|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 08:57:35 [Permalink]
|
| A general response, especially toward BPS, I am not all that interested in whether the actions of ALF in this case are rational with regards to their objectives. My criticism is of their objectives, their values in the first place, which is not something objective. And I regard their values as stupid because they are out of line with what most peoples' values are. I am not trying to be a total rationalist about this because I don't think enough information is yet known about human nature to know for sure. But I feel confident in declaring that while human nature will always have enough sympathy for animals to draw a line somewhere regarding animal cruelty, human nature will also always put humans way before animals. For some this extends to killing an animal because we find its meat tasty or it hide useful for making clothing. For others it will extend to only medical research. I doubt there will ever be a total consensus on where the line should be drawn, but I'm pretty confident that it will not be drawn in a place which allows human beings acting on their own values regarding animal/human rights to be killed for the cause of animal rights. Maybe in some small, closed society of vegans, but not among societies in general. Just my assessment on that given what limited info I know of humans. And as I share these values that I claim are and will continue to be the general values of society, I am disgusted by these actions of ALF, and will vigorously denounce them. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/21/2008 08:58:22 |
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 11:08:43 [Permalink]
|
| My criticism is of their objectives, their values in the first place, which is not something objective. And I regard their values as stupid because they are out of line with what most peoples' values are. |
I gotta call you out Marf, this is total BS. Values are TOTALLY subjective, by your definition virtually every skeptic on this board is stupid and should be admonished for daring to be agnostic/atheist. The concept of altruistic human nature is questionable at best, many times throughout history cruelty and 'evil' as we now view it have been the norm and right. To say that it could not become the norm worldwide due to the good nature of people is just lying to yourself.
Edit: brain fart |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 02/21/2008 11:16:16 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 11:22:29 [Permalink]
|
| I guess what Im trying to get across is that while one may use science and logic to reach a conclusion, such as "animal testing must be stopped at all costs", however most of the time predicting the effects of what you do with that information will be beyond logic and science, due to chaos. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 12:44:20 [Permalink]
|
BPS wrote: | I gotta call you out Marf, this is total BS. Values are TOTALLY subjective, by your definition virtually every skeptic on this board is stupid and should be admonished for daring to be agnostic/atheist. The concept of altruistic human nature is questionable at best, many times throughout history cruelty and 'evil' as we now view it have been the norm and right. To say that it could not become the norm worldwide due to the good nature of people is just lying to yourself. |
First, I wrote that I regard the ALF values as stupid, and I wrote it that way to make it clear that this was a personal comment. I did not go into any elaborate explanation of my own knowledge and experience which leads me to this perspective. But I did make it clear that it was my personal assessment, and I only gave a very brief and generalized explanation for that assessment.
Second, I think you make a false comparison which disregards the context of what I said. When talking about ethical or moral values, one cannot take a brief and generalized explanation for an opinion and then apply it to some other value to prove that the explanation is irrational. Obviously my explanation is leaving tons out, partially because it would be absurd to think that I myself would be able to accurately know and explain the reasoning and motivations for all of my own values. How individuals form personal values is incredibly complex, involving the nature of human psychology, an individual's psychology (which itself is the product of both nature and nuture), emotions and reasoning, not to mention and the limitations of reality.
You seem to suggest that me expressing my perspective that the values of fanatic animal rights activists are stupid is irrational and ethically inconsistent. I disagree.
Edited for grammar. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/21/2008 12:45:50 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 21:02:19 [Permalink]
|
Mooner, Marfknox, Big Daddy et al....
There can be little question that terrorist activities and tactics, irrespective of what "goals" or motives they represent, are totally wrong and have to be suppressed as illegal and punishable.
But to argue, as Marfknox has here.....| I regard their values as stupid because they are out of line with what most peoples' values are. I am not trying to be a total rationalist about this because I don't think enough information is yet known about human nature to know for sure. But I feel confident in declaring that while human nature will always have enough sympathy for animals to draw a line somewhere regarding animal cruelty, human nature will also always put humans way before animals. For some this extends to killing an animal because we find its meat tasty or it hide useful for making clothing. For others it will extend to only medical research. I doubt there will ever be a total consensus on where the line should be drawn, but I'm pretty confident that it will not be drawn in a place which allows human beings acting on their own values regarding animal/human rights to be killed for the cause of animal rights. |
and | these values that I claim are and will continue to be the general values of society |
....that humans have and will always have an inherent right to own, abuse (inhumane food cultivation) kill, or otherwise treat animals -- as many Islamics treat women, our colonists treated African blacks, and Hitler treated Jews -- is dead wrong, immoral, unethical, inhumane and racist in the sense that we (humans) are merely the current terminus of the long, long lines of animal evolution that eventually produced hominids!
Just what, Marf is the essential, qualitative, spiritual (that is what you clearly imply) difference between Man and animal?
The difference that justifies Man treating animals with the same cavalier disregard for ethics and morality that allowed serfdom to exist in much of Europe for centuries, and slavery to exist all over the Earth for thousands of years -culminating with the horror of the slavery of Africans in America? What is the essential differentiation between Man destroying animals at will, and Hitler destroying Jews? What is the justification for "we are a higher life form, as opposed to "we are the Master Race?
I would like to hear your rationalizations concerning the food chain argument first, as this is where most of the defenses of hunting, animal husbandry culminating in slaughter of the husbanded animal, and the fact that we evolved as omniv....(oops, carnivores would be your word) begin. Protein requirements and all that!
Then we can go on the the absolute necessity for animal experimentation to advance the medical and nutritional sciences. And much, much more as to how it is that there is undeniable proof that humans are qualitatively superior in some way to all of the "lower" animals and ethically, morally, and logically must have dominion over them as the Bible states!!
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2008 : 22:20:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
And much, much more as to how it is that there is undeniable proof that humans are qualitatively superior in some way to all of the "lower" animals and ethically, morally, and logically must have dominion over them as the Bible states!! |
Marf doesn't need to do any such thing. All she said was that the welfare of humans are of particular importance to humans, just as zebras would likely concern themselves primarily with the welfare of zebras, and toads with toads, etc. This is not a radical concept. All species possess a survival instinct, otherwise they wouldn't. It has nothing to do with which species is actually superior. She never said humans have "dominion" over nature. Just that if a bear is charging at your child, whether or not one should shoot the bear isn't exactly an ethical dilemma most people would wrestle with.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 02:23:54 [Permalink]
|
Humbert.....
| Marf doesn't need to do any such thing. |
I in no way stated that Marf needed to do anything. I asked her some questions, and requested a response.| zebras would likely concern themselves primarily with the welfare of zebras, and toads with toads, etc. |
I would appreciate some references for that opinion. With the exception of the human species, has the concern of one animal species as to the welfare of that species, as compared to it's concern for another species welfare been tested in an appropriate double-blind environment with all the caveats of the SM fully observed? And have the results of those repeated experiments been codified into axioms of Biology? Links, please | All species possess a survival instinct, otherwise they wouldn't. |
Unless there was substantial cross-species concern involving various species concern for other species welfare, and conversely. Again, where is the scientific evidence, one way or the other? Anecdotally, I can see where a non-scientist could guess that Zebras are more interested in the welfare of Zebras than they are concerned with the welfare of armadillos, but has this been tested sufficiently to merit broad generalizations? I do not know, not being a zoologist or biologist. But if you have substantiation for this claim, I would certainly be interested in it, being an animal advocate!| zebras would likely concern themselves primarily with the welfare of zebras, and toads with toads, etc. All species possess a survival instinct, otherwise they wouldn't. |
Unless there was cross-species "concern" of one species for another and reciprocation. Such as the thousands of recorded instances of pets, frequently dogs, taking injuries or dying to protect their "masters" or the human families that they live with - which canine psychologists call their "assumed pack" It could be that this kind of behavior in many other species has been rigorously tested. I don't know. I do know that there is lots of anecdotal evidence for goats adopting kittens, cats nursing baby rats and squirrels, etc. etc. But I hesitate to say that these are facts of nature without some scientific evidence!| It has nothing to do with which species is actually superior. |
Is one species actually superior to another, Humbert? If so, what exactly constitutes those attributes of superiority? And if not, well we have a long road to go here! But the shortcut is; if not, why are you disputing my premise? | She never said humans have "dominion" over nature. |
No, she didn't! She said:| human nature will always have enough sympathy for animals to draw a line somewhere regarding animal cruelty, human nature will also always put humans way before animals. For some this extends to killing an animal. For others it will extend to only medical research |
I'm too stupid to understand that this is not tantamount to stating that man has dominion over animals. I would appreciate your clearing it up for me! Finally, | Just that if a bear is charging at your child, whether or not one should shoot the bear isn't exactly an ethical dilemma most people would wrestle with. |
Of course not, nor would they have any qualms in shooting a crazed homicidal maniac human charging at the child. Attack the bear with a pocket knife and a similar consequence will befall the human! Or any species attacking or being attacked by any other species.
I am not denying self preservation or loved one preservation. But the animal control officer will shoot a mad or vicious dog attacking another dog, or a cat or even a zoo animal. Again, many cases of vice-versa. Ethics don't even apply in cases of violent attack , either man vs. another species or the reverse. Nor does the concept of one species having "concern" for it's own or another species. Self or associate concern and defense trumps all else in these instances.
I don't know this, but I would almost wager that I could find examples of one species defending another species from harm, particularly young specimens, or one that the first had bonded with. Granted it is not the norm, but I, at least, do not have reference to how common or uncommon these various kinds of events must be. All I can do is postulate! And you?
I know, that if I had been present at Michael Vick presiding over one of his dogfights, and I would have had a weapon, I would have done physical harm to Michael Vick! And regretted it the rest of my life! But, stupid and irrational as that is, it demonstates the depth and intensity of my feeling that other animals are due a great deal of the respect and concern that we properly bestow on other humans! I do hope that man stays in jail a very long time!
There is much more to be said about the basic truth that man just happens to be the most sentient and manipulative of its environment of all the animals, and why these "facts" may or may not be reason for man to "have dominion" over the other animals. It is not a simple matter, and I am certainly prepared to explore it a great deal further, if you, or Marf, or anyone else cares to.
I realize (from your statement a few weeks ago) that you do not feel that anyone pays any attention to my posts, but fortunately, many people here pay respectful attention to [b]your]/b] posts, myself included.
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 02/22/2008 03:09:41 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 08:29:39 [Permalink]
|
Bngbuck wrote: | ....that humans have and will always have an inherent right to own, abuse (inhumane food cultivation) kill, or otherwise treat animals -- as many Islamics treat women, our colonists treated African blacks, and Hitler treated Jews -- is dead wrong, immoral, unethical, inhumane and racist in the sense that we (humans) are merely the current terminus of the long, long lines of animal evolution that eventually produced hominids! |
Did you even read my whole posts? How did you get all of this abuse of animals out of my simple statement that societies in general (not necessarily individuals) will always put humans way before animals? I also wrote that human nature would also cause us to have a certain amount of sympathy for animals, and that where the line of permitted use and abuse of animals would be drawn would vary.
| Just what, Marf is the essential, qualitative, spiritual (that is what you clearly imply) difference between Man and animal? |
I never said there was an essential, qualitative, or spiritual difference. In fact, I doubt one exists. I can name two general but incredibly important reasons why humans tend to care about our own needs and desires far above those of other species: Identity – we are the human species. Sentience – humans (with rare exceptions) are capable of high levels of communication, creativity, ability to conceive of the short and longterm future, yadda yadda yadda.
Seriously bngbuck, if someone kills my cat and gets busted for animal cruelty, that is in a totally different league compared to if someone kills my husband, and it should be! The only time in human history when this has been otherwise is when mystical characteristics have been attributed to animals. (And it is just as silly to mummify a cat that is thought to be divine as it is cruel to torture a cat that is thought to be a witch.) People have never protected animal rights equally to human rights.
| The difference that justifies Man treating animals with the same cavalier disregard for ethics and morality that allowed serfdom to exist in much of Europe for centuries, and slavery to exist all over the Earth for thousands of years -culminating with the horror of the slavery of Africans in America? What is the essential differentiation between Man destroying animals at will, and Hitler destroying Jews? |
Again, nobody here has advocated a cavalier disregard for ethics with regard to animal treatment. That is a straw man argument you have invented.
But also, I find it incredibly offensive that you would compare things such as animal cruelty in the meat industry to the extermination of Jewish people or the enslavement of Africans. The differences between animal and human cruelty don't have to be essential for them to be significant. What is the essential difference between squashing a spider 'cause it annoys you and killing an endangered orangutan because it annoys you? No essential difference, but enough non-essential difference to make one act regarded as harmless and the other abhorrent and criminal. Why are you arbitrarily demanding an essential difference?
| What is the justification for "we are a higher life form, as opposed to "we are the Master Race? |
We are the "higher" life form by the standards claimed. Race supremacists are not "superior" for the reasons they claim. There is plenty of factual evidence to prove this.
| I would like to hear your rationalizations concerning the food chain argument first, as this is where most of the defenses of hunting, animal husbandry culminating in slaughter of the husbanded animal, and the fact that we evolved as omniv....(oops, carnivores would be your word) begin. Protein requirements and all that! |
I do not have such arguments and how brazen of you to assume that I do. I eat meat 'cause according to my own ethics I measure my own enjoyment of it to be greater than the suffering caused by it. This is a totally subjective and arbitrary assessment, as all ethical assessments ultimately are. I do refrain from eating meat often because of ethical concerns about the environment. There are many convincing arguments that heavy reliance on animal products for food is not sustainable given the number of humans on the planet.
| Then we can go on the the absolute necessity for animal experimentation to advance the medical and nutritional sciences. |
More words you stuff in my mouth. Absolute necessity?
| And much, much more as to how it is that there is undeniable proof that humans are qualitatively superior in some way to all of the "lower" animals and ethically, morally, and logically must have dominion over them as the Bible states!! |
Who the fuck is using the Bible on this issue? Now you are going to use the guilt by association argument? Give me a fucking break, Bngbuck, you're more logical than this.
Unless you are going to argue for an ethical system which makes intentional stepping on an ant just as heinous as killing your next door neighbor, you must agree that human societies should regard different species according to different levels of interference. From there, the argument becomes where should the lines be drawn for different uses of different species of animals.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 08:35:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I'm too stupid to understand that this is not tantamount to stating that man has dominion over animals. |
At worst, marf is saying that man assumes dominion over animals, not that man actually has dominion over animals. At best, however, the word "dominion" implies an absolute right of control, whereas marf was clearly talking about welfare concerns. Placing human welfare above animal welfare doesn't imply dominion expect in cases where welfare concerns conflict - as they might do in medical testing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 08:58:31 [Permalink]
|
I'll also add that the level of tolerance for animal suffering caused by humans use has increasingly lowered in modern societies. Many medical tests done on primates decades ago are no longer permitted in most labs. Another example is that the meat industry has had to improve its standards by law, and as long as non-fanatic animal rights activists continue to push for improved standards, it will probably continue to change. At the same time, the tolerance has also lowered for human suffering. Experiments on humans have become more ethically strict, slavery is mostly abolished, war is less romanticized and more criticized by writers and artists than in centuries past, and today "genocide" is a term with horrific connotations.
It is fruitful to question why these standards have changed in developed societies.
I think the answer is simply that there is technology which results in better health and a more efficient allocation of resources. Greater security is possible for a greater number of people, and therefore inadvertent cruelty toward animals and other human becomes less necessary for both survival and security. If this trend continues, perhaps eventually we'd see war become taboo, medical testing able to be done through things such as artificial simulations, and food products which taste like meat but which never required the slaughter of a living cow or pig appear on peoples' plates. But even if human societies reach this rather Star Trek level of quality of life and ethics, I can't imagine society ethically regarding animals as having rights equal to humans. The only way I can see this happening is if it really pragmatically didn't matter one way or another. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/22/2008 08:59:03 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 16:22:21 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox.....
I appreciate your response to my quickening. It is pleasant to to talk to a principal, rather than to a surrogate.
I will not have time until this evening to adequately respond to your "incredible offense", my twice "brazen" "stuffing" of words in your mouth, my "arbitrary demands" and a myriad of my other failings.
I must say, Marf you are a Mistre.. Master of the art of adding insult to insult. I will endeavor to respond point by point later today, but hopefully not in kind.
Meanwhile, if you find time, I would appreciate a few answers, with as little hyperbolic emotional rhetoric that you can muster, to these questions that I asked H.Humbert when he answered my post to you as your alter ego. I ask this in a spirit of courtesy, not of imperious demand!
1. Do you feel, as Humbert does, that:| zebras would likely concern themselves primarily with the welfare of zebras, and toads with toads, etc.? |
2. Humbert declared:| [It has nothing to do with which species is actually superior. |
Do you feel Marf, that any species (or taxonomic ranking) is superior to another? If so, in what way? If not....expand?
3.Your statement:| human nature will always have enough sympathy for animals to draw a line somewhere regarding animal cruelty, human nature will also always put humans way before animals. For some this extends to killing an animal. For others it will extend to only medical research |
Is this a prediction?... or a statement of your persuasion? Or both?
Do you see that your sentence above strongly implies that "man assumes (sic per Dave) dominion over the animals" as the quaint quotation goes? (Your inference that I am associating you with the Bible in any way is paranoid. I merely pointed out the origin of the archaic, yet apt, word "dominion")
If you would be kind enough to respond briefly, if it is your wont, or at least with a minimum of perjorative to these three points, it would facilitate our conversation. I understand you have already spoken briefly to my second (I do read as well as my eyes allow) question! Please elaborate on your brief answer!
Kindly note that I do not imply that you need to do anything, nor am I demanding, ordering or requesting anything of you in an offensive manner, It would simply be helpful to me to understand more thoroughly your views on value rating the taxonomic differences in lifeforms, specifically the subdivisions of worth that you feel may exist in the current eighth ranking the of Linnaean system, i.e. species!
Thank you for your cooperation, if you care to cooperate, and if not, I have already addressed these questions to Humbert
I will write much more this evening. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2008 : 17:17:12 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: | 1. Do you feel, as Humbert does, that: |
Since we cannot ask zebras or toads this, no one can say for sure. Given that wild animals tend to be conditioned instinctually and otherwise to a particular natural environment, they do general act in their own best interests, then in the interests of their closest kin and social group (if they are a social animal. If not, only of themselves and sometimes their young.) I don't find this statement by humbert or your question following up on it to be particular relevant or useful to this discussion.
2. Humbert declared:
[It has nothing to do with which species is actually superior.
Do you feel Marf, that any species (or taxonomic ranking) is superior to another? If so, in what way? If not....expand? |
To say something is superior one must define one's terms. When people claim that humans are superior to other animals, they typically mean that humans are superior in the ways that we actually are superior. For instance, cognitive abilities, ability to create complex tools and technology, and the ability for complex communication through speech. If we're talking about ability to efficiently take down large pretty, a lion would be superior to a human. If we're talking about flying without aid of technology, a bird is superior. Humans tend to value these qualities which make us unique and set us apart as a species, and thus think of ourselves as superior. There is nothing irrational or inconsistent about such an assessment since attributing value to something is a subjective task.
3.Your statement:
human nature will always have enough sympathy for animals to draw a line somewhere regarding animal cruelty, human nature will also always put humans way before animals. For some this extends to killing an animal. For others it will extend to only medical research
Is this a prediction?... or a statement of your persuasion? |
Both. What I was saying is that it is natural for humans to more highly value the qualities that set our species apart from others, and thus, humans in general will regard our species as superior to others. Put that together with our ability to subjugate other species, and we can act on that sentiment.
I will also reiterate that it has historically also been our nature to value certain animals for their unique qualities and to have sympathy for animals with which we most identify. Therefore, we will probably also as a society set limits on how much certain animals are allowed to be subjugated for human use, and pointless cruelty will often be regarded as taboo.
| Do you see that your sentence above strongly implies that "man assumes (sic per Dave) dominion over the animals" as the quaint quotation goes? |
You are using this word to associate my opinion with fanatic religious opinions. By our very nature and circumstances, human have the ability to control, alter, and even exterminate many species of animals, and therefore we have done so. If this is what you mean by "assumes dominion over", then yes. If you mean it in some grander or religious way, then no.
| (Your inference that I am associating you with the Bible in any way is paranoid. I merely pointed out the origin of the archaic, yet apt, word "dominion") |
Pointing out the origin was making an association. If I am paranoid, please tell me why pointing out the origin was useful to the conversation? You point out that I use pejoratives when I debate, but you do it to. As long as there is no logical fallacy along with the wording, whatever, that's how debates often work.
| Please elaborate on your brief answer! |
I am not an ideologue. I do not have some grand over-arching ethical philosophy that is complete and entirely internally consistent. I do not because such a thing is beyond my knowledge (probably beyond the knowledge that I could acquire given how much about animals and human nature is still unknown) and beyond my intellectual capabilities. People who do have such ideologies tend to frighten me with their self-righteousness and how much they must simplify reality in order to have such an ideology (BTW, I am not saying that you or anyone in this conversation is such an ideologue, nor do I think that.) Human and animal relations are incredibly complex because we're dealing with numerous human societies, cultures, subcultures, and then countless other species. This is why I made a brief generalization. I'm not going to write a book on the topic. If you want me to elaborate on something specific, ask me more specific questions and I'll do my best. Maybe I'll even change my mind about something.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/22/2008 17:19:14 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2008 : 03:04:43 [Permalink]
|
Bravo, Marf. You get an A for restraint of adolescent outburst!!
| Since we cannot ask zebras or toads this, no one can say for sure. They do general act in their own best interests, then in the interests of their closest kin and social group (if they are a social animal. If not, only of themselves and sometimes their young.) |
You have referenced evidence for this? I am not a biologist and I don't know if such studies have been done.| I don't find this statement by humbert or your question following up on it to be particular relevant |
That is because you don't understand what I am asking. It is relevant if we are to discuss the relative rankings of at least the various vertibrata as to their worth or value as compared to the most "advanced" of their class - man.
| To say something is superior one must define one's terms. |
An excellent dodge. Webster will do, unless you would care to substitute your own?:| (1) : of more importance, value, usefulness, or merit : of higher quality, accomplishment, or significance |
Thus, under that definition, do you feel Marf, that any species (or taxonomic ranking) is superior to another species (or taxon?) Is the Linnaean heirarchy a hierarchy of value or worth? If so, in what way? If not....expand?
I will assume that this is your expansion, unless you would care to change it...| humans are superior in the ways that we actually are superior. (Profound!) For instance, cognitive abilities, ability to create complex tools and technology, and the ability for complex communication through speech. Humans tend to value these qualities which make us unique and set us apart as a species, and thus think of ourselves as superior. |
Do you agree with this assessment? If so, does it logically lead to a position that, because of this defined "superiority", it is ethically acceptable for man to employ his "superior" abilities to largely do as he wishes with the "inferior" other species? Because we think we are superior, are we justified in acting superior to the detriment of those creatures we feel superior to?
Are we ethically entitled to kill and eat other animals? Thus, does a tiger eating a wildebeeste violate any ethical code? Because of the tiger's superior size and strength? What does this ethic derive from? | There is nothing irrational or inconsistent about such an assessment since attributing value to something is a subjective task. |
I am not concerned with irrationality or inconsistency, only with the ethical privileges that may accompany the "higher ability blessed" animals, specifically man. Is man entitled by some ethical logic to eat, breed, and manipulate development, experiment with, and generally just control - assume dominion over - other animals because of the superior attributes that he possesses? If so, can you explain the logic of those ethics? it is natural for humans to more highly value the qualities that set our species apart from others, and thus, humans in general will regard our species as superior to others. Put that together with our ability to subjugate other species, and we can act on that sentiment.
|
So, paraphrasing, we know of and value our superior qualities, therefore we know that we are a superior species and that, in and of itself, entitles us to subjugate other species? What does that entitlement spring from? Simply our recognition of our superiority? Please explain again how that logic differs from the white man recognizing his own superiority to the black man, and thus becoming entitled to subjugate the black man? | it has historically also been our nature to value certain animals for their unique qualities and to have sympathy for animals with which we most identify. Therefore, we will probably also as a society set limits on how much certain animals are allowed to be subjugated for human use |
What are the criteria that "we" use to select these favored species? Is it based on their "superior" qualities as compared to the qualities of other species? Or is it arbitrary, or perhaps related to our appraisal of these species usefulness to our species? Again, from what ethical logic does our "right" to subjugate these creatures derive?
Irrespective of which of these applies, the act of selection and their favored treatment you speak of certainly speaks to "dominion" as I have used the word.| You are using this word to associate my opinion with fanatic religious opinions. |
That is not true, I intend no religious connotations at all. You are attributing intent where there is none. If it makes you more comfortable, substitute "dominance" or "nearly complete control" or "most of the perogatives of ownership" for "dominion". Your continuing assertion of my intent to associate you with "fanatic" religious opinions, is indeed paranoid. You associated, I did not. | I am not an ideologue. Human and animal relations are incredibly complex because we're dealing with numerous human societies, cultures, subcultures, and then countless other species. |
I do not see you as an ideologue. These relationships are indeed complex. That complexity makes the question that I am asking and it's answer difficult to formulate, but I will try in different words.
I am trying to understand the logic that states that it is alright for a "superior" (as defined) species to dominate and subjugate an "inferior" species; while it is definitely not alright for different races, or even groupings (self-defined master race, non aborigines vs. aborigines, etc. etc.) to dominate or subjugate one another!
I see you as stoutly defending a position that it is ethically consistent for man to kill (slaughterhouse, hunting}, eat, control (beasts of burden, etc.), destroy (rodents, snakes, etc.) manipulate (breeding}, even torture (some laboratory work) other species of animals because of a self realized and declared "superiority" to these other species in matters of cognition (although we know relatively little of the cognition of other animal species than ourselves), tool creation and use, "technology", and speech communication.
These criteria are as subject to deconstruction as ethical bases for dominance of one species over another, as they are deconstruction prone for the argument of intra-species dominance of one race or one breed over another.
What is the magic line at one taxonomic level or another of the heirarchy that defines one taxon from another in terms of superiority or inferiority - as to the ethics of how one may interact with another? The question is silly, without meaning!
So why does it make any sense when it is asked of the differentiations within the eighth taxonomic rank, species? Suddenly, the "superiority" of the current end or top of the evolutionary line, man, emerges as the self-defined master of all the (species) that he surveys. Is this logically consistent and ethical?
I am completely open to ad hominum tu quoque here, as I savor steak, chicken, and all kinds of animal protein. I wish deeply that I was a vegan and could be logically consistent in practice with my beliefs. I abhor hunting of all kinds, and cruelty to animals sickens me as much (not more) than cruelty to children or any act of human cruelty. Torture, for any purpose, is beyond my comprehension.
I consider animals to be different in abilities, and in some important ways, unequal to humans; but I do not feel humans have any more right to hurt, kill, or abuse animals than we have the right to do those things to other humans. Self defense against either animals or humans is, of course, excepted. I would seek to disable or kill any other animal that was threatening to kill or injure me, mine, or any other innocent human or other animal. Preservation trumps ethics!
The prey animals present a difficult choice matrix here. I cannot respond logically to questions involving interference in natural prey animal behavior. I see this as a similar dilemma to the abortion debate - at what week of gestation does terminating a pregnancy become a murder? The overall parameters are clear, but the devil is in the details!
However, all I am trying to speak to in this post, is the ethics and logic of an arbitrarily self-defined "superior" species of animal dominating and subjugating a similarly defined "inferior" animal with any sort of acceptable justification. There is much more to be said on this subject, but it is late now and this post is dismally long! If anyone wishes to continue, I will be up to it tomorrow! |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2008 : 15:10:05 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: | You have referenced evidence for this? I am not a biologist and I don't know if such studies have been done. |
You want evidence that animals naturally tend to act in their own best interests, then in the interests of their closest kin and social group if they are a social animal? Are you kidding? This isn't college biology or anything. Prey animals avoid predators. Predators go after the weakest and easiest to catch prey. Social animals care for their young. You want a reference to studies to prove this sort of stuff? Try reading any book about animals written for a 4th grader. If animals don't act in their own best interest, they go extinct. Sure, there are exceptions every once in a while, but they aren't common since natural is one cruel bitch, and if animals don't do things to perpetuate their genetic heritage, they become a genetic dead end.
| That is because you don't understand what I am asking. It is relevant if we are to discuss the relative rankings of at least the various vertibrata as to their worth or value as compared to the most "advanced" of their class - man. |
There you go again seeking out some strictly spelled-out ideology.
| An excellent dodge. Webster will do, unless you would care to substitute your own?: |
Not a dodge at all. There is no way one can say objectively that the Sistine Chapel ceiling is superior as artwork to the scribblings of a first grader without first defining terms. Just because those terms are often assumed on through common cultural experiences by people long before they have a discussion over which art has superior merit doesn't mean that no terms have been defined. Clearly humans are superior to animals under certain terms, so it seems pretty obvious to me that when a human says humans are superior to animals, they are referring to the objective ways in which humans actually are superior to animals.
(1) : of more importance, value, usefulness, or merit : of higher quality, accomplishment, or significance
Thus, under that definition, do you feel Marf, that any species (or taxonomic ranking) is superior to another species (or taxon?) Is the Linnaean heirarchy a hierarchy of value or worth? If so, in what way? If not....expand? |
This dictionary definition sheds absolutely zero light on the concept of "superior" in the context of this conversation. In order to say that something is more important, one must define the terms by which something is measured as important. In order to say that something has greater value, one must define the terms by which something is valued. In order to say that something is more useful, one must define the terms by which something is measured as useful.
I have already made my terms vividly clear. You want to twist what I'm saying into some claim that humans have some sort of divine right to subjugate other animals.
As I said before, as opposed to some divine or objective concept of superiority, I am saying that " humans are superior in the ways that we actually are superior. For instance, cognitive abilities, ability to create complex tools and technology, and the ability for complex communication through speech. Humans tend to value these qualities which make us unique and set us apart as a species, and thus think of ourselves as superior.
| Do you agree with this assessment? |
Yes, I agree with the fact that humans have greater cognitive ability, greater ability to create complex tools and technology, and greater ability for complex communication to speech then any other animal species known to humanity. Do you?
I also agree that humans as a collective tend to value these particular qualities and thereby view ourselves as set apart from other animals and generally more valuable than other animals. I base this opinion on plain facts of history which show human societies from all different times and places having little hesitation to eat other animals, domesticate them, use them for labor, and otherwise utilize animals for the benefit of people and societies.
| If so, does it logically lead to a position that, because of this defined "superiority", it is ethically acceptable for man to employ his "superior" abilities to largely do as he wishes with the "inferior" other species? |
Ethics are subjective so the answer to this question depends on the ethical system being used.
| Because we think we are superior, are we justified in acting superior to the detriment of those creatures we feel superior to? |
I would say that it is nature for species to work to survive and perpetuate themselves, and therefore species with the ability to subjugate other species to their own survival advantage can and probably will. This is a fact of biological evolution.
Whether this is justified or not is in the eye of the beholder since there is no perceivable objective or universal moral code to judge such actions.
When I am the beholder, I agree with a general principle that humans should subjugate animals for our own benefit, attempting to balance the amount of suffering we create against the amount of benefit that comes out of it. If the animal suffering becomes especially severe while the human benefit is miniscule, it crosses into the area of needless cruelty. But where exactly that line should be drawn is going to be incredibly difficult to decide. That will be mostly decided by social standards which change culture to culture mostly depending on availability of resources, history and precedent, outside influences, etc. But will there ever be a society which views animal rights as equal to human rights? I highly doubt it because I think human history shows quite a different tendency.
| Are we ethically entitled to kill and eat other animals? |
You keep asking this over and over as if ethics were some sort of objective code handed down from a sky daddy.
Even if some such code does exist, how are we to recognize it?
| Thus, does a tiger eating a wildebeeste violate any ethical code? Because of the tiger's superior size and strength? What does this ethic derive from? |
The most common ethical analysis of a tiger eating a wildebeest is that it is not an ethical question at all because the one making the decision (the tiger) isn't capable of a higher order of thinking enough to stop and make an ethical decision. We don't find perfectly healthy tigers starving in the wilderness because they've decided it is more ethical to be a vegetarian are therefore their carnivore nature is an abomination. And among well-fed house cats, we find plenty of animals willing to catch and torture prey rather than killing it efficiently because the predator is no longer driven by hunger, but rather only instinct. If animals were capable of making ethical decisions, where are the housecats refraining from hunting obviously out of compassion? On the contrary, domesticated cats tend to kill more birds and rodents - apparently for sport? - than wild cats because they are bigger and stronger and there is less risk to their survival. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat#Impact_of_hunting
There is evidence of naturally evolved altruistic behavior among the most intelligent of social animals such humans, great apes, and many large mammals. And that is easily explained by evolution: if the group views you as a nice, helpful person, this will benefit your social standing increase favors you might receive when you need help. See this article: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2007/06/25/altruism-among-chimps.aspx
The only time we see heroic self sacrifice among animals including humans is for the sake of kin (usually mothers or grandparents for babies or males protecting their social clan, or in the case of humans, the tribe, nation, or society they identify with), especially when the one doing the sacrificing is an older individual past the age of breeding. Regardless of ethics, this is what the evolutionary process produces.
| I am not concerned with irrationality or inconsistency, only with the ethical privileges that may accompany the "higher ability blessed" animals, specifically man. Is man entitled by some ethical logic to eat, breed, and manipulate development, experiment with, and generally just control - assume dominion over - other animals because of the superior attributes that he possesses? If so, can you explain the logic of those ethics? |
I already have.
I keep waiting for you to answer your own questions with regard to how humans treat insects, which are animals too.
| So, paraphrasing, we know of and value our superior qualities, therefore we know that we are a superior species and that, in and of itself, entitles us to subjugate other species? What does that entitlement spring from? Simply our recognition of our superiority? |
An entitlement is a right to receive benefits, so unless you are anthropomorphizing nature or citing God, entitlement does not apply to this discussion.
| Please explain again how that logic differs from the white man recognizing his own superiority to the black man, and thus becoming entitled to subjugate the black man? |
How does the logic differ? You changed a variable. Black people=human.
The traits of actual superior that I mentioned earlier in this conversation were higher order of cognitive thinking, complex tool making and technology, and complex ability to communicate through language. No human racial group is inherently deficient in any of this qualities compared to another racial group.
In other words, you have just committed the logical fallacy of false comparison.
| What are the criteria that "we" use to select these favored species? |
Part of it is the qualities I already named. Then there are other qualities which are connected to cultural traditions as much as they are connected to the animals' biologies. For instance, the self sufficient cat has become the favored pet of busy Americans, and the species has been breed to possess physical characteristics that humans find cute (proportionately large eyes, for instance), and so we value cats for their qualities which make them effective household companions.
| Is it based on their "superior" qualities as compared to the qualities of other species? |
Of course. I ask you again, do you regard the stepping on an ant to be as morally abhorrent as the senseless killing of an elephant?
| Or is it arbitrary, or perhaps related to our appraisal of these species usefulness to our species? |
What characteristics we decide to attribute value to is arbitrary. But the characteristics themselves are real and to some degree measurable. Saying that the ability to make tools is a superior quality is an arbitrary judgment. But saying that chimps have the ability to make tools is a fact.
| Again, from what ethical logic does our "right" to subjugate these creatures derive? |
From what ethical logic does any right derive? Ultimately from the communal needs and desires of people, and these derive from both our basic nature as the human species and from culture traditions and influences.
Why do you keep asking such obvious and pedantic questions?
| I am trying to understand the logic that states that it is alright for a "superior" (as defined) species to dominate and subjugate an "inferior" species; while it is definitely not alright for different races, or even groupings (self-defined master race, non aborigines vs. aborigines, etc. etc.) to dominate or subjugate one another! |
Again with the false comparison. We treat people and animals differently because people and animals are different. Are you denying that humans are fundamentally different from other species? Do you deny that the level with which the average human is ability to engage in abstract thought, reasoning, sophisticated language, and incredibly complex tool making and other creative invention is unique compared with any other known species?
White supremacists make false claims about people of other races. At some point Western scientists were actually measuring and comparing brains of people of different races, looking to prove that the white race was inherently superior in intelligence to other races. But all of these ideas and assumptions have been proven by science to be false. The ways in which human races biologically differ from each other isn't any greater than the way in which people within a large racial grouping differ from each other. For example, there is greater genetic diversity among black Africans (which makes sense since humans evolved in Africa.) So scientists have found that when they take genetic samples of black Africans, they find just as big genetic differences as they do when they sample a white European's genes and compare them to a variety of black African's genes. There is no fundamental difference between people of different races, only superficial ones. This is what destroys the logic of race supremacy.
This is why your constant comparing of animal rights to human ones is offensive, not only ethically, but intellectually. You are making a false comparison.
| I see you as stoutly defending a position that it is ethically consistent for man to kill (slaughterhouse, hunting}, eat, control (beasts of burden, etc.), destroy (rodents, snakes, etc.) manipulate (breeding}, even torture (some laboratory work) other species of animals because of a self realized and declared "superiority" to these other species in matters of cognition (although we know relatively little of the cognition of other animal species than ourselves), tool creation and use, "technology", and speech communication. |
First of all, it is possible to make an ethically consistent philosophy which would require humanity to go strict vegan, and it is possible to make an ethically consistent philosophy which would make it perfectly okay to torture animals for fun. Ethical codes follow values, and values are subjective.
Next, while there is much not known about animal intelligence, and there is increasing evidence that many vertebrates are much more intelligent and sentient than ever previously thought, it is known that humans have a much higher level of sentience. If you are suggesting that other animals are just as sophisticated emotionally, cognitively, in terms of their ability for abstract thought, and their temporary sense, then you really haven't bothered to look into the studies that have been done. I suggest you start with "Wild Minds" by Marc Hauser. "Through Our Eyes Only" by Marian Stamp Dawkins is also a good book for the layman about the scientific study of animal intelligence. Many animals are truly amazing, and for this I think they deserve our respect, our sympathy, and certain rights and protection, which they get in modern, developed nations. But I think it is absurd to regard them as equal to human beings or to refrain from utilizing them to some degree for human benefit. At least until we reach a point in technological development where animals are of no necessary use at all.
| What is the magic line at one taxonomic level or another of the heirarchy that defines one taxon from another in terms of superiority or inferiority - as to the ethics of how one may interact with another? The question is silly, without meaning! |
Of course it is silly; you invoked "magic".
| So why does it make any sense when it is asked of the differentiations within the eighth taxonomic rank, species? Suddenly, the "superiority" of the current end or top of the evolutionary line, man, emerges as the self-defined master of all the (species) that he surveys. Is this logically consistent and ethical? |
You're right. I should get the death penalty for all those flies and spiders I've killed.
| I am completely open to ad hominum tu quoque here, as I savor steak, chicken, and all kinds of animal protein. I wish deeply that I was a vegan and could be logically consistent in practice with my beliefs. I abhor hunting of all kinds, and cruelty to animals sickens me as much (not more) than cruelty to children or any act of human cruelty. Torture, for any purpose, is beyond my comprehension. |
If this is true then you are really engaging in a pathetic type of hypocriticism. I mean, I can understand Thomas Jefferson and George Washington not freeing their slaves because the personal consequences would have been total financial ruin, but if you (I mean on a personal level) truly think it wrong and cruel to eat animals and animal products, then you should make the effort to stop. It isn't all that hard given the huge variety of tasty vegan alternative foods in regular grocery stores, and the growing number of alternative grocery stores. I know plenty of vegans. I learned to cook vegan for my student group in college. I have gone vegan for short periods of time before just as a sort of fasting from cholesterol, and as I've already said in this conversation, I eat little meat and animal products because of concerns about environmental costs. Or at least go vegetarian. It ain't that hard if you feel ethically that strongly about it.
I, however, do not. I don't like the extremes of the meat industry, so I buy cage free eggs and free range meat products. But I have no problem with killing animals so that I can enjoy the traditional Polish sausage my mom's family makes every holiday season, or savor some really good sushi on my wedding anniversary, or be transported by to my dearly departed Grandmother's kitchen by the smell of corned beef and cabbage or chicken noodle soup.
And while I can't stomach the idea of eating cat (or an iguana, since I once had 4 as pets), I am also fully aware that much of my love for my pets is tied to my anthropomorphizing of them. This is more a psychological block than anything logical, such as my difficulty with watching surgery even though I know the doctors are helping the patient.
| I consider animals to be different in abilities, and in some important ways, unequal to humans; but I do not feel humans have any more right to hurt, kill, or abuse animals than we have the right to do those things to other humans. Self defense against either animals or humans is, of course, excepted. I would seek to disable or kill any other animal that was threatening to kill or injure me, mine, or any other innocent human or other animal. Preservation trumps ethics! |
Preservation is where our concepts of animal inferiority ultimately originate. In most of human existence, meat, animal products and labor have been necessary for the preservation of human populations. The only reason we treat animals so much better now and actually give a dang about their intelligence is because we have the leisure and stability in the first world to do so. More altruistic ethical systems are, to some degree, a luxury. Like I said, if we get to the point of Star Trek utopia, animals may just get equal status in society, since at that point we won't have any selfish reason to subjugate them.
| I see this as a similar dilemma to the abortion debate - at what week of gestation does terminating a pregnancy become a murder? The overall parameters are clear, but the devil is in the details! |
That isn't the devil. The real evil is in ignoring details for the sake of overall parameters. That's the sort of ideology stuff I was earlier referring to. It is easy to come up with logical, consistent ideals, but reality is just going to throw a wrench in it on a regular basis, and that's when people have to sit down and face the fact that the philosophies by which we actually live our lives are more complex than we'll probably ever personally understand.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Prof's home attacked by suspected ALF terrorists
