Animal Slavery

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

Hmmm...

Me: an animal rights advocate and a vegetarian.

Me right now: animal slavery FTW!

LOL

[John V]

Not the christian god certainly. He's directly responsible for our existence and made us in his image supposedly. As humans we just take advantage of and try to control the animals we are stuck with.

You're saying that the deciding factor is whether one party is directly responsible for the existence of the other. If not, it's acceptable to control and take advantage of the other. Why then is human slavery unacceptable?

---

We can go one further with a being like god, using the 'might makes right' principle. He can justify his actions by pointing out that no one can force him to answer for them. He is supreme, and therefore the issue is not about right and wrong or good and evil, but whether or not we can do anything other than criticize him or try to reason with him.

This was brought up some time ago by sven: "In the end one of the panelists expressed the view that we have the right to exploit animals, because we have assumed the right to do this."

I think that this is why the story of Job should be unsettling for Christians. If god is above human justice in the most literal sense, and if god's actions are good/moral/just by definition, then nothing stops him from making completely arbitrary decisions. We have the option, for example, of making Michael Vick pay for his horrific mistreatment of animals (putting aside the question of whether the price he paid was sufficient). Not only do we not have the option of making god pay for his treatment of humankind, we are told that we cannot even label his actions as evil or wicked.

I have no qualms about swatting a gnat. I feel no shame or remorse over it, it's something that usually doesn't even register. If we are as gnats to god, then we have no cause to judge him for his actions. But we should be utterly terrified of him.

The gnats should be terrified, and the Bible does say that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. However, some are more akin to the pet cats, and no longer have need for fear.

[Angrboda]

Now for Part II:

We do as we please with animals. ... We do this merely because we can, or we justify it by our greater mental capacity.

False dichotomy. There are other options, such as it being in our self-interest as a biological species, or it being objectively moral. The rest, therefore, does not follow.

[ShaMan]

Humans and 'animals' (humans are animals too) have a symbiotic relationship not only with one another, but also with the entire ecosphere (the Earth etc.). The sooner we are able to re-connect with our nature the sooner we will see a more plentiful and peaceful way of living together. Slavery is about oppression of others for the benefit of oneself. The oxen who pull my plow feed on the grain I harvest. I do not 'own' my oxen, I share this life with them, and we work together to assist one another in meeting our mutual needs. If, on the other hand, I beat my oxen, and refuse to share a portion of my harvest with them, then I would likely not be able to rely upon them to plow my field next planting season (if they survived). The question I have to be honest in answering whenever I ask myself if I am in balance is... "Am I walking in Love?"

[John V]

False dichotomy. There are other options, such as it being in our self-interest as a biological species,

Yes, slaves are in the self-interest of the slave owner. Does this justify human slavery? If not, why does it justify animal slavery?

or it being objectively moral.

Feel free to make that argument.

[Angrboda]

False dichotomy. There are other options, such as it being in our self-interest as a biological species,

Yes, slaves are in the self-interest of the slave owner. Does this justify human slavery? If not, why does it justify animal slavery?

Whether it is adequate justification or not is not the point. You are attempting to mount an argument about god on an invalid premise, the aforementioned false dichotomy. This doesn't make it any less a false dichotomy and therefore your conclusions about god based on the dichotomy are non sequiturs.

If, as your argument goes, it is in our interest as a biological species to maximize the utility of non-human resources to increase our odds of survival, it does not follow that god has an equally rational basis for his behavior because he is not a biological being whose interest is defined by his biological nature.

So, nice try circling back to your original unsupported premise about animal "slavery" being immoral, but you failed.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Human slavery is moral according to the bible, including sex slavery. How does it then follow that animal slavery is immoral? According to the bible, animals are playthings for humanity to do with what we like.

It seems alpha male can't advance this argument without denying the truth and accuracy of Genesis:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

I don't get how a Christian can advance this argument with a straight face, as it seems to invalidate not only the infallibility of the bible, but also invalidate God as the source of morality.

[bennyboy]

Human slavery is moral according to the bible, including sex slavery. How does it then follow that animal slavery is immoral? According to the bible, animals are playthings for humanity to do with what we like.

Interesting, because that's how I see the arguments against vegetarianism. Why is it that moral arguments against suffering or death are applicable only to the human species? The only real answer can be that there's something intrinsically special about humans, some magical quality that animals do not have-- though they feel the same emotions, experience pain and fear as we do, etc.

Where has Western culture developed the idea that people are special, and deserve to dominate all of nature just because we can? That's right. The Bible. Without the Bible, there is no real argument which supports the use and abuse of non-humans. And since the Bible is bullshit, there is no real argument which supports the use and abuse of non-humans.

[Angrboda]

Why is it that moral arguments against suffering or death are applicable only to the human species? The only real answer can be that there's something intrinsically special about humans, some magical quality that animals do not have-- though they feel the same emotions, experience pain and fear as we do, etc.

There is something intrinsically special to being human for humans. This has already been explained to you.

Where has Western culture developed the idea that people are special, and deserve to dominate all of nature just because we can? That's right. The Bible.

This is bullshit.

Without the Bible, there is no real argument which supports the use and abuse of non-humans. And since the Bible is bullshit, there is no real argument which supports the use and abuse of non-humans.

Which means that so is this. You've already been shown alternative arguments. Which means this is a willful falsehood; you are a liar.

[ShaMan]

I shall purchase a Bearded Dragon and enslave it toward the eating of insects, fruit and other organic items. I shall also enforce upon it a perfectly controlled climate to suite its specific requirements. Next, I shall require it to be subjected to daily interaction with peace-loving creatures of all kinds (maybe even some Humans). Yes! Enslave the Bearded Dragon!