Animal Slavery

[Rahul]

I can tell my household pets are planning an uprising. Right after their nap.

[bennyboy]

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.

Your condescending tone notwithstanding, there's a problem with this idea. White people were intrinsically special to German nazis. But this is not a sufficient moral ground for genocide or slavery. European Christians considered themselves intrinsically superior to Africans; yet we do not consider this reasoning sufficient to establish a right to enslave others.

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.

Wow. What a withering, insightful argument.

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.

None of them is a good basis for a moral argument. For the most part, they amount to the "We are special, so we can do what we want" variety, or naturalistic arguments. Naturalistic arguments fail because we don't apply them to other aspects of our lives-- special pleading is a kind of hypocrisy. "We are special" arguments fail because anyone/anything can be considered special, making the argument meaningless in establishing or defining a sensible morality.

I recommend you stop using metacommentary words like "You've been shown" or "has already been explained to you." You and the other posters here aren't a definitive authority on the subjects of morality or slavery, so your implied appeal to authority is a poor substitute for actual arguments.

[sven]

Which means that so is this. You've already been shown alternative arguments.

None of them is a good basis for a moral argument. For the most part, they amount to the "We are special, so we can do what we want" variety, or naturalistic arguments. Naturalistic arguments fail because we don't apply them to other aspects of our lives-- special pleading is a kind of hypocrisy. "We are special" arguments fail because anyone/anything can be considered special, making the argument meaningless in establishing or defining a sensible morality.

I recommend you stop using metacommentary words like "You've been shown" or "has already been explained to you." You and the other posters here aren't a definitive authority on the subjects of morality or slavery, so your implied appeal to authority is a poor substitute for actual arguments.

If I thought like that, things could get really confused for me. I mean, who or what is a definite authority on anything, if there is no higher power 'daddy' who tells us what is right and what is wrong?
It's tempting to say 'use common sense'. But not so long ago (at least from a cosmic perspective) human slavery appeared to be not merely justified to a lot of people, but the right thing to do. To them it was just convenient and common sense to enslave Africans. (They also found justification in the Bible, I've heard).
If one asks 'what gives us the right to (anything)' one has to arrive at the answer: 'nothing' if there is no higher power or authority than man. We have to give ourselves rights. I'm not saying there isn't a higher power -- its just that if there is, we have been unable to establish reliable communications with he/she/it.

[bennyboy]

If one asks 'what gives us the right to (anything)' one has to arrive at the answer: 'nothing' if there is no higher power or authority than man. We have to give ourselves rights.

Well, if you look at it from the perspective of the social contract, then rights aren't so much given as negotiated (at least implicitly). In other words, we give each other rights in the founding of a society, and those who are born into, or choose to move into, the society, have those rights given to them-- and the accompanying responsibilities/penalties imposed. Where does this leave animals? Do we say, "They lack the capacity to come to a meeting of the minds with humans, and so we bear no responbility for their so-called 'rights'"? or do we say, "Because they lack the capacity to come to a meeting of the minds, it is not right to impose responsibilities/penalties on them"? You could swing both ways, to be honest.

That being said, there are very few arguments you can apply to the use/abuse of animals that have not at some point been applied to the use/abuse of people. This because those in power gravitate toward moral ideas that most benefit them, not those which serve the greatest good. And I'd argue that if there is any philosophical principle upon which a moral system should be founded, it is the idea of serving the greatest good.

[Angrboda]

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

Your condescending tone notwithstanding, there's a problem with this idea. White people were intrinsically special to German nazis. But this is not a sufficient moral ground for genocide or slavery. European Christians considered themselves intrinsically superior to Africans; yet we do not consider this reasoning sufficient to establish a right to enslave others.

You need to look up what the word "intrinsically" means because all your examples fail. These groups may have 'thought' they were intrinsically valuable to themselves, but that doesn't mean they were. However, humans, by virtue of a shared biology which is interdependent on itself, are intrinsically special to other humans.

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.

Wow. What a withering, insightful argument.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." ~ Christopher Hitchens

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.

... I recommend you stop using metacommentary words like "You've been shown" or "has already been explained to you." You and the other posters here aren't a definitive authority on the subjects of morality or slavery, so your implied appeal to authority is a poor substitute for actual arguments.

It wasn't an appeal to authority or a meta comment, dumbass, it was pointing out that you were being intellectually dishonest.

None of them is a good basis for a moral argument. For the most part, they amount to the "We are special, so we can do what we want" variety, or naturalistic arguments. Naturalistic arguments fail because we don't apply them to other aspects of our lives-- special pleading is a kind of hypocrisy. "We are special" arguments fail because anyone/anything can be considered special, making the argument meaningless in establishing or defining a sensible morality.

And here, without my mentioning those other arguments, you admit to awareness of them, implicitly acknowledging your intellectual dishonesty.

We aren't special to ourselves as a species as a case of special privilege; we are special to ourselves because of the way biological evolution works. Because there is a rational explanation as to why we matter to ourselves, it is not a case of special pleading. Special pleading only applies if there is no reason to treat one case differently than the others, and in this case there is such a reason. We may not 'self-consciously' apply them to other areas of our life, but biological explanations don't require self-consciousness of their existence for them to be real.

Honestly, sometimes I get the impression that you're like Drich, you don't actually understand the nature of the fallacies, so you just liberally sprinkle accusations of such throughout your text wherever you see a word match.
/meta-comment

[bennyboy]

White people were intrinsically special TO German nazis.

You need to look up what the word "intrinsically" means because all your examples fail. These groups may have 'thought' they were intrinsically valuable to themselves, but that doesn't mean they were.

Hair: "Stop splitting me! The preposition 'to' is often used to express the opinions of a person or group of people!"

However, humans, by virtue of a shared biology which is interdependent on itself, are intrinsically special to other humans.

Apparently not, since the nazis murdered millions of Jews, and since Europeans enslaved millions of Africans, treating them much like. . . cattle.

It wasn't an appeal to authority or a meta comment, dumbass, it was pointing out that you were being intellectually dishonest.

Another way of saying, "You stubbornly refuse to disagree with my position." Here, I'll help you: replace "real" with "objective." When you keep talking about things being intrinsically special, this cannot include subjective or arbitrary evaluations of worth.

At best, you can say that common evalutions are rooted in instinct. However, so are the desire to rape, the instinct to murder and maim, tendencies toward selfishness, shortsighted misuse of resources, and every other thing we consider bad or wrong about humanity. This is still not a good basis on which to form a moral code.

We aren't special to ourselves as a species as a case of special privilege; we are special to ourselves because of the way biological evolution works.

I think you're going to have to explain what "special" means to you, and in what sense our evalutions of people vs. animals are non-arbitrary.

[LastPoet]

The way I go about it, I empathize more with some animals than others (as humans are a subset of animals). I usually take the human as humans nare the only capable of rationalizing as such.

[Angrboda]

(context restored)

Your condescending tone notwithstanding, there's a problem with this idea. White people were intrinsically special to German nazis. But this is not a sufficient moral ground for genocide or slavery. European Christians considered themselves intrinsically superior to Africans; yet we do not consider this reasoning sufficient to establish a right to enslave others.

You need to look up what the word "intrinsically" means because all your examples fail. These groups may have 'thought' they were intrinsically valuable to themselves, but that doesn't mean they were.

Hair: "Stop splitting me! The preposition 'to' is often used to express the opinions of a person or group of people!"

Now I'm going to go back to ignoring your idiotic ravings, which is what I should have done originally.

[bennyboy]

The way I go about it, I empathize more with some animals than others (as humans are a subset of animals). I usually take the human as humans nare the only capable of rationalizing as such.

Would you take a clever chimp over a severely retarded person?

[sven]

If one asks 'what gives us the right to (anything)' one has to arrive at the answer: 'nothing' if there is no higher power or authority than man. We have to give ourselves rights.

Well, if you look at it from the perspective of the social contract, then rights aren't so much given as negotiated (at least implicitly). In other words, we give each other rights in the founding of a society, and those who are born into, or choose to move into, the society, have those rights given to them-- and the accompanying responsibilities/penalties imposed. Where does this leave animals? Do we say, "They lack the capacity to come to a meeting of the minds with humans, and so we bear no responbility for their so-called 'rights'"? or do we say, "Because they lack the capacity to come to a meeting of the minds, it is not right to impose responsibilities/penalties on them"? You could swing both ways, to be honest.

That being said, there are very few arguments you can apply to the use/abuse of animals that have not at some point been applied to the use/abuse of people. This because those in power gravitate toward moral ideas that most benefit them, not those which serve the greatest good. And I'd argue that if there is any philosophical principle upon which a moral system should be founded, it is the idea of serving the greatest good.

I agree, for the most part. You're saying what I'm trying to say, but in a more academically correct way. :-P
I've always found the idea of the social contract a little confusing, though. It seems to me sometimes that most societies are based ultimately on the threat of punishment. When I was born, I didn't sign up for anything. But all the laws and conventions of society were already in place. I learned not to steal my little brother's candy because I knew there would be a shitstorm if I was found out. A few things that are selfish and illegal, I still feel that way about sometimes. I don't remember signing any contract!