Your Top 5 Policies

[Kinich Ahau]

I don't think we can underestimate the way that our judeo-christian history has influenced the way we perceive the rights of our fellow creatures. (This includes philosophical and legal arguments) I'm talking about the belief that other lifeforms were wholly created for our benefit and that we are somehow superior and outside the animal world. Many cultures saw the dignity of other creatures as equal with humans and in some cases even above that of humans. As atheists perhaps we should try to jettison some of this baggage and redefine our views.

I also agree with Rhino that empathy is not an irrational argument, like torture certain kinds of cruelty offend my sensibilities as well as my personal dignity.

[lostsheep]

Sternwallow wrote

Good point, but you have not rationally justified prevention of cruelty to humans which would have been my next question after the original one about non-human animals was completed.

So, on your response, why extend this yet to be supported protection of humans to other animals?

I think that, as it has been said, more or less, that a society can be judged by how it treats its least powerful members, which include mentally handicapped, children, and its animals. Animals are part of our society and part of our family, and also, we extend this logic to humans who are part of other societies, such as laws that prevent (or are supposed to prevent) the torture of enemy combatants, and likewise we can extend empathy to animals which are not part of our society, like wild animals.

Originally, abuse of children was prosecuted under the cruelty to animals act, ironically. See: http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/13...EVOLUTION.html

Also there is a known connection between the behavior of animal abuse and the behavior of abuse of people/criminal behavior toward other people. This is one of the reasons animal cruelty laws (anti-cruelty) have been enacted.

But to answer your main question, that is, why we should try to prevent cruelty to humans, preventing cruelty to people has been the hallmark of the progress of modern civilization. Your question is confusing.

[lostsheep]

Kinich Ahau wrote

I don't think we can underestimate the way that our judeo-christian history has influenced the way we perceive the rights of our fellow creatures. (This includes philosophical and legal arguments) I'm talking about the belief that other lifeforms were wholly created for our benefit and that we are somehow superior and outside the animal world. Many cultures saw the dignity of other creatures as equal with humans and in some cases even above that of humans. As atheists perhaps we should try to jettison some of this baggage and redefine our views.

I also agree with Rhino that empathy is not an irrational argument, like torture certain kinds of cruelty offend my sensibilities as well as my personal dignity.

Good point, and I also agree w/ Rhino.

[Victus]

Kinich Ahau wrote

I don't think we can underestimate the way that our judeo-christian history has influenced the way we perceive the rights of our fellow creatures. (This includes philosophical and legal arguments) I'm talking about the belief that other lifeforms were wholly created for our benefit and that we are somehow superior and outside the animal world. Many cultures saw the dignity of other creatures as equal with humans and in some cases even above that of humans. As atheists perhaps we should try to jettison some of this baggage and redefine our views.

I think you're over-estimating the variance in views. Were there any populations in history that consistently revered animals enough not to treat them like labor-saving devices and food?

Not that I can think of.

[Kinich Ahau]

I didn't say there was. I'm also not suggesting the use for food or labour is offensive to me, but animals can be killed cruelly or badly used.

[Irreligious]

Some human beings throughout history have been known to use other human beings as labor-saving (as well as wealth-creating) devices and, in a pinch, even for food!

As a species, our sense of morality is highly variable.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

Some human beings throughout history have been known to use other human beings as labor-saving (as well as wealth-creating) devices and, in a pinch, even for food!

As a species, our sense of morality is highly variable.

People still use each other that way, they just pay them.

[Kinich Ahau]

Live cattle trade has been a massive issue in Australia this year.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cattletrade

[Smellyoldgit]

I'm probably one of the least violent people casually strolling this planet, but I'd have little trouble kicking the bollocks, punching the teeth out and throwing off a cliff any fucker that kicks my dog. (If I had one and if the kick was not in self defence of course)

[Philboid Studge]

Sternwallow wrote

Cruelty is against my preferences through normal empathy but I am not at all sure it has any moral relevance hence my current question.

The moral relevance is in the emotional content, I'm thinking. We don't like to admit that emotions imbue all moral systems because intuitively (?) we feel they cannot be foundational principles upon which ethics are built. Perhaps emotions are at the is/ought nexus (skewing "is"), but they are there. A good scientist (or ethicist) will acknowledge that emotions underlie all morality; recently the most powerful observable evidence of this is stated negatively: in the absence of emotions, moral judgments are impossible.

Traditionally, we feel that emotional content is "irrational," but I think it's irrational to ignore (or worse, deny) it as an animating feature of morality, and we would discard it at our peril.

I'm feelin' Rhinoq when he says, "So yes, opposition to cruelty has it's basis in empathy, but I take offense that this is deemed to be irrational."

[Victus]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Live cattle trade has been a massive issue in Australia this year.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cattletrade

So, the best you can come up with, working from all of human history, is the mass trade/slaughter of one species being controversial (but not, importantly, stopped) over the course of one year.

[Victus]

Philboid Studge wrote

The moral relevance is in the emotional content, I'm thinking. We don't like to admit that emotions imbue all moral systems because intuitively (?) we feel they cannot be foundational principles upon which ethics are built. Perhaps emotions are at the is/ought nexus (skewing "is"), but they are there. A good scientist (or ethicist) will acknowledge that emotions underlie all morality; recently the most powerful observable evidence of this is stated negatively: in the absence of emotions, moral judgments are impossible.

Traditionally, we feel that emotional content is "irrational," but I think it's irrational to ignore (or worse, deny) it as an animating feature of morality, and we would discard it at our peril.

I'm feelin' Rhinoq when he says, "So yes, opposition to cruelty has it's basis in empathy, but I take offense that this is deemed to be irrational."

And yet, at the same time, I don't think anyone believes, "I don't like it!" is a particularly stellar reason to enact laws.

Edit: Reworded.

[Kinich Ahau]

Victus, this was an aside for fuck's sake! It wasn't put forward as a response to you or an argument for anything. (just topical, I'm sorry if you waded through all those articles based on a misunderstanding)

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

And yet, at the same time, I don't think anyone believes, "I don't like it!" is a particularly stellar reason to enact laws.

Edit: Reworded.

That's not what he claimed. Phil merely observed that there are emotional under-pinnings to what we call morality. Do you dispute this?

[Smellyoldgit]