Human and Animal rights...the same thing?

[Manopolus]

Yes, it certainly can be fallacious when appeals to nature are associated to nature in the first place.

It took decades to for society to move past social darwinism. The prevailing wisdom in the 1870s viewed humans as essentially another animal (correct), that natural selection and survival of the fittest shapes human populations (correct), that survival of the fittest and competition are a natural state of affairs in nature (correct) and should be applied social policy (wtf?). People took survival of the fittest as not only descriptive, but prescriptive, and used it to justify laissez-faire capitalism. Later it became connected to scientific racism, eugenics, fascism. What went wrong? Well, I'd say the interpretation of survival of the fittest as a prescriptive rule to guide social policy for a start.

In just about any discussion on homosexuality, someone will eventually remark on whether homosexuality is found in nature, whether animals can be exclusively attracted to members of the same sex, or that might even say "even goats know that a peepee goes inside a weewee". The correct response here isn't "here are a list of species where homosexuality is obsereved", but instead, that there's no inherent connection between something being "unnatural" and "wrong". I've never seen any other animals build skyscrapers, but that's not a rational criticism of human behavior, is it? If not, then what difference does it make whether non-human animals are homosexual? At the same time, some animals like lions are quite content to kill members of their own species, does that mean I can do the same thing? If not, then what does it matter that some behaviors or natural or not, what does that have to do with being ethical?

If you're making an argument that humans evolved to be omnivores, you need to explain what connection that has to animal rights. Additionally, you need to be prepared to handle obvious counter-arguments, like the fact that humans have been killing other humans for at least as long as they've been omnivores, tribalism is as much a part of our "nature" as being an omnivore.

I think I'm beginning to understand our disconnect here, at least to a degree. Perhaps I didn't explain my position quite cohesively enough. Your original partial quote does, indeed seem to be an argument of this type. However, the overall argument wasn't "because this is what nature made us to be" but rather "because having the option of eating meat/using animal products is beneficial to our survival." Both invoked nature, of course... but the second couldn't be construed to be an "appeal to nature" fallacy.

Circumstances tend to dictate ethics. Circumstances may seem appropriate now to give animals the rights of humans, but I wouldn't bet on it, and those circumstances might change. I'd prefer not to be out of the habit of knowing how to kill/butcher animals when/if a situation occurs which might make it a necessity. I do understand that most people are already bereft of this knowledge -- outside of going to a supermarket and buying meat, most don't know how to obtain it -- but it might be a good idea for some members of the human race to retain the skill. And how are we to do that without practicing it?

Should animals be treated as humanely as possible -- without sacrificing our own needs? Well, I wouldn't argue with that, but that's a long way from giving them the same rights as humans.

I suppose that doesn't quite answer the O.P. except in the consequences of it's practical applications. However, perhaps I simply think the O.P. asks the wrong question on the issue, thus tainting the answer. I prefer a different angle, since the question posed does not quite fit the way that I think. I don't tend to think much about right and wrong in the abstract sense anymore, though I did when I was younger. I tend to think more about what's right and wrong here and now in the present or in a given set of specific circumstances. Call me a relativist if you'd like... I won't deny it.

 

[Cain]

Circumstances tend to dictate ethics. Circumstances may seem appropriate now to give animals the rights of humans, but I wouldn't bet on it, and those circumstances might change, anyway. I'd prefer not to be out of the habit of knowing how to kill/butcher animals when/if a situation occurs which might make it a necessity.

So we need to keep our bow-hunting skills up to snuff in case of the Zombie-Apocalypse. Got it.

Although, you are correct that ethical choices are bounded by circumstances -- which is one very good reason why people in rich countries generally do not have an excuse to be anything other than vegan.

But now an important question is raised: Do zombies have rights?

 

[Dessi]

I think I'm beginning to understand our disconnect here, at least to a degree. Perhaps I didn't explain my position quite cohesively enough. Your original partial quote does, indeed seem to be an argument of this type. However, the overall argument wasn't "because this is what nature made us to be" but rather "because having the option of eating meat/using animal products is beneficial to our survival." Both invoked nature, of course... but the second couldn't be construed to be an "appeal to nature" fallacy.

I agree, the argument "eating meat is beneficial to our survival" is not an appeal to nature. Its just that any behavior can be rationalized if its phrased in a way that it benefits someone -- in the extreme, I could harvest your organs, sell them on the black market, and use the money to pay off my house, maybe use what's left over to buy a heap of blow, get a sweet revolver and SHOOT myself in the HEAD, because I'm a rockstar. Less extreme, but equally offensive, is the fact that human slavery is a reality even to the present day, and it only exists because it has some tangible benefit to someone else, but that in itself is not an automatic justification for the practice.

I don't think its possible to make an argument that animals should be used for the benefit of humans without the argument carrying over to non-rational humans, see here:

I'd say its ok to slaughter animals for food, infect them diseases and cancers, and use their organs for transplantation only in the areas where it would be acceptable to use a mentally similar human in the exact same way.

Circumstances tend to dictate ethics. Circumstances may seem appropriate now to give animals the rights of humans, but I wouldn't bet on it, and those circumstances might change, anyway. I'd prefer not to be out of the habit of knowing how to kill/butcher animals when/if a situation occurs which might make it a necessity. I do understand that most people are already bereft of this knowledge -- outside of going to a supermarket and buying meat, most don't know how to obtain it -- but it might be a good idea for some members of the human race to retain the skill. And how are we to do that without practicing it?

Seems to be an odd justification. Army boot camp and gun training classes teach people how to kill human opponents, an imminently useful skill, would you say these classes are ineffective without live humans to practice on?

Should animals be treated as humanely as possible -- without sacrificing our own needs? Well, I wouldn't argue with that, but that's a long way from giving them the same rights as humans.

I suppose that doesn't quite answer the O.P. except in the consequences of it's practical applications. However, perhaps I simply think the O.P. asks the wrong question on the issue, thus tainting the answer. I prefer a different angle, since the question posed does not quite fit the way that I think. I don't tend to think much about right and wrong in the abstract sense anymore, though I did when I was younger. I tend to think more about what's right and wrong in the present in a given set of specific circumstances.

Indeed, circumstances matter. Cain already beat me to the punch, that in a developed nation like the US, eating animals is a luxury and causes otherwise avoidable harm with no good reason. He also said something about zombies. Wtf?

 

[Manopolus]

So we need to keep our bow-hunting skills up to snuff in case of the Zombie-Apocalypse. Got it.

... or in case of a worldwide financial collapse similar to that which brought down the Roman Empire, at the same time that protests like OWS and Arab Spring turn into riots and further turn into multi-faceted anarchic civil wars, and the supply of oil becomes more scarce due to unrest, etc. -- And all that humanity has accomplished in the past century or so decays to the point where people actually have to find a way to feed themselves rather than depending on the economy.

Stuff does happen. We've been rather fortunate that the worst of it hasn't happened within our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean it can't all crumble a lot faster than you think.

Although, you are correct that ethical choices are bounded by circumstances -- which is one very good reason why people in rich countries generally do not have an excuse to be anything other than vegan.

Except that it was not being vegan that got them there in the first place... nor would they necessarily have gotten there if they were vegan (or vegetarian, since veganism hasn't been around that long). Meat eating promotes height, muscle build, and brain growth, after all.

But now an important question is raised: Do zombies have rights?

Only if they play nice.

 

[Cain]

... or in case of a worldwide financial collapse similar to that which brought down the Roman Empire, at the same time that protests like OWS and Arab Spring turn into riots and further turn into multi-faceted anarchic civil wars, and the supply of oil becomes more scarce due to unrest, etc. -- And all that humanity has accomplished in the past century or so decays to the point where people actually have to find a way to feed themselves rather than depending on the economy.

Stuff does happen. We've been rather fortunate that the worst of it hasn't happened within our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean it can't all crumble a lot faster than you think.

I'm hesitant to indulge such silliness, but look... it's the old joke about the philosopher and the scientist being chased by a bear. The scientist says, "it's physically impossible to outrun a bear," and the philosopher shoots back, "It's not the bear I'm trying to outrun."

Since the vast majority of people rely upon the grocery store, then even if your bow-hunting skills atrophy only a little, you'll still be in a much better position than 99.9% of humanity. Congratulations.

Except that it was not being vegan that got them there in the first place...

Sunk cost, doesn't matter. We would have been less likely to get here if our ancestors were peaceful lovers of wisdom. If evolution selected for unrepentant murderers and rapists, then does that justify murder and rape?

 

[Manopolus]

I agree, the argument "eating meat is beneficial to our survival" is not an appeal to nature. Its just that any behavior can be rationalized if its phrased in a way that it benefits someone -- in the extreme, I could harvest your organs, sell them on the black market, and use the money to pay off my house, maybe use what's left over to buy a heap of blow, get a sweet revolver and SHOOT myself in the HEAD, because I'm a rockstar. Less extreme, but equally offensive, is the fact that human slavery is a reality even to the present day, and it only exists because it has some tangible benefit to someone else, but that in itself is not an automatic justification for the practice.

Nice story

I suppose the luxury of trying to have worldwide civil rights has to do with us (by us, I mean mostly well educated folks in developed countries) considering the worldwide human population to be a worldwide "tribe" of sorts. It's no longer as much the "us vs them" mentality of the past. I'd consider it a bit of a stretch to place other species in this paradigm. Admittedly, we're sort of in the same boat when it comes to environmental issues, but then you get to thinking about things like trees having rights. Sure, chopping down rain forests is a bad idea, but is that because trees somehow have rights? I think not.

When people make an argument that we should use animals for benefit of humans, I'm interested in what distinguishes that behavior from using a mentally similar human in the exact same way. I don't believe its possible to argue against animal rights without the argument carrying over to non-rational humans as well. See also:

In reality, non-rational humans don't have quite the same rights as other adults do. Most of them have a guardian, or an organization which effectively acts as such. Would you advocate a guardian of some sort for every cow in America to look after its best interest? I just don't see us ever treating animals in the same way that we do mentally handicapped folks. I'm not even sure the cows would prefer this type of treatment.

True, we don't use them for food or experiments, nor do we use their skin to make boots. I don't know, it's actually hard to think about adult humans with a diminished mental capability, even for me... and my mother is a special ed consultant, so I was around them quite a bit when I was young. In a way, they're aberrations that I instinctively want to distance myself from as much as possible, and yet at the same time... some of them are kind of interesting once you get to know them.

But no, I would not advocate treating such disadvantaged folks the same way that we do animals. I guess I just don't feel any need to be "consistent" in this matter. They seem to me to be different critters, I guess.

Seems to be an odd justification. Army boot camp and gun training classes teach people how to kill human opponents, an imminently useful skill, would you say these classes are ineffective without live humans to practice on?

Actually, killing them is the easiest part. Do you even know what to do after that without doing a lot of research?

Indeed, circumstances matter. Cain already beat me to the punch, that in a developed nation like the US, eating animals is a luxury and causes otherwise avoidable harm with no good reason. He also said something about zombies. Wtf?

See above for my answer to that.

 

[Manopolus]

Sunk cost, doesn't matter. We would have been less likely to get here if our ancestors were peaceful lovers of wisdom. If evolution selected for unrepentant murderers and rapists, then does that justify murder and rape?

But tried and true methods of survival seem to me to be much better than changing everything based on an abstract ideal. Have enough children been raised on a vegan diet to even make effective comparison studies?

From what I've seen, most lifetime vegans/vegetarians are rather short, scrawny folks that I could break in half in a heartbeat. I happen to work in a steel factory, where my muscles are worn down on a daily basis to the point where lifting weights wouldn't help me gain strength. Could I even do my job on such a diet? Admittedly I haven't tried, but I doubt it. Maybe office workers could afford the luxury, but office work doesn't create food, it creates money... and that leaves folks like me to make the farm implements that till the fields.

I've been told that vegans have somehow dealt with the nutritional issues, but I've actually never met one that had any muscle to speak of. Until I do, I'm going to tend to consider it a bit impractical.

 

[JJM 777]

> Human and Animal rights...the same thing?

Here are the obvious basics of this dilemma:

"Rights" are a concept defined by humans only. No animal other than humans perceives what "rights" are, nor much respects anyone´s any rights other than the well-being of its friends at the moment. Friends usually include at least family members, but they can also turn into lethal enemies, especially when food or territory is too scarce for all. Leader of the pack assumes more rights to itself than those lower in the pecking order.

I think it is just and right to give rights to non-human animals, proportionally according to their mental abilities. More rights to smart predators and fewer rights to dumber animals. It feels right and honourable to do so, even though it is obvious that many of these animals do not pay us back the favour we give them.

It is possible to tame some animals to the extent that they understand that we are being protective and kind to them. Is this preferable is debatable, because that changes some of the natural behaviour of the animal in the wild.

 

[Belz...]

Humans > Other animals.

Thank you.

 

[Cain]

But tried and true methods of survival seem to me to be much better than changing everything based on an abstract ideal. Have enough children been raised on a vegan diet to even make effective comparison studies?

Supposing studies have shown children fare no worse under a vegan diet, then you would in all likelihood fall back on a tactic learned at the O'Reilly School of Debate...

From what I've seen, most lifetime vegans/vegetarians are rather short, scrawny folks that I could break in half in a heartbeat... I've been told that vegans have somehow dealt with the nutritional issues, but I've actually never met one that had any muscle to speak of. Until I do, I'm going to tend to consider it a bit impractical.

And if you were to ever stumble across a vegan who did not fit the stereotype, then he would still be dismissed as an exception. I don't argue diet, superior bowl movements, or any of that stuff, because if contemporary animal consumption is morally justified, then it does not matter if veganism presents a nutritionally superior alternative. A couple months ago there were articles saying veganism is newly popular among UFC fighters. And how was a recent winner going to celebrate his victory? Fish dinner.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

This is not a well-considered answer. It's not difficult to imagine an Islamic country where stoning people for apostasy is popular. I recall surveys from Egypt and Pakistan where support was over 80%. What percentage of people in those countries are in favor of gay marriage?

It is an interesting discussion. It seems to me we can only condemn such action from the vantage point of a society that realizes the lack of utility of such action (stoning people for apostasy)

But it is also possible that their framework is inconsistent. E.g. if we asked if their country would be better off (for some mutually agreed definition of better off, people being happier etc) and then demonstrate that this was not the case, then we could condemn it within the same moral framework.

Of course, if 80% STILL thinks it's a good idea to stone people for apostasy, changing their laws won't do much. We once again need to change their mind, away from the idea that ancient laws are the absolute truth. How you would go about this - I do not know.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I'm not particularly interested in convincing people, though. I'm simply interested in what is actually right.

But what is actually right depends on your fundamental definitions. Within my framework, there is no intrinsic wrong from killing and eating animals. Not even from making animals suffer - the wrong in my framework comes from the negative reactions from such suffering that people experience.

First, whether or not my own actions are actually moral doesn't tell me anything about what is moral.
Second, to answer the question, for pretty much the same reason that I don't spend my time worrying about rape victims in Somalia.
Third, I'm not suggesting that morality requires a purely utilitarian framework, but rather that it requires some non-subjective starting point, otherwise its simply meaningless.

So you do think that we ought to stop animals from killing each other in the wild, much like we ought to take action stop rape in Somalia (the latter being entirely possible and realistic, if extremely difficult)? In that case your framework is not very useful, because it is a pipe dream.

 

[Cain]

Of course, if 80% STILL thinks it's a good idea to stone people for apostasy, changing their laws won't do much. We once again need to change their mind, away from the idea that ancient laws are the absolute truth. How you would go about this - I do not know.

Why should we change their minds? That suggests what they're doing is somehow wrong -- meaning, there's a moral discussion that forms the foundations of our laws.

Within my framework, there is no intrinsic wrong from killing and eating animals. Not even from making animals suffer - the wrong in my framework comes from the negative reactions from such suffering that people experience.

It sounds like you need to revise your framework.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Why should we change their minds? That suggests what they're doing is somehow wrong -- meaning, there's a moral discussion that forms the foundations of our laws.

We should change their minds because we feel like it.

It sounds like you need to revise your framework.

Perhaps, but you're not doing a very good job at convincing me.

 

[Cain]

We should change their minds because we feel like it.

Perhaps, but you're not doing a very good job at convincing me.

It sounds as though you believe what you do based on what you "feel," and so rational arguments will not have much of an effect. This is what puts veganism at a crippling disadvantage. Meat-eaters have the appeal of taste while we have only pure reason.

Whoever discovers a commercially viable synthetic alternative to meat will stop more suffering than if she found a cure for cancer.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

It sounds as though you believe what you do based on what you "feel," and so rational arguments will not have much of an effect. This is what puts veganism at a crippling disadvantage. Meat-eaters have the appeal of taste while we have only pure reason.

You congratulate yourself too much. You appear to be of the idea that you're using "pure reason" while us meat-eaters are wrapped up in some sort of emotional delusion.

Well, I've got news for you. Your system is ALSO based on what you feel. You "feel" for animals. I don't, to the same extent. Most people don't. We're usually not hardwired to do it, unless we're watching the suffering in action.

The fundamentals of morality are arbitrary, though often based in the structure of our brains, empathy and so on. Unless you find a systematic flaw in someone's frame of morality, you CAN'T claim that your system is inherently superior. And even if you do you can't argue that someone should replace their morality system with yours, rather than revising it. The ONLY way to change people in this manner is to appeal on an emotional level.

My system of morals does not concern the suffering of animals past whatever discomfort it may cause people. Yours does. Neither is inherently superior. Both are, for the sake of debate, complete and without any particular errors.

Whoever discovers a commercially viable synthetic alternative to meat will stop more suffering than if she found a cure for cancer.

That is a ludicrous statement if you're talking to anyone who does not equate the suffering of animals with the suffering of people. Unless you're referring to environmental effects, but that's still off the mark.

 

[Cain]

Well, I've got news for you. Your system is ALSO based on what you feel. You "feel" for animals.

Not really. I'm not much of an animal-lover.

We're usually not hardwired to do it, unless we're watching the suffering in action.

Which is why it requires a level of abstraction: this meat is part of a larger thinking/feeling being, who was raised on a farm and slaughtered hundreds of miles from here.

The fundamentals of morality are arbitrary, though often based in the structure of our brains, empathy and so on. Unless you find a systematic flaw in someone's frame of morality, you CAN'T claim that your system is inherently superior. And even if you do you can't argue that someone should replace their morality system with yours, rather than revising it. The ONLY way to change people in this manner is to appeal on an emotional level.

We don't need a moral theory for this discussion. The main point so far is that people have an inconsistency in their moral framework. A class of humans has rights simply because they're human, whereas non-humans of similar (or greater) cognitive ability do not have rights because they're non-human.

My system of morals does not concern the suffering of animals past whatever discomfort it may cause people. Yours does.

For me it does not matter whether or not people experience discomfort.

To draw on an argument from earlier... if someone decides to torture a lamb, it's wrong, regardless of how many people can hear it cry. It's a like a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise. Of course it does, even if no one is around.

That is a ludicrous statement if you're talking to anyone who does not equate the suffering of animals with the suffering of people. Unless you're referring to environmental effects, but that's still off the mark.

One need not equate human and non-human suffering.

 

[Sophronius]

I don't have time to read the thread atm, but I think I'm familiar enough with the issue to be able to chip in:

I agree that humans are being a bit hypocritical right now, in the sense that morality is very human-centric. I don't see any logical reason why humans should be regarded as inherently superior to other species. That said, I also don't think the logical reaction is to bestow animals the same arbitrary human rights.

I think the conflict arises from the fact that morality is very binary atm: Either someone has rights or they don't. Clearly you'll have a hard time fitting such a model to reality. Instead, I would suggest that we should value certain attributes -such as sapience, capacity for empathy, and what have you-. Regardless of the specifics, I think it would make sense for the rights of both animals and humans to depend on those attributes. i.e. it should be considered less immoral to hurt a rabbit than to hurt an ape, just as it would be less immoral to hurt an ape than it would be to hurt a human. Likewise, it should be considered more immoral to hurt a healthy ape than to hurt a human patient with no brain activity. However you look at it, morality should be applied in the same way across species.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Not really. I'm not much of an animal-lover.

If you say so.

Which is why it requires a level of abstraction: this meat is part of a larger thinking/feeling being, who was raised on a farm and slaughtered hundreds of miles from here.

I know and I don't care. I really, really, don't care how many cows are raised and slaughtered.

We don't need a moral theory for this discussion. The main point so far is that people have an inconsistency in their moral framework. A class of humans has rights simply because they're human, whereas non-humans of similar (or greater) cognitive ability do not have rights because they're non-human.

Yes, one of the fundamentals of my moral framework is that the suffering and welfare of HUMANS is important. I see neither need nor reason to extend this to animals. I am perfectly fine with animals suffering to some extent, and as it happens most people do.

For me it does not matter whether or not people experience discomfort.

To draw on an argument from earlier... if someone decides to torture a lamb, it's wrong, regardless of how many people can hear it cry. It's a like a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise. Of course it does, even if no one is around.

I don't think it's morally wrong. I think it ought to be considered LEGALLY wrong, for practical reasons, because torturing a lamb is harmful to people in certain situations, and not really useful in many.

One need not equate human and non-human suffering.

True. You only need to consider slaughter animal suffering sufficiently important to outweigh the suffering of millions and millions of people and their family and loved ones.

 

[Arcade22]

Perhaps when i start caring about what people think they deserve I'll think about about what people think animals deserve, but i doubt things will have to go that far.

Although when i think about it, animals and humans do indeed share the same sole right afforded to all other lifeforms: death. After-all it comes naturally to all, some people being dead from the start!