CoffeeSaint, with this reply to your post below, this should cover the issues you asked me to address.
Quote:
Quote by: CoffeeSaint  If the issue with eating meat is that animals are as valuable as humans, then why not argue that, specifically? |
This is fine. And in fact, many Animal Rightists do argue it with Utilitarian value, or more commonly Utilitarianism. Even amongst humans the Utilitarian value can and maybe should be considered. Look here at an ethical situation constructed where values are used:
A homeless man with no money or skills and Bill Gates are rushed to a small clinic at the same time on the outskirts of a suburbian neighborhood. Bill Gates is immediately recognized and so is the local homeless man who has never offered anything to the community he has lived on the periphery of all his life. Both are the same age. Each need the full 4 pints of blood that is only at the clinic. Which one is saved? Utilitarianism would say that Bill Gates should be chosen because his life has more usefulness to society and therefore more to offer thus more valuable. This is in a life and death situation and value does come into play when a third party must choose. However, Utilitarianism breaks down and becomes a hideous tool of exploitation once it is applied to ego, vanity, and pleasure and the chooser is in many cases the beneficiary or related to the beneficiary in some way -- either be it through family, friendship or the more larger group affinity. Surely, if a person came to you and said if we take all of your organs, we can save 5 people. 5 are more valuable than one, so should you give up your life so that five can live? No! Why? Because The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests is what stops ego, vanity, and pleasure for self benefit at the expense of another being. Each being has an interest in not being the target of those forms and therefore Utilitarianism stops, or should stop there, if we would like to live in a society where "might does not make right," which would always force us to give way to the majority or stronger party.
So, are there any instances in how an animal may be viewed as valuable or more valuable than a person? Sure. People often refer to their animals as part of the family and many people mean that. Value will be subjective based on the relationship one has with the object. I would rescue my dog before a human in certain scenarios. But, likewise, I would rescue a human before my dog in some different scenarios as well. I think most people are the same even if they have not thought of it. It is enough to say that it is without getting into too many "if" situations, but surely you can picture some scenario constructs where that could be made to be seen and true. It will come down to relationships or baring that, Utilitarian principles. If all are whitewashed equal, then most people resort to group affinity in decision making.
A person may value their dog's life more than their neighbor`s life or even their own life. Just look at Hurricaine Katrina. Many refused to evacuate and risked their lives by not evacuating on helicopters when told they could not bring their pets. They put themselves in harm`s way for their pet through self-sacrificing, i.e. elevating their pet`s importance and desire to survive up to the level of their own -- but in the process they lowered theirs down to their pet's.
Animals, too, have interests of their own, mainly the one we share with them, the desire to not be the target of another`s designs on us for their own benefit which either causes us suffering, pain, or deprives us of our life -- which we would like to be free to continue and enjoy without undue intereference.
Quote:
|
Why not show the qualities that animals have that make them as good as humans (or better), or describe the accomplishments, or simply try to capture the wonder of the natural world? People will feel guilty about eating wonderful animals if they recognize how wonderful animals are -- I doubt they will simply [stop eating/exploiting them] because they have been preached at.
|
I agree and many Animal Rightists and web sites DO do that. I could do that, too, here, and have been planning to post on some points like that, however, keep in mind, that is merely stating facts about their biology and behaviour or showing cute pictures. It really does not encourage debate. I am here to put forth the arguements in debate form so that I may improve my debating skills or learn new angles that my opponant or future opponant may employ against me. If I were invited to a university for a debate on Animal Rights and I merely hold up pictures stating facts, would that give me points in the eyes of those who came to the debate to judge me and my arguments for being against animal exploitation? I don`t think it would and I think it is more about moving people on the spectrum of their beliefs by speaking to their reason on those beliefs rather than simply make them coo and ah with cute bambi pictures. There have been a number of Disney or documentary animal pics over the decades, and those are not the things that jump started the Animal Rights and vegetarian movements -- it was an appeal to reason with structured argument.
--------------------------------------------------
Ok, CoffeeSaint, I took the time to address each of your points. I hope, whether you agree with them or not that you at least can offer a "fair enough." If not, then I would like to see your rebuttals or comments to my 4 replies to you. Thanks for offering a great and well thought out post to propel the discussion positively without derision. Very appreciated. -- SHW