Wow. At least she's consistent...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: Wow. At least she's consistent...
If you think Vegan is extreme then check out Raw veganism.
Spideynw: Ultima:I tend to agree with the viewpoint that humans are animals, too, and that the differences between us and other animals are not black and white but a matter of degree. Really? Sounds like a slippery slope to me. So, should killing an animal be a crime?
Ultima:I tend to agree with the viewpoint that humans are animals, too, and that the differences between us and other animals are not black and white but a matter of degree.
Really? Sounds like a slippery slope to me. So, should killing an animal be a crime?
I think someone else already brought up the point that killing a chicken for food (in a manner that would not cause it to suffer unnecessary pain) would be acceptable, while chopping it up while it's alive from the feet up is not acceptable...
Again, it's not black and white.
Is killing a human a crime? Not always. Self-defense being the most obvious example here.
Second point, since I started out by saying that I agree with the viewpoint that the differences between us and other animals are not black and white but a matter of degree, then that would mean that punishments arising from cruel and unusual treatment of chickens would be proportionally less than that to say, a chimpanzee.
What would define this proportion? I would say that the more intelligent the species, the more awareness they have of their environment, then they would come proportionally closer to the rights of a human.
If you are not willing to make that distinction, then what's to stop us from going the other way? If the cutoff line is abrupt and means homo sapiens has 100% rights while all other species have 0%... what's to stop me arguing that say, black people are a slightly less evolved form of homo sapiens, closer to the animals, and therefore deserve no rights? I don't believe that but many people used to, and some still do today. Why not just extend the cutoff further and say only the intelligent have rights, while everyone else has no rights? It is the black and white cutoff that I disagree with, because the real world does not work that way. Even within the human species itself, we have a large variation in intelligence, capability to feel emotion, and capability to reason. Likewise, in the animal world, there is a huge variation in traits. It is absurd to argue that a chimpanzee should have no more rights than a rock should have.
Ultima:I think someone else already brought up the point that killing a chicken for food (in a manner that would not cause it to suffer unnecessary pain) would be acceptable, while chopping it up while it's alive from the feet up is not acceptable...
So? What is their basis? Why does the way in which it is killed matter?
Ultima:Again, it's not black and white.
Of course it is. Once something has the ability to reason, it has rights.
Ultima:Is killing a human a crime? Not always.
No, but killing someone who has the ability to consent, and did not consent, should be.
Ultima:Second point, since I started out by saying that I agree with the viewpoint that the differences between us and other animals are not black and white but a matter of degree, then that would mean that punishments arising from cruel and unusual treatment of chickens would be proportionally less than that to say, a chimpanzee.
And if a chimpanzee harmed a chicken, then it would receive a harsher punishment than a chicken harming a chimpanzee?
Ultima:What would define this proportion? I would say that the more intelligent the species, the more awareness they have of their environment, then they would come proportionally closer to the rights of a human.
And the harsher the punishment for them if they harmed another? Sounds great. Can they sue for compensation? Who is going to interpret for the chimpanzees and chickens in court?
Ultima:If you are not willing to make that distinction, then what's to stop us from going the other way? If the cutoff line is abrupt and means homo sapiens has 100% rights while all other species have 0%... what's to stop me arguing that say, black people are a slightly less evolved form of homo sapiens, closer to the animals, and therefore deserve no rights?
Nothing is to stop you from making the argument. But logic stops you from making a valid one.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: Ultima:I think someone else already brought up the point that killing a chicken for food (in a manner that would not cause it to suffer unnecessary pain) would be acceptable, while chopping it up while it's alive from the feet up is not acceptable... So? What is their basis? Why does the way in which it is killed matter?
The way it is killed matters because in one way, you are killing the creature for food, without causing it undue and unnecessary pain. This lies close to the nature of the world and therefore if there is a "natural law" that is based on the nature of the world and of our universe, killing for food and survival would seem to be acceptable. Killing for sport and pleasure, on the other hand, is not necessary for survival, and causing an animal undue and unnecessary suffering has no usefulness in our need to survive and eat. The way it is killed therefore matters, a lot.
Spideynw: Ultima:Again, it's not black and white. Of course it is. Once something has the ability to reason, it has rights.
Animals can reason, not as much as humans can, but it is a matter of degree. Chimpanzees and apes have a higher ability to reason than flies, for example. They can all certainly reason more than a rock can.
Spideynw: Ultima:Is killing a human a crime? Not always. No, but killing someone who has the ability to consent, and did not consent, should be.
Few living creature ever consent to their own death.
Spideynw: Ultima:Second point, since I started out by saying that I agree with the viewpoint that the differences between us and other animals are not black and white but a matter of degree, then that would mean that punishments arising from cruel and unusual treatment of chickens would be proportionally less than that to say, a chimpanzee. And if a chimpanzee harmed a chicken, then it would receive a harsher punishment than a chicken harming a chimpanzee?
No, because we don't care about animal-animal relationships. We only care about human-animal relationships, or the relationship of a species of greater intelligence to those of lesser intelligence. Animals don't have the capability to discuss animal-animal relationships on the internet, but that does not mean that they have zero intelligence or that they should not be allowed more rights than those of an inanimate rock. That doesn't mean that we should not grant them some rights in accordance with the same principles that we grant each other rights.
Spideynw: Ultima:If you are not willing to make that distinction, then what's to stop us from going the other way? If the cutoff line is abrupt and means homo sapiens has 100% rights while all other species have 0%... what's to stop me arguing that say, black people are a slightly less evolved form of homo sapiens, closer to the animals, and therefore deserve no rights? Nothing is to stop you from making the argument. But logic stops you from making a valid one.
How so? What if we create a race of super-humans that are superior to humans in the same proportion as humans are superior to chimpanzees? Following the model that animals have no rights because their ability to reason is inferior, the logic would follow that these super-humans would be the new masters of the universe, and all regular humans no longer have any rights because these new super-humans are super-intelligent and have abilities to think in ways we cannot fathom, while we regular humans can only reason within the range of our now comparatively limited intellect.
Ultima:The way it is killed matters because in one way, you are killing the creature for food, without causing it undue and unnecessary pain. This lies close to the nature of the world and therefore if there is a "natural law" that is based on the nature of the world and of our universe, killing for food and survival would seem to be acceptable.
Vegetarians would disagree. But it is irrelevant. Animals do not have rights, so it does not matter what we do to them. You have not shown how they have rights. You have just given us your opinion as to what is OK to do to them or not.
Ultima:Animals can reason, not as much as humans can, but it is a matter of degree. Chimpanzees and apes have a higher ability to reason than flies, for example. They can all certainly reason more than a rock can.
If a creature has the ability to reason, then it has the ability to consent. Chimpanzees do not have the ability to consent, as such they do not have the ability to reason.
Ultima:Few living creature ever consent to their own death.
It is irrelevant how many consent. What is relevant is whether they can or not.
Ultima:No, because we don't care about animal-animal relationships. We only care about human-animal relationships, or the relationship of a species of greater intelligence to those of lesser intelligence.
Animal-animal or human-animal is irrelevant. What is relevant is if animals have rights or not. Otherwise, you cannot make a consistent argument.
Ultima:How so? What if we create a race of super-humans that are superior to humans in the same proportion as humans are superior to chimpanzees?
It is irrelevant if they are "super-human" or not. We would still have the ability to reason, so these super-humans would have to get permission from us to do things to us, else they would be violating our rights. Since we have the ability to reason, we have the ability to give consent.
Spideynw: Ultima:The way it is killed matters because in one way, you are killing the creature for food, without causing it undue and unnecessary pain. This lies close to the nature of the world and therefore if there is a "natural law" that is based on the nature of the world and of our universe, killing for food and survival would seem to be acceptable. Vegetarians would disagree. But it is irrelevant. Animals do not have rights, so it does not matter what we do to them. You have not shown how they have rights. You have just given us your opinion as to what is OK to do to them or not.
If a vegetarian would rather starve to death than kill an animal, that would be his/her choice. Eating for food is not inconsistent with nature or life, however.
Spideynw: Ultima:Animals can reason, not as much as humans can, but it is a matter of degree. Chimpanzees and apes have a higher ability to reason than flies, for example. They can all certainly reason more than a rock can. If a creature has the ability to reason, then it has the ability to consent. Chimpanzees do not have the ability to consent, as such they do not have the ability to reason. Ultima:Few living creature ever consent to their own death. It is irrelevant how many consent. What is relevant is whether they can or not. Ultima:No, because we don't care about animal-animal relationships. We only care about human-animal relationships, or the relationship of a species of greater intelligence to those of lesser intelligence. Animal-animal or human-animal is irrelevant. What is relevant is if animals have rights or not. Otherwise, you cannot make a consistent argument.
We are framing animal rights in the context of a human interpretation of those rights, so it is very relevant. Rights don't exist in a vacuum, as say, the laws of gravity might. It is up to us humans to create and interpret them based on our relationship with each other and with the world.
Spideynw: Ultima:How so? What if we create a race of super-humans that are superior to humans in the same proportion as humans are superior to chimpanzees? It is irrelevant if they are "super-human" or not. We would still have the ability to reason, so these super-humans would have to get permission from us to do things to us, else they would be violating our rights. Since we have the ability to reason, we have the ability to give consent.
Why is it irrelevant? So far, your argument for animals not having rights seems to be because you feel they don't deserve it, on the assumption that they are unable to give consent because they are unable to reason, and the logic for this is stated as they do not belong to the species homo sapiens. You seem to assume that only humans can reason and therefore consent, but have not proven how say, a chimpanzee is unable to reason. It's not a magical ability; we didn't suddenly wake up one day and have this ability. It become stronger as we evolved, and we are not the only species with intelligence. We just happen to have the most of it.
Your argument is logically and functionally the same as my imaginary super species determing that humans have no rights because they are unable to give consent, due to some made-up property that only the super species possess (or they just happen to be the most superior and therefore the most intelligent).
JCFolsom:Everyone knows animals have no rights!
But the do have flavour!