Scoffing too much meat and eggs is ‘just as bad as smoking’, claim scientists

[8ball]

I've read plenty of ethics (altho it's a while ago now), also specifically on animal rights. What I'm trying to point out here is that you (and many others, I'm not trying to single you out) has a belief that there is something unique about all humans that means that by virtue of this difference humans must treat each other differently than we treat animals. The difficulty with that line of argument is that it runs into trouble when we come to marginal cases - i.e. humans that don't seem to possess this virtue (whether that be ethical reasoning, language, rationality, autonomy etc etc). What then?

That's a good point to make regarding speciesism, and has been addressed on this thread to some degree already. That doesn't mean the term 'murder' applies to choking a chicken <cough> for your dinner, though. Not by quite an immensely, unimaginably long shot.

 

[TruXta]

That's a good point to make regarding speciesism, and has been addressed on this thread to some degree already. That doesn't mean the term 'murder' applies to choking a chicken <cough> for your dinner, though. Not by quite an immensely, unimaginably long shot.

Christ, people do get hung up on this bit of wordage. Killing then. The point is the same, wrt an ethical debate.

 

[8ball]

Yeah. You're extrapolating from the current situation and trying to make that sound like the historical norm, when that is patently false.

The historical norm being defined by certain incidents in Medieval Europe in the 13th to 18th centuries I suppose? Actually - where did I extrapolate anything to try and make it sound like a historical norm?

 

[andysays]

I've read plenty of ethics (altho it's a while ago now), also specifically on animal rights. What I'm trying to point out here is that you (and many others, I'm not trying to single you out) has a belief that there is something unique about all humans that means that by virtue of this difference humans must treat each other differently than we treat animals. The difficulty with that line of argument is that it runs into trouble when we come to marginal cases - i.e. humans that don't seem to possess this virtue (whether that be ethical reasoning, language, rationality, autonomy etc etc). What then?

I personally take the position that because most humans demonstrate the capacity for ethical reasoning, we should treat all of them as if they do, simply by virtue of their humanity, whether or not they have demonstrated that capacity or are capable of demonstrating it.

Will that do?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've read plenty of ethics (altho it's a while ago now), also specifically on animal rights. What I'm trying to point out here is that you (and many others, I'm not trying to single you out) has a belief that there is something unique about all humans that means that by virtue of this difference humans must treat each other differently than we treat animals. The difficulty with that line of argument is that it runs into trouble when we come to marginal cases - i.e. humans that don't seem to possess this virtue (whether that be ethical reasoning, language, rationality, autonomy etc etc). What then?

We're special because we choose to be. There's little else to it. Some quite horrific treatment is still doled out to some humans by virtue of their presumed inferiority - children born with no cerebral cortex, who are often though of not to have any consciousness worth considering. I think that's mistaken in that case, but I also think that the conscious awareness of other animals can often be greater by many measures than that of some humans.

But we extend the concept of human rights even to humans who can have no idea what rights are. Some would extend these rights to unborn foetuses. I wouldn't, but there is often no deep reason that can be given for these things. There is an element of expediency in any ethical system.

 

[TruXta]

The historical norm being defined by certain incidents in Medieval Europe in the 13th to 18th centuries I suppose? Actually - where did I extrapolate anything to try and make it sound like a historical norm?

Nah, those were just handy examples. Look at how animals have been conceptualised historically. The norm is to see them as different from but ethically comparable to humans. It's true for most societies historically. Whether that conception was based on religion or not is besides the point.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

it's not a question of semantics. there is, I believe, an important ethical and moral distinction here which you and others appear not to recognise.

i've attempted to indicate* (in an admittedly curtailed and therefore ultimately inadequete way) where my ethical position is based. What ethical system are you using which persuades you that killing animals should be regarded exactly the same as killing humans?

*post 587 and others

I'm using the right to life as the basis for my argument. I believe that any self-aware organism has a right to life, and that without sufficient justification, no other animal should have the right to take that life.

 

[iROBOT]

I'd eat my neighbours dog for a laugh if I could get away with it.

I have the perfect restaurant for you then....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/nigerian-hotel-serves-human-meat-report-article-1.1616311

The problem with meat is you never know quite what you're eating.......

 

[TruXta]

And on that note I'm off to get some dead rotting meat for lunch.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm using the right to life as the basis for my argument. I believe that any self-aware organism has a right to life, and that without sufficient justification, no other animal should have the right to take that life.

That cannot possibly work.

 

[8ball]

Nah, those were just handy examples. Look at how animals have been conceptualised historically. The norm is to see them as different from but ethically comparable to humans.

Hmmm. Not really from what I've seen. The historical norm is more like seeing a particular chosen in-group of humans as having special status, then clumping out-groups and animals on a more comparable level.

Take the Hebrew word for 'murder' as used in the Commandments - this was a term particularly concerned with the killing of a fellow Jew.

 

[andysays]

Nah, those were just handy examples. Look at how animals have been conceptualised historically. The norm is to see them as different from but ethically comparable to humans. It's true for most societies historically. Whether that conception was based on religion or not is besides the point.

Can you cite any (just one will do) examples of a society which treats animals as ethically the same as humans?

 

[andysays]

I'm using the right to life as the basis for my argument. I believe that any self-aware organism has a right to life, and that without sufficient justification, no other animal should have the right to take that life.

OK, do you believe that every self-aware animal (assuming for the moment we as humans can judge that accurately) has the same right to life, and if not, how would you distinguish between them?

 

[Spymaster]

Why are we special? We think we are, that's no good reason in itself.

The ability to reason; develop law; invent and use advanced tools, communications, travel; create fair societies () ...... that list is endless.

Animals aren't even capable of joining this discussion to assert their so called "rights". Comparatively speaking they're total fuckwits!

Humans are incredibly "special".

 

[8ball]

Can you cite any (just one will do) examples of a society which treats animals as ethically the same as humans?

I was a bit careful about the same challenge based on the term 'comparable'. Also, andysays is mostly talking about the past. I don't know how easy it is to point to a 'norm', but there are a lot of cases of 'human status' being restricted to particular social groups. Wouldn't surprise me if there are cases of particular honoured animals being given higher status than low-status humans.

Where's a historical anthropologist when you need one?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I was a bit careful about the same challenge based on the term 'comparable'. Also, andysays is mostly talking about the past. I don't know how easy it is to point to a 'norm', but there are a lot of cases of 'human status' being restricted to particular social groups. Wouldn't surprise me if there are cases of particular honoured animals being given higher status than low-status humans.

Where's a historical anthropologist when you need one?

I would think that modern India comes close with certain attitudes towards lower-caste people compared to attitudes towards cows.

These little fellas at the Karni Mata temple are considered sacred, believed to be reincarnations of past monks.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

by virtue of this difference humans must treat each other differently than we treat animals.

One reason to do so is that we are humans. What underlies our existence, our endeavour, at a fundamental level? If one discards religion, then what we are left with, is each other. The way I see it, the higher good is the promotion of human happiness and well being. There are good reasons to treat other organisms with respect and consideration; but their interests [if that word is even applicable] are subordinate to ours, where they conflict.

I agree, humans are nothing special. But neither are animals, by the same argument. We are all just organisms within a planetary environment, struggling to stay alive, and often the well-being of one type of organism will mean hardship for another.

 

[andysays]

I was a bit careful about the same challenge based on the term 'comparable'. Also, andysays is mostly talking about the past. I don't know how easy it is to point to a 'norm', but there are a lot of cases of 'human status' being restricted to particular social groups. Wouldn't surprise me if there are cases of particular honoured animals being given higher status than low-status humans.

Where's a historical anthropologist when you need one?

That may well be the case, but that would be an example of a flawed ethical system, and would support my earlier comment about elevating the importance of animals risking being anti-human

 

[frogwoman]

Killing animals isn't murder ffs.

 

[ddraig]

you will be silenced Dr_Herbz
don't be coming round here with your logic and stuff!
doing a god job so far! better than me anyroad

 

[ddraig]

Killing animals isn't murder ffs.

why not?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

you will be silenced Dr_Herbz
don't be coming round here with your logic and stuff!
doing a god job so far! better than me anyroad

Wow. You've been oozing passive-aggression from your very first post on this thread.

 

[ddraig]

again, if you read the post i said "better than me"
which is true, i put my hands up to making a bit of a mess of it
you just blunder on it seems

 

[Spymaster]

you will be silenced Dr_Herbz
don't be coming round here with your logic and stuff!
doing a god job so far! better than me anyroad

Grow up, ffs.

 

[ddraig]

Grow up, ffs.

no, YOU grow up!

 

[Dr_Herbz]

OK, do you believe that every self-aware animal (assuming for the moment we as humans can judge that accurately) has the same right to life, and if not, how would you distinguish between them?

No... wasps have less right to life than any other animal.

I'd probably argue that it would be 'less wrong' to kill an animal that didn't have the power to reason... but then we'd have to get into a whole other argument.

I'm not trying to assert that it's a black and white thing, that it's wrong to kill anything. I believe that it's wrong to kill something simply because we prefer the taste, and because it's cheaper/easier than providing an alternative solution to our dietry needs.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

.

 

[kittyP]

I'm using the right to life as the basis for my argument. I believe that any self-aware organism has a right to life, and that without sufficient justification, no other animal should have the right to take that life.

You what now?

 

[mentalchik]

I'm using the right to life as the basis for my argument. I believe that any self-aware organism has a right to life, and that without sufficient justification, no other animal should have the right to take that life.

Who decides what is and isn't 'sufficient justification' ?


also how does this ^ fit with other animals that happen to be predatory then ?

 

[Spymaster]

I'm using the right to life as the basis for my argument. I believe that any self-aware organism has a right to life, and that without sufficient justification, no other animal should have the right to take that life.

WTF?