Human and Nonhuman animal relations: "Unessacery Suffering"

[Lostinlife]

Who in their right mind... would advocate unessacery suffering and death on nonhuman animals? I sincerely doubt that anyone on this forum would be a proponent of such a mindset that believes humans have the right to slaughter or torture nonhuman animals for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience.

Surely this stance of refusing to support "unessacery" suffering of nonhumans is, overall, for the most part, a universially accepted moral "right" even without having to delve deep into the animal rights philosophy? This tends to be what we as soceity says and advocates, but does it reflect so truthfully? Do we as a people really understand what is nessacery and what is not in regards to animal exploitation?

One of the main arguments that I make is that although almost everyone accepts that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals, 99% of the suffering and death that we inflict on animals can be justified only by our pleasure, amusement, or convenience, including exploitating animals for food, entertainment, and clothing . We say one thing about how we ought to treat nonhuman animals and then we do another, which can only be described as "moral schizophrenia".

Oh how enraged Americans were when news of Micheal Vick torturing and slaughtering dogs for his own amusement reached airwaves. Many refused to support the team when he was reinstated, but perhaps some of them never even thought about how a tortured animal's flesh and bodily fluids (milk, ice cream, cheese) are sold to them into the stadium. Perhaps they never thought about how the athletes wear the hide of animals, or that the very ball they play with is made by slaughtering a pig. Can any of these examples be labeled as nessacery death and suffering of nonhuman animals?

The best justification that we have for killing the billions of nonhumans that we eat every year is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products. This is not an acceptable justification if we take seriously, as we purport to, that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on animals, and it illustrates the continued confused thinking of “moral schizophrenia” when it comes to nonhumans.

I certainally know, that I am tired of people like Vick being criticized by self-righteous people who eat meat, attend rodeos and animal based circuses, hunt, fish or participate in the many forms of animal exploitation that, unlike dog fighting, are accepted as legitimate activities by most people but that cause as much suffering to the animals involved. Why not align our actions with our actual moral thinking?

Here is an excellent article by Gary Francione that was written during the whole media frenzy of Micheal Vick:

UPDATE 8/14/09: Michael Vick was released from prison in May, and on July 27, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell conditionally reinstated Vick. The Philadelphia Eagles have given Vick a one-year deal with an option for a second year. In a conversation yesterday, someone said to me, “how am I ever going to watch an Eagles game and see that guy without thinking about those dogs?” My response: “How can you enjoy an Eagles game while you’re eating a hamburger or a hot dog made from animals who had a life and death every bit as horrible and unnecessary as Vick’s dogs?” He did not have an answer. Here is a Daily News op-ed I wrote on the topic that ran on Aug. 22, 2007: MICHAEL VICK has, according to his lawyer, agreed to plead guilty to federal dogfighting charges against him. Over past weeks, there's been an enormous amount of coverage of the dog-fighting operation sponsored by Atlanta Falcons quarterback Vick, who, along with three other men, has been indicted on federal felony charges. The details of the charges claim that Vick sponsored illegal dog fighting, gambled on dog fights and permitted acts of cruelty against animals on his property. The talk shows have been filled with talking heads from the "humane community" condemning dog fighting and calling for Vick to be punished. Nike and Reebok have suspended products endorsed by Vick. Please let me be very clear from the outset: I think that dog fighting is a terrible thing. But I must say that the Vick case rather dramatically demonstrates what I call our "moral schizophrenia" about animals. That is, if one thing is clear, it is that we do not think clearly about our moral obligations to animals. In this country alone, we kill more than 10 billion land animals annually for food. The animals we eat suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting. There is no "need" for us to eat meat, dairy or eggs. Indeed, these foods are increasingly linked to various human diseases and animal agriculture is an environmental disaster for the planet. We impose pain, suffering and death on these billions of sentient nonhumans because we enjoy eating their flesh and the products that we make from them. There is something bizarre about condemning Michael Vick for using dogs in a hideous form of entertainment when 99 percent of us also use animals that are every bit as sentient as dogs in another hideous form of entertainment that is no more justifiable than fighting dogs: eating animals and animal products. There is something bizarre about Reebok and Nike, which use leather in their shoes, suspending products endorsed by Vick. They're not going to allow a guy who allegedly tortures dogs to endorse products that contain tortured cows. In one of my books about animal ethics, I introduced a character named Simon the Sadist, who derived pleasure from blowtorching dogs. We would all regard such conduct as monstrous because we all agree that it is wrong to inflict "unnecessary" suffering on animals - and pleasure, amusement and convenience cannot count as satisfying the "necessity" requirement. But then I asked the further question: How are those of us who eat animal flesh and animal products any different from Simon? He enjoys blowtorching dogs - we enjoy the taste of flesh and animal products. But we and Simon both kill sentient beings (although we may pay others to do the dirty work) because we derive enjoyment from it. According to reports, authorities removed from Vick's property a "rape stand" used to hold dogs for mating. "Rape racks" are used to hold cows for impregnation. When a dog is involved, we are troubled - when a cow is involved, we ignore it. Michael Vick may enjoy watching dogs fight. Someone else may find that repulsive but see nothing wrong with eating an animal who has had a life as full of pain and suffering as the lives of the fighting dogs. It's strange that we regard the latter as morally different from, and superior to, the former. How removed from the screaming crowd around the dog pit is the laughing group around the summer steak barbecue? We are all Simon. We are all Michael Vick.

Francione: We're all Michael Vick | Philadelphia Daily News | 08/14/2009

Thoughts?

[SmirkingMan]

Quote by: Lostinlife ... that believes humans have the right to slaughter or torture nonhuman animals for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience.

Like pretty well everyone, I'll agree with you on torture. I'll even agree with you on ritual slaughter practised by certain religions, where the animal is bled alive.

Where we diverge is for animals that are killed humanely. You certainly won't agree, but stunning is instantaneous and doesn't, in my opinion cause any suffering.

You might like to consider that you are equipped with 4 canines, which indicates that you were conceived to eat meat. You may choose not to, but you are an omnivore, like it or not.

Watch one of those wildlife programs. The cheetah chases the gazelles, catches the slowest one and starts eating it alive. An relatively slow and unpleasant death. Man does it without the suffering, what are you going to do about the cheetah?

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: SmirkingMan Like pretty well everyone, I'll agree with you on torture. I'll even agree with you on ritual slaughter practised by certain religions, where the animal is bled alive. Where we diverge is for animals that are killed humanely. You certainly won't agree, but stunning is instantaneous and doesn't, in my opinion cause any suffering.

This view can only be maintained by those who are unfamiliar with modern meat production methods. Suffering often occurs prior to death.... such as severe crowding, debeaking, dehorning, tail-docking, castrating, branding, etc. Great stress occurs during transport in which millions die miserably each year. And the conveyor-belt approach to the slaughtering process causes the animals to struggle for their lives as they experience the agony of the fear of death. Many animals are also ineffectively stunned. Only people who have never watched the process can believe that they don't feel any pain or aren't aware that they're being killed.

It is impossible to feed hundreds of millions of people that we do without raising animals in intensive conditions that also make it IMPOSSBLIE that the animal will not experience some sort of suffering.

And one point that many people are unaware of is that poultry is exempted from the requirements of the Humane Slaughter Act. Egg-laying hens, turkeys. ducks, etc. are typically not stunned before slaughter.

But even if no suffering were involved, the killing of sensitive, intelligent animals on a vast scale (over six billion each year in the U.S. alone) cannot be regarded as morally correct, especially since today it is demonstrably clear that eating animal flesh is as I said completely unnecessary. Fellow animals are not objects. To treat them as if they were is to perpetuate an impoverished morality which is based not on rationality but merely tradition.

And then, why do you seperate the slaughter of an animal and creulty to the animal? Is not the taking of life of a being who exhibits desire/will to live the ultimate cruelty?

Animal agriculture is no different than dog fighting in the sense that both acts impose unessacery harm (suffering and death) on nonhuman animals.

You might like to consider that you are equipped with 4 canines, which indicates that you were conceived to eat meat. You may choose not to, but you are an omnivore, like it or not.

Some people think that because we have evolved to be omnivores, we should be omnivores. We certainly are capable of eating meat and animal products, although our dental structure is unlike that of most carnivores in that we cannot rip uncooked flesh from bone. Moreover, unlike most carnivores, we have a long intestine.

Then, facts of evolution do not settle matters of morality. One could argue that we have evolved to be a violent species. Does that make violence morally right? I have arms, in which I can use to beat you till you bleed to death, does this mean I should?

You might want to consider that since it is unessacery for us to consume animals and their by-products that we should refrain from doing so. Its perfectly easy to become a vegan, and in fact anyone that is able to read this is capable of becoming one.

Watch one of those wildlife programs. The cheetah chases the gazelles, catches the slowest one and starts eating it alive. An relatively slow and unpleasant death. Man does it without the suffering, what are you going to do about the cheetah?

As I've said, most modern farmers do indeed raise animals in a constant state of suffering and in all cases the animals are robbed of their desire to live.

Furthermore this is one of the more interesting arguments against animal rights. We prevent human moral patients from harming others, e.g., we prevent children from hitting each other, so why shouldn't we do the same for nonhuman moral patients? If anything, the duty to do so might be considered more serious because predation results in a serious harm--death.

A first answer entails pointing out that predators must kill to survive; to stop them from killing is, in effect, to kill them. Of course, I could argue that intervening on a massive scale to prevent predation is totally impractical or impossible, but that is not morally persuasive.

Suppose we accept that we should stop a cat from killing a bird. Then we realize that the bird is the killer of many snakes. Should we now reason that, in fact, we shouldn't stop the cat? The point is that humans lack the broad vision to make all these calculations and determinations.

The real answer is that intervening to stop predation would destroy the ecosystems upon which the biosphere depends, harming all of life on earth. Over millions of years, the biosphere has evolved complex ecosystems that depend upon predation for their continued functioning and stability. Massive intervention by humans to stop predation would inflict serious and incalculable harm on these ecosystems, with devastating results for all life.

Even if I accept that we should prevent predation (and I don't accept that), it does not follow that, because we do not, we are therefore justified in exploiting moral patients ourselves. When we fail to stop widespread slaughter of human beings in foreign countries, it does not follow that we, ourselves, believe it appropriate to participate in such slaughter. Similarly, our failure to prevent predation cannot be taken as justification of our exploitation of animals.

(Moral patients lack the capacities of moral agents and thus cannot fairly be held accountable for their acts. They do, however, possess the capacity to suffer harm and therefore are proper objects of consideration for moral agents.)

The one thing that really separates us from the other animals is our moral capacity, or the ability to empathize with others and reason, and that has the potential to elevate us above the status of behaving like just another predator like the cheetah in your example.

Nature is amoral... we are not

[gela]

Quote by: SmirkingMan Like pretty well everyone, I'll agree with you on torture. I'll even agree with you on ritual slaughter practised by certain religions, where the animal is bled alive. Where we diverge is for animals that are killed humanely. You certainly won't agree, but stunning is instantaneous and doesn't, in my opinion cause any suffering. You might like to consider that you are equipped with 4 canines, which indicates that you were conceived to eat meat. You may choose not to, but you are an omnivore, like it or not. Watch one of those wildlife programs. The cheetah chases the gazelles, catches the slowest one and starts eating it alive. An relatively slow and unpleasant death. Man does it without the suffering, what are you going to do about the cheetah?

I agree with you.
I don't even have a huge problem with putting animals through one - off painful experiences - such as branding.

What gets to me is factory farms - where animals spend their entire lives unable to move or see the sunlight.

It's so unnecessary.

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: gela I agree with you. I don't even have a huge problem with putting animals through one - off painful experiences - such as branding.

Really... its not a huge problem to you that scorching hot metal is burned on to the animal's bare skin? Would you want to experience this? What would you say if people who ran animal shelters started to brand the dogs and cats? Exploiters would be arrested on felony charges for branding a human or a companion animal! I'm sure you can understand why I grow tired of double standards that allow such creulty.

What gets to me is factory farms - where animals spend their entire lives unable to move or see the sunlight. It's so unnecessary.

You obviously haven't been reading the thread. It is completely nessacery to raise animals in such intensive conditions if you want the cost of meat to be low. It is not the "evil" corporations alone that are responsible for the horrible living conditions of these animals, it is the consumers that want to eat cheap meat frequently every week, the consumers that number over 300 million in the U.S alone. As long as the majority of this country eats meat, the animal is going to suffer in some way.

Luckily though it isn't nessacery for us to comsume meat, so these horrible practices can only be stopped by more and more people who decide to turn vegan and refuse to require that an animal be killed.

The best justification that we have for killing the billions of nonhumans that we eat every year is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products. This is not an acceptable justification if we take seriously, as we purport to, that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on nonhuman animals such as dog fighting.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Lostinlife Luckily though it isn't nessacery for us to comsume meat, so these horrible practices can only be stopped by more and more people who decide to turn vegan and refuse to require that an animal be killed.

No, I require that an animal be killed to give me a proper dinner. Or breakfast. Or lunch. Or late-night snack... Wendy's is open late now.

The best justification that we have for killing the millions of nonhumans that we eat every year is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products. This is not an acceptable justification if we take seriously, as we purport to, that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on nonhuman animals such as dog fighting.

The people that made the biggest stink about Michael Vick - the PETA's of the world - are also the vegan types. Most people didn't care much about it and kept right on eating.

I don't see why it's wrong to kill nonhuman animals. They kill each other all the time. The ridiculous, overwhelming majority of these animals you say "suffer" for food production would never exist if it weren't for food production.

Furthermore, you kill plants when you eat. Living things are living things.

Me? I'm an Eagles fan, so I'm glad to see him contribute something to the team.

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: Dan_77 No, I require that an animal be killed to give me a proper dinner. Or breakfast. Or lunch. Or late-night snack... Wendy's is open late now.

I'll say it again, as your justifcation seems to be that animals taste good so you should get to eat them, this is not an acceptable justification if we take seriously, as we purport to, that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on nonhuman animals such as dog fighting.

The people that made the biggest stink about Michael Vick - the PETA's of the world - are also the vegan types. Most people didn't care much about it and kept right on eating.

Are you kidding me? No one has to be associated with animal groups to agree that unessacery suffering and death on nonhuman animals, such as dog fighting, is a horrible, horrible thing. Many refused to stop watching Eagle games after hearing what he did to those dogs and was reinstated. Just curious, do you advocate dog fighting, or other UNESSACERY death and suffering of nonhuman animals?

I don't see why it's wrong to kill nonhuman animals. They kill each other all the time.

I can't believe your actually sitting here telling me that because wild animals behave in a certain way, that said behavior can be considered to be a moral "right".

To demonstrate the absurdity of seeking moral precedents from nonhuman animals, consider the following variants of the question:

"Animals steal food from each other; so why should it be wrong for humans [to steal]?"

"Animals defacate on the ground, so why should it be wrong for humans to [defacate on the ground]?

"Animals kill and eat humans; so why should it be wrong for humans [to kill and eat humans]?"

Our killing of nonhuman animals is unnecessary, whereas nonhuman predators kill and consume only what is necessary for their survival. They have no choice: kill or starve.

The one thing that really separates us from the other animals is our moral capacity, or the ability to empathize and reason, and that has the potential to elevate us above the status of just another predator in the wild. Nonhumans lack this capacity, and live in an inhearantly amoral system (nature), so we shouldn't look to them for moral inspiration and guidance.

The ridiculous, overwhelming majority of these animals you say "suffer" for food production would never exist if it weren't for food production.

There are two ways to interpret this. First, you may be referring to "these animals" as a species, in which case the argument might be more accurately phrased as follows:

"The ecological niche of cows is to be farmed; they get continued survival in this niche in return for our using them."

Second, the you may be referring to "these animals" as individuals, in which case the phrasing might be:

"The individual cows that we raise to eat would not have had a life had we not done so."

I'll deal first with the species interpretation and then with the individuals interpretation. Your argument applies presumably to all species of animals; to make things more concrete, we will take cows as an example in the following text.

It is incorrect to assert that cows could continue to exist only if we farm them for human consumption. First, today in many parts of India and elsewhere, humans and cows are engaged in a reciprocal and reverential relationship. It is only in recent human history that this relationship has been corrupted into the one-sided exploitation that we see today.

There IS a niche for cows between slaughter/consumption and extinction. (The interested reader may find the book Beyond Beef by Jeremy Rifkin quite enlightening on this subject.)

Second, several organizations have programs for saving animals from extinction. There is no reason to suppose that cows would not qualify.

The species argument is also flawed because, in fact, our intensive farming of cattle results in habitat destruction and the loss of other species. For example, clearing of rain forests for pasture has led to the extinction of countless species. Cattle farming is destroying habitats on six continents. Why are you so concerned about the cow species while being unconcerned about these other species?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that you want to continue to eat the cows?

Finally, a strong case can be made against the species argument from ethical theory. Arguments similar to your's could be developed that would ask us to accept practices that are universally condemned.

For example, consider a society that breeds a special race of humans for use as slaves. They argue that the race would not exist if they did not breed them for use as slaves. Does the reader accept this justification?

Now we move on to the individuals interpretation of the question. One attempt to refute the argument is to answer as follows:

"It is better not to be born than to be born into a life of misery and early death."

To many, this is sufficient. However, one could argue that the fact that the life is miserable before death is not necessary. Suppose that the cows are treated well before being killed painlessly and eaten. Is it not true that the individual cows would not have enjoyed their short life had we not raised them for consumption?

The key is that humans and nonhumans have an interest or a right to not be killed by humans. The ethical problem can be seen clearly by applying the argument to humans. Consider the case of a couple that gives birth to an infant and eats it at the age of nine months, just when the next infant is born.

A 9-month old baby has no more rational knowledge of its situation or future plans than does a cow, so there is no reason to distinguish the two cases. Yet, certainly, we would condemn the couple. We condemn them because the infant is an individual to whom we confer has the right or an interest not to be killed. Why is this right not accorded to the cow? I think the answer is that many want to eat it.

Furthermore, you kill plants when you eat. Living things are living things.

Really? Then surely there is no difference in requiring that a human in place of a plant be killed to give me a proper dinner? Or breakfast. Or lunch. Or late-night snack... Wendy's is open late now, and they appear to have a new item on the menu... (way better than fast food my ass).

The truth is that you indeed draw the line (I'll assume anyway) of moral consideration at humanity despite your supposed view of "living things are living things".

Fortunately, MY view is far more consistent. The only reason we should have qualms with killing a certain being is wheather or not that being is sentient. Sentient beings are those who are conscious of pain and pleasure; those with some sort of mind and some sense of self. The harm of death to a sentient being is that she or he will no longer be able to have conscious experiences. They are robbed of their interest in continuing to live.

With this ethical view, we protect moral patients, or those who lack sophisticated conceptual ability to bring moral principles to bear in deciding what to do, and having made such a decision, having the free will to choose to act that way.

Moral patients lack the said capacities of moral agents and thus cannot fairly be held accountable for their acts. They do, however, possess the capacity to suffer harm and therefore are proper objects of consideration for moral agents. Human infants, young children, the mentally deficient or deranged, and nonhuman animals are instances of moral patienthood.

Given that nonhuman animals are moral patients, they fall within the purview of moral consideration, and therefore it is quite rational to accord them the same moral consideration that we accord to ourselves.

As for plants, this is the question that every vegetarian gets in the company of a meat eater. These meat eaters may be otherwise rational and intelligent beings, but when confronted with a vegetarian, their discomfort with their diet often rises to the surface in the form of defensiveness.

No one really thinks that plants are the same as sentient nonhumans. If I ate your tomato and your dog, you would not regard those as similar acts. As far as we know, plants are not sentient. They are not conscious and able to experience pain. Plants do not have central nervous systems, endorphins, receptors for benzodiazepines, or any of the other indicia of sentience. Plants do no have interests; animals do. And especially since it is unessacery to consume animal products, these interests should be protected in full.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Lostinlife Mmhm... oh I'm sorry were you trying to make a point?

Meat tastes good.

Are you kidding me? No one has to be associated with animal groups to agree that unessacery suffering and death on nonhuman animals, such as dog fighting, is a horrible, horrible thing.

Well, they at least need to be a lot closer to them than me.

Many refused to stop watching Eagle games after hearing what he did to those dogs and was reinstated.

LOL... yeah. Is that why there's a two-year waiting list for season tickets and every regular season game sold out in about an hour?

Just curious, do you advocate dog fighting, or other UNESSACERY death and suffering of nonhuman animals?

I don't advocate, but I don't oppose. I don't really care one way or another.

I can't believe your actually sitting here telling me we should behave how other animals do in the wild. That because something occurs in nature, it be considered to be a moral "right".

Sorry, my statement was disjointed and you appear to have missed the point. My point was that superior animals eat inferior animals, because they can.

It had nothing to do with morals.

Second, the you may be referring to "these animals" as individuals, in which case the phrasing might be: "The individual cows that we raise to eat would not have had a life had we not done so."

This is what I was referring to.

Now we move on to the individuals interpretation of the question. One attempt to refute the argument is to answer as follows: "It is better not to be born than to be born into a life of misery and early death." To many, this is sufficient.

I disagree. Existence is better than nonexistence. Surely you also believe this, or you would have killed yourself long ago.

However, one could argue that the fact that the life is miserable before death is not necessary. Suppose that the cows are treated well before being killed painlessly and eaten. Is it not true that the individual cows would not have enjoyed their short life had we not raised them for consumption?

How do you know whether cows and other farm animals enjoy their treatment, other than your own anthropomorphizing of them?

The key is that humans and nonhumans have an interest or a right to not be killed by humans.

Why? Based upon what moral code do nonhumans have a right not to be killed by humans?

The ethical problem can be seen clearly by applying the argument to humans. Consider the case of a couple that gives birth to an infant and eats it at the age of nine months, just when the next infant is born. A 9-month old baby has no more rational knowledge of its situation or future plans than does a cow, so there is no reason to distinguish the two cases.

Of course there is. The baby is a human. The cow is not.

Upon what basis do you determine that a cow has the same intellectual ability as a 9-month old human? I think some basic understanding of human development would educate you on this topic.

Yet, certainly, we would condemn the couple. We condemn them because the infant is an individual to whom we confer has the right or an interest not to be killed. Why is this right not accorded to the cow? I think the answer is that many want to eat it.

The answer is because the baby is human. The cow is not. Humans are higher life forms. Humans are us. I bet if cows ruled the world they would say we can't kill other cows.

Really? Then surely there is nothing wrong with requiring that a human be killed to give me a proper dinner? Or breakfast. Or lunch. Or late-night snack... Wendy's is open late now, and they appear to have a new item on the menu... (way better than fast food my ass). The truth is that you indeed draw the line (I'll assume anyway) of moral consideration at humanity despite your supposed view of "living things are living things".

No, I draw the line at humans. Again: Upon what moral code do you equate humans with other animals when humans have vastly superior intellectual ability and are us?

Fortunately, MY view is far more consistent. The only reason we should have qualms with killing a certain being is wheather or not that being is sentient. Sentient beings are those who are conscious of pain and pleasure; those with some sort of mind and some sense of self. The harm of death to a sentient being is that she or he will no longer be able to have conscious experiences. They are robbed of their interest in continuing to live.

My view is consistent... We kill everything except humans.

You say all these things about animals' "sense of self" and it makes me think you've never been to a farm or around a great number of farm animals, because I find it just funny.

Given that nonhuman animals are moral patients, they fall within the purview of moral consideration, and therefore it is quite rational to accord them the same moral consideration that we accord to ourselves.

Says you. Your bit of pure opinion there is no more valid than anyone else's.

As for plants, this is the question that every vegetarian gets in the company of a meat eater. These meat eaters may be otherwise rational and intelligent beings, but when confronted with a vegetarian, their discomfort with their diet often rises to the surface in the form of defensiveness.

Maybe it's just disgust with the air of self congratulation and attitude that they defecate fresh picked roses coming from every vegetarian attempting to foist their personal life choices on someone else.

No one really thinks that plants are the same as sentient nonhumans. If I ate your tomato and your dog, you would not regard those as similar acts.

Either way, you'd be eating my property, so yes, I'd regard them as similar acts. You have to remember, though, I'm looking at it from a legalistic standpoint.

As far as we know, plants are not sentient.

And animals are? Sentience is a difficult thing to determine.

[Lostinlife]

It is difficult to answer these questions without my posts being slightly long, so your just going to have to bear with me. Please be sure to read through carefully this time.

Quote by: Dan_77 I disagree. Existence is better than nonexistence. Surely you also believe this, or you would have killed yourself long ago.

Why would I prefer existence when it was one of misery and torture? Why would anyone prefer such an existence? Unfortunately the majority of animals must suffer this very existence by human hands, and are unable to take their own lives to end it all.

How do you know whether cows and other farm animals enjoy their treatment, other than your own anthropomorphizing of them?

This question seems to imply that there is in fact a possbilty that animals enjoy the modern practices of today's farms such as such as severe crowding, debeaking, dehorning, tail-docking, castrating, branding, etc, and even in the adsence of such stress enjoy being killed, which is an insult to evolutionary science. I understand that humans are animals are different of course, but there are many simularities that you are ignoring.

Everything science has learned about other species points out the biological similarities between humans and nonhumans.

As Charles Darwin wrote, the differences between humans and other animals are differences of degree, not differences of kind. Since both humans and nonhumans evolved over millions of years and share similar nervous systems and other organs, there is no reason to think we do not share a similar mental and emotional life with other animal species (especially mammals). Physiologically there is no logic in thinking that the animals are not experiencing pain, or do not have a desire to continue living.

Why? Based upon what moral code do nonhumans have a right not to be killed by humans?

"Rights" can only exist when determined through the interests and capacities of individuals. When one has an interest in living, avoiding pain, and pursuing happiness, as result of ethical imperatives (the empathy and reason of others), they have rights to these things, and when they are denied these rights, they are "harmed".

For example, if homosexuals did not have "interests" in getting married, there would of been no ethical imperative for several states to allow them that "right" or for the debate to even exist. Birds have an interest in spreading their wings, so they can be said to have the "right" to this. The only excuse for denying an individual a "right" is when said right is at the exspense of another's, which typically happens when one is unable to empathize with another (they harm another individual's interests and rights by discriminating, murdering, stealing, torturing, etc.).

It is important to realize that, although there is a basis for speaking of animals as having rights, that does not imply or require that they possess all the rights that humans possess, or even that humans possess all the rights that animals possess.

The rights that animals and humans possess, as I said, are then determined by their interests and capacities. Animals have an interest in living, avoiding pain, and even in pursuing happiness (as do humans). As a result of the ethical imperatives, they have rights to these things (as do humans). They can exercise these rights by living their lives free of exploitation and abuse at the hands of humans.

No, I draw the line at humans. Again: Upon what moral code do you equate humans with other animals when humans have vastly superior intellectual ability and are us?

You made two different arguments in these posts which I'll now refute.


First you claim that since humans "are us" they alone deserve moral consideration. What kind of argument is this? In fact, the argument is structurally similar to the arguments used to support racism and sexism.

To deny animals the basic right to not be treated as things simply because they are animals is like saying that we should not abolish race-based slavery because of the perceived inferiority of the slaves’ race.

In both cases, we exclude beings with interests from the moral community because there is some supposed difference between “them” and “us” that has nothing to do with the inclusion of these beings in the moral community.


Your second argument is that since humans possess superior intelligence and are therefore "higher life forms", we should be free to use nonhuman animals as we wish.

This is one of many arguments that attempt to draw ethical conclusions from scientific observations. In this case, the science is shaky, and the ethical conclusion is dubious.

Let us first examine the science. Your view seems to be that evolution has created a linear ranking of general fitness, a ladder if you will, with insects and other "lower" species at the bottom, and humans (of course!) at the top. This idea originated as part of a wider, now discredited evolutionary system called Lamarckism.

Charles Darwin's discovery of natural selection overturned this system. Darwin's picture, instead, is of a "radiating bush" of species, with each evolving to adapt more closely to its environment, along its own radius. Under this view, the idea of human superiority becomes unclear: yes, humans have adapted well to their niche (though many would dispute this, asserting the nonsustainable nature of our use of the planet's resources), but so have bacteria adapted well to their niche.

Can we really say that humans are better adapted to their niche than bacteria, and would it mean anything when the niches are so different?

Probably, what the you have in mind in using the word "superior" is that humans excel in some particular trait, and that a scale can be created relative to this trait. For example, on a scale of mental capability, humans stand well above bacteria. But a different choice of traits can lead to very different results. Bacteria stand "superior" when one looks at reproductive fecundity. Birds stand "superior" when one looks at flight. What makes our trait special is, of course, only that we say so.

Now let us examine the ethics. Leaving aside the dubious idea of human superiority, let us accept that humans are ranked at the top on a scale of intelligence. Does this give us the right to do as we please with animals, simply on account of their being less brainy?

If we say yes, we open a Pandora's box of problems for ourselves. This means that more intelligent humans can also exploit less intelligent humans as they wish (shall we all be slaves to the Einsteins of the world)

We refrain from harming infants, children and other less intelligent humans for the same reasons that we do so for adults and Nobel Prize winners, because they have the capacity to suffer harm. That they are incapable of the same level of complex thought as us is irrelevant.

What I think you missed in my last post is the concepts of moral agents and moral patients.

A moral agent is an individual possessing the sophisticated conceptual ability to bring moral principles to bear in deciding what to do, and having made such a decision, having the free will to choose to act that way. By virtue of these abilities, it is fair to hold moral agents accountable for their acts. The paradigmatic moral agent is the normal adult human being.

Moral patients, in contrast, lack the capacities of moral agents and thus cannot fairly be held accountable for their acts. They do, however, possess the capacity to suffer harm and therefore are proper objects of consideration for moral agents.

Human infants, young children, the mentally deficient or deranged, and nonhuman animals are instances of moral patienthood. Given that nonhuman animals are moral patients, they fall within the purview of moral consideration, and therefore it is quite rational to accord them the same moral consideration that we accord to ourselves.

An individual can be a beneficiary of rights without being a moral agent. Under this view, you must justify a difference in treatment of two individuals (human and nonhuman) with an objective difference that is RELEVANT to the difference in treatment. Call me when you find one.


In conclustion, the only relevant trait that a being must possess to be a member of the moral community is the capacity to suffer harm, or sentience, regardless if they posses the classification of homo-sapien. In this sense... humans and nonhumans are equal.

Sentience is quite easy to determine in any organism. 1) there are behavioral indications, 2) there is an appropriate nervous system, and 3) there is an evolutionary usefulness for the experience of pain.

The harm of death to a sentient being is that she or he will no longer be able to have conscious experiences.

Our experience of sentient beings other than humans reasonably supports the position that all sentient beings share in common an interest in continuing to live–sentience is merely a means to the continued existence of organisms who are able to have concious experiences of pleasure and pain.

My view is consistent... We kill everything except humans.

Then obviously you weren't being truthful when you said "living things are living things", with these rampant claims of human superiority. Only when asked to defend your support of animal exploitation do you make such a claim. The fact is that nonhuman animals and humans posses traits that can be attributed to rights, while plants do not. Plants do not have interests, therefore they cannot have rights.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Lostinlife Why would I prefer existence when it was one of misery and torture? Why would anyone prefer such an existence?

Again, it's better than non-existence. But I guess that's a matter of opinion (probably the single greatest opinion ever).

Unfortunately the majority of animals must suffer this very existence by human hands, and are unable to take their own lives to end it all.

I don't think they have the mental capacity to conceptualize suffering and death as concepts beyond physical pain.

This question seems to imply that there is in fact a possbilty that animals enjoy the modern practices of today's farms such as such as severe crowding, debeaking, dehorning, tail-docking, castrating, branding, etc, and even in the adsence of such stress enjoy being killed, which is an insult to evolutionary science. I understand that humans are animals are different of course, but there are many simularities that you are ignoring.

Ok. Why be so philosophical? All you needed to do to refute my point was show concrete evidence that animals do not, in fact, enjoy their treatment.

Your lack of concrete evidence of this validates my point.

Everything science has learned about other species points out the biological similarities between humans and nonhumans.

I'm aware of the similarities. "Similar" does not mean "equal".

As Charles Darwin wrote, the differences between humans and other animals are differences of degree, not differences of kind. Since both humans and nonhumans evolved over millions of years and share similar nervous systems and other organs, there is no reason to think we do not share a similar mental and emotional life with other animal species (especially mammals). Physiologically there is no logic in thinking that the animals are not experiencing pain, or do not have a desire to continue living.

So, gut feelings and suspicion, but no evidence?

"Rights" can only exist when determined through the interests and capacities of individuals. When one has an interest in living, avoiding pain, and pursuing happiness, as result of ethical imperatives (the empathy and reason of others), they have rights to these things, and when they are denied these rights, they are "harmed".

I see. So why then do we not put carnivores in jail for their infringement on the rights of their prey?

Animals are exactly the same as us, right?

For example, if homosexuals did not have "interests" in getting married, there would of been no ethical imperative for several states to allow them that "right" or for the debate to even exist. Birds have an interest in spreading their wings, so they can be said to have the "right" to this. ... They can exercise these rights by living their lives free of exploitation and abuse at the hands of humans.

Ok. So again, why do we not then punish animals when they infringe on the rights of other animals? Clearly, if you infer that a bird has a right to fly, then a wolf that bites off the wing of a bird has violated that right. Certainly, humans have witnessed that behavior and are capable of punishing the wolf for doing it. So why don't we?

We don't because unlike you most humans recognize that there is a difference between humans and animals; that in order to have rights one must also be capable of exercising responsibilities, or at least have a guardian that can exercise those responsibilities on your behalf, and animals cannot do either.

You made two different arguments in these posts which I'll now refute.

First you claim that since humans "are us" they alone deserve moral consideration. What kind of argument is this? In fact, the argument is structurally similar to the arguments used to support racism and sexism.

What difference does it make if it's structurally similar? The only thing that matters is that it's accurate.

To deny animals the basic right to not be treated as things simply because they are animals is like saying that we should not abolish race-based slavery because of the perceived inferiority of the slaves’ race. In both cases, we exclude beings with interests from the moral community because there is some supposed difference between “them” and “us” that has nothing to do with the inclusion of these beings in the moral community.

In the case of other humans, the difference doesn't have an effect on their inclusion in a moral community.

In the case of animals, it does. Once again, animals cannot respect the rights of others. They lack the capability to do so and lack a guardian who can do so on their behalf. We do not assign such creatures rights, as they are incapable of existing in a society based on rights.

That absolutely makes a difference in their inclusion in a moral community. Lack of the capacity to take part in a moral community absolutely excludes one from taking part.

Your second argument is that since humans possess superior intelligence and are therefore "higher life forms", we should be free to use nonhuman animals as we wish. This is one of many arguments that attempt to draw ethical conclusions from scientific observations. In this case, the science is shaky, and the ethical conclusion is dubious. Let us first examine the science. ... Can we really say that humans are better adapted to their niche than bacteria, and would it mean anything when the niches are so different?

Rarely have I seen such a ridiculous attempt to twist evolutionary theory to "humanize" other creatures as this pile of nonsense.

My reference to human superiority is that we can control and kill essentially any other species on the planet. Sure, on a species' level, they may find their "niche" and survive on an evolutionary measure. However, on an individual level, a human equipped with their full faculties is capable of killing any other species in the world, usually with minimal effort. That is superiority.

Probably, what the you have in mind in using the word "superior" is that humans excel in some particular trait, and that a scale can be created relative to this trait. For example, on a scale of mental capability, humans stand well above bacteria. But a different choice of traits can lead to very different results. Bacteria stand "superior" when one looks at reproductive fecundity. Birds stand "superior" when one looks at flight.

Except that in the case of evolution, the only thing (or at least the ultimate thing) that makes a species superior is its ability to kill and avoid being killed by others.

What makes our trait special is, of course, only that we say so.

Of course. And unless I'm mistaken, we are two humans having this conversation, ergo the human opinion of what traits are special is the only one that matters.

Now let us examine the ethics. Leaving aside the dubious idea of human superiority, let us accept that humans are ranked at the top on a scale of intelligence. Does this give us the right to do as we please with animals, simply on account of their being less brainy?

As a species, yes.

[Dan_77]

If we say yes, we open a Pandora's box of problems for ourselves. This means that more intelligent humans can also exploit less intelligent humans as they wish (shall we all be slaves to the Einsteins of the world)

No it doesn't. Why would it?

Your argument is, as usual, a logical fallacy.

Your argument: "If A=B then A=C". My four-year-old could explain why that fails.

The difference between less intelligent humans and animals is, again, humans have the capacity to take part in society and be held responsible when they infringe on the rights of others, which is what entitles them to have rights.

In the case of humans with less capacity, their capacity to cause harm to others is always less than their capacity to be held responsible for that harm. In other words, my 4 month old can't be put in prison, but she also can't rob a bank. My 4 year old can hit someone, but he can be put in a corner for 4 minutes if he does.

Human beings can be (and are) held responsible for their individual failures to respect the rights of other beings, whatever their capacity.

Animals cannot. Animals can infringe on the rights of others in FAR greater capacity than their ability to take responsibility for those actions.

And frankly, where your argument breaks down is in that you would not seek to make them take responsibility for their actions. In essence, the very reason you would not send a lion to prison for eating a gazelle refutes the entire premise of your argument - because you understand that animals are different from us and cannot, in fact, take part in a moral society because they cannot be held responsible for their actions.

We refrain from harming infants, children and other less intelligent humans for the same reasons that we do so for adults and Nobel Prize winners, because they have the capacity to suffer harm. That they are incapable of the same level of complex thought as us is irrelevant.

No, we refrain from doing it because they are members of our society and have rights. They have rights because they have the capacity to be participating members of our society.

What I think you missed in my last post is the concepts of moral agents and moral patients.

I didn't ignore it, it simply is not relevant to animals. I've explained why: Because animals are not participants in a moral society.

Human infants, young children, the mentally deficient or deranged, and nonhuman animals are instances of moral patienthood.

Flat out wrong. Humans are all relative moral agents because they can (and are) all held responsible for their actions in proportion to their ability to commit and understand such actions.

Animals, however, are never held responsible for their actions.

Therefore, it is irrational to ascribe to them the same regard as lesser humans. And actually quite disrespectful to lesser humans.

Oh, and not at all supported by biology, considering the age at which human functional capacity exceeds animals.

Given that nonhuman animals are moral patients, they fall within the purview of moral consideration, and therefore it is quite rational to accord them the same moral consideration that we accord to ourselves.

No, it doesn't, because humans are all moral agents of relative levels. Under our laws, all humans are held responsible for their actions in relative regard to their capacity to commit such actions.

An individual can be a beneficiary of rights without being a moral agent. Under this view, you must justify a difference in treatment of two individuals (human and nonhuman) with an objective difference that is RELEVANT to the difference in treatment. Call me when you find one.

I already have. The problem is, you're not answering, because you do not have a response. Instead you create artificial constructs wherein "moral agents" are absolute beings who have 100% of functional capacity, and "moral patients" are anyone with less than 100% functional capacity, never mind that this concept is not at all accepted by our society and exists outside of reality.

In reality, moral agents are anyone that has capacity to take responsibility for their actions in proportion to their ability to commit said actions, which includes all humans and zero animals.

Strange that you understand that human intelligence is a variable thing and yet not understand that our ability to be moral agents also varies.

Your tone of moral superiority would be better saved for the time at which you understand from whence our morals derive and how they are applied.

In conclustion, the only relevant trait that a being must possess to be a member of the moral community is the capacity to suffer harm, or sentience, regardless if they posses the classification of homo-sapien. In this sense... humans and nonhumans are equal.

No, the relevant trait is ability to take responsibility for one's actions in proportion to their ability to commit actions. That is the trait that has been established through all of established humanity. Remarkably, this trait was even maintained when humans did not understand the ability of others to take responsibility for one's actions, in that people ascribed to others relative responsibility in conjunction with their perceived abilities, even where the perceived abilities were incorrect.

In this sense, humans and nonhumans are certainly not equal.

Then obviously you weren't being truthful when you said "living things are living things", with these rampant claims of human superiority. Only when asked to defend your support of animal exploitation do you make such a claim. The fact is that nonhuman animals and humans posses traits that can be attributed to rights, while plants do not. Plants do not have interests, therefore they cannot have rights.

And neither can animals, since they lack the ability to be held responsible for their infringement on others' rights.

And now you have a problem. In order to continue the argument you must take one of two stances: Either you create some exemption from animals being held responsible for their actions, based on their difference from humans, essentially admitting I am correct, or you ridiculously argue that animals should be held responsible for their actions, and describe some concept of an animal prison where we keep wolves that kill rabbits, for example.

Which is it?

[DEEJ85]

Quote by: Lostinlife Then obviously you weren't being truthful when you said "living things are living things", with these rampant claims of human superiority. Only when asked to defend your support of animal exploitation do you make such a claim. The fact is that nonhuman animals and humans posses traits that can be attributed to rights, while plants do not. Plants do not have interests, therefore they cannot have rights.

What do you mean by interests?

If you mean that they have an interest in not dying, then this applies to plants as well.

plants are always fighting back, be it against each other for sunlight, space or nutrients. or against animals (like us) using natural defenses they have developed (such as thorns or toxins) that are intended to protect it from harm and death. No organism will survive very long if it was indifferent to death.

people seem to forget that plants are just as against being killed/eaten as animals are. We are their predators. We kill and eat them (not necessarily in that order).

This means people that want to extend protection to animals cannot base their arguments on the fact that it is wrong to kill something that wants to live instead of die.

Because even vegetarians need to kill something that wants to live in order to survive.

Or are you referring to the fact that animals have an interest in not feeling pain or suffering?

If we provide a reasonably comfortable life and the killing process is painless and quick.

Then since no pain is felt their interests are being fulfilled.

[Elminister]

It's the rights and freedoms bestowed to animals by humans that gives people the ability to even claim that whatever degree of handling constitutes "unnesessary suffering". The natural laws animals live by in the wild are quite different. Eat or be eaten, strong eats the slow/weak. The slow/weak are weened out of reproductive circles Ect.

These industry animals,with laws assuming to be equal among the parties, are far better off living by our laws than theirs in relation to their proximity and relation to man and it is mans' society that says that meat is a commodity.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is folly to try to make a man and a cow equal in all things relating to living in this environment. If it were not for our laws they would only have theirs and we would still have guns...... :)

Lost in Life, I must ask you something. I assume you would be for the nation wide stoppage of the beef industry, correct? What then should be done with all the cattle? One final mass slaughter and while aloting some magical percentage to the wilds of the nation.....off to the hunters anyway? A mass sterilization effort and then keep the herds alive, penned up someplace untill old age wipes them out? Well, besides the ones to be set free into the wilds that is.

How broad is your scope entailing how man and animal should live side by side?

[TheColdTruth]

I stopped reading at "nonhuman animals".

Go look up "animal" in any dictionary. Animal is, by definition, anything except a human.

I knew from that point on the article was going to be some PETA-esque garbage.

[Lostinlife]

Quote by: TheColdTruth I stopped reading at "nonhuman animals". Go look up "animal" in any dictionary. Animal is, by definition, anything except a human.

Like what has been said to you in the past, this is scientifically, and biologically ignorant. What can humans be classified if not animals, a vegetable? Perhaps a mineral?

I knew from that point on the article was going to be some PETA-esque garbage.

First of all, I despise PETA, as does the man who wrote the article. Their ridiculous, intentionally offensive campaigns make our movemnt look like a joke to be brushed aside. On top of this, despite claming their an "animal rights group", they strive to REGULATE (which overall does absolutely nothing to improve conditions for the animals) the expoitation instead of abolishing it.

It'd be wise to not assume others behave like a certain group, simply because said group happens to be prevalent in the media... I'm sick of the generlizing.

[TheColdTruth]

Quote by: Lostinlife Like what has been said to you in the past, this is scientifically, and biologically ignorant. What can humans be classified if not animals, a vegetable? Perhaps a mineral? First of all, I despise PETA, as does the man who wrote the article. Their ridiculous, intentionally offensive campaigns make our movemnt look like a joke to be brushed aside. On top of this, despite claming their an "animal rights group", they strive to REGULATE (which overall does absolutely nothing to improve conditions for the animals) the expoitation instead of abolishing it. It'd be wise to not assume others behave like a certain group, simply because said group happens to be prevalent in the media... I'm sick of the generlizing.

Humans are humans just as magnetite is magnetic and not simply conductive, lustrous, and thus a exhibiting only the characteristics of a metal. We possess an ability that sets us apart.

If you can't agree to that.. well, then you're using your own definition rather than the dictionaries', and I know which one I'll trust to define my terms, every time. Semantics is a difficult enough topic without accepting everyone's personal definition on every little thing for their convenience.

[Lostinlife]

Then you are not familar with basic biology, because there exists no exclusive human trait. Everything science has learned about other species points out the biological similarities between humans and nonhumans. As Charles Darwin wrote, the differences between humans and other animals are differences of degree, not differences of kind.

Then, dictionaries are not ABSOLUTES on the meanings of words, as you'll notice there are almost second, and third definitions for everything. Words change overtime, and yes in SPEECH humans are typically described to be seperate from animals, but this is irrelevent to what has been discovered by modern science.

We like other animals are a multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure. Its insane to claim that were somehow a different oragnism with all these simularites.

[TheColdTruth]

Quote by: Lostinlife Then you are not familar with basic biology, because there exists no exclusive human trait. Everything science has learned about other species points out the biological similarities between humans and nonhumans. As Charles Darwin wrote, the differences between humans and other animals are differences of degree, not differences of kind. Then, dictionaries are not ABSOLUTES on the meanings of words, as you'll notice there are almost second, and third definitions for everything. Words change overtime, and yes in SPEECH humans are typically described to be seperate from animals, but this is irrelevent to what has been discovered by modern science. We like other animals are a multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure. Its insane to claim that were somehow a different oragnism with all these simularites.

That works if you disregard sentience, and all that is unique about humans.

Too bad humans are sentient so it doesn't work.

Definitions are absolutes. To frame a thought, argument, or equation, you need objective concepts and symbols and ideas to better understand what is being communicated. The more concrete the definition, the easier it is to accurately understand what is going on.

If your definition is subjective and existent only to you, it doesn't concern me. I go by the dictionary. Thus why I stopped at "nonhuman animal". it's redundant and it means whatever you're going to say is probably going to involve that purposeful butchering of words, which I have no interest in.

Define your terms.

[Lostinlife]

Its interesting that you used the word sentient. I assume that you mean "self-awareness". Looks like your not going by the dictionary anymore:

Sentient -

1:responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>

2:aware

3:finely sensitive in perception or feeling

THIS defnition includes all animals that have a basic nervous system. Self-awareness as well is not a uniquely human trait. When a dog sees a cat climb a tree it recognizes that it itself is not the "cat". Like I said there are different degrees of characteristics, humans possess nothing of a kind.

Definitions of words are inherently subjective as you've just seen. That ONE definition of an animal does not in itself prove that a human is not an animal. It simply ASSERTS that the word "animal" is sometimes commonly spoken as a word for creatures that aren't humans, which is true.

But you must show OBJECTIVE evidence (as I have) as to why a human is NOT an animal. Simply saying "look at the dictionary" is not good enough.

[SoylentGreen]

Lostinlife Who in their right mind... would advocate unessacery suffering and death on nonhuman animals? I sincerely doubt that anyone on this forum would be a proponent of such a mindset that believes humans have the right to slaughter or torture nonhuman animals for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience.

I don't want to derail an interesting thread, so if you decide the following is outside the parameter, i will understand.

I am in the business of causing death and extreme suffering to life. part of my work involves the spraying of pesticides. and pesticides these days are far more than just simple poisons. some are target specific.
one such pesticide is a hormone based . it causes a really interesting and i would imagine a painful slow death. It has an effect on cicadas at a certain time of their growth cycle. the cicada grows in size, but it's exoskeleton doesn't. so it sheds it skin.
the pesticide i use prevents the skin from shedding but the insect keeps growing until finally it is crushed and dies within it's own skin.

I have absolutely no problem or moral dilemma in using this spray, no more than i would swatting a fly.
is it necessary?. you tell me , would you buy an apple with a mark on it that tells you an insect may have eaten a bit of it? does an insect have feelings, can it suffer?
where do insects get placed in your question? Who in their right mind... would advocate unnecessary suffering and death on nonhuman animals?