[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos We have conflicting instincts.

Perhaps so, but not how you are putting the use of them forth. We most certainly do have complex behavioural patterns, but then that is not the same.

Why should we grant equal consideration of interests to animals?

Because suffering is a bad state.

Killing animals does not cause us pain and suffering.

You are basing your argument on prejudice for one`s group. Prejudice when applied to sentient beings causes suffering. Citizens of New York killing citizens of Chicago does not cause citizens of New York pain. Empathy is a trait which is extendable across the species barrier from us to them.

Excerpt on human Instinct from Wikipedia:
Other sociologists argue that humans have no instincts, defining them as a "complex pattern of behaviour present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden." Said sociologists argue that drives such as sex and hunger cannot be considered instincts, as they can be overridden. This notion is present in many introductory textbooks (Sociology: An Introduction, Ian Robertson, Worth Publishers, 1989), but is still hotly debated.

Well, I disagree with that quote. The fact that [we] can override an instinct does not mean that we do not have them.

Now, we are just going to get into a circle. I will just tell you I agree with the quote and tell you to read it again -- particularly the part where it says behavior that can be overridden is not instinct.

Like I said, this point becomes moot because experts in the field are hotly divided on it. You can keep bringing it up and I can keep throwing it back and we can each waste more time typing on an indecisive issue. I don`t mind. You choose. But, I surely am not goint to cede a point which is hotly debated by experts.

Are you saying that humans do not have an instinct to protect our young?

We have a strong interest and desire in doing so, but there are many instances of mothers and fathers acting in ways that do not protect their young to their best ability. That can cover a wide range of things. Just a smoking mother or father who knows or has heard that a possible risk of second hand smoke could be seen as acting counter to protection if they do not keep them away from second hand smoke. Just one example that can cover a larg population. However, don`t forget the many cases of direct physical abuse cases etc...

How is this related to your "instinct to believe that murder is wrong" and how is that and this new question related to the topic issue of "killing animals is wrong"?

I am not an expert on "instinct." I do know that the issue is not decided by experts and some say pure instincts cannot be overridden. Human behaviour influenced by personal history and environment however, can be. But, human behaviour is not instinct. A baby`s natural sucking motions of its mouth is instinctive, just as surely as a koala baby crawling into its mother`s pouch and attatching to its tete is.

All moral beliefs are rooted in instinct. I can establish this quite thoroughly, not by quoting experts, but by tracing the chain of cause and effect for any moral belief you hold. Would you care to experiment with this? Lettuce start with infanticide. We both agree it is immoral. Why do you feel it is wrong?

Because I reason I do not own its life and should not exercise ownership over him/her.

But, besides my answer, you would have been wise to make a better choice for an example. Merely because infanticide has been done quite often in our history up to the present speaks to the point that instinct does not prevent it from happening in the paradigm of "protecting our children" which you outlined above. In fact we need laws against it to pervert/prevent the behaviour of people resorting to it for thier own personal reasons devoid of instinct.