(March 15, 2015 at 5:18 am)robvalue Wrote: I remember someone saying that two key changes that led to humans being as intelligent as they are were what you would normally consider "bad" changes, but somehow luckily ended up in our favour. Can't remember the details! Something to do with our brains I think.

(March 15, 2015 at 3:20 am)robvalue Wrote:

---

Ignorant: Valuable... Well, I try my best to never cause any animal to suffer or die. Unfortunately this is an ideal, and sometimes I have to make compromises. But I am rarely in a situation where I need to make an empirical decision about what life is more valuable, I respect it all as far as possible. I don't consider any of it to be expendable. I would have to admit to a sliding scale of bias though that bigger animals and ones more capable of thought carry more weight if I do have to make decisions. I think this is due to a feeling that they are able to suffer more, so should be protected more if decisions must be made. For example, I use flea treatment on my dog. I know this will kill fleas, and I hate that, but I decide to value my dog's health as more important.

But if I sit here and coldly evaluate the life of a dog versus the life of a human say, I don't feel that one is simply more valuable than the other. A human is much more capable of having a large effect on the world, but there's no guarantee that effect would be positive.

---

So I guess what I'm saying is... Short of some extremely unlikely scenario involving a burning building where I have to make a snap decision based largely on instinct, I don't particularly value human life more than animal life. In fact, I hate the human race as a whole because we are capable of evil on a massive scale, we can and do cause suffering to other animals in ways that "lesser" species simply never could.

But please understand, that is not to say I devalue humans, it's saying that I value animals much more than most people would.

---

Most people see them as in some way lesser and not as important as us. I bring them up to our level, so to speak.

---

I know this is unusual, but that is how I am. I would do my best to stop suffering to any form of life, and I would try and help a human just as much as anyone else.

Quote:Now here is an interesting angle! So the sorts of relationships we have with others is a defining characteristic? Is there anything more you can say about that?

(March 15, 2015 at 6:40 am)Ignorant Wrote:

(March 15, 2015 at 3:20 am)robvalue Wrote:

---

Ignorant: Valuable... Well, I try my best to never cause any animal to suffer or die. Unfortunately this is an ideal, and sometimes I have to make compromises. But I am rarely in a situation where I need to make an empirical decision about what life is more valuable, I respect it all as far as possible. I don't consider any of it to be expendable. I would have to admit to a sliding scale of bias though that bigger animals and ones more capable of thought carry more weight if I do have to make decisions. I think this is due to a feeling that they are able to suffer more, so should be protected more if decisions must be made. For example, I use flea treatment on my dog. I know this will kill fleas, and I hate that, but I decide to value my dog's health as more important.

But if I sit here and coldly evaluate the life of a dog versus the life of a human say, I don't feel that one is simply more valuable than the other. A human is much more capable of having a large effect on the world, but there's no guarantee that effect would be positive.

---

So I guess what I'm saying is... Short of some extremely unlikely scenario involving a burning building where I have to make a snap decision based largely on instinct, I don't particularly value human life more than animal life. In fact, I hate the human race as a whole because we are capable of evil on a massive scale, we can and do cause suffering to other animals in ways that "lesser" species simply never could.

But please understand, that is not to say I devalue humans, it's saying that I value animals much more than most people would.

---

Most people see them as in some way lesser and not as important as us. I bring them up to our level, so to speak.

---

I know this is unusual, but that is how I am. I would do my best to stop suffering to any form of life, and I would try and help a human just as much as anyone else.

Unusual or not, I am just curious about how you see things.

Particularly the part about "[You] don't particularly value human life more than animal life." I am curious about a great many things if this is truly what you believe.

Disclaimer: the following question is not a "set up". There is no "priest in the bushes" waiting to pop up with a "gotcha!". I just want to know how your above thought applies to several important areas:

On what basis then, is there a "moral" distinction between owning animals for the sake of work (e.g. dogs, horses, oxen, cattle, etc.) and owning humans for the sake of work? This is not to say that I think such a distinction is impossible on your view, I just want to know how you derive that distinction. If a human is not inherently more valuable/dignified/whatever than the other animals, what is different about the injustice of slavery and the legitimate ownership of animals?

(March 15, 2015 at 7:48 am)robvalue Wrote:

---

(March 15, 2015 at 6:40 am)Ignorant Wrote: Unusual or not, I am just curious about how you see things.

Particularly the part about "[You] don't particularly value human life more than animal life." I am curious about a great many things if this is truly what you believe.

Disclaimer: the following question is not a "set up". There is no "priest in the bushes" waiting to pop up with a "gotcha!". I just want to know how your above thought applies to several important areas:

On what basis then, is there a "moral" distinction between owning animals for the sake of work (e.g. dogs, horses, oxen, cattle, etc.) and owning humans for the sake of work? This is not to say that I think such a distinction is impossible on your view, I just want to know how you derive that distinction. If a human is not inherently more valuable/dignified/whatever than the other animals, what is different about the injustice of slavery and the legitimate ownership of animals?

---

I don't draw a distinction. If it's not something the animal enjoys doing, or they are simply yours to do as you wish, it's slavery.

(March 15, 2015 at 8:03 am)Rhythm Wrote: (I think that it might be a little insensitive of the memories of slaves and slavery to make a ground leveling comparison between that institution and livestock production, lol....but it is pretty close. Livestock have it better than slaves ever did, btw.)

(March 15, 2015 at 8:25 am)Nestor Wrote:

---

I should think the biggest difference between subjugating human beings to the humiliation of slavery and using animals as a means to an end lies in

---

1) the greater quality of the experience, essentially the conceptual grasp, that every person has of such ideals as freedom, justice, and personal dignity, which animals probably lack to any degree that is really comparable to a human being (the more intelligent animals may rightly object though, if they could),

---

and 2) God gave us dominion over animals... Just kidding... 2) Are animals that are treated as property, but cared for and fed, actually worse off then they would be in the wild? (In terms of mass farming, where animals are bred for the purpose of slaughter, I think their lives should be made as easy and comfortable as possible... at the end of the day, perhaps call it specieism,

---

I don't think we have the same moral responsibilities towards animals as we do towards people, but we do have some).