Human and Animal rights...the same thing?

[Cain]

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.

That just does not really make any sense. In my framework I only care about my own suffering/happiness. Or that of friends and family (which includes "pets"). Or my community. Or my country. Or everyone in the world except INXS fans.

As mentioned in the linked video, we really do spend most of our time concerned about ourselves, but rationally we know, or we should know, that our interests are no more important than anyone else.

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.

It's harmful to others if no one knows about it? If no one is around? This makes almost no sense. According to your "framework," and "framework" is a lofty term for "loose collection of prejudices," then it's more offensive for somebody to deceive people into thinking he's tortured dozens of cats than to actually, secretly, torture dozens of cats. Because if it's done in secret, then nobody ever knows...

Driving home today I asked myself why I bother wasting so much time in threads such as this. Therefore, this will be my final post.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Driving home today I asked myself why I bother wasting so much time in threads such as this. Therefore, this will be my final post.

Have a good day.

 

[Dessi]

Since this thread is effectively done, let me share my week:

In the US, Thanksgiving is a federal holiday, my work gives everyone Thursday and Friday off. I have vacation to burn, hellz yeahs I'm taking Monday, Tues, and Wednesday off, a whole week to myself, rock!

I intended to spend the week weaning myself off of Windows and onto Ubuntu, learning myself a Ruby, getting up to speed on graph algorithms. And then that first day off came, I realized how much I absolutely hate writing code as a hobby now that I do it for a living, its just not fun anymore. I haven't been active on Stackoverflow since July.

So I seriously spent the last week goofing off, hanging out with friends. Went to the movies with my friends, ate a lot of dip, crashed on a friends couch, the next day that friend came to my place and spent the day listening to industrial music and dismantling a hard drive. I started playing my guitar again, made obscene sketches, enjoyed my family over the holidays.

I honestly thought at this point in my life, I would have taken over the world with technology, but at this rate I'm too busy enjoying myself to care.

I'm pretty much done trying to be a super programmer, its just a job and not a lifestyle anymore. I'd say I didn't get ANYTHING done this week, but damn if it wasn't the most fun I'd had in a long long time.

 

[Roboramma]

But what is actually right depends on your fundamental definitions.

If you said "what you consider to be right depends on your fundamental definitions" I'd agree with you. But if morality has any meaning at all, what is actually right doesn't depend upon what I decide to be right.

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.

That's fine, I'm just saying that your framework is wrong.

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.

I don't see how you get that from what I wrote. Do you think we ought to stop the Yanomamo from engaging in intertribal warfare? I don't, in spite of the fact that I consider them to be morally valuable beings on par with other humans. Why not? Mostly because I believe in "live and let live". I think my view of interfering or not with them is similar to how I view interfering with other parts of nature. Humans are not fundamentally different from any other part of nature: yes, we are different in some ways (mostly differences of degree), but we are still made of the same stuff, came about through the same processes, etc. I don't understand how you can justify a moral framework that imposes a difference of kind between humans and the natural world.

That seems to imply that I extend moral consideration to rocks: it doesn't. Rather that I think moral consideration should be extended because some things are inherently valuable. Suffering is simply inherently bad, and you can tell that if you can ask any being undergoing suffering. That's all that's required. But that doesn't suggest that there are not also other things that have inherent positive value. And if you are considering taking a particular action from a moral perspective you need to consider both sides of that equation.

 

[Manopolus]

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...



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.

You appear to be suggesting that I'm moving the goal posts, but I don't think so. Overall, I have consistently stated that one of my major concerns has to do with human fitness for survival if we were to stop "exploiting" animals... not only as individuals, but also as a society. Essentially, all of what I have described has been nothing other than illustrations of this concern.

I'll fully admit that I may be wrong in some of the details. I've actually done little research in the matter, and am doing my thinking as I go. I think our main difference is in priorities, however. I demand answers to practical questions before proceeding, while you and Dessi seem to focus intently upon idealistic consistency... which I consider much less important.

Would I change my values if my questions of practicality were resolved? Probably not... I'll fully admit to being at least selfish enough to put my own desires above any concerns for animals, although I am not adverse to changing my diet temporarily for a specific period of time as an experiment (but keep in mind -- I can't stand the taste of fish, so there's a problem there, too). You most likely will not change my mind overall, but I will allow you to address any misperceptions on my part... and will admit error in the face of evidence.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Since this thread is effectively done, let me share my week:

In the US, Thanksgiving is a federal holiday, my work gives everyone Thursday and Friday off. I have vacation to burn, hellz yeahs I'm taking Monday, Tues, and Wednesday off, a whole week to myself, rock!

I intended to spend the week weaning myself off of Windows and onto Ubuntu, learning myself a Ruby, getting up to speed on graph algorithms. And then that first day off came, I realized how much I absolutely hate writing code as a hobby now that I do it for a living, its just not fun anymore. I haven't been active on Stackoverflow since July.

So I seriously spent the last week goofing off, hanging out with friends. Went to the movies with my friends, ate a lot of dip, crashed on a friends couch, the next day that friend came to my place and spent the day listening to industrial music and dismantling a hard drive. I started playing my guitar again, made obscene sketches, enjoyed my family over the holidays.

I honestly thought at this point in my life, I would have taken over the world with technology, but at this rate I'm too busy enjoying myself to care.

I'm pretty much done trying to be a super programmer, its just a job and not a lifestyle anymore. I'd say I didn't get ANYTHING done this week, but damn if it wasn't the most fun I'd had in a long long time.

Congrats on a great week, you are an inspiration to the rest of us. I have this week off and plan to waste it as much as wife and kid will allow me

 

[TubbaBlubba]

If you said "what you consider to be right depends on your fundamental definitions" I'd agree with you. But if morality has any meaning at all, what is actually right doesn't depend upon what I decide to be right.

That's fine, I'm just saying that your framework is wrong.

Great, then tell me: How do we derive a correct moral framework? Oh, wait, I'll put you on hold and call Yahweh

I don't see how you get that from what I wrote. Do you think we ought to stop the Yanomamo from engaging in intertribal warfare? I don't, in spite of the fact that I consider them to be morally valuable beings on par with other humans. Why not? Mostly because I believe in "live and let live". I think my view of interfering or not with them is similar to how I view interfering with other parts of nature. Humans are not fundamentally different from any other part of nature: yes, we are different in some ways (mostly differences of degree), but we are still made of the same stuff, came about through the same processes, etc. I don't understand how you can justify a moral framework that imposes a difference of kind between humans and the natural world.

Regardless of whether we can stop any specific act which we consider morally despicable (e.g. the Yanomamo intertribal warfare) the framework is still useful because there are a lot of despicable acts we can stop, or do something about, and it's very likely that a day may come when we can do more about more and more such acts. Our framework tells us that this is desirable. Does your tell you that we should strive to stop animals from killing eachother in the woods? In that case I think it's a waste of time.

That seems to imply that I extend moral consideration to rocks: it doesn't. Rather that I think moral consideration should be extended because some things are inherently valuable. Suffering is simply inherently bad, and you can tell that if you can ask any being undergoing suffering. That's all that's required. But that doesn't suggest that there are not also other things that have inherent positive value. And if you are considering taking a particular action from a moral perspective you need to consider both sides of that equation.

Mhm, but no inherent property of the suffering of say, cattle, tells me that I should care about their suffering. I do care about the suffering of other people, because I'm hardwired to do it.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Mhm, but no inherent property of the suffering of say, cattle, tells me that I should care about their suffering. I do care about the suffering of other people, because I'm hardwired to do it.

Your terminology is too loose. I would say you are hardwired to have the capacity to care for the suffering of other people and animals.

 

[slingblade]

Since this thread is effectively done, let me share my week:

Wait...what? When did this become your blog?

 

[SusanB-M1]

Manopolis #97
Thank you for a post which was so well expressed. I've fild it.

 

[Manopolus]

Manopolis #97
Thank you for a post which was so well expressed. I've fild it.

Thanks, glad you liked it

Oh, and I kind of agree that my first post in this thread was the best... though it was somehow misunderstood by some.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Thanks, glad you liked it

Oh, and I kind of agree that my first post in this thread was the best... though it was somehow misunderstood by some.

Am I one of the "some"? Because you never replied to my post .

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Your terminology is too loose. I would say you are hardwired to have the capacity to care for the suffering of other people and animals.

Is what you saying that, with a different upbringing, I might have cared more for the suffering of animals?

Yes, perhaps. Perhaps not.





I suspect but cannot prove that removing empathy for people in general would be more difficult, though.

 

[Roboramma]

Great, then tell me: How do we derive a correct moral framework? Oh, wait, I'll put you on hold and call Yahweh

Whether or not we are able to derive that framework doesn't show that it doesn't exist. It simply shows that we are limited. Similarly the fact that we can't find out if there are planets orbiting a particular star in a particular distant galaxy doesn't mean that there are none, it just means that we are limited in our ability to find out.

Not knowing something is different from knowing that something is not.

Regardless of whether we can stop any specific act which we consider morally despicable (e.g. the Yanomamo intertribal warfare) the framework is still useful because there are a lot of despicable acts we can stop

You misunderstand me. I referenced the Yanomamo not because I can't stop what they are doing, but because I don't want to.

, or do something about, and it's very likely that a day may come when we can do more about more and more such acts. Our framework tells us that this is desirable. Does your tell you that we should strive to stop animals from killing eachother in the woods? In that case I think it's a waste of time.

I don't understand "it's a waste of time". What does that have to do with whether it's true or not?

Mhm, but no inherent property of the suffering of say, cattle, tells me that I should care about their suffering. I do care about the suffering of other people, because I'm hardwired to do it.

So you think that you shouldn't hurt other people because you are hardwired not to want to hurt them? That's just the naturalistic fallacy.
On the other hand I think suffering is inherently bad, and if I'm right about that, a great deal of moral reasoning follows from there.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Whether or not we are able to derive that framework doesn't show that it doesn't exist. It simply shows that we are limited. Similarly the fact that we can't find out if there are planets orbiting a particular star in a particular distant galaxy doesn't mean that there are none, it just means that we are limited in our ability to find out.

Not knowing something is different from knowing that something is not.

You are presupposing the existence of an objective truth wrt morality. There is no evidence to suggest this.

You misunderstand me. I referenced the Yanomamo not because I can't stop what they are doing, but because I don't want to.

Okay.

I don't understand "it's a waste of time". What does that have to do with whether it's true or not?

Again, why are you presupposing the existence of an objective moral framework? There is no way to test this.

So you think that you shouldn't hurt other people because you are hardwired not to want to hurt them? That's just the naturalistic fallacy.
On the other hand I think suffering is inherently bad, and if I'm right about that, a great deal of moral reasoning follows from there.

Not exactly. I think that the reason I think I shouldn't hurt people is because I'm hardwired for empathy. If I were not, I don't think I would be.

It is true that presupposing things that are unprovable is a good method for deriving frameworks. In fact it's the only method. However, you are begging the question. Why just suffering? Why not death? Surely you don't think a sufferless death is morally indifferent to a sufferless life? If we presuppose that death in itself is bad, then we might have to do something about all of those bactericides...

 

[Roboramma]

You are presupposing the existence of an objective truth wrt morality. There is no evidence to suggest this.

I think there is, but I don't really want to get into that discussion.

Again, why are you presupposing the existence of an objective moral framework? There is no way to test this.

If there is no objective moral framework, then there's simply no reason to care about morality. That doesn't mean you shouldn't care (there is no should), so go ahead and care about made up rules all you like, but when it's to your objective, long term advantage to ignore those made up rules you have no reason not to.
(Of course, you objective long term advantage includes your emotional response to ignoring your made up rules).

My point is that I suspect you don't treat your own moral framework like that: you treat it as though it were objective. If you're going to do that, you might as well develop the moral framework from that perspective.

Not exactly. I think that the reason I think I shouldn't hurt people is because I'm hardwired for empathy. If I were not, I don't think I would be.

Which simply means you haven't analyised your own thought processes far enough: you know that you think you shouldn't hurt people for an unsupportable reason (simply because you were hardwired that way), but you don't then say, "okay, I have no valid reason not to want to hurt people"?

It is true that presupposing things that are unprovable is a good method for deriving frameworks. In fact it's the only method. However, you are begging the question. Why just suffering? Why not death? Surely you don't think a sufferless death is morally indifferent to a sufferless life? If we presuppose that death in itself is bad, then we might have to do something about all of those bactericides...

As I said upthread, I do think that other things beyond suffering are morally relevant. That's just the easiest aspect to discuss.

Anyway, I appreciate your posts in this thread, but I'm regretting getting into it, as I said I wouldn't. Hopefully I've conveyed my viewpoint, at least.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Is what you saying that, with a different upbringing, I might have cared more for the suffering of animals?

Yes, perhaps. Perhaps not.





I suspect but cannot prove that removing empathy for people in general would be more difficult, though.

What I mean is, people feel empathy at various times to various things, and these things can change. We very often don't feel empathy to other humans, such as when we gossip harshly or assault someone. We often do feel empathy for animals, such as kittens. And then we find out the human has cancer and the kitten peed on your favourite shoes .

 

[Manopolus]

Am I one of the "some"? Because you never replied to my post .

Sorry, guess I don't always get around to them all... had 3 or so replies, didn't have a lot of time, so just picked one at the time.

Anyway, maybe next time... pretty much done with this topic.