Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[gee]

Of course we should eat DOMESTICATED critters (after they are dead!) as we are all "OMNIVOURS" (multi-types of food) that's why we have the COMBINATION TYPE TEETH that Tear as well as Grind...But my teeth prefer the marinated type dead animal...basted in BBQ sauce ...

Omnivours means "can eat everything" not "have to eat everything".
You're cool blue flame. You live in your wonderful powerful country eating some BBQ and you feel smart.
The day you will turn your head to see the other side of the story will be the best of your life or the worst. You will be smarter but you also will see the consequences of our behavior toward the rest of the world and animals.

And only then you will fully understand the word : Conditioning.

Nothing but ourselves can free our minds, said Mr Marley.

 

[OneEye]

I suppose the question for me is, if humans are merely animals, and some animals eat meat, and humans by nature eat meat, then what's the big deal? In order to make any kind of case for "ethical" vegetarianism (vs. merely having a personal preference for vegetarianism), one would have to say, "People are in some essential way different from animals, and so ought not to exercise their gustatory impulses."

Another thought along these lines: If people are mere animals, and yet should not eat other animals, then should we try to reform all carnivorous and omnivorous species along with humanity, and teach all nature to stop eating meat?

The basic question is, why is it okay for a bear to eat a pig, while it's not okay for me to eat one?

(Someone has probably posted this thought already. Sorry, I didn't take time to read through the whole thread! If so, please point me at the relevant section of the discussion.)

 

[learningphysics]

I suppose the question for me is, if humans are merely animals, and some animals eat meat, and humans by nature eat meat, then what's the big deal? In order to make any kind of case for "ethical" vegetarianism (vs. merely having a personal preference for vegetarianism), one would have to say, "People are in some essential way different from animals, and so ought not to exercise their gustatory impulses."

Another thought along these lines: If people are mere animals, and yet should not eat other animals, then should we try to reform all carnivorous and omnivorous species along with humanity, and teach all nature to stop eating meat?

The basic question is, why is it okay for a bear to eat a pig, while it's not okay for me to eat one?

(Someone has probably posted this thought already. Sorry, I didn't take time to read through the whole thread! If so, please point me at the relevant section of the discussion.)

Along the same line of thought, why is it ok for a cat to eat its young whereas it is unacceptable for a human parent to eat its child?

 

[OneEye]

Along the same line of thought, why is it ok for a cat to eat its young whereas it is unacceptable for a human parent to eat its child?

Yeah! Right! And while we're at it, why is forcible copulation to be tolerated among, e.g., Orangutans (and, I am sure, countless other species) but not among humans? A common homosexual apologetic is that homosexuality is a natural behavior in the animal world, and therefore should be acceptable among humans. The next, short step is to allow humans to engage in any animalistic sexual behavior - including the most brutal.

And if birds are within their rights to kill each other's offspring - and if members of many species kill their brothers for personal benefit - then why do we not tolerate such behavior in humans? In the converse, if it is fair game to destroy a human embryo on the grounds that it is not really a human, then is it not equally acceptable to destroy, say, a cat's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really cats? Or a seal's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really seals? How about a panda's embryo?

Au courant among ethicists is the willingness to restrain human behavior toward animals on the grounds that "animals are people, too!" But that knife cuts both ways: If we must accord animals personhood, then cannot we allow humans to behave according to any bestial standard they find? To allow the first and deny the second is special pleading of the most brazen kind.

These facts all lead us to the conclusion that we all believe humans are different from all other animals, and thus subject to special considerations. Ironically, the ones who are most patently guilty of antichauvinistic doublethink are the animal right activists - for precisely the reasons stated above.

I conclude that we should all frankly admit that we really do believe in a double standard whereby humans and the other animals are considered and treated as different - and that we should all frankly cop to the fact that we really don't accept that humanity is just another kind of animal life - that we are, rather, special and different, only physically animal, and not essentially animal at all!

 

[learningphysics]

Yeah! Right! And while we're at it, why is forcible copulation to be tolerated among, e.g., Orangutans (and, I am sure, countless other species) but not among humans? A common homosexual apologetic is that homosexuality is a natural behavior in the animal world, and therefore should be acceptable among humans. The next, short step is to allow humans to engage in any animalistic sexual behavior - including the most brutal.

And if birds are within their rights to kill each other's offspring - and if members of many species kill their brothers for personal benefit - then why do we not tolerate such behavior in humans? In the converse, if it is fair game to destroy a human embryo on the grounds that it is not really a human, then is it not equally acceptable to destroy, say, a cat's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really cats? Or a seal's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really seals? How about a panda's embryo?

Au courant among ethicists is the willingness to restrain human behavior toward animals on the grounds that "animals are people, too!" But that knife cuts both ways: If we must accord animals personhood, then cannot we allow humans to behave according to any bestial standard they find? To allow the first and deny the second is special pleading of the most brazen kind.

These facts all lead us to the conclusion that we all believe humans are different from all other animals, and thus subject to special considerations. Ironically, the ones who are most patently guilty of antichauvinistic doublethink are the animal right activists - for precisely the reasons stated above.

I conclude that we should all frankly admit that we really do believe in a double standard whereby humans and the other animals are considered and treated as different - and that we should all frankly cop to the fact that we really don't accept that humanity is just another kind of animal life - that we are, rather, special and different, only physically animal, and not essentially animal at all!

We are special and different in the sense that we have superior intelligence, which leads to power over the other species. That is all. That superior intelligence leads to an awareness of the pain and suffering of other species. None of this means that we are simply morally justified to do whatever we wish to other species.

The difference in humans may in fact make us responsible for protecting the other species in this world. The goal is not to simply make animals behave like humans, or humans behave like animals. The goal is to minimize pain and suffering.

Personally I don't think it's acceptable for a bear to eat a pig. But what's the practical solution to this problem? We are limited by our time and resources, so we do what we can.

Yes there is an essential difference (our intelligence). However I don't see how this translates to humans having any more "right" to exist than other animals.

 

[Alkatran]

Yeah! Right! And while we're at it, why is forcible copulation to be tolerated among, e.g., Orangutans (and, I am sure, countless other species) but not among humans? A common homosexual apologetic is that homosexuality is a natural behavior in the animal world, and therefore should be acceptable among humans. The next, short step is to allow humans to engage in any animalistic sexual behavior - including the most brutal.

And if birds are within their rights to kill each other's offspring - and if members of many species kill their brothers for personal benefit - then why do we not tolerate such behavior in humans? In the converse, if it is fair game to destroy a human embryo on the grounds that it is not really a human, then is it not equally acceptable to destroy, say, a cat's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really cats? Or a seal's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really seals? How about a panda's embryo?

Au courant among ethicists is the willingness to restrain human behavior toward animals on the grounds that "animals are people, too!" But that knife cuts both ways: If we must accord animals personhood, then cannot we allow humans to behave according to any bestial standard they find? To allow the first and deny the second is special pleading of the most brazen kind.

These facts all lead us to the conclusion that we all believe humans are different from all other animals, and thus subject to special considerations. Ironically, the ones who are most patently guilty of antichauvinistic doublethink are the animal right activists - for precisely the reasons stated above.

I conclude that we should all frankly admit that we really do believe in a double standard whereby humans and the other animals are considered and treated as different - and that we should all frankly cop to the fact that we really don't accept that humanity is just another kind of animal life - that we are, rather, special and different, only physically animal, and not essentially animal at all!

Our morals are different this we are unique and different? Sounds like a pretty loose argument to me.

A cat can kill its young and eat it because if the baby was unlikely to survive it doesn't make sense to feed it for 2 more weeks. That doesn't make it right for us to do it, but it does make it right for the cat. (Unless you side with Kant)

Morals are like a societal evolution: morals that make everyone happy flourish and morals that make people sad but other happy die off.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

What are the arguements against eating eggs?

 

[shrumeo]

humans are very very selfish when it comes to anything. they prefer to be in control of everything they possibly can be. they want to be in control of what they eat, how juicy and thick the meat is, they want to be in an environment where they are the masters and controllers and the animals are the victims, the tortured, slaughtered victims. they cannot simply kill the animal, they mutate it and then kill it. they are mutating animals for their own pleasure...how selfish is that?

Can you name an animal that does not act this way?

this is hardly a convincing argument especially in light of the excellent posts several people have made throughout the thread against meat consumption.

Um, ok, so your emotions won't allow you to be open-minded. It's understandable so I don't mind.

i agree that cruel practices must be stopped - the law and boycotting can both be very effective.

A boycott on meat would NEVER work in a million years. You couldn't get enough people to give up meat. It's a natural instinct for them to crave it. Besides, we don't want to do away with the meat industry. We'd just like to reform it to be less cruel.

dogs do extremely well on veg diets - and tend to be free from problems non-veg diets cause (and there are quite a few of these). here are 2 links for veg dogs if anyone is interested:
http://www.vegetariandogs.com/
http://www.veggiepets.com/
there are lots of others and even big commercial petfood manufacturers - natural life and nature's choice (i think) - provide a vegetarian dog food since some dogs are actually allergic to meat by-products. of course, there are pure veg petfood companies as well such as evolution (http://www.petfoodshop.com/) and hoana (http://www.vegepet.com/ - provides veg supplementation) which are both excellent.

in friendship,
prad

Thank you for saying what I wanted you to say.
Dogs need meat if they need anything. Meat and bones.
My dog wouldn't dream of eating vegetables (unless it's got meat wrapped around it). And actually, he did develop an allergy.. to wheat and corn. I won't let him have any dog food that contains any of it. It has to be meat based, (and maybe a rice filler). It's the only thing that won't set his skin aflame and start him shedding all over the place.

Well, what I really wanted to ask, Is it being unethical toward the dog to force him to eat vegetables? What if the dog refuses (I know my dog would). What then? Am I to starve my dog because I refuse to feed him meat based food?

Along the same line of thought, why is it ok for a cat to eat its young whereas it is unacceptable for a human parent to eat its child?

Cats don't have police.

Personally I don't think it's acceptable for a bear to eat a pig.

I'm sorry , but this is just retarded.

 

[Dissident Dan]

What are the arguements against eating eggs?

The birds kept for eggs are among the most abused animals on the planet. They are kept in wire changes where they cannot walk or stretch their wings for the few years that they are kept alive. The cages are stacked one on top of the other for many layers, and the rows stretch as far as the eye can see. The birds on the layers above excrete on the birds below. The whole place smells of ammonia. The birds are kept in the dark and fed antiobiotics. When their egg production wanes, they are starved to force them into a process called molting.

For pictures, check this out:
http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/archive/battery.html

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

What about the philosophy of working within the system rather than condemning it? An example is Atticus Finch, from "To Kill A Mockingbird" if you've read it.

If animals were treated correctly is egg consumption justifiable? Should I suffer a lack of an alternate protein source because of the misdeeds of others? Wouldn't it be better to push for better treatment of egg-laying birds rather than trying to unrealistically stop eating eggs with the belief that it will create change, or is this belief realistic?

For those wondering if they have made a difference, I am currentlye experimenting with vegeterianism. I'm eating eggs and found Tofu to be undesirable - perhaps because of my lack of experience in cooking it. Tonight I shall engage peanut butter in the form of an apple spread!

 

[learningphysics]

Can you name an animal that does not act this way?


Um, ok, so your emotions won't allow you to be open-minded. It's understandable so I don't mind.

A boycott on meat would NEVER work in a million years. You couldn't get enough people to give up meat. It's a natural instinct for them to crave it. Besides, we don't want to do away with the meat industry. We'd just like to reform it to be less cruel.



Thank you for saying what I wanted you to say.
Dogs need meat if they need anything. Meat and bones.
My dog wouldn't dream of eating vegetables (unless it's got meat wrapped around it). And actually, he did develop an allergy.. to wheat and corn. I won't let him have any dog food that contains any of it. It has to be meat based, (and maybe a rice filler). It's the only thing that won't set his skin aflame and start him shedding all over the place.

Well, what I really wanted to ask, Is it being unethical toward the dog to force him to eat vegetables? What if the dog refuses (I know my dog would). What then? Am I to starve my dog because I refuse to feed him meat based food?


Cats don't have police.


I'm sorry , but this is just retarded.

lol! Don't come crying to me if a bear tries to eat you.

Simple question: Why is it acceptable to eat animals that are not humans, but it's unacceptable to eat humans? I challenge you to give a moral justification.

 

[OneEye]

Our morals are different this we are unique and different? Sounds like a pretty loose argument to me.

Please allow me to clarify my position:

Everyone here, including the animal-rights people (especially the animal-rights people), believes that a different moral code applies to humans than to animals - that humans are responsible to animals in ways that animals are not. This belief places mankind into a separate category from any other animal - the category of moral responsibility.

This is only an initial observation - the implications and development of that observation are broad and far-reaching. My only point in making the observation was to show the self-contradiction involved in animal-rights activists saying (essentially,) "We must not harm animals because animals are people, too."

I hope that this clears that up.

 

[OneEye]

Simple question: Why is it acceptable to eat animals that are not humans, but it's unacceptable to eat humans? I challenge you to give a moral justification.

(Although your question wasn't directed to me...)

Here are two:

1) You might believe that God has said so.
2) As I mentioned above, it is fundamental human dogma that humans and animals are essentially different kinds of creatures. One of the practical effects of this might be to categorize non-humans as "food" while categorizing humans as "non-food".

Hope this helps!

 

[splitendz]

Please sir, just one step further.

I believe that humans have the deepest understanding and practice of empathy for others. This is manifested in everyday life. Maybe if we were all as simple as chickens for example then we would not think so deep as to concern ourselves with the rights that other animals on Earth “should be” entitled to. Do chickens worry about our well being? Sometimes the human race takes the most general aspects of life and survival many steps too far.

 

[OneEye]

Do chickens worry about our well being?

I am currently developing a new evolutionary theory entitled "Tastes Like Chicken."

The basis of the theory is that the entire sweep of evolutionary development has all aimed toward the production of a creature which tastes like - well - the chicken!

We are fortunate to live in the age in which the aim and goal of evolution has reached its fruition. Thus, the chicken (not man,) is the pinnacle of evolution!

Where does this place man?

Well, it seems that, all along, we have merely been "Chicken Helper."

 

[learningphysics]

Nature has created an unfortunate situation where animals need to feed on other animals to survive. This is a great evil... and perhaps in the future humans or some other form of life can correct it. I don't know what form the solution would take. Till then isn't it only morally right that we do our best to minimize the suffering in the world?

 

[OneEye]

Nature has created an unfortunate situation where animals need to feed on other animals to survive. This is a great evil... and perhaps in the future humans or some other form of life can correct it. I don't know what form the solution would take. Till then isn't it only morally right that we do our best to minimize the suffering in the world?

Three things come to mind here:

1) There is clearly a tension between minimizing short-term and long-term suffering. I agree with minimizing suffering, but I tend to side with minimizing long-term suffering (vs. short-term). This only has a marginal impact on this discussion, but it is an important question when one takes on the question of defining "good" (a la, "the greatest good for the greatest number of people").

2) Although animals are clearly "sensate" (can feel pain), it is not at all clear that animals are "aware" (know they are feeling pain, as you and I do). Evidence could be construed on either side of the case. Thus, though animals can experience pain, it is probably unwarranted anthropomorphism to believe that animals suffer.

3) I found it highly provocative to see that you use "nature" and "moral" as sometime opposites. This means that you see morality as sometimes being the "unnatural" thing - and that what is "natural" is not necessarily moral. Hence, morality must be supernatural in the most limited sense: that morality is not defined by what is, but rather by what ought to be - and hence we judge nature by morality rather than judging morality by nature. This is a profound insight, and a powerful implication in discussing the nature of morality (pardon the pun).

 

[OneEye]

Paralegomenon

The enormous pumpkin was getting kind of mushy on the doorstep, so we threw it in the back of the car and drove it down the road to LW's ranch. He had about a score of pigs kept by for the sale barn, and they could always use some more food. We slewed through the mud outside the pen and backed up to the fence. The pigs, at first curious, scattered away as the car approached. I got out of the car, and the pigs, guessing my errand, scrambled back toward the fence. I opended the trunk and heaved the huge pumpkin over the fence panel, and the pigs immediately set to, gouging at the pumpkin's flesh with their lower teeth, trying to scrape or tear away bits of pumpkin, and smacking their jaws with that wet sound peculiar to pigs.

There wasn't room for all the pigs to get at the pumpkin, so there were quite a few fights for a place at the pumpkin. The pigs showed no concern for each other, jostling and stepping on one another, totally selfishly absorbed in serving only their own interests - at the expense of their neighbor's. Two of the pigs in the pen had nasty, wheezing coughs, but the other pigs ignored this fact. The little boars clearly had the advantage over the gilts, but size was a determining factor as well. "Them that had, got, and them that hadn't, got none." Such are porcine ethics.

Such selfish brutishness is totally unwelcome among humans, of course. But it is the order of the day for pigs. A pig will even eat ham or sausage if you feed it to him. So, the question is: Do we treat the pig according to human ethics, or according to piggy law? Is it more moral to treat a pig with the sort of respect which a human expects, or should we treat the pig by its own way? Does the pig have a preference? And anyway, which should we prefer?

 

[learningphysics]

Three things come to mind here:

1) There is clearly a tension between minimizing short-term and long-term suffering. I agree with minimizing suffering, but I tend to side with minimizing long-term suffering (vs. short-term). This only has a marginal impact on this discussion, but it is an important question when one takes on the question of defining "good" (a la, "the greatest good for the greatest number of people").

2) Although animals are clearly "sensate" (can feel pain), it is not at all clear that animals are "aware" (know they are feeling pain, as you and I do). Evidence could be construed on either side of the case. Thus, though animals can experience pain, it is probably unwarranted anthropomorphism to believe that animals suffer.

3) I found it highly provocative to see that you use "nature" and "moral" as sometime opposites. This means that you see morality as sometimes being the "unnatural" thing - and that what is "natural" is not necessarily moral. Hence, morality must be supernatural in the most limited sense: that morality is not defined by what is, but rather by what ought to be - and hence we judge nature by morality rather than judging morality by nature. This is a profound insight, and a powerful implication in discussing the nature of morality (pardon the pun).

Thanks. Yes, I did want to make the point that nature is not necessarily moral.

 

[jrs06]

so what do we have to eat then? (the plants? they are alive too)

 

[lilboy]

laughs~!

2) Although animals are clearly "sensate" (can feel pain), it is not at all clear that animals are "aware" (know they are feeling pain, as you and I do). Evidence could be construed on either side of the case. Thus, though animals can experience pain, it is probably unwarranted anthropomorphism to believe that animals suffer.

Unaware? At least I'm sure a dog[f] will bite you if you harm its pups.

The enormous pumpkin was getting kind of mushy on the doorstep, so we threw it in the back of the car and drove it down the road to LW's ranch. He had about a score of pigs kept by for the sale barn, and they could always use some more food. We slewed through the mud outside the pen and backed up to the fence. The pigs, at first curious, scattered away as the car approached. I got out of the car, and the pigs, guessing my errand, scrambled back toward the fence. I opended the trunk and heaved the huge pumpkin over the fence panel, and the pigs immediately set to, gouging at the pumpkin's flesh with their lower teeth, trying to scrape or tear away bits of pumpkin, and smacking their jaws with that wet sound peculiar to pigs.

There wasn't room for all the pigs to get at the pumpkin, so there were quite a few fights for a place at the pumpkin. The pigs showed no concern for each other, jostling and stepping on one another, totally selfishly absorbed in serving only their own interests - at the expense of their neighbor's. Two of the pigs in the pen had nasty, wheezing coughs, but the other pigs ignored this fact. The little boars clearly had the advantage over the gilts, but size was a determining factor as well. "Them that had, got, and them that hadn't, got none." Such are porcine ethics.

Such selfish brutishness is totally unwelcome among humans, of course. But it is the order of the day for pigs. A pig will even eat ham or sausage if you feed it to him. So, the question is: Do we treat the pig according to human ethics, or according to piggy law? Is it more moral to treat a pig with the sort of respect which a human expects, or should we treat the pig by its own way? Does the pig have a preference? And anyway, which should we prefer?

You wouldn't be so different from them, if you were raised like them. So in that case, should we treat you with respect?

so what do we have to eat then? (the plants? they are alive too)

Plants differ in the sense that they don't have nerve cells like animals.
However, eat whatever you like. There's no point forcing yourself to a diet just because it's the "right" diet. It's not worth it.


----------------------------------------------------------------

Nevertheless, animal youngs like kittens, calves, and chicks are dependent on their parents. When we slaughter a hen, we take away from the chicks their mother.

Is getting that extra satisfaction from meat really worth it?

Advice: Eat what you need.

Of course, not forgetting those who ARE dependent on meat: Unless you are a saint, eating meat is definitely a better option compared to getting sick yourselves.

Advice: Eat what you need.

 

[OneEye]

Unaware? At least I'm sure a dog[f] will bite you if you harm its pups.

Allow me to clarify what I am saying: We know that animals experience pain, and we know that they react to pain. What is not clear is that animals are aware of their pain. When you and I are hurt, we not only feel and react to the pain, we can also reflect on the pain: We know that we are feeling pain, and we can analyze and rationalize both the experience of pain and the knowledge of it. We do not know whether animals have that faculty or not. In order to definitively conclude that animals are aware, we would have to actually be able to enter into their experience. This, we cannot do.

You wouldn't be so different from them, if you were raised like them.

Interesting assertion. How do you back it up? This statement cannot be justified on any view of the nature of man: Even in an evolutionary context, which regards man as nothing more than an animal, one would have to conclude that human morality is "in the genes" in order to explain its existence at all, and especially in order to explain the universal phenomenon of morality among all human groups. You would have to invent a new religion in order to create a basis for your statement.

My contention - the idea that I have been developing in this thread - is that there is a fundamental, essential difference between humans and animals which ultimately does not seem to be either nature or nurture. I feel that this is the best conclusion from both the external evidence and from the internal experience of being human myself.

Please see this post for the beginning statement of my position.

 

[Kerrie]

The birds kept for eggs are among the most abused animals on the planet. They are kept in wire changes where they cannot walk or stretch their wings for the few years that they are kept alive. The cages are stacked one on top of the other for many layers, and the rows stretch as far as the eye can see. The birds on the layers above excrete on the birds below. The whole place smells of ammonia. The birds are kept in the dark and fed antiobiotics. When their egg production wanes, they are starved to force them into a process called molting.

For pictures, check this out:
http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/archive/battery.html

very informativ Dan, but i believe the question was being asked in the context of are eggs okay to eat from the vegetarian standpoint...there are many organic farms that claim they treat their chickens well, thus a better option for those vegetarians who eat eggs but are concerned with animal treatment...

there seems to be a difference in reasons as to why people decide on vegetarianism...for example, my dad does not eat meat hardly ever for health reasons, others don't because of the animal treatment involved...both valid reasons. i think the best an advocate of animal rights can do is educate the public (such as dan does) in how they are treated so the mass consumer can eat.

those who choose to still eat meat but are concerned with animal treatment might choose their grocer based on how they obtain their products.

 

[physicsisphirst]

A boycott on meat would NEVER work in a million years. You couldn't get enough people to give up meat. It's a natural instinct for them to crave it. Besides, we don't want to do away with the meat industry. We'd just like to reform it to be less cruel.

doing away with cruelty is a good idea, but boycotts do work. however, you are confusing the purpose of the boycott on meat. it is not to eliminate meat eating which would be rather redundant. the boycott would be to do away with cruelty in the industry.

Thank you for saying what I wanted you to say. Dogs need meat if they need anything. Meat and bones.

i don't think either of us really know what you wanted me to say :D. if you look at the links you will see that dogs do very well on non-meat based diets. they don't need meat and they don't need bones (in fact, some vets warn against giving dogs bones because broken ones can get stuck in the throat). in the earlier post, i provided 'evidence' that they don't need meat through the links, through the fact that lots of dogs (like mine) are vegetarian, as well as through the reality that even large commercial petfood companies do provide a vegetarian alternative - not to appease human vegetarians, but because some dogs just don't handle the meat products in dogfood too well.

there is nothing 'natural' about dog food anyway. in fact, the vegetarian dogfoods are eagerly eaten by dogs simply because they really don't have any idea that there is no meat in it. it's not like they go around thinking i must have meat or i'll find myself depleted of dietary nutrients.

as for your question regarding is it cruel to force a veg dogfood on a dog who you don't seem to think would want it, you might ask the similar question is it cruel to force a different brand of dogfood on a dog who doesn't want it. the issue really has nothing to do with meat.

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

Such selfish brutishness is totally unwelcome among humans, of course. But it is the order of the day for pigs.

such selfish brutishness is unwelcome anywhere, but it is also the order of the day for many humans: take a look at people shopping at this time of year (there are far more gruesome examples such as refugee camps, but christmas shoppers should suffice to make the point).

Allow me to clarify what I am saying: We know that animals experience pain, and we know that they react to pain. What is not clear is that animals are aware of their pain.

this is really a typical specieist argument just one step removed from descartes' animals are mere automatons who can't even feel pain. it tries to by-pass the reality of pain with allusions of awareness (it used to 'justify' pain therapies to people in insane asylums as well, till more humane methods were enforced). unfortunately, the fear of anthropomorphism clouds much rational thinking.

We do not know whether animals have that faculty or not. In order to definitively conclude that animals are aware, we would have to actually be able to enter into their experience.

you could say the same about people then. you cannot enter into another's experience, therefore you cannot conclude definitively that another person is aware. however, since we give the other person the benefit of the doubt (sometimes anyway - slaves and jews, for instance, weren't always given the benefit of that doubt), it should not be so difficult to do the same for other beings who we know "experience pain, and ... react to pain" just like we do.

My contention - the idea that I have been developing in this thread - is that there is a fundamental, essential difference between humans and animals which ultimately does not seem to be either nature or nurture. I feel that this is the best conclusion from both the external evidence and from the internal experience of being human myself.

there have been more than 3 decades of research into animal sentience (eg see Masson's When Elephants Weep for one of several sources) that provide 'external evidence' along the lines that there are 'fundamental and essential' similarities between humans and animals. in any case, if we are to put humans on a pedestal, let us at least acknowledge that empathy and compassion are primary grounds for doing so (these traits apparently are demonstrated by animals as well), and hence, it can be concluded that since humans have the capacity for empathizing with the suffering of others, they should also be able to extend their compassion.

in friendship,
prad

 

[kirkmcloren]

Allow me to clarify what I am saying: We know that animals experience pain, and we know that they react to pain. What is not clear is that animals are aware of their pain. When you and I are hurt, we not only feel and react to the pain, we can also reflect on the pain: We know that we are feeling pain, and we can analyze and rationalize both the experience of pain and the knowledge of it. We do not know whether animals have that faculty or not. In order to definitively conclude that animals are aware, we would have to actually be able to enter into their experience. This, we cannot do.

We can observe them. Humans share speech and communicate an experience. Without language we have to observe. I offer the following story

Roy Chapman Andrews was the fellow who discovered the first dinosaur eggs. He was in the Gobi desert at the time. Roy and his dog, a Samoyed, were inseparable. The dog showed up at camp without Roy and seemed agitated, barking and tugging on peoples pant legs. He would run from the camp and then run back repeating this strange behavior. A couple of the men got into a truck and the dog ran before them and led them to where Roy, who had been scratching dirt away from the base of a rock, had gotten stuck when the same rock moved.

What is significant is that the dog led them there not by the shortest route but by the shortest route the truck could go. I think the human race by and large sees little and lives in its own world. Thus they practice insensitivity and cruelness because they lack awareness.

 

[learningphysics]

In order to definitively conclude that animals are aware, we would have to actually be able to enter into their experience. This, we cannot do.

I must repeat what physicsphirst said here... the same can be said for other humans. We cannot enter into another human's experience. We simply assume that he/she shares similar experiences to what we do. Why do we not make the same assumption about animals?

 

[physicsisphirst]

I think the human race by and large sees little and lives in its own world. Thus they practice insensitivity and cruelness because they lack awareness.

i think you have hit it right on. throughout history we have the predominance of the egocentricity - most dramatically manifested perhaps by the geocentric theory in which not only the Earth but man ends up at the center of the universe. as awareness increased, other realities become possible.

for instance, the idea of abusing your pets is 'illegal' in many parts of the world now - it was not so 100 years ago. people are working towards better conditions for farm animals presently, because the awareness has developed that these beings can and do suffer immensely.

there will be progress made in various areas - despite arguments to the contrary based on finance, vanity, anthropomorphism, absurdity etc - because people do become aware, they do empathize, and eventually they do act. it just seems to take a long, long time.

in friendship,
prad

 

[russ_watters]

I must repeat what physicsphirst said here... the same can be said for other humans. We cannot enter into another human's experience. We simply assume that he/she shares similar experiences to what we do. Why do we not make the same assumption about animals?

Its probably too convenient for your liking but since humans can vocalize their experiences, they can be shared. That doesn't prove that other animals don't experience, but neither can it be proven that they do unless they can vocalize it for us.

 

[kirkmcloren]

see Masson's When Elephants Weep for one of several sources) that provide 'external evidence' along the lines that there are 'fundamental and essential' similarities between humans and animals.

in friendship,
prad

I found http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Oaks/3538/elephants.html
very touching

In Memory of Damini