I misunderstood. You meant that chopping the head of a member of another species is not harmful to a member of our species. I thought you meant that chopping of the head of a member of some other species was not harmful to that member of said species which was decapitated.
Naturally, you are entitled to your opinion, yet why is it that our species should be the most important to all of us? No species has an equal precedence? What does that mean? To what rule do you refer?
I do. Perhaps I believe that because of some inherent predisposition toward subscribing to that idea, i.e., it hasn’t been proven otherwise. For example, it is my natural tendency to not believe in a god because the presence thereof isn’t necessitated by anything and no evidence has been offered to the contrary. [insert statistic here] acres of rainforest a destroyed every day and [insert statistic here] species every day become extinct as a result of that destruction. [insert statistic here] people were massacred at [insert location here]. In the first case the killing was justified in the name of capitalism and industrialization–promoting a sociocultural evolution. In the second case the killing was justified in the name sovereignty–promoting a sociocultural change. I find the first case to be more horrific because multiple species had become extinct and the number of lives lost was greater.
Yes, we need to kill to survive. That means we need to kill to eat. Beyond that, additional killing is “justified” by a matter of lifestyle. Show me how killing in the name of lifestyle is justified.
Well, if you are going to assume from the start that all species are equal, then I am just as justified in killing a fattened cow for food as I am in killing a fattened child for some “human veal.” Do you agree this is the case?
I have already answered your question. If your species chauvinism is relevant, then my lack of species chauvinism is equally relevant. Therefore, I should be able to do anything I wish to do to any animal (including humans) while only committing a misdemeanor offense. Sustaining oneself is typically not considered a crime; therefore, taking a life to sustain oneself would not be a crime. Given a lack of species chauvinism, the particular species which died to ensure one’s survival would be irrelevant.
Again, I ask you, “Can you demonstrate why everyone should believe that homo sapiens is the most important?” And again, I ask you, “What rule dictates this perspective?” And again, I ask you, “To what precedence do you refer?”
Because we are homo sapiens, and if we are going to impose our value system on other species (whether this value system is equality or preferential) then the value system dissolves when we dissolve. If the value is important, we-- as holders and enforcers of the value system-- become important. This isn’t to say that species-based equality is counter-productive per se, merely that without equality of action/ability there can be no equality of order. Since there isn’t equality of action/ability, there isn’t equality of order: some things, species, people, etc, are more important than others.
In my opinion, without an equality of order the concept of equality of individuals becomes somewhat meaningless in the general case. See class struggles throughout history for examples of this. See people determined to remove private ownership of airways, school systems, insurance agencies, health care… that is, people trying to impose equality of order and remove preferentialism. That is, in the charge to remove preferentialism, one might ask: "Who the hell are you to say that if we are all so equal?"
Yes, you can kill people for food, but why would you? Cases of cannibalism in nature are generally rare. When competing for courtship rights, most individuals of a species don’t harm each other to the extent that death will be a result. Sure, if you put enough mice in a cage, they’ll turn on one of them. Sure, the female black widow spider kills the male after mating. Sure, there are instances of cannibalism. Species in general are disposed toward preserving the species through various means, e.g., procreation. Humans, as social creatures, naturally tend to look toward other species for sustenance.
But there are exceptions to this rule. Given the choice between killing and eating a person who I find distasteful (no pun intended) and my pet cat, what should I do? Hmmm…this guy is hostile toward me and this cat is affectionate toward me. Yup, I’m going to keep the cat. How does a genetic predisposition toward the consumption of other species dictate that the lives of other species is less valuable?
Oh, I see, homo sapiens are the most important species because they’re homo sapiens.
Yes, were we to become extinct then there would not be anyone to maintain our value system. Some people value war as an acceptable means to achieve their goals. Personally, I don’t understand how valuing all life equally (in a general sense) would more readily lead to the extinction of our species than valuing war to increase one’s power. I think that the opposite would be true, but perhaps you can prove me wrong. Nonetheless, how would a potential extinction of homo sapiens dictate that homo sapiens is the most important species?
Ah, so if I value money as important and I have money then I become important, but if I don’t have any money, I’m SOL, eh? What are you trying to say? Are you saying that because we have a particular sense of consciousness which allows the conception of values we are superior? Are you saying that you think human consciousness is superior?
Please define what you mean by equality of action and equality of order; moreover, explain why there cannot be equality of action and why that lack dictates a lack of equality of order. Finally, please explain why the lack of equality of order necessitates that homo sapiens is superior to all other species.
So an appeal to precedence dictates that inequality is good? Historical oppression amongst among ourselves dictates that oppression of other species is permissible? Firstly, precedence does not dictate righteousness. Secondly, justification by extrapolating from a part to the whole is a logical fallacy.
I am not prepared to explain why cannabilism is rare in nature, though I think it has something to do with preservation of the species, at least in many mammals. Apart from that, it really doesn’t matter anyway; the idea is simply that once equality of species is given as a rule that killing a person for food is no different than killing an animal for food, or perhaps even plants for food.
It doesn’t. I hope I haven’t given that impression.
Cute. Try, "Homo sapiens are the most important species to homo sapiens because they are homo sapiens. Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum?
It wouldn’t, at least not so far as I can see.
It wouldn’t, unless you happened to be a homo sapien, in which case you might have a keen sense of self-preservation.
Hmm, perhaps if money would disappear after you ceased to have it. The idea is simply that if the idea behind equality is what is important, and we are the only species capable of enforcing that equality, then we become valuable by implication.
Not really. I’m saying that I am important, and my species is important to me because I need my species to live if I am to live. There is not one species on earth whose utter extiction would affect me in the same way.
I am important because of self-preservation. There is no other justification. I would expect a tiger to fight back against me trying to kill it for exactly the same reasons.
Equality of action, in this context, would mean that each member under consideration is able to do the same actions. Equality of order would mean that there is no method for choosing which member should perform the action; there is no preference inherent in the members.
It doesn’t, not all by itself. What happens is that we create a value system surrounding animals that only we can act on, and so we become necessary for that value system to continue. If we hold the value system to be important, then we become important by implication.
Well, it actually appears that we are in agreement on a few points.
Indeed. I don’t see a problem here. We can kill a cow for food. A tiger can kill us for food. There is your equality of action.
You didn’t give that impression, but the consumption of other species has been an issue. I’m still struggling with the reasoning behind your view that humans are superior to other species. I thought that this logic may have been part of your rationale.
This is precisely what I am trying to get you to explain. Why should this be the case?
Well, you implied that the species would dissolve as a result.
Therein lies the difference. It’s a difference between self preservation and species preservation. I completely understand valuing one’s own life over that of another, regardless of species. That is a matter of instinct. I disagree that species preservation has any bearing on self preservation.
Again, I fail to see how we are the only species capable of enforcing it. Consider a tiger eating a human. Are we enforcing that the tiger conform to a human-centric view? No, the tiger would seem to be an equal-opportunity-predator, i.e., it is not species chauvinistic but ascribes to instinct of self preservation. Self preservation appears to be instinctual.
That’s not true. You can live without the presence of other members of the species.
Again, I understand that you are important to you instinctually. How does this apply to a species as a whole?
How is it that animals cannot act in accordance with our value systems? If our values dictate that life is species blind and a given species consumes in a fashion which is species blind, is that not in accordance?
And again, (and I thank you for your patience on this matter), but I fail to understand how we become important by maintaining a value.
Yet you utilize precedence as justification for your claim that humans are more valuable than other animanls despite the fact that precedence is not an acceptable justification. Does that not seem inconsistent, or at least untenable?
So yet again, why is one’s life as a member of the human species more important than the life of a member of another species?
Well, equality of action wasn’t meant to be universal, so you are correct in this context.
Yes, well, it is only to humans that humans are the most important. Our consciousness does come into play there, but it isn’t the reason, its the cause.
I don’t see that a valuable framework of existence can be created from the idea of species equality. I think that, even if we assume species equality, we still end up with an ordered system where we are still more important.
Yes, but I thought I mentioned that in the other post. I require homo sapiens to survive; no other species is as important to my survival. Any particular species can die out and I will carry on; should I be the last living human, there’s a serious survival problem. The same could be said of all mammals, and most animals since I don’t think any reproduce asexually. Not only that, but most animals can survive largely on their own; we are not quite so adaptive to our environment. Humans are pack animals, I think
Yes, but “enforcement” of food chain equality isn’t really the point. What concerns me is equality of treatment. Simply put, we can do more for animals in accordance with equality than they can do for us. If we say there is an idea of species equality, it would require us to treat animals as we treat ourselves, and it would require that animals treat us as we treat them. At least in my mind, anyway. And if we instead simply say that we treat animals as we treat ourselves, and make no requirement of animals per se, it still requires us being there to have that value. Animals won’t treat each other nicely by default. So if that idea is important, we are important and we lose equality again.
Animals will not treat each other equally without us there to guide-- or coerce-- them to do so.
I don’t think I could. I am not prepared mentally, and perhaps physically, to survive purely on my own.
It isn’t that life is species blind, it is that we are requiring that life be species-active, and put an equality there which isn’t there otherwise. Cats can no longer toy with their prey; they will not act on this alone.
We don’t. If we find the value to be important-- it is important that animals be treated equally-- and we are the only ones capable of upholding this value, or coercing others to adhere to this value, then we become absolutely necessary for its execution. We become important because without us the important value dissolves.
What precedence am I utilizing? I don’t see that I supplied any until you asked for it.
Well, this debate needs to be refocused, so consider the following:
The OP questions whether cruelty to animals should be a felony offense. Your assertion is that cruelty to animals should not be a felony offense. Your reasoning appears to be based on a belief that a human life is more important than a life of a member of another species. Can you succinctly support this notion? Essentially, why is your perspective tenable?
Now for responses.
Excuse me? Isn’t equality universal by definition? If all x are equal, then aren’t all x equal universally? If not, then there are some x which are equal and some x which are not; ergo, x does not equal x.
First of all, your assertion isn’t true. Not all humans feel that homo sapiens is the most important species. I am a case in point. Again, please explain why you feel humans should believe that homo sapiens is the most important species.
You stated that equality of order would be the result of equality of action. Now you’re stating that preferential order is the result of equality of action. Which is it?
No, you don’t require other members of our species for your individual survival. You require the members of other species for sustenance. You only require other members of our species to continue the species as a whole. In regards to adaptation, not only are humans capable of adapting to an environment, humans are capable of adapting an environment to humans.
Equality of the food chain is precisely the natural equality of treatment to which you refer. We need not enforce a law that other species act equally. It’s natural to do so. Yes, we can do more for them because it is members of our species which fail to adhere to this law.
Say hello to Darwin. The possibility that you might not survive if left to your own devices does not necessitate that human life is more important that other species.
Again, we need not enforce what already occurs naturally. For other animals it is instinctual. For some members of our species it is instinctual. For members of our species for whom it is not instinctual, it is termed a “value”. This “value” will not be lost without our superfluous enforcement. It would remain as instinct.
I said:
To which you replied:
What?! You don’t even know what precedence you’re utilizing? It doesn’t even matter that you’re utilizing precedence. Precedence is not acceptable justification.
Equality is not universal. Once we assume a context, the meaning of equality changes or becomes moot. 5 = 5, $5 does not equal ¥5.
No, my reasoning is based on what felonies are about: a crime is a felony if it represents a significant danger to other citizens. Animals are not citizens. Killing, or torturing, an animal does not represent a threat to other citizens; ergo, no felony.
From there the argument preceeded along the lines we are following now: why animals should be treated fairly, like citizens in some regard. The reasoning applied in this instance was based on equality. I then attemped to demonstrate why equality between species is an untenable proposition. It is untenable because the very act of proposing that species are equal makes humans-- the enforcers/protectors of that idea-- more important by implication. Thus, by assuming equality we find inequality as a consequence.
And so equality does not seem to apply to why animals should be treated with respect, and certainly not why torturing animals should be a felony.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Five apples is not equivalent to five oranges. Obviously, unequivalent things are not equilvalent by definition.
From Merriam Webster:
One life is equivalent to one life. A human exhibits the “capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction”. An amoeba exhibits “capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction”. Equality is universal.
To my knowledge, you are incorrect. Again, from Merriam Webster:
You can check for yourself, but nowhere is the term felony defined such that “a crime is a felony if it represents a significant danger to other citizens”. The premise of your argument is not true. In that light, the conclusion does not follow logically.
Once again, please explain how one becomes more important by maintaining a tenet. If I maintain that the sky is blue, despite the fact that a cat cannot perceive the color blue, I am somehow more important than the cat?
Yes, life is life. No, not all life is equal, otherwise we could compare apples and oranges. All things alive are alive; this makes them equal in that context. So what? Each time we change the context we must see that the equality still holds.
All life is the same. In what way? I this way: if something is alive, it is alive. Ok, is plant life the same as mammalian life? To they consume the same? Are their reproductive habits the same? At what point am I losing you here that equality depends on context, it can’t just be mashed on to any two things because they were equal under one method of consideration.
You seem to be saying that all life should be treated equally because they are all alive, not that everything is equal. I would disagree with this on the basis of inequality of action that I mentioned earlier. Not all life can be treated the same; each type of life has special considerations. We don’t set an ape out in the sun and expect it to synthesize its food from the light. We don’t put cooked meat on tree branches and expect the tree to chew it up and ask us for seconds. Life is life, but not all life is like all other life in all methods of consideration. The equality is not universal; it is special to the context under consideration.
I offer a reason why something is deemed to deserve felony charges, and you provide the definition of a felony. :shrug: I don’t understand why you would do that. A felony is [blank: you]. We make something a felony because [blank: me].
I wasn’t defining a felony; I was giving the reasons why we make certain crimes felonies. They are not the same thing.
No, not unless you also posit that everything should perceive the color blue.
Look, you mention that everything should be equal. That is a tenet that does nothing other than provide a method for action. You then further seem to be saying that everything should be treated equally. Because of the inequality of action, not every animal or living thing can treat every other thing equally. So for the tenet to come true we must impose it on other animals to the best of our ability. So long as that tenet is important, we are important because without us there is no tenet.
It exists because of us. And then I ask, if everything is to be treated equally, why would we make a tenet that requires we act unequally? Add to that the following question, if everything is equal, why would you have to enforce equality since it is supposed to be universal? If you didn’t have to enforce it then there would be no reason to make it a felony, eh? Add to that the question of why, if you are equal to me, that I should follow your brand of equality at all? (if you are equal to me, who the hell are you to say I should have to listen to you?)
One life is equal to one life by definition of the term life. (Yes, how creatures metabolize, reproduce, et cetera differs. The fact remains that they possess a quality known as life. The aspects which are prerequisites for the characteristic may differ in function and form, but the result of the culmination of those aspects is the same).
It is a felony to deprive a human of their life in certain circumstances, namely where the deprivation of said life is committed without justification, i.e., not self-preservation.
The reason the deprivation of a life from a human is a felony is because you are depriving a characteristic from a body without justification. (This is not the same a “significant danger to citizens.” I included the definition of the term felony because you stated, “a crime is a felony if…” That sounded like a definition to me, and an incorrect definition at that).
Since it is a felony (see #3) to deprive a body of a life (see #1) without proper justification (see #2), it follows that the deprivation of a life from any body should be considered a felony without justification. (The nature of the matter is what is being deprived and for what reason, not what body sustains the deprivation).
I disagree, still. Yes, the term “life” may be applied to all living things. This does not make them all equal under all other methods of consideration. I find this to be so blindingly obvious that I’m not even sure how else to say it.
If a = b then b = a. This is equality: interchangability. If a = b then ac = bc. We may interchange them at will and achieve the same result. This is not the case with life. We may not exchange you for a gorilla and expect the same results.
Duh. I am not the same as a gorilla. Yet the fact that we both metabolize, reproduce, et cetera is the same. We both possess precisely the same functions which result in precisely the same characteristic: life. There are subtle nuances which separate gorillas and humans. The form is different. There are different forms within species. So you can’t interchange my cells with an amoeba’s, a gorilla’s or yours and expect the same results in terms of physiology, but you can still expect life. Nonetheless, the most rudimentary quality all hold is life. Think about what that means for a moment. Is a life the exhibition of metabolic process, reproductive processes, etc? Do you have those characteristics? Yes? Then you have a life. Does a gorilla have those characteristics? Yes? Then it has a life? Why does the particular composition matter? Why is the fashion in those characteristics are expressed important or even relevant?
I’m having a lot of trouble following your line of reasoning. Erislover has stated that he values human life above the life of other animlas or plants. Although a valid biological reason for the evolution of this sort of mentality can be readily provided he has opted instead to simply state that this is what he chooses to believe. From there he has argued that if a majority deem that causing suffering to animals is wrong he is willing to compromise to the level of accepting such behaviour as a misdemeanour, but rejects felony because felony damages society, and animals are not part of society. I wholeheatedly disagree with his opinion, but I can’t see any flaws in his reasoning. Animals are not by any definition part of our society and as such damagaing them should no more be a felony than damaging a 1962 Harley-Davidson.
You appear to be saying that all life is equal logically, biologically and legally.
Taking the last first, animal life is not equal legally in any society on Earth. That’s simple fact.
Biologically all life is not equal. This is what Erislover has been trying to argue. We can’t get the same output from an amoeba that we can get out of yourself (though my boss has implied this may not be so in my case), therefore you are not equal biologically.
Logically all life isn’t equal by any standard that you’ve presented so far. Contrary to what you have stated one life is not equal to one life by definition of the term life. The definition of life is simply that, a definition, not a standard of measurement or worth. Worth or value is a subjective term, and if you intend to argue, as you have attempted, that all life is of equal value then you are going to have to explain by what yardstick this is so. Erislover has already stated that his yardstick is based on his belief in the superiority of H. sapiens as a species, yet this is a standard that cannot be logically applied to your argument. Equivalence is not universal. Equivalence is only applicable for the equation in which it was stated. In short the dictionary also has a definion of fruit, yet by your own admisssion we can’t say one apple is equal to one orange, despite being equal by a definition of fruit.
You posed the questions “Why does the particular composition matter? Why is the fashion in those characteristics are expressed important or even relevant?” You also asked Erislover to succinctly support the notion that human life is more important than the life of another species WRT animal cruelty being a felony. To me the answers seem blindingly obvious. The composition matters because the members of our species decide they matter. It is relevant and vitally important because the OP questions human and specifically US law. The United States of America is a nation, which by definition is a collection of humans. If the composition and fashion-of-expression of a life-form does not qualify it as human then it has no standing under law beyond what is granted it by those lifeforms who are demonstrably human in composition and function. Human life is more important than other species’ lives because the only standard of measure that is relevant at this stage of the discussion is a legal one. Legal definitions are decided by humans for the benefit of the society in which they live. The only support that the notion of human superiority requires is necessarily succinct and elegant. Humans are superior under law because laws should first and foremost benefit humanity.
It appears to me that you are attempting to argue that since there are no importatnt differences between any two life-forms, all life-forms deserve equal rights under the law. Taking this belief to its logical conclusion you would have to say that since people must kill plants to live, and since plants don’t kill people to live it is the duty of society to in fact incarcerate all people, just as we would any other serial killer. Not only this but we would need to starve all these prisoners to death. This is such patent nonsense that your statement that you believe that other species are equal to man seems to me to be more than a little overstated. And no I’m not attempting a strawman here. I genuinely want to know how someone who has stated that (s)he (?) believes that all species are equal to man handles the obvious dilemma involved in allowing people to kill other species. Our society wouldn’t allow someone to forcibly rip someones heart out for a transplant even if that was required for the continuation of his life, so how can you justify allowing people to kill millions of plants each day just to continue our lives?
Damn. Long post sometimes require lenghty responses. I’m sorry about this one.
As I stated before, I’ll grant that their are biological forces which instill in the members of a species the desire to propogate the species. I’ll also grant that humans are social creatures. Those two facts do not imply that homo sapiens is more important than other species, nor does it follow that humans can do whatever they will toward other species.
I’ll also grant that animals are not a part of our “society”; however, they are a part of our ecological base, and therefore, a part of our sociocultural system. I reject reasoning based on the idea that a felony crimes damage our society. Misdemeanor crimes do as well.
As do I, but I believe I have found flaws in his (?) reasoning.
Grand theft auto is a felony. Does that mean someone who steals my pet should be convicted of a felon?
I’ll grant that fact; however, precedence does not dictate truth.
I’ve been saying that output is chauvinistic and irrelevant. I can produce music so I’m superior to an amoeba? Is an amoeba superior to me because it can reproduce more readily to me? I’m stating that basing “value” on output isn’t a measurement. How does one compare photosynthesis with phagocytosis? They’re simply both metabolic processes.
What is the value of the number three? Don’t you have to look to a definition? What is a definition? It is a correlation such that given a symbol there corresponds a particular value.
No, that standard cannot be applied to my argument because that standard is based on belief whereas mine is based on fact.
The analogy is inappropriate. A correlative analogy to yours would be one human is not equal to one cat, despite being equal by a definition of lifeform. There’s a difference between two physical things. There are an infinite number of possible forms of physical things. There isn’t a difference in the characteristic known as life. You’re either alive or you’re not. It’s black and white.
Correction: some members. Despite that, the decision isn’t necessarily based on fact. I have yet to be shown that it has.
I completely disagree. If we are going to base the entirety of this debate on legal precedence, there would be nothing to debate. The standard of measure now dictates that one can be convicted of a felony for throwing a dog onto a highway. Case closed (pun intended). What we are trying to ascertain is whether or not this precedence is logically grounded. That prospect opens other avenues of discussion in terms of analyzing the logical basis for a given law.
That’s a matter of opinion.
No, I’m arguing that the characteristic known as life is equal in all forms of life and that differences in composition and function between life forms does not negate the equality of that characteristic. Numerous times I’ve noted that killing is necessary for self-preservation. If something is killed for self-preservation then it is justifiable.
He. I don’t see a dilemma provided there is justification.
Maybe the following will explain why I don’t buy it. This is my analysis of the two arguments at hand.
My argument:
[ul]
[li] There exists processes L[sub]1[/sub], L[sub]2[/sub], L[sub]3[/sub],…, L[sub]n[/sub].[/li][li] The simultaneous presence of processes L[sub]1[/sub], L[sub]2[/sub], L[sub]3[/sub],…, L[sub]n[/sub] result in the in the characteristic L.[/li][li] There exists a species A with elements a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub], a[sub]3[/sub],…, a[sub]n[/sub] and species B with elements b[sub]1[/sub], b[sub]2[/sub], b[sub]3[/sub],…, b[sub]n[/sub].[/li][li] All elements of species A and species B have the characteristic L. L(A) = L(B)[/li][li] Species A and B are further defined by the presence or lack of properties p, q and r. A(p,q) does not equal B(q,r)[/li][li] In both species there are variations in the properties p, q and r such that property p may appear as p[sub]x[/sub], p[sub]y[/sub] or p[sub]z[/sub] and likewise for q and r, e.g, element a[sub]1[/sub] has the properties p[sub]x[/sub], q[sub]x[/sub] and r[sub]x[/sub] whereas element a[sub]2[/sub] has the properties p[sub]x[/sub], q[sub]x[/sub] and r[sub]y[/sub].[/li][li] It is a felony to deprive a body of characteristic L (given certain conditions) because it is characteristic L which is being deprived.[/li][/ul]
The counterargument:
[ul]
[li] It is a felony to deprive a body of characteristic L (given certain conditions) because the body has the presence of lack of properties p, q and r.[/li][/ul]
The analysis:
It is not a felony to deprive a body of characteristic L because the body has the presence or lack of properties p, q and r. Were that the case, one could state that it is a felony to deprive element a[sub]1[/sub] with properties p[sub]x[/sub], q[sub]x[/sub] and r[sub]x[/sub] of L and that it is not a felony to deprive element a[sub]2[/sub] with properties p[sub]x[/sub], q[sub]x[/sub] and r[sub]y[/sub] of L because of the difference in property r. This property could represent variation in skin color, eye color, height, the presence of appendages, the ability to photosynthesize, et cetera. To base the consideration of the deprivation of characteristic L from a body as a felony on the grounds of property is subjective. To base the consideration of the deprivation of characteristic L from a body as a felony on the grounds of what is being deprived is objective. The presence and lack of properties can to distinguish between species and distinguish between elements of a species. To state that one can consider the deprivation of life based on the presence or lack of qualities to the end that it is not a felony to kill other species (given certain circumstances) implies that it should not be a felony to kill members of the human species (given certain circumstances) given a more selective set of properties. The selection of properties is arbitrary.
Importance is a measure of value, and until you are willing to provide us with the yardstick by which you are evaluating species we will be forced to use the only yardstick so far presented: one based on biological necessity and evolutionary advantage. Humans must be more important because they are the species making the rules and fighting for their survival. We can do whatever we will to other species, up until it impacts on other members of our own species, because we have the capacity to do so. What standrad are you using to measure importance?
Animals are part of our ecological base and our ‘sociocultural system’ because we permit them to be or occasionally despite our best efforts to exterminate them. This state of affairs has no releveance to whether harming animals should be a crime as far as I can see. Where I live lawns ‘are a part of our ecological base, and therefore, a part of our sociocultural system’ yet no-one would suggets I be charged with a felony for failing to water my lawn or even paving over it.
This is a completely separate issue and a borderline strawman. You are attempting to equate the forcible removal of property lawfully obtained by another member of our society/species with the removal of property owned by oneself. Someone who steals your pet Bengal tiger worth 1.5 mil will be charged with grand larceny I suspect. Removing your own Harley to a body shop for a quick re-spray and midnight sale in Mexico is not illegal. Doing it to someone else’s is. The criminal status of these acts hinges on the effect of the act on the human owner, not on the property.
This appears to be an argument from ignorance. You have stated that all life is equal and both Erislover and I have shown that biologically all life is not equal. Superiority or otherwise is both irrelevant and meaningless until we have some standard by which to judge inferiority. Biologically all life is not equal. Biologically all people are not the same colour. Both statements are true and neither statement on its own requires us to make a judment of superiority. They are simply facts. Once we accept that all life is not biologically equal then we can if we wish make judgements on relative worth based on other criteria. In my case I have made a judgement based on the scientific principal of evolutionary reproductivity. By what logical standard are you judging this to be wrong?
This is a strawman. Any number is by definition a value or place keeper in a fixed sequence. The number three has a value by virtue of being a number. The word life is not a place keeper and does not fall into a logical sequence with other words. While it is accepted that three comes after two and has a greater value it is not accepted that life comes before or after platypus and has a greater or lesser value. A definition does not need to correspond to a value. A definition is “a statement of the meaning of a word”. It is not a correlation between a symbol and a value, simply a staement of what is conveyed by that symbol. Even in the mathematical sense you are attempting to use the word ‘life’ no more conveys a value than the letter x conveys a value. It has whatever value we choose to place upon it within the constraints of the equation. Enough semantics already, a definition does not assign a value for the object defined.
Another strawman. The standard that humans are superior is not based on belief. It is based on the fact that we are in a position to make laws regarding animals. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. While we make the laws we are by default superior WRT the legal system.
And what I am still waiting to see is exactly what standard and what facts your argument is based on. It isn’t the fact that all life is biologically equal, it isn’t the fact that all life is legally equal and I’ve seen no logical argument that makess all life equal. What facts are your beliefs based on?
Circular resoning. I stated that “Equivalence is only applicable for the equation in which it was stated”, which is a truism I assume you accept since you didn’t adress it further or challenge it. You then attempted to challenge this by stating that humans and cats are equal by definition of lifeform. Of course they aren’t equal by the definition precisely because "equivalence is only applicable for the equation in which it was stated’. A definition does not require all things encompassed by the definition to be equal, only that they should fit the criteria conveyed by the definition. To simplify it, the definition of number is “a member of the set of positive integers”, this does not mean that 3.614 and 81 are equal because they are both numbers. They are, by their own speific definitions and usage, not equal. You cannot attempt to use them as equal values. I could go on to explain what would happen if we take a definition that reads ‘an entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence’ and assume all things within that definition are equal. Hopefully you can see how cruel and unfair a statement that ‘all things are equal to all other things’ makes the concept of not giving carrots the vote.
No, it’s not but we won’t get into that. Even if life were black and white it wouldn’t go any way to support your assertion that all life is equal. Something is either legal, government-minted US currency or it is not. That definition is very black and white, but if the government tried paying your $1000 tax refund with a 10 nickels instead of a 10 hundred dollar bills I don’t think you’d consider all currency to be equal.
What facts would you like to see. Evidence for Darwinian evolution abounds on these boards and at talk.origins. Evidence that the US legal systems are intended for the benefit of the citizens of the US should be easy to come by. Those are the basic facts that the decisions are made on. What evidence do you want?
Strawman. The fact that the only standard of measure that is relevant at this stage of the discussion is a legal one does not need to entail legal precedent. If we wish to construct a completely new legal system dealing with animal rights, with no precedents the only relevant standard of measure will remain a legal standard and whatever that standard derives from.
Exactly. Since you appreciate this what is the relevance of mentioning legal precedent? The logical basis of our legal systems is stated in numerous places to be the protection of our citizens and societies and by default the genes of those citizens. This is logical from an evolutionary POV. What other logic would you like to see?
If laws are intended to have a logical basis that basis must ultimately be the protection of the ideas and genes within that society. Therefore such laws must first and foremeost strive to ensure the survival of ideas and genes within that society. Therfore laws should first and foremost benefit humanity. That’s not a matter of opinion, it’s based precisely on the logic you claim to be seeking. Care to expound on an opinion that logically disagrees with this notion?
That’s an argument from assertion. You have presented no evidence whatsoever that life is equal in all forms, while you have conceded that biologically and legally all life is not equal. What exactly leads you to believe that all life is equal if the belief is not founded in either science or the law?
Yet you failed to answer my question. I need to kill plants to survive. Plants don’t need to kill me to survive. The plant and I are both equal according to you. I need to kill a 6 year old child to rip her kidneys out in order to survive. A 6 year old child does not need to rip my kidneys out in order to survive. The child and I are both equal according to everyone on this board AFAIK. Can I get a simple yes or no answer to the following please, they aren’t loaded questions: Do you see any ethical or moral dilemma in a person with a fatal kidney disease, who is in desperate need of a transplant in order to survive, forcibly removing aginst her will the kidneys of a six year old child, knowing that removing her kidneys will undoubtedly kill her? If so what is the dilemma since the act can can be justified as necessary for survival?
[quote]
The simultaneous presence of processes L1, L2, L3,…, Ln result in the in the characteristic L.
(ie certain conditions define life. Agreed)*
There exists a species A with elements a1, a2, a3,…, an and species B with elements b1, b2, b3,…, bn. (A unicorn and a turnip have different physiologies. Agreed)
All elements of species A and species B have the characteristic L. L(A) = L(B) (And here the logic flies to peices. You have made an assertion here that L (a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub],a[sub]3[/sub]) = L (b[sub]1[/sub], b[sub]2[/sub],b[sub]3[/sub]). That’s valid. You then go on to use this assertion to prove that a body comprised of L (a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub],a[sub]3[/sub]) is equal to a body comprised of L (b[sub]1[/sub], b[sub]2[/sub],b[sub]3[/sub]) ie "It is a felony to deprive a body of characteristic L (given certain conditions) because it is characteristic L which is being deprived. ". You can’t do that, it’s circular reasoning. You need to eitehr provide proof that L (a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub],a[sub]3[/sub]) = L (b[sub]1[/sub], b[sub]2[/sub],b[sub]3[/sub]) or else proof that a body comprised of L (a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub],a[sub]3[/sub]) is equal to a body comprised of L (b[sub]1[/sub], b[sub]2[/sub],b[sub]3[/sub]). You can’t use an assumption of equivalence to demonstrate equivalence, it’s like aying that the IPU and Jehovah both have certain characteristics in common despite having diffrent physical froms, and then using the assertion of common features as evidence that anyone worshipping Jehovah is by default worshipping the IPU. For this to work you’ll need to remove the known differences from the equation, or at the very least equalise them.
No it isn’t subjective simply because our legal system hinges entirely upon the possession of such property, to whit upright posture, opposable thumbs and twenty-six chromosomes. The possesion of those properties is not subjective, but rather an objective standard of humanity.
Since you haven’t demonstrated that all life is equal you can’t use such an equality as an indicator of arbitrariness. Since you haven’t proved that the selection of properties is arbitrary, as opposed to highly objective and qualitative, you can’t use such arbitrariness as evidence of the equality of life. This is circular reasoning based upon an arument from assertion. Two major logical fallacies trying to support one another.
Though you’ve noted that a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub], …, a[sub]n[/sub] != b[sub]1[/sub], b[sub]2[/sub], …, b[sub]n[/sub], you somehow manage to feel that L(A) = L(B). I’m losing you on this one.
Furthermore, I am lost in the definition of the general L itself. It seems that L[sub]n[/sub] is a function, most likely of a[sub]n[/sub]. I could then make an analogy that all L[sub]n[/sub] a family of functions with an arbitrary constant C difference, much like an indefinite integral.
So then L itself would really seem to be [sup]d[/sup]/[sub]dx[/sub]L[sub]n[/sub], where x is simply a dummy variable which could be, in our case, a or b and so on for each species.
If this is the case, and all L[sub]n[/sub] are a family of curves whose derivative is always the same, that is, L(A) = L(B) where A:{a[sub]1[/sub], a[sub]2[/sub], …, a[sub]n[/sub]} and B:{b[sub]1[/sub], b[sub]2[/sub], …, b[sub]n[/sub]} then I can see this starting to take some shape.
If L(A) is continuous, A is alive. Because L(A) = L(B) A and B are alive. Not a problem, there was no disagreement at this point.
Now, you go on to bring properties of A and B which start to confound me again. Since we’ve already determined that all a[sub]n[/sub] != all b[sub]n[/sub] I see little reason in making further rules which seperate the two as that is not necessary for the case of equality.
Your argument would then simply be:
It should be forbidden to impose restrictions on an element of A, B, …, Z (a species’ traits) such that L(A, B, …, Z) is undefined.
A rather long way to say that we shouldn’t kill stuff. Except, of course, that there are conditions C[sub]1[/sub], C[sub]2[/sub], …, C[sub]n[/sub] where iff C[sub]n[/sub] = a[sub]n[/sub] then we find a function K such that
K(L(A)) results in a b[sub]n[/sub] that makes L(B) undefined.
This, of course, brings us back to where we started this whole affair. We don’t agree on C[sub]n[/sub], and so we don’t agree on when we are justified in killing other species. In my mind, so long as K(L(A)) does not result in L(A) itself being undefinied, then the conditions C have been met, whatever we may choose them to be. They are precisely arbitrary given and species A, B, …, Z.
Cute. Try, "Homo sapiens are the most important species to homo sapiens because they are homo sapiens. Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum?