So, I decided it was about time I posted something new here. And, surprise surprise, I do expect some controversy. Today, I wish to discuss animal rights. I was debating this in an online forum, and when it got to filled with ad hominems and red herrings to possibly be logical anymore, I decided to take it here. So, yeah, I would love to know what the ProU community thinks about this.
Now, I'm going to say this first and foremost: animals still have some worth, and abusing anything is wrong. This is not to say that animals have no worth whatsoever. Without them, we would still be bottom-feeders, and they keep the rest of nature in order. Moreover, no anti-animal rights person I've ever met has ever said that abusing animals is okay. We just agree that abusing a human being is much, much worse than with any other animal.
The number one reason for this relies on the killer themselves. It simply takes much more premeditation, thought, and desire to kill another human being than to kill any other animal, or at least generally. I just find that to be much worse on the part of the killer. Not to mention that killing a human being also constitutes one as more insane or violent than killing an animal in the same method.
However, there is a broader topic I wish to discuss here. Humans are better than other animals, and for a number of reasons. Many animal rights activists argue against this on the basis that humans are still animals. Though scientifically and technically, we are animals, we are capable of so much more. We can and have made so many advancements for our society as a whole. Though we can be unmindful of the environment at times, we are gradually shifting towards an advanced society without harming the environment. And only a human could have figured that out.
But how is this? How is a human capable of so much more than other animals? It is not just intelligence, but reason. Every animal has some measure of intelligence. But few have the ability to reason, to use logic and thought to find a solution to a problem.
Therefore, this is why I find killing a human being far worse than killing an animal. A human could find the cure for cancer. A squirrel will not.
This is not, again, to say that animal abuse and killing an animal for no reason is okay. It is not acceptable by any means besides in self-defense. However, I do not think that they should be treated the same way in a court of law. A first time date rapist gets fifteen years in jail in American prisons. Some have proposed that someone who shoots a cat should get the same amount of time. I find that more than a bit harsh. I think that maybe five years for killing a cat in a normal way (that is, not sadistic, like just a shot), more if it was owned. The more sadistic the crime, the higher the punishment.
And of course, animals do have some worth. They do keep nature in order, as well as provide us with energy, directly or indirectly. As I've already said, we would not be the top of the food chain without them. But being the top of the food chain gives us basic rights that other animals do not have. It's this same principle that makes whales better than krill, or lions better than deer.
Even still, we are bound basically by common sense to keep the rest of the environment in order, or we cannot survive. That includes not abusing animals. But seriously, if it's time for an animal to go extinct, we have to let them go. Many activists suggest that we make keeping animals alive regardless of their stand on the food chain and biological common sense a higher priority than national defense, or even agriculture. Agriculture is more important because it effects our economy directly. Keeping dying species alive just drains our scarce economic resources. And the government pays for it out of our pockets, fellow taxpayers.
But I guess I have digressed a bit. My point is that I think animal abuse is wrong, but not as bad as human abuse.
And just so people do not purposefully try to obfuscate my words:
In this context,
- Human means any living human being, Homo sapiens
- Animal means any living member of any species in the Kingdom Animalia other than Homo sapiens.
Wait lions are better then deer? For what? Clothes or food?
Interesting topic. I am glad you brought it up, which other forum is there out there where you can have such a debate? I am willing to bet ProU is better.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
The other forum was Roliana. I was being called "highly opinionated" by people who couldn't stop using insults to prove their points. The lulz start here and go for the rest of the thread.
My definition of "better" goes by biological common sense more than anything else. By that logic, being higher up on the food chain gives you certain rights that other animals do not have. Lions have the biological right to hunt deer, whales to krill, etc. When animals exert these rights, it's considered natural, so I don't see why some people argue that when humans do it, it's cruel.
There are also other people that annoy me to death that say killing an animal is worse than killing a human being. I pose them with this: "If you could have stopped Hitler or Stalin by making them hate animals instead of other people, would you?" They're pretty much silent after that.
Maybe I just find killing human beings worse than killing other animals because I feel a certain "loyalty" to my species, which based off my arguments with people on multiple sites, I think is disappearing. I mean, liberalism is cool and all, but to be that liberal is just... wow.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
AH I see. Overall yes you are right; however, the difference is we are not in the wild we are in the domestic. Yes accidents and sometimes they are forgivable.
Animal cruelty and abuse IS wrong. Torturing animals IS wrong. Murdering animals is wrong. Bestiality IS wrong.
These things speak just as poorly of a person as would an exchange of the word animal with child. The fact is all are crimes, people crimes have heavier sentences.
Hunting animals for food is not wrong. Using all parts of an animal for our physiologic comfort is not wrong, sounds demented but not wrong.
* Sigh* a very confusing fine line. But the people there I think were focusing on randomly purposely killing a house cat, not hunting dinner animals or defending their life against a bob cat. Perspectives are as wide as the line is thin.
As humans, we should be held to a higher standard of conduct. Some do not think so while others raise the bar to crazy levels.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
Of course animal abuse is wrong. I've said this multiple times, so I'm not sure why people keep bringing it up against me. Not you necessarily, but other people have, and not just here.
Even when humans lived in the wild, though, through our own growing ingenuity, found ways to make it (almost, admittedly) to the top of the food chain.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
I thought I was just sharing my own opinion. I'm pretty sure whispers awnesty was doing the same.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Not you, but keanan was misunderstanding my wording, though, so it was more of just a reminder not to let things get out of hand like they did on the other forum. I also got a lot of that sort of BS on my other forum, but on a much ruder scale. It was pretty funny, though, to tell the truth. I found it funny when they were calling me opinionated but tried to assess my character. That was great.
But I digress. No worries.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
I was going to say something along the lines of be careful not to read attitude or added meaning to the type written word and getting upset from your own imposition. But hey you basically said that except better.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
But upon what reason does that make a human superior to an animal.
I wouldn't base reason as a reason to explain that our lives are some how worth more than animals.
this reason is more based on flimsy values and beliefs.
a human may find the cure for cancer, but an animal may feed the scientist that developed the cure.
each plays a role if it is not an equal role.
abusing an animal is like abusing another human.
if not hundreds of humans.
Yeah, but that scientist could also be vegetarian.
I suppose it does just boil down to individual opinion, but I just find it ridiculous to say that humans are on the same tier as other animals. I feel a certain loyalty to my species that members of other species generally have, which I feel is being lost in humans. It's weird to explain that bit.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
i can understand what you are saying about loyalty, but humans are objective.
it is okay to kill in order to survive, but I think there should be some form of respect for animals and no tolerance for animal abuse.
an animal will not harm a human unless they feel threatened to do so.
an animal will not harm a human unless they feel threatened to do so.
Ehh...not necessarily. The Tsavo man-eating lions, among others, hunted and ate humans on a regular basis (and no, the Tsavo man-eaters weren't an exception to the general rule that lions don't attack people). The tigers of the Sundarbans Tiger Reserve eat nearly a person a day. Others have killed upward of 400 people before being killed. Man-eating tigers are common enough that people wear masks on the back of their heads to fool the tigers into thinking the person is looking at them.
Then, there's Leopards, who will go after humans after acquiring a taste for human flesh after eating corpse. Other animals have also made humans a part of their diet.
I think it's more of a case that most animals don't see us as food. Once they realize that we're animals that can be consumed as well, many are less hesitant to put us on the dinner plate.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
thanks for the enlightenment.
so i guess we are not always on top of the food chain.
yet another reason we should not think we are superior to animals
But generally, we are. When we're hanging out in our homes, we have little reason to fear a lion attacking us. If you live in a third world country, that could be a different story. In the grand scheme of things, though, humans have very few natural predators.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
We're actually a really puny species, if you think about it. If it wasn't for our intelligence and use of tools, we'd probably be food to a lot more animals.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I would say that our intelligence makes us less puny than other species for that very reason. I can understand your reasoning, but I think that intellect in the end makes a species rise above many others and not just a few as in an evolutionary food chain.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
Puny -- inferior in strength, significance, or size
Hence why I said, "if it wasn't for our intelligence...."
Our fastest athletes can't even reach 30mph. We don't have sharp claws or teeth. And our bite strength is only 120 lbs (vs even domestic dogs at 320, or snapping turtles at 1000). Compared to other predator species, that's pretty laughable.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I'm not "tolerating animal abuse." I already said that it was not acceptable. It's true that animals will usually not attack a human unless they feel threatened, but oftentimes their fear is unwarranted. I mean, if an idiotic teenager goes into a lion cage and expects to come out alive, that's one thing. But if someone accidentally steps on a dog's tail, the dog has a good chance of retaliating in a far worse manner, depending on the breed. Stepping an a human's foot will not yield the same response.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
Killing a human should carry a far more severe punishment than killing an animal cruelly. People should not be free to kill animals though, and should be arrested, prosecuted and sentenced according to due process.
While I understand your reasoning behind saying that humans are superior to animals on the food chain, I sometimes think the planet would be much better off without our pesky pestilence. Animals don't alter the environment.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I was raised on a cattle ranch. By State Law in both Wyoming and Montana we were required to brand our animals. Generally, when the calves were about two to three months old we had a big roundup. The calves were penned in a large group, roped by the hind legs and dragged to the branding area. Two guys grabbed them and threw them down and one guy held the back legs and one kneel-ed on their neck and held their front legs. In about the next 45 seconds the following things happened to them: Two red hot irons were applied to their flank which identified them as ours. A vaccinator gave them about three different vaccines in the loose skin in their neck. If they were males the vaccinator also inserted a growth hormone suppository into their ear with a little gun. The dehorner cut the just budding nubs of horns out of their skull with a dehorning spoon and squirted a mixture of iodine and blood coagulant into the open wounds. The earmarker notched their ears so that in the winter when long hair obscured the brands they could still be identified as ours. If they were males, the same person castrated them into steers with a couple flicks of a very sharp knife. If they were females they got a third brand on their hip that was a single digit that identified the year of the decade they were born. And then they were released to their mothers. On our ranch this was repeated about 5000 times over a three week period. I love roundups and while my family no longer is ranching I occasionally get invited to my neighbors brandings.
I've also occasionally helped slaughter and cut up steers for meat. I don't have any moral problem with this but I find it to be unpleasant work. The gutting part usually turns my stomach out. It does not however prevent me from enjoying a nice steak and baked potato a few hours later.
I used to hunt. I haven't for several years but I may again some day. I have never made anything but a clean kill shot on a deer. But I have found a few that were apparently wounded and later died but were not claimed by the hunter. Most hunters are pretty ethical and I believe that they probably made a decent effort to track and dispatch the wounded animal. But deer can cover a lot of ground and some inevitably get away only to die later. I've wounded quite a few pheasants. Some crawl so deeply into the brush and cattails that even trained bird dogs can't detect them. I generally feel terrible when I end up abandoning them. Most often I do find them and then I quickly dispatch them by wringing their necks.
I am an avid fisherman. The vast majority of the fish I catch get released. About two meals per year worth of trout end up in my frying pan. Whether or not they get released or not, some would say that catching a fish by its lip with a hook and ripping it from its environment is cruel. I don't feel any guilt about it
I don't hesitate to kill insects. I never intentionally harm butterflies but just about anything else with 6 or 8 legs that gets in my house or bites me when I'm outdoors is subject to termination with extreme prejudice. If animals have rights, there is really nothing morally different about swatting a fly then there is about slaughtering a cow or shooting a deer or catching a fish.
I wash my hands several times per day. I've never actually seen them but I have been assured that I am committing a virtual holocaust against thousands if not millions of germs each time I do this. Often, in a deliberate effort to make this holocaust more complete, I use anti-bacterial soap which I am sure from their perspective is not much different from finding themselves in Auswich. If animals have rights then just my gross violations of these germs rights qualifies me as a gross abuser. I suppose almost all of you are equally guilty.
I didn't mean people should be prosecuted for killing animals period. I said for killing animals cruelly. I'm talking about sadistic sociopathic behavior.
Even though you made me shudder, your comment is well written, and you make a good point about insects and microbes.
I don't have anything against hunting as long as it is not hunting an endangered species, and it is done legally.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I never said people should be "free to kill animals." Of course that's bad. I already said this.
Though we do harm the environment in many ways, we are gradually shifting towards keeping an advanced society through "greener" methods. I said that, too.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
your argument would be read more clearly if you referred to something tangible, like an actual law or policy that reflects that society doesn't understand that human life is more sacred than animals? I don't see anyone here arguing that.
You keep reacting to people's comments as if they are in direct opposition to your original idea. Perhaps you should read what people are posting in reaction a little more carefully? If you are not being understood, is it our fault? Feedback is a gift. If you take it into consideration you can make your ideas more accessible to people.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Except that I do think that the law reflects this idea well. Animal abusers are not treated as badly as human abusers. I have referred to proposals that I disagree with more than actual laws because such laws do not exist.
And actually, I think keanan was trying to argue about the sacredness of life and whatever.
And I'm just answering your questions, so I don't see where the "direct opposition" is coming from for most of you.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
... some of which are actually relevant to the topic at hand.
So, I decided it was about time I posted something new here. And, surprise surprise, I do expect some controversy. Today, I wish to discuss animal rights. I was debating this in an online forum, and when it got to filled with ad hominems and red herrings to possibly be logical anymore, I decided to take it here. So, yeah, I would love to know what the ProU community thinks about this.
As a scientist who has published research using animals, I can say that I am most definitely concerned about it.
Now, I'm going to say this first and foremost: animals still have some worth, and abusing anything is wrong. This is not to say that animals have no worth whatsoever. Without them, we would still be bottom-feeders, and they keep the rest of nature in order. Moreover, no anti-animal rights person I've ever met has ever said that abusing animals is okay. We just agree that abusing a human being is much, much worse than with any other animal.
(1) I consider myself an animal lover as well. I think animals have a great deal of worth.
(2) I too believe abusing anything is wrong, but the problem here is that you are being too simplistic. I think there is near universal agreement that it is NOT OK to abuse animals. However, you leave the term "abuse" undefined. Disagreement arises because one person's idea of abuse differs from that of another.
My scientist side would say that it is OK to inflict pain on an innocent animal so long as you have a reasonable expectation that you will gain new and useful knowledge and there is no less noxious way such information can be obtained. In other words, in that instance I would say that inflicting pain on an innocent animal is NOT abuse. Others may very well disagree.
(3) I think the worth of animals lies in more than their somehow enabling us to no longer be "bottom-feeders" (however that might be), and keeping the rest of nature in order.
Virtually all life-forms are a marvel of natures ingenuity. The evolutionary process that has gotten them to where they are has solved a lot of problems. Some of which are faced by all living things; some of which are species specific. Understanding the process by which these living things accomplish what they do, cannot help but lead to an appreciation of the natural world than cannot be obtained in any other way.
(4) I would not necessarily agree with you that abusing humans is worse than abusing animals. It depends upon the nature of the abuse heaped upon the animal versus the nature of the abuse heaped upon the human.
For instance, I think it is much worse to train dogs to fight to the death than it is to call someone you don't like a bad name.
The number one reason for this relies on the killer themselves. It simply takes much more premeditation, thought, and desire to kill another human being than to kill any other animal, or at least generally. I just find that to be much worse on the part of the killer. Not to mention that killing a human being also constitutes one as more insane or violent than killing an animal in the same method.
Strictly speaking this is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that abuse necessarily equate to killing. However, for the sake of argument, I will take this paragraph to mean that it is much worse to kill a human than an animal.
But again this is not always the case. It depends upon the reason one kills. If a soldier kills his enemy (who would have certainly killed him given the opportunity) on a batttlefield, then that may well be considered a good thing.
Suppose you did invent a time machine and went back in time before WWII. Would it be a good thing to kill Hitler knowing the consequences of what he would do? That is a moral question that for me is not easy to answer. However, one could certainly give valid reasons suggesting that such an act would be a good thing.
Here is an example where it might be a good thing to take the life of innocent person:
Suppose you are standing next to railroad track. To one side the track goes up a steep hill. To the other side the track splits and goes into two separate but very narrow tunnels. Next to you is a lever that you can pull that will direct a train into one or the other tunnel. You look up the hill and see a runaway train. If you do nothing the train will go into a tunnel that you happen to know 5 people have just walked into. The tunnel is too narrow for these people to avoid being hit by the train, they will all die. If you pull the lever, you will direct the train into the other tunnel. You happen to know that one person just walked into it. If you pull that lever then that person will die. What do you do?
Almost everybody would say pull the lever. You sacrifice one life to save 5. That seems so straight-forward that many people think it would be immoral NOT to pull the lever. But even that reasoning isn't so clear in all cases.
Take this example: Suppose you are a world-class transplant surgeon. In your office is a set of adult identical sextuplets. 5 are sick and will die before sunrise tomorrow. 1 is perfectly healthy. The chances of finding a donor for any of the sick ones before morning is practically zero. You know without a doubt that you could take the organs from the healthy sextuplet and transplant them into the other 5 and save their lives. Do you do it?
Here we have the same situation as in the train. You could sacrifice one person and save five. If that was all the justification needed to do it then it by all rights should be the obvious thing to do. But somehow the situation is different. Most people say it is immoral to kill the healthy sextuplet to save the 5 sick ones.
So what is the point of all of that?
(1) Killing a human is not necessarily an insane or even a violent act. Killing is, however, an act that has moral consequences ... and I think this is true for the killing of animals as well.
(2) The moral consequences do not always objectively tell us the proper course of action.
Now with that in mind, I would propose this thought experiment to determine the relative worth of a living being:
Suppose you find yourself faced with a choice, in front of you are two buttons. You have 2 minutes to decide. Your options are as follows:
(1) If you press button A then organism A will survive and and organism B will die.
(2) If you press button B then organism B will survive and organism A will die.
(3) If you do not press a button then both organisms will die.
What do you do if:
(1) Organism A is someone you love (your spouse, child, parent, etc.) and Organism B is someone you don't know.
(2) Organism A is a dog and Organism B is a human, neither of which you know.
(3) Organism A is a beloved pet and Organism B is a human you love.
(4) Organism A is a beloved pet and Organism B is a human you don't know.
For me the answers as follows:
(1) I would press button A saving my loved one at the expense of the person I didn't know.
(2) I would press button B saving the human I didn't know at the expense of the dog.
(3) I would press button B saving the human I loved at the expense of my beloved pet.
(4) I would press button B saving the human I didn't know at the expense of my beloved pet.
I think virtually all humans would agree with me on cases 1 through 3. But my choice in case 4 demonstrates to me that I value human life significantly above that of other animals. I suspect most people would answer as I did, but I don't know that.
However, there is a broader topic I wish to discuss here. Humans are better than other animals, and for a number of reasons. Many animal rights activists argue against this on the basis that humans are still animals. Though scientifically and technically, we are animals, we are capable of so much more. We can and have made so many advancements for our society as a whole. Though we can be unmindful of the environment at times, we are gradually shifting towards an advanced society without harming the environment. And only a human could have figured that out.
I would not necessarily agree with you that humans are "better" than other animals. You do not have an objective criterion to judge worth.
For one thing we are NOT gradually shifting towards an advanced society without harming the environment. The fossil record shows that there have been 5 major mass extinctions over the course of geologic time. These extinctions have resulted from a variety of causes; climate change, extreme volcanic activity, meteor impacts. The loss of species diversity that we are undergoing right now rivals those events. In other words, we are in the midst of the 6th great mass extinction. And this one is human caused (habitat destruction, introduced species, human-induced climate change, etc)
However, I do agree that humans are (and should be) more important to other humans than are other animals.
But how is this? How is a human capable of so much more than other animals? It is not just intelligence, but reason. Every animal has some measure of intelligence. But few have the ability to reason, to use logic and thought to find a solution to a problem.
(1) What makes "reason" the standard to judge an organism's worth? You cannot logically justify it. It is simply your opinion.
(2) It is not so straight-forward that other organisms do not reason. An essential part of reasoning is learning and organisms as simple as protozoans show signs of associative learning. For instance, a gentle pulse of water directed towards a paramecium (a single celled protozoan) will cause it to stop swimming and hunker down ... at first. If this gentle pulse is continued eventually the paramecium ignores it, as though it has learned that it is an non-noxious stimulus. However, if an electrical current is run through the water shocking the paramecium, then it will again become sensitive to the gentle pulse ... as though it knew there was a dangerous change in its environment.
Therefore, this is why I find killing a human being far worse than killing an animal. A human could find the cure for cancer. A squirrel will not.
Perhaps, ... perhaps not. Sharks seem to not suffer from cancerous growths. Have they discovered something by evolutionary trial and error that we don't know?
This is not, again, to say that animal abuse and killing an animal for no reason is okay. It is not acceptable by any means besides in self-defense. However, I do not think that they should be treated the same way in a court of law. A first time date rapist gets fifteen years in jail in American prisons. Some have proposed that someone who shoots a cat should get the same amount of time. I find that more than a bit harsh. I think that maybe five years for killing a cat in a normal way (that is, not sadistic, like just a shot), more if it was owned. The more sadistic the crime, the higher the punishment.
I had a friend that used to kill feral cats quite regularly. I did not object. He happened to live on Galveston Island and his property was used by migrating birds, some of which such as the piping plover are endangered. Feral cats were significant predators on these birds.
The Steven's Island Wren, the only known flightless Passerine (perching bird), was driven to extinction by a single cat brought to the island by a person who manned the lighthouse there.
I believe that it is not the act that makes something immoral. The morality (or the immorality) of an act lies in the reason behind the act.
And of course, animals do have some worth. They do keep nature in order, as well as provide us with energy, directly or indirectly. As I've already said, we would not be the top of the food chain without them. But being the top of the food chain gives us basic rights that other animals do not have. It's this same principle that makes whales better than krill, or lions better than deer.
Again I think that this sells the worth of animals (and other living organisms) short.
Again, I do not think you can legitimately say that whales are better than krill or that lions are better than deer. Why should predation be a sign of superiority? If we do allot that then HIV which is a human predator (of a type) is superior to us.
Even still, we are bound basically by common sense to keep the rest of the environment in order, or we cannot survive. That includes not abusing animals. But seriously, if it's time for an animal to go extinct, we have to let them go. Many activists suggest that we make keeping animals alive regardless of their stand on the food chain and biological common sense a higher priority than national defense, or even agriculture. Agriculture is more important because it effects our economy directly. Keeping dying species alive just drains our scarce economic resources. And the government pays for it out of our pockets, fellow taxpayers.
Now there is a paragraph that I can without any qualifications whatsoever, strongly disagree with. We live in an ecosystem. If the ecosystem is not healthy then we will not be healthy. The health of an ecosystem lies in its diversity. As ecosystems are simplified by species extinctions, then checks and balances, many of which lie in the complex interactions among species and are unknown to us, are eliminated. Empirical observation and computer modeling show that simplified ecosystems are subject to violent swings in conditions. That could mean floods one year, drought another. Viruses causing novel diseases due to normally isolated host species being forced to relocated coming in contact with species which have no natural resistance to the virus.
The economy is ultimately small potatoes compared with the health of the only planet on which we are capable of living. And, for that matter, it is impossible to save the economy long-term at the expense of the ecosystem anyway.
While I have argued that humans are and should be more important to other humans than non-human animals, I do not think that an individual human is or should be more important than a whole species of animal. Extinction is forever. Once an organism is lost, it is not coming back (unless we have a significant breakthrough in cloning technology). The evolutionary mechanisms that have developed enabling that organism to meet problems (perhaps some of the same ones we will face) will be lost. Our ecosystem will be simplified. We be less secure.
But I guess I have digressed a bit. My point is that I think animal abuse is wrong, but not as bad as human abuse.
That depends upon the specifics of the animal abuse and the specifics of the human abuse. But I do agree that humans are at least generally more important than are other animals.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
That was the most enlightening post I have read of yours, and perhaps even on this whole site.
I know that you and I have disagreed in regards to faith/God, but I agree with your assessment of the planet and the human condition as it is today.
I am tempted to call you a prophet.
Kudos to Kodos!
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Whoa, that's a lot to read. It seems like your main argument is that it depends on the severity of the abuse. Of course it does. The more sadistic, the worse the punishment. Of course beating a house cat is worse than calling a person a mean name, but I hardly even consider the latter abuse, at least not of the sort I'm referring to. I'm talking more about physical abuse, since you can't really mentally or psychologically abuse an animal.
In the situations you listed where you would kill one life to save five, I agree that it is more "moral" to do so. (I put the word in quotations because it is subjective; perhaps I'll make another blog about that entirely.) In the instance with the sextuplets, I think that the healthy one would obviously have to consent, then I wouldn't consider it "killing" or "murder," per se.
In the instances where pushing buttons will make one organism or another die, it depends on what the organism is. If I know what they are, chances are I'll go with either the more dangerous one or the one that is more overpopulated: I'd kill a lion over a squirrel, but I would kill a fly over the squirrel, as well. If they are the same species, it doesn't really matter, so I'd just press either one. If I do not know, I'll press either button and hope that it wasn't a human I just killed.
In the following instances with killing different people or animals, I would save: (1) The loved one; (2) the human I don't know; (3) the human I loved at the expense of my pet; and (4) the human I didn't know at the expense of my pet. So, it seems that we agree there.
It is true, actually, that diseases can in a sense be considered "superior" to us. I never really thought about that. However, we are using our intellect and reasoning ability to find cures to them.
Actually, reasoning is an ability that animal psychologists have noticed is almost exclusive to primates, most outstandingly, humans. If we can find another species with the same reasoning ability as us, I will consider it superior to other life forms. I suppose it does just boil down to personal opinion, but our intellect and reasoning has made us more able to survive more effectively. If it was not for that, we would probably still be hunter-gatherers, if not tree-dwellers.
With the common sense paragraph, I'll admit that the economy was a bit of a red herring. But the main point remains the same: if one species is going extinct, I don't think we need to spend expansive amounts of our own resources to keep them alive. Evolution is supposed to allow certain species to go extinct in favor of ones that are more fit for survival. If an independent company wants to do interfere with this, by all means, they can. But I don't think it's the role of government to do that. If many species are going extinct to the point where we cannot survive, that's one thing and needs attention. It's true that many species are going extinct right now, (1) they always have been, and (2) it is obviously not affecting us as of yet. We are not going through a human extinction, and it does not seem to be happening any time soon. If there is reason to believe it will affect humans, then by all means, we should intercede. But we generally take care of the species we absolutely need to survive, mostly for food: cows, pigs, and other farm animals, mostly. I'm not talking about how slaughterhouses treat animals, but the way they are treated in life is optimal for the survival of their species.
The severity of the punishment is dependent upon the severity of the crime itself. The more sadistic, for example, the worse the punishment. I don't think shooting an animal once deserves fifteen years. Stabbing it to death, then I can understand fifteen years. Setting it on fire would merit at least twenty years in prison. More severe cases may even merit corporal punishment.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
Actually, that depends upon how you operationally define "reasoning". Here are some YouTube videos that for me make me think we underestimate the mental capacity of some animals
In this video an elephant paints a picture of another elephant holding a flower. Watch his brushstrokes. They seem to me to show that the elephant knows that it is painting a picture that represents an elephant.
In this video a wild hippopotamus tries to save an immature impala from crocodiles. ;
In this video a parrot is able to answer questions concerning objects that require thought to answer.
This video shows a cooperative hunting technique learned by dolphins.
This video shows a group of killer whales acting cooperatively to knock a seal off an ice flow. Perhaps they are teaching this technique to their offspring:
This video shows an octopus that has learned to open bottles:
This video shows a wild crow that has learned to use a piece of bread as bait to catch fish.
I think these animals are using reasoning at least to some extent. Humans, of course, are superior at using reasoning, but I don't think we (or even primates) are unique in possessing the ability.
But again why should we use the ability to reason as the standard to judge the worth of an organism? I would argue that you do it because it is a trait that we have over and above that of other animals. But that boils down to saying that humans are worth more than other animals because we are humans. I would agree ... but that is from our perspective. I suspect that other animals might well have a different perspective.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Those videos are amazing. I have often wondered if in fact humans are inferior to some other species, specifically ocean mammals.
Also, I think that the cuttlefish is THE most intelligent species on the planet, but I'm sure you would know more than I about that.
I have a question. In regards to the train lever, what would you do if you had to choose between a near extinct animal specimen and a human?
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
The cuttlefish? Really?
Because I thought mice, being a race of hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings who commissioned the construction of the Earth in order to find the Question to the Ultimate Answer of Life, the Universe, and Everything, had the honor of being the most intelligent species.
Followed by dolphins, with humans ranking third.
:tongue:
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
I didn't know all that about rats.
Cuttlefish are cephalopods, which is the same class as octopi.
3 thinks specifically that I remember from a documentary that had dozens of amazing facts about them:
1) Their ability to survive is amazing. They have insane camouflage abilities. They know how to avoid predators. They can actually morph their shape in addition to their color.
You cans see this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ujRgSRYE9A&feature=related
and here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFYX9D2RQUM
They communicate to each other with their color changes to each other to alert each other of prey.
2)The females are highly selective in mating. The males have an elaborate battle with amazing displays of quickly changing colors, and beautiful dancing. The females hide, watching the battle. Sometimes a third cuttlefish will disguise himself as a female, with dull colors, and sneak past the fighting males and successfully mate with the female.
3)Once they lay their eggs they die. The babies grow up parentless, yet still know how to perform all of the amazing behaviors that help them to survive.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search=related&search_query=Cuttlefish%20...
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Those things are amazing! Ugly, but amazing and awesome!
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
I think they're beautiful. They change so much, I guess sometimes they can seem ugly, but you won't ever see one in two different moments looking exactly the same. I mean a single cuttlefish will never look one way for more than a few moments.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Well, I was expecting to see cute little cuddly fish things that look like tiny octopus' that turned red and blue and yellow and orange like those color changing lamps... with that in mind I did not expect to see blobs with graceful side wings ...
They are nice just not what I imagined
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
the first ones I posted really show how they morph into the scenery.
Here's a courtship dance and you can see more of their features:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02zvS_QdJhw&feature=related
see the amazing spectrum of colors they can display
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHnm4I4RBMo
cuttlefish have amazing brains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x-8v1mxpR0&feature=related
and they have 3 hearts, and blue-green blood!
I know I'm obsessing a bit, but seriously these animals are like aliens on earth!
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
That is a tough one for me. If the human was a loved one I suppose I would direct the train to the endangered animal no matter what. Assuming however that it were a person I had no emotional attachment to, then it would depend upon my assessment of the following:
(1) How important is this particular animal with regard to the survival of the species?
(2) How likely is the species to survive anyway?
(3) What is the role of the species in the ecosystem?
Unless I believe all three of those questions are best answered as being highly important then I would still direct the train to the endangered animal. If I thought that this particular animal was very important to the survival of the species, and the species would likely survive with him, and it plays an important role in the ecosystem ... a potential KEYSTONE species (google it) ... then I might well decide to direct the train toward the human. I hope never to be placed in that position however.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I showed my husband the elephant painting, and he was talking about it for like 2 hours. He said it made him want to cry. You are awesome DB _o.o_
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I have to agree there as well. One lost species won't make a huge difference, anyway. Unless I knew for a fact that the human was a criminal, I'd save the human above the animal. I would rather neither had to die, but in most cases where it's one or the other, the animal would have to go.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
Wow! Those are definitely impressive. However, that elephant was just one elephant who knew how to paint; though definitely impressive, most elephants do not do this.
The hippo saving the impala is definitely interesting. I don't think I can say anything to that other than the same argument: it is not typical animal behavior.
The parrot, it's the same thing, except something more: parrots can be trained to speak and answer certain questions specific ways. My autistic sister can do the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I love her to death, but that parrot was probably just trained. The trainer was even answering and asking questions the same way an ABA therapist would. The only reason my sister answers "Hi," when you say "Hi" to her is because she's been trained to do so. The thing with the parrot is the same thing-- it's training, not reasoning. Either that, or he's just one specifically smart parrot.
Hunting techniques have to be learned by animals to hunt and survive. Some animals may have some measure of reasoning ability, as the dolphin instance demonstrates, and I would rather kill a fly over a dolphin partly for this reason.
With most animals, it's a combination of their own natural intellect and some measure of human training. In most cases, an animal cannot learn any human skill without help from a human. That octopus could never have learned to open up those bottles without at least being shown how to do so by a human. Animals definitely have some measure of intellect, I'm not denying that, but many of these are isolated cases. They are the only known cases among their species in which this occurs. The hunting techniques are probably universal throughout their species, but the parrot, elephant, and hippo are all isolated cases.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
Here's an interesting example for you --
There's a bay, I believe it's off the coast of South Africa, where the seals and Great White Sharks have a unique relationship.
The sharks will actually hunt at night (they're normally daytime hunters), because the seals have learned to use the cover of darkness to get from the island to the open water.
Hunting techniques have to be learned by animals to hunt and survive.
The same goes with just about every behavior of a human being. The point of his examples is that these creatures can learn such things.
Also, just because only one member of a species has been documented showing a certain behavior, it doesn't mean others don't. It just means that we haven't seen them doing it.
And, technically, it's about half a dozen elephants that can paint. ;)
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I'm not saying animals aren't intelligent, but a lot of those examples were from domesticated or trained animals. The wild ones displayed behavior I'm not particularly surprised about. Animals do learn. But anything can learn, and it's not necessarily reasoning. Last year, when I took pre-AP Biology, we covered animal behavior. Learning is something virtually every animal can do, such as developing hunting techniques. Reasoning, when it comes to psychology, is a different concept all together. It's a higher level than just finding new hunting techniques. The diagram my book had, I clearly remember, was a dog tied by his neck to a rope. The dog is trying to reach a bowl of food, but it is just out of his reach because the rope goes once around a tree. Any human could figure out the solution, but most dogs could not. That's the difference. I guess it's something of a gray area, though.
Not every behavior we have is for survival. All we need is food and shelter and social comfort. We don't need TV, computers, video games, and most of our leisure activities. But they are a part of our daily lives nonetheless. It is something we have learned to do through our reasoning that no other animal has.
And until there is reason to believe that most animals act that way without human interference or training, I'm not buying the extremely intelligent argument. Though technically, you are correct that we just have not seen them yet, maybe it's because they don't normally exist.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
Hmmmm
What exactly is pre-AP biology? Is that like regular college prep level biology?
"The dog is trying to reach a bowl of food, but it is just out of his reach because the rope goes once around a tree. Any human could figure out the solution, but most dogs could not." I am pretty sure there are many humans that could not figure this out especially if they were starving and fixated on the food out of hunger. I have also had dogs that have figured things like that out. Two knew to go around the pole and one had used her tail and hind paws to get the dish closer. They are as diffrent as we are.
"anything can learn"? I have been trying to train my pet rock to hop through mini loops for years now and it still can not, heck it has not even mastered rolling over with out being kicked yet.
Becareful of over generalizations and have a good and silly night.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
It's basically college prep, yeah. It was the hardest class I ever took. I never volunteered for it, either. That teacher scarred my opinion of learning science forever.
But anyway, I digress again.
By "anything can learn," I meant any complex animal. Single celled organisms can't, nor can inanimate objects. But virtually everything with a functioning brain can learn by trial-and-error.
I'm sure a normal human could figure out the solution to that problem regardless of their fixation. Some animals could, but many can not. But that's only basic reasoning. Most animals cannot reason to the point that we can, that's what I'm getting at.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
maybe it's because they don't normally exist.
Most rural areas in the US have one or more of the following species (or perhaps a subspecies/variation):
Bobcat
Cougar
Wolf
Coyote
Otter
Fox
Bear
Quail
Yet most people have probably never seen any of the ones that are in their area. Does that mean they don't exist there? No. It just means we haven't seen them.
Reasoning, when it comes to psychology, is a different concept all together.
Perhaps you've already covered this and I missed it, but how do you define "reason" and distinguish it from learning or intellect, in the context of this thread? So far, I haven't seen any evidence that there is a difference.
Not every behavior we have is for survival. All we need is food and shelter and social comfort. We don't need TV, computers, video games, and most of our leisure activities. But they are a part of our daily lives nonetheless. It is something we have learned to do through our reasoning that no other animal has.
For one, our behaviors and complex tools evolved from tools and behaviors that were learned for survival. Considering our primate relatives use tools as well, it wouldn't surprise me if, in a few million years, they would have similar behaviors to early humans. All of our behaviors can, ultimately, be traced back to survival, even if they aren't now.
My point, however, still stands. All of our behaviors, beyond breathing, have to be learned almost entirely (there's even a certain amount of learning required of an infant in order to breastfeed), and most of them are taught by other people.
What we are now is the result of millions of years of learning little things at a time. We didn't just end up where we are today. The same goes for animals.
Did you know that young male lions will band together in a sort of pseudo-pride? They don't just join each other for hunts, they spend their days together in much the same way "regular" prides work.
No one taught them that, just like no one taught the Great Whites in that South African bay that they'd have more success hunting at night, and no one taught early humans that tools would make hunting easier. They all learned it for themselves and taught others.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I'm talking more about physical abuse, since you can't really mentally or psychologically abuse an animal.
Actually, yes, you can. However, physical abuse, regardless of the species of the victim, is a lot more evident and easier to spot.
However, we are using our intellect and reasoning ability to find cures to them.
And there are several diseases that have circumvented our efforts.
But we generally take care of the species we absolutely need to survive, mostly for food: cows, pigs, and other farm animals, mostly.
You're vastly oversimplifying that matter to the point that it makes your statement errant. Life is a lot more complicated than that.
For example, we need plants to make oxygen for us to breathe. Those plants need creatures to pollinate their flowers for them. Those creatures need predators to keep from overpopulating and either starving or falling prey to disease. Those predators need predators of themselves or competition to keep from overpopulating themselves. If they have no natural predators, then they are dependent on the numbers of their prey to keep their population in check. In addition to the creatures that pollinate the plants, the plants also need the creatures that break down dead organisms and turn them into nutrients in the soil.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Yes, some viruses and diseases have circumvented our methods, so far. We could definitely find the cures to say, AIDS, Cancer, and autism, and many others, if we try. It will just take time and patience.
Why can't the world be simple? Yes, there are definitely gray areas in virtually every argument. I have taken pre-AP biology, so I definitely understand how complicated life can be. I'm still not saying that animals have no worth. But we, as humans, have motivation to keep the parts of the environment we need running strong. As far as I'm concerned, photosynthesis and soil composition are irrelevant to my overall argument. They don't change the fact that we have reason and motivation to keep the environment in check, regardless of what animals do in relations to each other.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
I believe that killing animals for food or self-defense is certainly acceptable. We are all interconnected. As you mentioned, if it weren't for the "lesser" animals, we wouldn't be at the top of the food chain. Under "natural" circumstances (ie - we still lived off the land as hunter-gatherers, like other animals similar to us, instead of developing sophisticated tools), there would still be a very real chance that we'd be eaten.
However, I despise animal abuse. There's no reason to needlessly torture an animal, and the only reason why a person can get away with it is because it's usually a smaller animal. Try the crap you do with a cat on a bear and you'll likely not get the same results.
Also, it's often said that violence toward animals is a precursor to violence toward other people, so I think that animal abuse should be taken seriously and offenders should be prosecuted. I'd also like to point out that not all murders are necessarily premeditated (aka - "crime of passion").
I agree with you, as well, in that dying species should be left to die, but with one stipulation -- their extinction is not a result of our actions. For example, the endangerment of the wolf population in the continental United States is a result of our hunting them. Therefore, we should actively work to protect them. However, the dozens of species in the rain forests and the polar bears are not necessarily a result of our doing. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look at the causes (especially of an otherwise dominant species, such as the polar bear) and find out if it is our doing (global climate change, for example) and see what we can do to change our ways. Extinction is a natural part of life. This is why I feel torn about the medical research field doing things like trying to clone humans or curing AIDS or cancer. Did it ever occur to anyone that such diseases have flared up as a result of our overpopulation? Did it ever occur to people that AIDS mutates on a nearly daily basis so that it can stay alive or that other terminal diseases are that way because we managed to kill off everything else? And I really don't like the groups that look to stop large asteroids from hitting earth.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I, too, despise animal abuse. I think it's disgusting and never should be practiced. My point that abusing a human in the same method is (arguably) much worse than with any other animal.
Yes, violence towards animals can show potential future violence towards humans. But punishing someone for human abuse when they have only abused an animal is like guilty until proven innocent. You don't punish people for a crime they have not committed. That directly contradicts the basic principles of any democratic, republican, or parliamentary court system. Punish people when they actually commit a crime that you can prove and not before.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
But punishing someone for human abuse when they have only abused an animal is like guilty until proven innocent.
I never said to punish them as if they abused a human. I just said that it should be taken seriously and not just look at little Jimmy torturing a stray cat as just "boys being boys."
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I never said that, though, either. I met people who have, though, so excuse me if I misunderstood your argument. I'm not saying just to make animal abuse not taken seriously, though. Killing a human gets someone, say, 15 years. I think killing a cat merits five, maybe.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
If a person kills a human, they should get 15yrs and if a person kills an animal they should get 5?
Ok, even though I think that it is reasonable that sentences vary based on level of cruelty, intent and premeditation.
What is the current law? Is your policy that far off from it?
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
Yes, actually. Looking through here, most states in the US have laws fairly similar. Some states are more lenient than others, but the highest number for years imprisoned I see is five.
-----
Do read my post fully. Not only does it help you understand my point instead of making rash statements, but it also gives me some semblance of faith that people can read and understand an argument.
That there, Sir Wombels is a beautiful video...A once in a lifetime chance at what was originally suppose to be.
I also find you new picture icon-a-ma-bob pretty intrigueing and awesome.
There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.~- Anais Nin
I wish I could edit my previous comment and add this wonderful sentence!
A once in a lifetime chance at what was originally suppose to be,....
Thank you,
http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm
When I moved to So Cal from No Cal (more like mid-east CA) we left a cat behind. He was too wild and would not like coming to live in a little condo with no birds to hunt. I loved this cat. He was massive, and would bring home all kinds of treats for me, from birds, to snakes and lizards, even possums.
3 years after we moved I took a trip back there to see my best friend. i went to our old house and just started calling for my cat. He came out from under the deck and jumped on me, a lot like in this video.
Cats are awesome. I want a big one one day.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
right now or time, to take care and to unconditionally love another living thing while I am trying to find a way to take care of myself and my life....but I know I want one when things get better because cats make everything better, just because they're that Awesome.
oops this was supposed to be reply to wombels...oh well :)
"He who awaits much can expect little."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, No One Writes to the Colonel
(me thinks...I will meet GM in another life)
I love cat’s and dog’s,
But prefer cat’s because (some) sense our emotion
while a dog is more of a true loving companion.
Cat’s are amazing creatures,
http://www.wowzone.com/monkey.htm
one of them, the one with black fur....I felt like she was an animal version of me.
I chose her spot on the sofa to sit on without knowing that it was her special place, and when I got up, she would sit exactly like a human in that exact spot. If you were not busy, she would come and sit in your lap but she definitely did not do this with everyone.
My sister, for example, liked the pure bred Persian, because she was like a sandy colored fur ball, kind of cuddly, but Kitty (the black cat who they got from shelter when their daughter was 3) has personality.
She doesn't let people do anything they want to her, I have known and been around this cat for quite a long time when my cousin and family used to live here...before she did not come near me but it seems like she trusts or senses things in a person, as you mentioned above. :)
"He who awaits much can expect little."
- Gabriel Garcia Marquez, No One Writes to the Colonel
(me thinks...I will meet GM in another life)