PETA makes a suggestion to Ben & Jerry's

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Sowa

I keep handing out rights to animals because I believe they have them.

On what basis? I've exhaustively explained why I don't think that they have rights, but so far all I've seen on the other side is bare assertions. Why don't you explain your theory of why animals have rights, instead of just asserting that they do?

Originally Posted by Sowa

Your problem with all of this is you state your philosophy as fact. I don't know if you have read Roger Scruton but you are using his exact arguments.

Please point to where I've said "this is fact" anywhere at all in this discussion. All I've done is show my premises, explain my reasoning, and detail my conclusions, and the only place where I've said you were factually wrong is where you incorrectly claimed that humans don't necessarily need to kill animals to live, which point you didn't address at all other than to make some entirely tangential observation about philosophers.

As far as Roger Scruton goes, I've never heard of him but I will have a look and see what he has to say and perhaps some criticisms of his logic as well.

Originally Posted by Sowa

There are reasons these people are called philosophers. Because they all have a different philosophy of life. I understand you believe in this "theory" however it isn't fact, others are allowed to disagree with you.

Where did I say people couldn't disagree with me? Oh yah, nowhere. I have no problem with disagreement, but valid opinions are based on solid premises and logical conclusions, not self-contradictions. As I said, why don't you explain why animals should have rights and what theory of rights this is based upon, so that I can evaluate whether or not you have a well-supported position or are just piling ad-hoc arguments on top of each other?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FFR

That is a ridiculous comparison. Deer do get eaten by bears, even if it is rare. It's a part of nature. People don't typically get eaten by bears. That's not part of nature. It's not at all saying the same thing as shooting your wife...because (a) you aren't going to eat her and (b) she doesnt have the real chance of getting eaten by a bear. Your analogy of his analogy is terrible.

I'm going to make an analogy to respond to your dismissal of his analogy that was analogous to the analogy offered by Bring Back Shantz.

"I shot my wife, and that prevented her from dying by emphysema, which is way worse than a bullet that kills instantly".

It is a flawed arrangement and believe me, committing violence and then presenting this kind of an excuse (I hit him with the bat so he wouldn't get a heart attack while having sex with my ex-girlfriend, for example) doesn't wash with either the police or the judges in town.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Sowa

In fact if the majority of people made the decision to stop eating meat would we not eventual evolve into a species that is complete herbivorous?

Taking the panda as an example. It's estimated to be ~700k years old as a species and yet it's digestive system and teeth remain more similar to a carnivore than a herbivore with a 20% digestive efficiency (cows have 60%).

And re. milking cows. We're not the only species that do it. e.g. Ants do it with caterpillars and aphids

An example of this type of relationship is between aphids and several ant species. The aphids provide honeydew to the ants while the ants will take the aphids into their nests at night to protect them from predators and escort them back to a plant the next morning. This ant species has even been seen collecting the aphid's eggs and placing them in their nest's storage chambers to survive the cold winter months....

...Yet still, the blue-winged butterly in Northern Europe and Asia exists by its symbiotic relationship with an ant species from the Myrmica group. The caterpillar form of the butterfly excretes a honeydew solution which the ants crave. The ants will take the caterpillar back to its nest where they will look after the caterpillar over the winter. When the weather warms, the caterpillar pupates and then crawls from the nest to mate and lay eggs on certain plants.

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent5...e/shannon.html

Granted this is more of a mutual symbiosis where the man/cow one is borderline commensal.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by FFR

That is a ridiculous comparison. Deer do get eaten by bears, even if it is rare. It's a part of nature. People don't typically get eaten by bears. That's not part of nature. It's not at all saying the same thing as shooting your wife...because (a) you aren't going to eat her and (b) she doesnt have the real chance of getting eaten by a bear. Your analogy of his analogy is terrible.

Ok well than getting cancer would work. Geez... it doesn't matter as that wasn't the main thrust of the argument.

This is not how evolution works. While that may happen at some point, it wouldn't be because people stopped eating meat. Evolutionary changes ONLY occur through genetic mutation. People's altered behaviour does nothing to the gene pool. If every single person stopped eating meat, it would not alter our DNA to remove the aspect of carnivorism (is that a word?). It would simply be a behavioural trait that people learn. People would still be born with teeth and digestive systems that are able to digest meat. Stopping the consumption of meat would not alter the DNA in any way and therefore would not alter humans ability to consume meat. By simply choosing to not eat meat, we would not evolve into a herbivorous species.

If the ability to digest and cut meat with our teeth no longer became necessary the species would no longer preserve that gene as it is no longer useful. Although I can admit I am not that knowledgeable about evolution so that might be wrong.

[FFR]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Ok well than getting cancer would work. Geez... it doesn't matter as that wasn't the main thrust of the argument.

Fair enough. However, when you kill the deer, you aren't killing it for the main purpose of reducing the harm that it may face tomorrow. You are killing it so that you can make use of it (i.e. consume it). If you're killing a person as a mercy killing...well, again, that's different. It's a whole different argument completely.

Originally Posted by Sowa

If the ability to digest and cut meat with our teeth no longer became necessary the species would no longer preserve that gene as it is no longer useful. Although I can admit I am not that knowledgeable about evolution so that might be wrong.

Unfortunatly, this is incorrect in terms of evolution. Species do not lose genes because of disuse. Genes disappear typically because they hinder an animals ability to survive and reproduce. Disuse will not cause a change in DNA and therefore will not change the human species.

Edit: Just to add...humans dont' "preserve" genes. DNA is what decides EVERYTHING about us. We have no control over what it looks like, how it operates, nor do we have the ability to change it (yet). If everyone stopped using their legs and travelled only in wheelchairs, the human species would not evolve to a legless creature.

[FFR]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm going to make an analogy to respond to your dismissal of his analogy that was analogous to the analogy offered by Bring Back Shantz.

"I shot my wife, and that prevented her from dying by emphysema, which is way worse than a bullet that kills instantly".

It is a flawed arrangement and believe me, committing violence and then presenting this kind of an excuse (I hit him with the bat so he wouldn't get a heart attack while having sex with my ex-girlfriend, for example) doesn't wash with either the police or the judges in town.

I don't want to derail this thread onto the topic of mercy killing, but a human killing a human is significantly different than a human killing an animal to sustain their life. Humans are on the same level as each other on the food chain. Animals are lower. I will agree that animals have rights not to be treated cruely, but animals do not have the same 'rights' as humans. It's a very, very different situation.

[Devils'Advocate]

If we don't lose things due to disuse then where the hell is my tail?

I'm vegetarian, not due to believing in "animal rights"... I don't much believe in "human rights" either. I'm close to being a Utilitarian though that has its own inherent flaws. I do believe that we, as humans and can understand that we are causing suffering, should minimize the suffering that we cause.. to animals, to other humans, to everyone.

Just as much as CaptainCrunch believes we humans are predatory evil creatures built for waging war, I believe I am not. Or at least I strive not to be. If others choose to waive their ethics on the grounds of "bah, humans are evil anyway", well, so be it.

FYI OBCT, I still have "pepperoni" pizza once a week using Yves Cuisine's pepperoni. I've got nothin' for chicken fajitas yet.... we vegetarians should get someone on that.

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

FYI OBCT, I still have "pepperoni" pizza once a week using Yves Cuisine's pepperoni. I've got nothin' for chicken fajitas yet.... should get someone on that.

Touche!

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by FFR

I don't want to derail this thread onto the topic of mercy killing, but a human killing a human is significantly different than a human killing an animal to sustain their life. Humans are on the same level as each other on the food chain. Animals are lower.

On what grounds do you rank "higher" and "lower". "Ability to reason" seems like an rather arbitrary and self-serving criteria. Personally I think each creature has its special abilities and unique characteristics that make them have their own intrinsic value.

It on that basis alone that the Dali Lama does not kill mosquitos.

-=-=-=-

Odd that I am writing this as "I think" and "in my opinion" while many of the posts in this thread are stating things as absolute undeniable fact. Maybe I need to be more forceful.... *shrug*

[FFR]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

If we don't lose things due to disuse then where the hell is my tail?

I'm vegetarian, not due to believing in "animal rights"... I don't much believe in "human rights" either. I'm close to being a Utilitarian though that has its own inherent flaws. I do believe that we, as humans and can understand that we are causing suffering, should minimize the suffering that we cause.. to animals, to other humans, to everyone.

Just as much as CaptainCrunch believes we humans are predatory evil creatures built for waging war, I believe I am not. Or at least I strive not to be. If others choose to waive their ethics on the grounds of "bah, humans are evil anyway", well, so be it.

FYI OBCT, I still have "pepperoni" pizza once a week using Yves Cuisine's pepperoni. I've got nothin' for chicken fajitas yet.... we vegetarians should get someone on that.

Though there is no definitive answer (and there rarely is when dealing with theories) as to where human's tails went, evolutionists have hypothesized that the tail became a hinderance for land-dwelling primates (as opposed to tree-dwelling). There are theories that the tail made travel (especially bipedal -two legged) was hampered by a tail. Another theory is that there was an increased demand (while slight) to the circulatory and nutritional systems when having a tail. (I think that explanation is a little weak, but it is a hypothesis).

Another theory is that tails were actually the genetic mutation, and that earliest forms of primates had no tails.

[FFR]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

On what grounds do you rank "higher" and "lower". "Ability to reason" seems like an rather arbitrary and self-serving criteria. Personally I think each creature has its special abilities and unique characteristics that make them have their own intrinsic value.

It on that basis alone that the Dali Lama does not kill mosquitos.

-=-=-=-

Odd that I am writing this as "I think" and "in my opinion" while many of the posts in this thread are stating things as absolute undeniable fact. Maybe I need to be more forceful.... *shrug*

Well...I wasn't speaking of higher or lower in terms of mental ability or status. I was speaking in terms of a food chain. Would you agree that a mouse is lower on the food chain than a cat? It's my belief that cows are lower on the food chain than humans. In almost every elementary science classroom, the food chain is taught and guess who is on top? Humans. Not because we think we're better because we have the ability to reason..but because that's how it is in nature. It's a food chain. Not a social ranking. No intrinsic value. This is based on food. And food only.

[Devils'Advocate]

Some lucky bears might disagree with you. And maybe worms.

*SOME* humans are at the top of the food chain. For the most part, humans, particularly in the developing world, eat primarily produce from agriculture such as rice and grains.

I do believe we were taught the food pyramid rather than a regular chain. It showed that there is far more energy in rice and grains than you would get from an animal that you fed the rice and grain to. Quite an inefficient use of resources to put yourself at the top of the pyramid.

[RougeUnderoos]

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I do believe we were taught the food pyramid rather than a regular chain. It showed that there is far more energy in rice and grains than you would get from an animal that you fed the rice and grain to. Quite an inefficient use of resources to put yourself at the top of the pyramid.

This is basically due to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level

Every time there is an exchange of energy between one trophic level and another, there is quite a significant loss due to the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. This means so many units of grass can only support a much smaller number of units of rabbits, who can only support a smaller group of bobcats, who can only support a smaller group of mountain lions. This is why trophic levels are usually portrayed as a pyramid, one that places grass on the bottom and mountain lions on top---the top is always much smaller than the bottom. Each level implies a loss of energy and efficiency and less life that can be supported by the sun.
There is no in-principle limit to the number of levels in a trophic system, but as only a fraction of the energy of each level can be processed by the next, trophic systems with more than five levels of consumption are exceptional

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level

explains why hippos, elephants, giraffes etc are large and carnivores aren't.

An ageless, excellent, non-complicated read on the subject.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by jammies

On what basis? I've exhaustively explained why I don't think that they have rights, but so far all I've seen on the other side is bare assertions. Why don't you explain your theory of why animals have rights, instead of just asserting that they do?



Please point to where I've said "this is fact" anywhere at all in this discussion. All I've done is show my premises, explain my reasoning, and detail my conclusions, and the only place where I've said you were factually wrong is where you incorrectly claimed that humans don't necessarily need to kill animals to live, which point you didn't address at all other than to make some entirely tangential observation about philosophers.

As far as Roger Scruton goes, I've never heard of him but I will have a look and see what he has to say and perhaps some criticisms of his logic as well.



Where did I say people couldn't disagree with me? Oh yah, nowhere. I have no problem with disagreement, but valid opinions are based on solid premises and logical conclusions, not self-contradictions. As I said, why don't you explain why animals should have rights and what theory of rights this is based upon, so that I can evaluate whether or not you have a well-supported position or are just piling ad-hoc arguments on top of each other?

Actually I have shown you where I think they have rights. You define the ability to have rights as impossible because they have no sense of duty. Which is a theory of thought not a fact. I believe that any being with cognitive abilities should be afforded rights as they are aware they are alive and suffer. You don't explain why rights are defined by duty you just say they are. There is no flawed logic in that. There is you just disagreeing with it based on your philosophy. I have not contradicted myself at all so I don't know where that came from. You have in fact contradicted yourself unless you believe that eating meat is necessary for survival, because you claim that we must prevent undue harm to animals. Killing them unecessarily is undue harm. Another contradiction that I didn't harp on is that you say infants have diminished rights. Why don't those diminished rights get applied to animals? A one day old baby is at least afforded the right to life, correct? Why can't that be applied to a 2 yr old dog with an almost equal understanding?

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by jammies

All I've done is show my premises, explain my reasoning, and detail my conclusions, and the only place where I've said you were factually wrong is where you incorrectly claimed that humans don't necessarily need to kill animals to live, which point you didn't address at all other than to make some entirely tangential observation about philosophers.

I'll address this seperately. I do agree that we kill insects all the time is it necessary? I wouldn't call it necessary. It's an unfortunate side effect. The point with those instances is their is no intent to due harm. Your point about the rodents in a factory does not fit because it isn't necessary to kill that rodent there are humane ways of removal.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by OBCT

hmmm... yes, a fair point MaxPower. lol


I accept animal right activists' opinions as unique and interesting, though I do not usually agree with them on some of their certain core beliefs.


I'd suggest that most people have some degree of empathy for animals. Different people will naturally tolerate different levels of animal suffering - depending on the circumstances - before becoming uncomfortable->disturbed->angered by it.

If these assumptions are true, then the question really boils down into two parts: "What qualifies as undue animal suffering to you?", and then, "What should qualify as undue animal suffering for all people?".


For me, undue animal suffering can be characterized as: "any intentional and preventable maltreatment of an animal falling outside the scope of standardized killings (ie. cow slaughtering for the purpose of human consumption)."

Since all living organisms - incuding cows - will one day die anyways, I do not believe that it is unethical to kill an animal below us on the food chain. Since VERY FEW people in the history of the world have believed like you do, Sowa, I wonder what your opinion of these people are. How about the enlightened, intelligent, compassionate crowd of the 1800-1950 ... I wonder why they weren't likely to worry about the feelings of animals? What about the first pilgrims to North America -- should they not have killed animals for their nutritious meat and warm pelts? Were these individuals unevolved? Were they ignorant? Were they plain mean? Some of the Native Americans of Southern Alberta are well-known to this day for their unscrupulous buffalo hunting tactics - I'd be interested in your opinion of the Blackfoot tribes responsible for "Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump" near Lethbridge.


With all that said, I do believe the "standardized killings", as I called them, should be highly regulated. There are unnecessary procedures that should not be allowed and animal treatment should meet reasonable levels at all times in North America. I do not like to see animals get hurt or die (this is one reason I find it difficult to watch the rodeo, and TV shows like "Animal Rescue" really get to me - it sometimes makes me physically sick to see the horrifying scenes of animal cruelty present all around us). I think we should be proactive as a society in preventing the maltreatment of animals on many levels, but I do not think that the "killing" of animals - in and of itself - is the place to start. I believe there are acceptable means by which to end an animal's life; if these are followed and it's death is for the purpose of human consumption, then that is good enough for me.

I do believe the death of animals was at one point in time might have been necessary for survival. It definitely isn't now. Technology has pretty much taken care of it. However, there have been some in those times who did believe in Veganism. The Vegan Society of the UK was founded in the 1930s. Tolstoy was vegetarian maybe vegan who wrote about these ideas often.

As for how I feel towards those people in the past. I kind of view them as those who partook in slavery. Alice Walker (author of The Color Purple) has written excellent work on comparing the current struggle of Animal Rights and the struggle against slavery a 100+ yrs ago.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Sowa

I believe that any being with cognitive abilities should be afforded rights as they are aware they are alive and suffer.

That's a start, but that's more like a premise, not an argument. What do you mean by cognitive abilities? How do we determine how "aware" a being is? Exactly what "rights" do animals get - the same as humans, less than humans, completely different than humans, and why?

Originally Posted by Sowa

You don't explain why rights are defined by duty you just say they are.

Actually I said that rights are meaningless in the context of creatures that can't understand what rights are. As far as rights and duties being complementary (and not defined by, which I also never said) are, an example suffices: you cannot guarantee the right to own property without the complementary duty not to unjustly deprive others of their property. That isn't an assertion, that is a logical corollary of what rights are: a guarantee of freedom for one person which necessarily constrains the actions of anyone else interacting with that person.

Originally Posted by Sowa

Another contradiction that I didn't harp on is that you say infants have diminished rights. Why don't those diminished rights get applied to animals? A one day old baby is at least has the right to life, correct? Why can't that be applied to a 2 yr old dog with an almost equal understanding?

This is a true blurring of the divide between humans and animals, however I think the difference lies in a baby having the potential to become morally aware, which the dog does not.

[OBCT]

Originally Posted by Sowa

I do believe the death of animals was at one point in time might have been necessary for survival. It definitely isn't now. Technology has pretty much taken care of it. However, there have been some in those times who did believe in Veganism. The Vegan Society of the UK was founded in the 1930s. Tolstoy was vegetarian maybe vegan who wrote about these ideas often.

As for how I feel towards those people in the past. I kind of view them as those who partook in slavery. Alice Walker (author of The Color Purple) has written excellent work on comparing the current struggle of Animal Rights and the struggle against slavery a 100+ yrs ago.

Fair enough. I can accept that.

Also, I honestly had no idea Veganism had roots that early. I find it interesting that it took roots at that particular time in history, between two World Wars.

I've found this topic far more intriguing than I thought I might, actually. Not sure how likely I am to change my mind, but it definitely gets you thinking.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by jammies

That's a start, but that's more like a premise, not an argument. What do you mean by cognitive abilities? How do we determine how "aware" a being is? Exactly what "rights" do animals get - the same as humans, less than humans, completely different than humans, and why?

The first right I obviously believe in is the right to life. I will concede things get blurry after that, but I also believe that it gets blurry when talking about which "rights" humans receive. Maybe the best way to look at it is that animals should receive equal consideration of their most basic interests to those of humans ie life, no suffering, etc. So they would then have a "right" to those interests. I will also concede that determining how "aware" something is is also difficult. Peter Singer who takes a utilitarian approach on treatment of animals says that any being who takes action to avoid suffering deserves equal consideration of that interest. I actually find myself fluctuating between Singer's approach (he believes nothing has "rights") and the Animal Rights approach which is best illustrated by Tom Regan in my opinion.

Actually I said that rights are meaningless in the context of creatures that can't understand what rights are. As far as rights and duties being complementary (and not defined by, which I also never said) are, an example suffices: you cannot guarantee the right to own property without the complementary duty not to unjustly deprive others of their property. That isn't an assertion, that is a logical corollary of what rights are: a guarantee of freedom for one person which necessarily constrains the actions of anyone else interacting with that person.

Well I certainly don't believe all human rights can be extended to animals. I do understand what you are saying here. I probably should have waited to get off work to reply to you as it was busy as hell and I've been hopped up on cough syrup. I will say that just because animals have no duty or capability to respect our rights doesn't mean we shouldn't respect theirs.

This is a true blurring of the divide between humans and animals, however I think the difference lies in a baby having the potential to become morally aware, which the dog does not.

I obviously differ with you on this. I also believe that animals can have some moral awareness. For instance the best way to train a dog not to bite is to yelp as if it is hurting you than the dog will stop.