(January 19, 2014 at 1:23 pm)jg2014 Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 1:09 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Are you suggesting that animals deserve the SAME rights as humans?

No, there are many rights would make sense for an animal to have, e.g. the right to vote!

I tend to take a utilitarian approach, and we should have rights that support utilitarian ideas. To that end animals should have the right to be free from human cruelty.

---

(January 19, 2014 at 1:17 pm)plaincents822 Wrote: When animals become vegan, I will become vegan. Until I see animals (especially carnivorous ones) reciprocate the same ideals to humans that you as a vegan espouse towards animals, I will continue to eat meat. The whole vegan philosophy appears to be that animals have the same rights as humans do and that we should afford them those rights. However if we were not the civilized society that we are, animals would just fuck us up on the daily. Here is the defining difference between humans and animals. I might not agree with veganism, but I understand the principles behind it. Animals will never understand what veganism is. Some might live a "vegan" lifestyle, but they have no conscious idea or reason as to why they do so, other than they just don't eat meat. You may value your life as equal to that of an animal, but an animal will never value your life as equal to its own.

So essentially you are using nature to justify your ethics?

No what I am saying is that humans reciprocate the rights that are given to other humans. I have the right to not be assaulted, and I reciprocate that right to other people. Animals do not have the ability to do so. Why should I afford another creature the same rights I give to other humans when that animal will not afford me that right. Animals do not understand that laws of man, only the laws of nature. If I beat a dog yes someone would take me to court but it wouldn't be the dog. The purpose of giving people rights is to protect everyone, but what you are arguing for is that animals be given better rights than people. That they should be given rights when it is in favor of them (not being eaten) but that they should be exempt from the responsibility that comes with those rights (imprisonment or death for murder). What you have done in this instance is made two classes of citizens. Humans and animals. And you placed animals above humans.

(January 19, 2014 at 1:44 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 1:37 pm)jg2014 Wrote: I don't think we should keep carnivores in captivity.

---

And why does our "long term chances of survival" matter. Because we are conscious feel beings, just like animals.

No, because I am we. I need to have absolutely no moral justification to rank our long term survival infinitely above any kind of welfare for anything else whatsoever.

Any system of morality which does not stop short of trying to ensnare this foundational reason d'être of any mode of behavior, including a tendency towards morality, is again ultimately self defeating.

It would be a virus that kills the host when the survival of the host is the necessary condition for furtherance of its own purported goals.

Our survival does not require eating meat, and while survival may be an important part of an ethical system there is no reason to suggest it should be the only consideration.

---

(January 19, 2014 at 1:44 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

Quote:I don't think we should keep carnivores in captivity.

Not even if they would be endangered in the wild? Ok, fair nuff.

Try this one. I saw a puma savaging a baby, I would attempt to stop it. I suspect you would too. How, if we have similar rights, would you prevent carnivores from eating cute fluffy herbivores in the wild?

Put it another way. A gator finds its way into a city where it starts eating people. Is it ethical to kill it, or transplant it to the swamps where it will eat equally right'd animals?

---

(January 19, 2014 at 1:44 pm)Chuck Wrote: [quote='jg2014' pid='586676' dateline='1390153077']


It would be a virus that kills the host.

Good point.

How about bacteria? Do they have rights? I mean they can't reason but we're not basing the rights on the ability to reason are we.

As I explained, if something can experience suffering, then it is deserved of ethical consideration. Do you believe bacteria can experience suffering?

The killing of herbivorous by carnivores animals is amoral since it is an interaction between two amoral creatures which cannot hold values. Animals do not have the right not to be eat by other animals, because carnivores cant change their behaviour. So no, I would not save the herbivore. I would however stop the animal eating the baby, primarily because on a utilitarian judgement the babies life is worth more than the relatively small amount of nutrition the animal would get. I would not kill the animal however unless it posed a significant threat in the future, in which case it would be justified on the basis of self defence.

Don't get me wrong, although humans and animals should have similar rights, I do value the suffering of humans more. Why? Because humans have a range of cognitive abilities which make our suffering much more vivid including our increased capacity for episodic memory and language. But these only have importance as far as the effect our capacity to suffer, and as we both share the same basic ability to suffer, it stands to reason we should share the same basic right not to be subject to cruelty. The fact is eating meat is cruel, and the moral dilemmas you pose, which are all ethical systems have to deal with, does not change the fact that it is a cause of unnecessary suffering.

(January 19, 2014 at 12:45 pm)jg2014 Wrote: But surely there must be some property of being a human that confers these rights, which all humans have but animals don't, right?
So what is that property?

Answer: We (humans) rule this planet therfore we decide what rights are and who or what gets them.
Animals don't rule the world so the only rights they have are what we give them.
If it were up to people like you we would probably be giving dogs welfare, food stamps, and sending them to college.

(January 19, 2014 at 2:04 pm)plaincents822 Wrote: No what I am saying is that humans reciprocate the rights that are given to other humans. I have the right to not be assaulted, and I reciprocate that right to other people. Animals do not have the ability to do so. Why should I afford another creature the same rights I give to other humans when that animal will not afford me that right. Animals do not understand that laws of man, only the laws of nature. If I beat a dog yes someone would take me to court but it wouldn't be the dog. The purpose of giving people rights is to protect everyone, but what you are arguing for is that animals be given better rights than people. That they should be given rights when it is in favor of them (not being eaten) but that they should be exempt from the responsibility that comes with those rights (imprisonment or death for murder). What you have done in this instance is made two classes of citizens. Humans and animals. And you placed animals above humans.

So do severely mentally disabled humans have rights? They cannot reciprocate any rights they have either. They do not understand the laws of man either. So what is it to be, do they have rights or not?
The fact is while correlative rights and duties are great for a legal system, they are nonsense when talking about ethics.

---

(January 19, 2014 at 3:21 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 12:45 pm)jg2014 Wrote: But surely there must be some property of being a human that confers these rights, which all humans have but animals don't, right?
So what is that property?

Answer: We (humans) rule this planet therfore we decide what rights are and who or what gets them.
Animals don't rule the world so the only rights they have are what we give them.
If it were up to people like you we would probably be giving dogs welfare, food stamps, and sending them to college.

The fact that humans are powerful is irrelevant. Its a question of ethics, yes they only have the rights we give them, but what rights SHOULD they have?
If it were up to people like you millions of animals would live awful lives before being brutally slaughtered, just for a bit of culinary enjoyment.... oh wait....

(January 19, 2014 at 3:27 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Its a question of ethics

Ethics are subjective. Your ethics are obviously based on some unicorn fart smelling rainbow riding fantasy.

My best friend in high school went to church (don't know which one) and argued against vegetarianism thus: If god didn't want us to eat animals he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

(January 19, 2014 at 3:54 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 3:27 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Its a question of ethics

Ethics are subjective. Your ethics are obviously based on some unicorn fart smelling rainbow riding fantasy.

I'm waiting for a valid argument for it.

The same can be said to your arguments for veganism. All you presented is: "I'm lilly-livered and everyone else must conform to my sensibilities"

ETA: shit, got ninja'd by KUSA.

(January 19, 2014 at 4:17 pm)LastPoet Wrote: The same can be said to your arguments for veganism. All you presented is: "I'm lilly-livered and everyone else must conform to my sensibilities"

ETA: shit, got ninja'd by KUSA.

Here we go then...

1. Animals are conscious and can suffer

2. Causing suffering is wrong

3. Eating meat causes animals to suffer

Therefore, eating meat is wrong.

Which part of this argument suggests I am cowardly or timid? Does my debating style suggest I am timid? No, the fact is meat eating is so bound up in your head with being strong and powerful that to challenge it would therefore make one of weak character. Meat eating is so bound up in your identity that when it is challenged, it is not just the argument that is being challenged but your perception of yourself. With men this is further bound up with our perception of masculinity, with timidity being the antithesis of this strong male identity. This is why you are so defensive.