That seems a pretty cold attitude to take. So if I understand you correctly, you don’t care if an animal is in pain, as long as you yourself aren’t around to see it.
I hope this isn’t a common attitude…
I don’t believe humans have souls. Does that mean that I shouldn’t care about the suffering of humans? And how would wiping out a species be a benefit to humanity (for the sake of this argument, let’s assume that diseases are not species)?
I don’t know, it depends on why you personally care about the suffering of humans. I’d assume that it’s because you know that if you didn’t help other humans out, then they wouldn’t help or respect you.
And as for an example of a species, let’s suppose it’s before the Industrial Revolution and there is a rare species of moth that finds petroleum byproducts extremely poisonous. Which is of greater benefit to humanity: going along with industrialization or keeping that moth alive?
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Absolutely not. I don’t want humans to suffer for the same reason I don’t want animals to suffer-- because I know what suffering feels like, and I don’t want to endure it; it’s wrong to inflict on others what you would not like inflicted on you. That’s the Golden Rule in many of the world’s ethical systems, both religious and secular. Now, you could argue that animals don’t experience pain the way humans do, but when you’re dealing with mammals and birds, I don’t think it’s a fact-based claim to assert that they do not experience meaningful suffering, both physical and psychological. The line between humans and other animals is not as great as you seem to believe.
This is a false dichotomy. The moth’s extinction is important in and of itself, but it’s unlikely that the moth going extinct is the only consequence of industrialization, or that industrialization as a whole would have to be foregone to save the moth. The moth’s extinction would probably be symptomatic of overall environmental degradation that would be harmful to humans too, if that’s all you care about, not just one specific species of moth. Perhaps industry would do well to modulate its polluting, not just to save the moth, but to save the planet. You can have both industrialization and moths if you take a global view of your behavior. The same is true of dealing with animals in other situations.
But how are animals going to inflict suffering upon us?
In the (admittedly unlikely) scenario I supposed, burning one drop of oil would cause extinction for the moth species, i.e. there is no way to have both. Sure, in real life, pollution has much wider consequences, but those are also weighed against their benefits. That’s why we *don’t *go around polluting as much as we can, because the benefits do not outweigh the consequences, not out of some sanctimonious desire not to do so because that’s what TPTB commanded.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
What difference does that make? We, unlike animals, have the capacity to decide not to inflict unnecessary suffering on other living things. I feel that obliges us to consider the effect we have on other living things. The Golden Rule does not say, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, unless they are incapable of hurting you, in which case, go crazy.” (Note that I only use the Golden Rule because it’s a widely known expression of the idea I’m trying to put forth; I’m offering it from a secular POV, not a Christian POV, and I personally apply to to more than just other humans.)
It’s an impossible scenario, and I don’t think it contributes anything to the discussion to belabor it.
But why do these other living things matter so much to you? Because God told you they do? Because everyone agrees they do? Because you take your natural emotional reactions as evidence for the correctness of a moral system?
I’m not trying to be accusatory; I really do want to know what principle you base this on.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
I already answered this: because I know what suffering feels like. I don’t like it. Therefore, I think it’s reasonable, when I share a very similar brain structure and nervous system with another living thing, to assume that it suffers similarly. There is ample scientific basis for this assumption. Since I would not wish to suffer, I would not do to another what I do not wish to be done to me. Has nothing to do with God or what everyone agrees on, because I know for a fact that everyone does NOT agree on it. If they did, the world would be a vastly different place.
Suffering is bad because you don’t like it. Do you have anything less axiomatic? I see how this is a valid rational argument against you in particular making yourself suffer (or you yourself making animals suffer), but not how it applies to other people with regard to convincing them of your opinion.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
If you think suffering is only bad because I don’t like it, then I’m not sure where this conversation is going, if anywhere.
Using your reasoning above, if society is indifferent to murder of someone from a race other than yours, then that won’t affect you, so you should be OK with that.
That is, if you are Swedish-blond, you shouldn’t have any moral issues living in a society that finds it OK to murder and/or torture blacks, since this attitude towards blacks does not result in you having a “greater chance of being murdered”.
Why do you think there’s a link between enjoying the suffering of another animal and being messed up in the head? Hint: It’s not just because if everyone did it, there would be negative consequences for society as a whole. You said so yourself.
Ah, but black people have much more value to society as living, happy people than dead ones. Not merely in that they contribute more to growth directly, but I would prefer to live in a society that treats all people equally. I also think that black people do in fact have souls, so there is a direct negative consequence for me if I accept the killing of them. If you’re looking for why I would object to it if I did not believe this and the existence of black people were somehow proven to be negative for society, I’m not sure I have an answer for you. See the thread about morality in the absence of religion.
Rubystreak, psychological studies have found that people who enjoy abusing animals tend to be sociopaths, who are very dangerous to society. It’s even considered one of the indicative signs of the disorder in children.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
ETA: This one.
Oddly enough, I believe animals have souls/spirits just as we do, so wanton killing of them is not OK
So if I tell you that I believe that animals have souls, that would be a sufficient ethical reason why I think it’s not OK hurt them? But saying that I think avoiding the unnecessary suffering of sentient beings is ethical won’t fly with you? I find this puzzling.
You haven’t answered my question. Why is it a symptom of a sociopath to enjoy or be indifferent to the suffering of others? What quality of a person does it indicate? Therein lies your answer.
Well, I just wanted to know if that was your only reason. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled not to accept it.
It is a symptom of sociopathy because people with sociopathy do it. People with sociopathy are, overall, not generally good for society because they are characterized by:
I also spot your extremely subtle :rolleyes: accusation, but I do not meet the psychological diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
<emphasis mine>
Didn’t you just tell Rubystreak “Suffering is bad because you don’t like it. Do you have anything less axiomatic?”
So, basically, it boils down to having a soul.
Out of curiosity,
Actually, based on your arguments above, lack of a soul and lack of negative consequences to society from killing them are sufficient under your theory. You don’t need to prove that their existence is actually negative to society.
I don’t want to turn this into a religious discussion. You believe that harming animals in inherently wrong. I don’t. That is axiomatic, which means there is no argument there, just like in the case of humans, except we agree on that one. The argument comes in when we discuss the benefits and harms to society from a particular practise.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
ETA: If there were no consequences at all (for me) from my harming humans, then there would also be no rational reason for me not to do so. There would only be axiomatic reasons, which are impossible to argue about.
Is your only reason for not hurting people the fact that they have a soul? Why is that sufficient reason to refrain from hurting another being, but saying that I know that suffering sucks, so I wouldn’t do it to another being able to perceive suffering, is not a sufficient reason? My reason is based on observable facts, and yours is based on an unsubstantiated spiritual belief.
You realize that’s a tautology and not responsive to my question, right?
There was absolutely no accusation implied in my post. None. I was trying to get you to realize that it is a sign of mental illness to enjoy or disregard the suffering of animals for the same reason it’s wrong to disregard or enjoy the suffering of people. I do not draw a line between humans and animals as you do, and I base the location of my ethical line on the very provable and demonstrable similarities in the nervous systems and brain structures of higher animals and humans.
I don’t only refrain from hurting beings who can hurt me back, and I don’t only refrain from hurting beings from whom I can derive material gain. I see ethical consistency as a value to be striven for, which is what the Golden Rule requires. Maybe the root reason is that I want the world to be as peaceable and free from suffering as possible, as suffering begets more suffering, generally. When it’s unavoidable, it’s unavoidable. Fur is not unavoidable.
That’s sufficient reason for you, not sufficient reason for me. And yes, in a moment of weakness when I would otherwise do so, the fact that I believe people have souls is the only reason why I wouldn’t hurt them.
It is a tautology. It is also the answer to your question. It is an indicator of sociopathy because inductive reasoning has shown that people who do that often have sociopathy.
The fact that it is a sign of mental illness does not necessarily indicate that it is wrong. Just that it is a sign of mental illness, nothing more or less. It is a sign of mental illness (namely OCD) to obsessively count things. Does that mean that obsessively counting things is wrong?
Do you have evidence for this belief with regard to humans and animals? And absolute consistency is not necessarily important to moral systems. I would not like to be fired for not working. I would prefer to keep my job and still earn the money. Does that mean that the business owner has no right to fire me?
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Wow. I guess arguing about wearing fur is really academic for you.
It’s not just a sign of an antisocial personality because it’s a sign of antisocial personality. It’s because it shows a lack of awareness of the selfhood of others-- a completely self-centered worldview. Sociopaths do not recognize the feelings of others, which is why they behave as they do. Where you draw the line as to whose feelings matter is a critical component of ethics. Many people draw the line at humans. I do not, because humans and higher animals are more similar than they are different.
A poor and irrelevant analogy. We’re talking about behaviors that harm other thinking beings, not obsessive counting.
Do I really have to prove to you that humans and animals have very similar nervous systems and brain structures? Do some research of your own and get back to me, as this is veering into a major hijack of this thread. I linked to one article in this thread already.
I disagree. I think consistency is the only way to avoid being a hypocrite. You also have not applied the Golden Rule correctly in your (very poor) analogy. If you were the employer, would you fire someone for not working? That is the question you should ask.