RE: Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?
January 19, 2014 at 1:16 pm
(This post was last modified: January 19, 2014 at 1:26 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(January 19, 2014 at 1:04 pm)jg2014 Wrote:(January 19, 2014 at 12:40 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Animals are not capable of reason.....
Human rights >>>>>>>>>>>>> Other animal rights.
......
Of course, it is I that am telling you that you aren't 'ethical' and being a general prick towards people with different ideas. Riiiiiight
ETA: I am an atheist, but I do not want to impose my atheism on others, nor I would approve legislation forbiding religious beliefs. I may find it silly, argue about it and if many people arrive at it by their own leg, its cool, but I'd never impose it on others.
Please try to not call other people "prick"s, it just undermines your argument.
Ok, so only those that reason are deserved of ethical consideration?
1. What type of reasoning? Animals can solve problems that are suggestive of some forms of reasoning.
2. And what about people who cant reason? eg people with serve mental disabilities or babies.
3. How does the ability to reason affect our capacity to suffer? Surely if one is conscious and can feel pain then one can suffer, and if so why does the inability to suffer decrease its value?
4. If animals have some rights to not be subject to cruelty (ie a dogs right not to be violently abused by its owner) then why should this right not be extended to prevent the cruelty of farming. And if animals should not have rights, because they cant reason, then why is the violent abuse of pets wrong?
The fact is only valuing humans based on our ability to reason is nonsense
Irrelevant.
Only those consideration for whom could, broadly speaking, plausibly result in tangible future benefit for humanity deserves consideration. Whether they are sentient or capable of reason is a mere crude rule of thumb for those who like to pretend to be moral but doesn't care to take the necessary trouble, and is quite immaterial in any more diligent analysis.
Any system of ethics which steps beyond those bounds - morality can not be justified by anything other than broad but tangible good of those holding the morality - will act to eventually defeat the reason why it might be advisable to be ethical in the first place. They nominally attempt to make the world a moral place but in reality act to gradually weeding out from the world those who would have cared to embrace that system of morality.