in the natural world, including the affairs of gazelles, eventually affects everything else. — Bitter Crank
Beings who can reason and beings who can not reason does make a difference when discussing how they interact. — schopenhauer1
I'm saying IFF you had the means to protect, why not? — schopenhauer1
But I am saying humans have obligations to them, because their survival is largely in our hands. — Bitter Crank
I can't improve on Bitter Crank's answer. It would be outrageous hubris. — Isaac
he thus refuted your idea that we have no obligation to the natural world — schopenhauer1
Where have I said any such thing? — Isaac
You asked if we have obligation to save wild animals from natural disasters — schopenhauer1
Ok — schopenhauer1
So that's settled. Fill your bird feeder with big earthworms so the northern forest survives. — Bitter Crank
That's a question, not a proposition. — Isaac
I can't make sense of this expression. It sounds like you've already decided the argument is rational and defensible, but you want to find out why. That seems like an oddly dogmatic approach. — Isaac
The answer is "no, with caveats". It's not a question that can be answered with a simple yes or no. There are caveats where we use other humans to our own ends, there are caveats where we kill other humans to our own ends. That is the conclusion of the examples I gave. It's the reason I gave them. — Isaac
I mean this is patently false. Again the reason why I provided the example I did. If other humans were suffering as a result of frequent animal attacks, or frequent earthquakes, or volcanoes... We don't wash our hands of the humanitarian issues because they were not caused by other humans. We have barriers in place to prevent such tragedies because we care about the humans who would otherwise suffer. So if our ethical concerns extend without caveat, to other animals, then why do we not similarly protect prey from the suffering at the hands of their predators. A lion is no less a natural occurrence than an earthquake. We evacuate people from the vicinity of the latter, ought we evacuate prey from the vicinity of the former? — Isaac
Is it true though? Do you think that we have an obligation to save wild animals in a natural disaster? The same way as humans? Because that's what the argument was about. — schopenhauer1
Do you think that we have an obligation to save wild animals in a natural disaster? — schopenhauer1
Gee, here you are so keen to counter my proposition that you want to start dismantling human rights. — Graeme M
I don't think this issue is relevant to my post. — Graeme M
Wild animals will not. I think it would be different if every human we tried to save from disaster did their best to resist us, hurt us and even kill us. We'd be far less disposed to act this way. — Graeme M
a) is it possible to save x wild animals?
b) if saved, will there be habitat for them
c) humans come first; if the choice is between saving an eagle or antelope vs. saving a human, save the human first. Then if it's possible, address the animals' survival. — Bitter Crank
Animals need not be treated EQUALLY to humans, when it comes to moral reasoning. It simply stands that we have an obligation towards them, as sentient beings, to not cause unnecessarily harmful behavior towards them. And that is the key part. — schopenhauer1
Humans CAN be considered more important than animals and it would STILL be correct to not cause them unnecessary suffering. — schopenhauer1
There are levels of care based on proximity, relation, care, and capacity. — schopenhauer1
Good faith debating isn't necessarily in Isaac's toolbox. It's funny, I've had a back-and-forth with him several times and I've also used the term "not in good faith" towards his style, so there may be a pattern here. — schopenhauer1
Yes, I think he has taken an unnecessarily adversarial tack. The trouble with that as I see it is that you no longer end up debating an issue but simply responding to an endless series of slight variations on a theme. — Graeme M
Do you think we have an obligation to protect other humans in a natural disaster? — schopenhauer1
I just mean that I am interested in hearing both critical and non-critical points raised. — Graeme M
So your answer is no. It's that simple. — Graeme M
The question is "Do you think it ethical to own human beings, breed them for your own ends, and kill them when you wish to further those ends?" Your answer is no. — Graeme M
We don't save people from natural disasters simply because human rights mean we should. — Graeme M
No. Don't tell me what my answer is. My answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no depending on the circumstances. It's not my problem that you're too dogmatic to accept a nuanced answer. — Isaac
The point I'm making by bringing in natural disasters and natural predation is that you've provided no argument for why (if we're going to extend the scope of human rights) we should not extend them to the treatment of humans by natural forces or the treatment of animals by other animals. — Isaac
I have a family member who's a fruitarian (subsists, at least tries to, only on fruits) and no she didn't know that's the most ethical diet ever. Why? Fruits are meant to be eaten - their sweetness is a reward for aiding the plant in seed dispersal - and so there really is no sin involved in consuming fruit. We should all adopt fruitarianism - its healthy too say nutritionists. — Agent Smith
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.