Athiestic view on animal rights..

[Coldbourne]

I personally think that animals are for eating, but I was wondering what the forum consensus was.
I also would like to catapult dead cows into PETA headquarters, but that is just me....

Just a train of thought to get things going :

If humans developed morality as a survival/reproductive mechanism, would it stand to reason that other animals did as well?
If so, would it make killing animals capable of such reasoning murder?

[valleyshrew]

I think there's a lot of hypocrisy in the law in this area. No animal should be protected from being food anymore than another. Why should it be illegal to eat a cat yet not a cow? I don't eat most meats, but for health/taste reasons.

I do think morality is just the will to survive, and the application of survival techniques which if everyone agrees upon, further the possibility. I had to read the last question a couple of times, but I think whether it counts as murder doesn't really matter (it doesn't). Murder as a word applies to humans specifically. But we have to survive, and animals are/were necessary for that. I'm sure humans could become herbivores now, but i just don't care about the animals. Killing is natural.

[Moral Savant]

I personally think that animals are for eating, but I was wondering what the forum consensus was.
I also would like to catapult dead cows into PETA headquarters, but that is just me....

Just a train of thought to get things going :

If humans developed morality as a survival/reproductive mechanism, would it stand to reason that other animals did as well?
If so, would it make killing animals capable of such reasoning murder?
I like animals more than people, so you can take your catapult and shove it, but that is just me... Enough said.

[Coldbourne]

Such being the case, and by keeping with your logic, you then consider animals as superior to humans.
As you are also human, that makes you a sub-level organism on par plants, unless you also prefer flora to humans.
Also, with such being the case, you should have no qualms about being eviscerated and consumed by a large starving carnivore.
As the dominant predator in a dominant Kingdom you should have no problem with this, the circle of life and all.

Of course the small problem of humans also being classified as animals within the animal kingdom reduces any point you have attempted to make as utterly inane. If such is to be said of all of your statements, then I definitely agree that you have reached the point of "enough said".

Cheers.

[New_Syntax]

Ethically, you shouldnt Kill without need. There is nothing Unethical about eating a burger or steak. I think its unethical to cause any more pain than nessasary to the animal however. As long as the animal is slaughtered in an ethical manner(heh, sounds strange I know), for good reason, I see no problem with it.

[Metman07]

The laws of murder etc. do not extend to animals because it is not in the human interest. People want to eat their stakes and hamburgers. Many people would still like to exploit the strength of various beasts of burden so that they could make them do their bidding.

It is not in the human interest to have a society in which it is perfectly normal for people to murder each other. That way, nobody would be safe.

[Sternwallow]

I would like, as a good skeptic, to find the basis of these questions of animal rights and the moral implications of pain and suffering. Just what is significant about the pain an(any) animal suffers whether from humans or other agency? Other than that we have empathy for each other through our ability to imagine ourselves in their place and then project that empathy onto other species, what does suffering really matter? What is the significance, if any, of a statement like "that fish on the hook looks like it is in torment, but fish don't feel pain like we do"?
This question bears on many events life from leashing a dog or eating steaks to corporal punishment or bombing villages. What do you all think?

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

If you count altruism as part of morality, then yes, I guess in a sense certain animals are moral. I also believe they feel pain when we kill them (after all, feeling pain and avoiding the source *are* a part of survival). The thing is, my desire to eat tasty animals outweighs any feelings of empathy I may have for them. It helps that there are a few degrees of separation between me and the animal. Heck, I felt queasy dissecting live worms in biology class. But as long as animals are delicious, and as long as I don't have to see them suffering, I'll continue to be a carnivore.

[Amazonis]

Why did you create this thread when their was already one made?

[Sternwallow]

Evil_Mage_Ra: "If you count altruism as part of morality, then yes, I guess in a sense certain animals are moral. I also believe they feel pain when we kill them (after all, feeling pain and avoiding the source *are* a part of survival). The thing is, my desire to eat tasty animals outweighs any feelings of empathy I may have for them."

Are you saying that the pain and suffering of animals and, by extension people, only matters to the extent that you happen to have some empathy? Would there be any reason to discourage you from inflicting pain on any entity for which you do not feel empathy?
Is there any fundamental "wrongness" about pain. If so, other than you don't like to feel pain, specifically what is wrong about it?

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

In general, yes, I would be less likely to inflict pain on someone the more empathy I felt for them. I have very little empathy for non-human beings. Well, dogs and cats, but that's only because our culture sees them as pets (and family members somewhat).

I don't think pain itself is wrong so much as why you're inflicting it. Inflicting pain for it's own sake (torture) is wrong, but if it's necessary for survival (fighting off an attacker, killing for food), then it's okay.

[Sternwallow]

Evil_Mage_Ra: "I don't think pain itself is wrong so much as why you're inflicting it. Inflicting pain for it's own sake (torture) is wrong, but if it's necessary for survival (fighting off an attacker, killing for food), then it's okay."

Yes, but, exactly what is it about pain that makes it wrong to inflict it for some unnecessary reason? Other than the previously discussed notion of empathy, what connection is there between suffering and morality? You say that torture is wrong and, not disagreeing with you, I ask how and in what way you think it is wrong.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

I don't know if I *can* make a connection between morality and inflicting pain without including empathy.........Maybe I'm just mis-understanding your question. Any other takers?

[Sternwallow]

Evil_Mage_Ra, I'm not surprised that my question is difficult to understand. I have never heard anyone identify this issue, much less try to answer it. Yet I have wondered about it for some time. Basically, simple pain is a signal on sensory nerves that some damage is being done (or has recently been done) to the body. Taking just this simple kind of pain for the moment, where is any moral or spiritual component? It feels to me that empathy is a generally good thing like imagination, but it really has nothing to do with the morality of inflicting pain.
Please understand I am not advocating torture; it revolts me. As we have discussed, it is empathy that makes torture revolting. That alone is insufficient to explain what makes it immoral because torturers almost universally lack the very empathy we are discussing yet their act is still considered immoral.
I'm not sure, but my question may be related to "is an action good because God says it is good or does God say it is good because it is universally good?"

[lesserpanda]

New_syntax, your theory on killing without need is interesting, but in conflict with your secondary statement.

You say: it is unethical to kill without need, i need a burger, thus it is ethical for me to kill a cow to have a burger.

The flaw is in your second premise. It is clearly possible to exist with the same quality of life without your burger. You do not, therefore, need the burger. In fact, you do not need to eat meat to maintain your quality of life. (If you would like evidence you may check the other thread in this section.) As you are not killing the cow to fulfill your needs, you are killing needlessly. How then can you justify your killing the cow according to your 'killing needlessly is wrong' theorum?

There are some good arguments for eating animals, but I fear this is not one of them.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

It feels to me that empathy is a generally good thing like imagination, but it really has nothing to do with the morality of inflicting pain.
Actually, I would say that empathy has much to do with morality (including the morality of inflicting pain). What about the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (or any other variant)? Basically, it's asking you to mentally switch places with the receiver of your actions, which is, in essence, empathy.

The thing with empathy is that, like morality, it's context-dependent. For example, when I see commercials on TV asking me to send money to starving kids in Africa, I just change the channel. On the other hand, if you gave me a gun and told me to kill a starving kid in Africa, I wouldn't do it. Of course, there's a key difference in that in the first example I'm basically denying relief of pain, while in the second example I'm causing pain, but I think you can see what I'm getting at.

Plus, like morality, there's no universally-accepted standard as to who or what one should feel empathy for. This is why animal rights activists will argue that we should stop eating meat because "Killing is immoral" or "What makes us better than them?", while carnivores like myself will say "Who cares? They're just a bunch of dumb animals!". I also think this is why animal rights activists point out examples of intelligence, altruism, etc. in other animals--to blur the distinction between humans and other animals and convince the rest of us that they should be treated with respect.

Now, if animal rights activists could convince me that animals were not tasty and juicy, *then* I think they'd make some headway.

Of course, all of this doesn't answer your main question, which is what is it exactly about pain that makes it immoral to inflict on others. I don't know for certain, but my gut feeling is that it has something to do with the fact that we recognize pain as a "bad" feeling, and we have empathy for others, so since we "do unto others as we would have done unto us", and since we do *not* want pain "done unto us", then it is considered immoral to cause pain to others.

Hmmm........If my theory is true, then it should also be true that murderers, rapists, torturers, etc. have a higher natural pain tolerance than the rest of us. Has anyone seen studies of this nature?

[Rhinoqulous]

Actually, I would say that empathy has much to do with morality (including the morality of inflicting pain). What about the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (or any other variant)? Basically, it's asking you to mentally switch places with the receiver of your actions, which is, in essence, empathy.

The thing with empathy is that, like morality, it's context-dependent. For example, when I see commercials on TV asking me to send money to starving kids in Africa, I just change the channel. On the other hand, if you gave me a gun and told me to kill a starving kid in Africa, I wouldn't do it. Of course, there's a key difference in that in the first example I'm basically denying relief of pain, while in the second example I'm causing pain, but I think you can see what I'm getting at.
The philosopher David Hume believed the basis for morality was "emotive response", in other words the natural empathy that arises in us in certain contexts. I don't think this is the end-all say-all of morality, but it's a good place to start.

Rhinoq

[AtheistFreedom]

I like animals more than people, so you can take your catapult and shove it, but that is just me... Enough said.
I am totally in agreement with you on that one. I hate 99.99% of all people (even the word itself sounds like a freakin' plague!) I come into contact with on a daily basis, and have found through personal observation that most animals, even insects, seem to have more intrinsic worth and value than that of most people. I'm all for the following:

http://www.vhemt.org/

[Rhinoqulous]

I like animals more than people, so you can take your catapult and shove it, but that is just me... Enough said.
I am totally in agreement with you on that one. I hate 99.99% of all people (even the word itself sounds like a freakin' plague!) I come into contact with on a daily basis, and have found through personal observation that most animals, even insects, seem to have more intrinsic worth and value than that of most people. I'm all for the following:

http://www.vhemt.org/
Damn, you kids need to lighten up. You can't actually hate the majority of people you come into contact with every day. What about the person selling you coffee in the morning? People you pass in the street? The girl/guy who drops something in line at the post office wit dat sweet ass? Mellow out. Maybe you need the all encompising love of the Screaming Blue Ants. :P (just kidding, stay in school)

Rhinoq

[Lurker]

http://www.vhemt.org/
Ha ha! :lol:

[Rhinoqulous]

For once I'm in agreement with Lurker. Ha ha, indeed.

[Tenspace]

For once I'm in agreement with Lurker. Ha ha, indeed.
Actually, that's twice now. The first time coincided with the megaquake that caused the tsunami.

I'm just waiting to see what happens this tiime. :)

Ten

[Tenspace]

Damn, you kids need to lighten up. You can't actually hate the majority of people you come into contact with every day. What about the person selling you coffee in the morning? People you pass in the street? The girl/guy who drops something in line at the post office wit dat sweet ass? Mellow out. Maybe you need the all encompising love of the Screaming Blue Ants. :P (just kidding, stay in school)

Rhinoq
Can you smoke the Screaming Blue Ants? ;)

Ten

[StillSurviving]

I like animals more than people, so you can take your catapult and shove it, but that is just me... Enough said.
I am totally in agreement with you on that one. I hate 99.99% of all people (even the word itself sounds like a freakin' plague!) I come into contact with on a daily basis, and have found through personal observation that most animals, even insects, seem to have more intrinsic worth and value than that of most people. I'm all for the following:

http://www.vhemt.org/
Maybe you can get one of those insects to cook your lunch, stock the shelves at your grocery store, fix your car, mow your lawn, serve your dinner, run the machine that built the chips in your computer, etc. These are all jobs done by common people you claim have less worth than an insect.

I am frequently disappointed when people don't live up to what I expect from a human being, but that's because my expectations for humans are so much higher than my expectations for an animal or insect.

[Amazonis]

http://www.vhemt.org/
:lol: :lol: :lol:: Thats such a genius organization! Their points are actually very valid and we do nead more people around like them (around four billion, to be presice). After all, i doubt i will be ever be involved in any reproducing activities, wether i have a choice in the matter or not :D

[nvxplorer]

I personally think that animals are for eating, but I was wondering what the forum consensus was.
I also would like to catapult dead cows into PETA headquarters, but that is just me....

Just a train of thought to get things going :

If humans developed morality as a survival/reproductive mechanism, would it stand to reason that other animals did as well?
If so, would it make killing animals capable of such reasoning murder?
Food is for eating. If you must kill an animal for food, then that animal is for eating. I don't think you're saying that the purpose of (all) animals is for humans to eat, but correct me if I'm misreading.

I'm not very familiar with PETA, and your apparent displeasure with it eludes me, so I won't address that point/joke.

Your last question is unclear. Are you associating murder with survival hunting? Are you attributing this to all creatures? Are you saying animals have a sense of morality? I'm not following you.

Chimp on chimp killing, akin to what we would describe as murder, is well documented, but this is irrelevant to hunting for survival.