RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
April 21, 2012 at 8:41 am
(This post was last modified: April 21, 2012 at 8:51 am by simplexity.)
A very important factor here is also the fact that a lot of people really like bacon, me being close to the least of them. In fact I would say most people really like bacon. When it comes down to it until we develop better methods of growing artificial meat, natural meat is still a very important factor in anyone's diet. One may not need it to survive, but to live as healthy a life as you can one needs an intake of protein. I know I do, and you may not think you do, but it still makes a healthier diet.
I have always agreed that we need to decrease the amount of suffering as much as possible in any species which has any self awareness and my ideas have not changed in this. But, even if this is true I would still argue that we still have the right to kill an animal as long as we are trying to decrease the amount of suffering. This is difficult to do though, since the demand for meat is high, apparently we need industrial factories which do not seem to care about the suffering as they do about the output of product. Yes, it is terrible.
In the end all I am trying to say here are there are different levels of intelligence and social interaction, some of them being very clear. This brings me to my next point. Even though a species is self aware another defining aspect of sentience for me is when the animal actually shows self awareness of another creatures suffering and the other creatures awareness. This is described as empathy and I think this is a very important factor in deciding the sentience of another species. Both dolphins and species of apes show this through group dynamics and caring about the welfare of the rest of the group. Many species show self awareness of their own suffering, but even fewer show empathy. This also plays a part in which animals are morally okay to kill to eat only.
It is a very simple fact that as of now we still need to take life in order to eat whether it is the life of a plant or an animal. As of now we still need to draw this line and I do not think just because an animal can suffer it is morally wrong to kill it in order to eat it. There are more factors involved than only self awareness. It is again for me Sentience.
And to give a slight answer to your other question, even if an old man no longer possesses the faculties they once did, they may once have had those faculties, and even if they did not are still a part of the species and deserve the same rights.
I do not think otherwise, but it is still up for debate which animals are intelligent enough to have an understanding of their own ego. Most animals for example are not intelligent enough when they look at themselves in the mirror to know that what they are seeing is themselves. When they experience "pain" they may not feel the pain happening to themselves(ego), but the sensation will just be and cause certain effects.
I have always agreed that we need to decrease the amount of suffering as much as possible in any species which has any self awareness and my ideas have not changed in this. But, even if this is true I would still argue that we still have the right to kill an animal as long as we are trying to decrease the amount of suffering. This is difficult to do though, since the demand for meat is high, apparently we need industrial factories which do not seem to care about the suffering as they do about the output of product. Yes, it is terrible.
In the end all I am trying to say here are there are different levels of intelligence and social interaction, some of them being very clear. This brings me to my next point. Even though a species is self aware another defining aspect of sentience for me is when the animal actually shows self awareness of another creatures suffering and the other creatures awareness. This is described as empathy and I think this is a very important factor in deciding the sentience of another species. Both dolphins and species of apes show this through group dynamics and caring about the welfare of the rest of the group. Many species show self awareness of their own suffering, but even fewer show empathy. This also plays a part in which animals are morally okay to kill to eat only.
It is a very simple fact that as of now we still need to take life in order to eat whether it is the life of a plant or an animal. As of now we still need to draw this line and I do not think just because an animal can suffer it is morally wrong to kill it in order to eat it. There are more factors involved than only self awareness. It is again for me Sentience.
And to give a slight answer to your other question, even if an old man no longer possesses the faculties they once did, they may once have had those faculties, and even if they did not are still a part of the species and deserve the same rights.
Quote:The current scientific consensus is that all vertebrate animals, at least, are capable of feeling pain and experiencing distress. Why would you think otherwise.
I do not think otherwise, but it is still up for debate which animals are intelligent enough to have an understanding of their own ego. Most animals for example are not intelligent enough when they look at themselves in the mirror to know that what they are seeing is themselves. When they experience "pain" they may not feel the pain happening to themselves(ego), but the sensation will just be and cause certain effects.
