A bit like banning slavery, then?
Something being difficult to implement tells us practically nothing about whether its the right or not thing to do.
OK, so you are in fact for an immediate and ceaseless war against those who kill animals? Why not? Are animals not the equal of humans? Is it not just to kill several million Africans in order to save the lives of tens of millions of animals? Why not?
Just because logic takes us to a certain destination does not make that destination a logical place.
Um, first of all I’d like to say that I object in the strongest of terms to the idea that there is either animal rights or global war, and that there is “no … middle ground.”
To further go into why this argument is absurd:
I believe in the rights for free democracy. For free speech. For gay rights. For the right to abortion. That George Lucas really should release the original versions of Star Wars.
Just because I think these things are right, does not mean I am particularly in the mood to go invading the rest of the civilised world. There’s such a thing as pragmatism, y’know? Debate and the gradual changing of the opinion. In most cases, that’s likely to be the best and most effective long term solution.
Do I think animals are equal to humans? Well, depends on the human 
Seriously, I think the obvious answer is probably not, but we just don’t know. As I keep saying this discussion ought to be based on rational scientific conclusions, rather than simple prejudices. Even if they feel pain to a lesser extent, that does not mean they can be completely disregarded.
That would sort of defeat the point in logic, would it not?
It is of course possible, that the logic may be flawed or not taking into account enough factors, but that’s a different matter.
So now I can turn your argument around. If freeing the animals held in bondage in Latin America is difficult, we ought not to do it?
(To put words in your mouth, excuse me.)
“If we stop the Germans from killing the Jews, hundreds of thousands will die.”
“OK then, file it under ‘to hard to do.’”
I do not see a middle ground. If we accept the premise we end up at war. A nasty one at that.
Please tell me why, seeing as we can’t free every foreign nationality from totalitarian dictatorship, that we don’t just treat them as slaves at home too.
Please tell me whether you think the UK, Canada, and the Netherlands just invade the US because of its disgraceful treatment of gay rights, and then maybe we’ll have a discussion.
If you really want an answer to the question, then let me put it like this. I would be in favour of a war to improve animal grounds under the following assumptions:
i) it is proved animals experience pain
ii) it is shown that war would actually change the behaviour of whoever we were invading
iii) the total suffering (human+animal) would be less than the total situation was allowed to continue
For that matter, if you could meet the last two assumptions you might be able to persuade me to support the war against the US over gay rights too…
As I think that is extremely unlikely, I think it is almost certainly better to purse a middle ground.
Paul, are you aware of the enslavement of children in Sudan?
You are now.
Are you on a plane to Sudan, getting ready to launch a war to end this enslavement?
I doubt it.
Since launching this war is impractical, do you conclude that the enslavement of children in Sudan must be acceptable, since to conclude otherwise would be impractical?
I think it’s very backwards to decide that the ramifications of a philosophical conclusion would be too unpalatable and therefore to dismiss the conclusion. If we decide that an AR conclusions is warranted, then we need to look at our current world, at the moral world toward which we aspire, and the most moral path that will take us toward that world.
I’ve not yet seen a coherent AR philosophy that excludes humans from the animals that have rights. (I have seen incoherent college-kid AR folks that exclude humans, but they’re hardly the barometer for good political thought). The AR folks I’ve seen–including Tom Reagan, the daddy of AR philosophy, support human rights very strongly.
That doesn’t mean they support the right to participate in sports like rodeos, or the right to eat certain meals, of course–nobody supports a sport that they consider immoral (e.g., dwarf-tossing when the dwarf is nonconsenting) or meals that they consider immoral (e.g., the liver of a child, purchased from the mother). It’s just that AR folks consider certain sports and meals to be unethical, whereas other folks consider them to be ethical.
Daniel
Daniel
Fine. Perhaps it is was a bad example. (although I think a lot of that comes from the pragmatic reason that its a lot easier to torture someone emotionally in that they’re a lot less likely to die on you)
And you think this physical pain doesn’t matter?
I’m sorry, but you’re just not going to persuade me that if someone stabbed a knife in a chest that it wouldn’t hurt like hell, and it wouldn’t be something I’d want to avoid. Physical pain * matters *.
But if we’re talking about say a pet dog - these animals aren’t stupid. They do learn a lot. And there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that they can mourn.
A few quotes:
From Richard Sarjeant, The Spectrum of Pain. (London: Hart Davis, 1969), p. 72. quoted at http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/pain.html#3
From http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/microsite/culture2.html .
(Both interesting sites, btw)
Now to me those two seem at least somewhat convincing, no?
Gee, it seems to me that any war for AR would be justifiable to you. When we kill the people they stop killing the animals. This leads us to a cost-benefit analysis that skews right into the pro-war camp.
If we kill all the (whoever), we kill a zillion people. But we save many more zillion animals over all of eternity. That seems like a good deal if we accept a cow = a child. Since animals outnumber people their welfare would outweigh ours. A moral person would have no choice but to kill every meat-eater in the world.
Would not a moral man be forced to kill (or stop) every child-eater?
Am I making a mistake? I admit that I am carrying the AR argument to its logical conclusion, but that conclusion is scary indeed.
Of course I am. I am also aware of slavery (or a darn close approximation) here in Saudi Arabia. I am doing my part be trying to change this society. The slavery analogy is insufficient for the horror that would exist if child = cow.
If Sudanese were killing children and eating them I would be fighting (or at my age supporting a fight). Would you not?
So if we accept that a child = cow, we are forced into a massive endless and worldwide war.
Am I right? Would you accept some level of child-eatting if it was too hard, too bloody to stop?
Any war meeting those three conditions, sure.
If you’d be so kind as to suggest one, that’d be great, cause I certainly can’t.
You see, the thing is, killing people and all their friends and family doesn’t tend to be a good way to convince them that you are right. Thus we’d need to practically destroy the whole earth. Are you beginning to see why this might not be such a good idea yet? :rolleyes:
In fact that we might instead just do better to spread ideas and information and debate?
Only if you think war normally works.
In theory, sounding good to me…
Please point me to someone, * anyone * in this thread who has claimed that.
Things have relative value.
Remind me never to argue with you in person if you think the only way to resolve an argument is to shoot the other guy.
Yes, because you’re being ridiculously extremist in one way but not ridiculously extremist in another.
No.
I’m not arguing that it doesn’t matter. If I was arguing that, I probably wouldn’t be using “animals can feel physical pain” as a reason for advocating humane treatment, would I?
By standards of human intelligence, they are stupid. They are very stupid. A human who was as intelligent as a dog would be a dependent all his or her life.
And I discount “anecdotal evidence” supporting such things. Humans tend to anthropomorphize animals, especially companion animals, to a ludicrous degree. And even if they did experience some sense of loss upon losing a companion, it would only experience a subset of the emotions that a human would feel.
No. One is discussing physical pain, which I’ve agree animals can feel, and the other is arguing against animals being able to feel any emotional pain–I’ve also agreed that animals can feel some kinds of emotional pain, albeit not with the same acuity and severity as humans tend to experience it.
Also, the second cite is ridiculous on its face–he obviously misunderstands the “scientists” arguments. He says that scientists believe only humans primates experience pain because only they have a neocortex, but he says in the very same sentence that other mammals have a neocortex. He either doesn’t know what he’s talking about, deliberately distorting his opponents arguments, or being very sloppy.
Also, the site that your second cite is from makes a very sloppy argument: They concede that animals experience pain differently, but without exploring how it’s different, say that that doesn’t mean it’s less important. That’s way too big a leap to make, because there certainly could be differences between human pain and animal pain that make it less important in certain situations.
Then we are agreed? If we allow that animals have rights, we put ourselves onto a road that logically leads to massive war. If we really thought that animals had a moral equality to men, it would a moral imperative to save animals from death as it is an imperative to save people from it.
It would make moral sense to risk your (human) life to save a dog from drowning.
While I argue by a reduction of the (HR) argument to absurdity, but I do not see how I am making an error in reasoning.
Please excuse me, I have to get ready for bed. Please do not think I am ignoring you.
If by “accept” you mean “fail to take any action necessary to prevent it, no matter what,” then you’re correct: both you and I do accept some level of child-eating.
After all, I promise you that somewhere on earth in the last year, a human has eaten a human child. The only way to stop this level of child-killing would be to wipe out humanity altogether.
Similarly, there’s a lot of murder that happens every year. Presumably, over the next thousand years, more than six billion people will be killed by homocides in and out of war. I do not, however, feel justified in wiping out humanity in order to save those six billion people.
Similarly, if I accepted that cow=child in terms of the ethics of eating them, I would not launch a war that might result in my death, would assuredly result in the deaths of others, and stood a good chance of not decreasing the number of cows killed for food. I would take the practical approach of trying to convince people that their actions were unethical.
Many AR people view what’s happening with eating meat as an absolute horror. However, they recognize that their violent resistance wouldn’t reduce the horror, and so they do not engage in violent resistance.
Daniel
Awesome. We agree
But I still don’t see why you have to be so intelligent to feel emotion.
Cite?
Both mention emotional pain.
Well, yeah, I didn’t really like the end of that article either, but for exactly the opposite reason
It seems to me that we’re working from two completely different assumptions - from first guess it seems to me intuitive (due to evolution, similarity of DNA, experience, what have you) would experience pain in more or less the same way we do, and I’d want to see some evidence why they do not; other pain seem to be working from the exact opposite starting point. And I honestly don’t understand.
Oh, and I meant to add before the second to last link - Thanks for putting me straight on the possible scientific problems with the text. Interesting to know.
Only if you didn’t read anything I said in the last post :rolleyes:
Your sentence makes just as much sense and is just as meaningless if we replace the word ‘animals’ with the word ‘humans’.
By not showing anything absurd yet?
(Except for your own suggested response).
Okay - no problem.
Arbitrary, as you pointed out, means “not determined by… necessity, reason, or principle.” So, my decision regarding how rights ought to be allocated is not arbitrary, as I’ve given you two principles and several reasons.
Please, give me a moment of charity and listen to what I’m trying to say. The point of second premise is simply to show that there should be some reason for denying rights to animals. The argument that animals don’t deserve rights because they are animals does not elucidate any sort of principle behind the decision. It is utterly arbitrary. Are there principles that could be offered? Yes. But if you accept premise 2, you must accept that the principles offered must be consistent with your other justifications of human rights. Since most principles (i.e. what tastes good shouldn’t deserve rights, what is stupid shouldn’t deserve rights) are in contradiction with one or more accepted principles, this premise allows us to deny them.
You complain about my brevity in the OP. I’m sorry, I didn’t use more and precise language for two reasons. First, the OP was already pretty long and people tend to ignore long OPs. Second, since I’m not a defender of the argument IRL, I don’t know that much about it. So I wanted to leave it open enough that people could step in and defend it on their terms. Does this lead to a moving target? Yeah, probably in some sense. But not to the degree that you decry. And since this isn’t a competition, it shouldn’t matter. We’re trying to find the most convincing arguments from both sides, which will involve shifting frames.
This is a very Scalian interpretation. Because the founders didn’t believe it, its antithetical to American Democracy? No. American Democracy is a set of principles to be applied by Americans according to their contemporary situation, culture, and knowledge. Americans eventually decided that these principles ought to give women the right to vote, because its fair. They ought to give black people a right to vote, because its fair. We decided that the principles mean that lots of things that weren’t seen in 1789. That doesn’t mean that these decisions have been antithetical to American Democracy.
You may have missed the refutation above as well. The argument is that the people whose brain function is equal to that of a cabbage no longer retain their basic rights. They are brain dead, which is dead (for most non-fundamentalists). The humans that we’re talking about are not that severely brain damaged.
You’re making a descriptive, empirical argument. I’m making a prescriptive one. It is possible to simultaneously believe that rights ought to be rational constructs and that humans are not sufficiently rational to put this into practice. Also, rational does not mean exclusive of all emotion. It means backed up by reasoned principles as opposed to capricious and personal biases. In a philosophical context, it isn’t very meaningful. But in a political context, I think we all pretty much know what it means. I have no reason to believe that a law based on decency can’t be rational.
Something being open to debate, and being based on reasoning are not mutually exclusive, as I’m sure you’re aware. There are principles by which we can evaluate the morality of OJ vs. Nixon. We call them ethics. People might disagree over which is a worse person, but we can argue with reasons about it.
I think Paul in Saudi has a point. If you believe in animal rights, I don’t see how you wouldn’t be part of a violent resistance. Either you never believe in violence as a tool (which, IMHO, is very hard to argue). Or you believe that in this case, violence would be ineffective. To the latter: Maybe. But I think you’d have an obligation to try everything possible, eventually including violence if need be.
That said, most people don’t fight for their principles. Maybe 5% of humanity, on an optimistic day. The more likely outcome is the sort of slow change that occurred in the US when people started successfully arguing that Africans ought to have all the rights as Europeans.
Let me also add a bit about cultural imperialism. If a going to war to stop something that you find deeply unethical is cultural imperialism, then all war is cultural imperialism. Under that definition, the term loses all of its value.
(Needless to say, I don’t view Paul’s argument as a reductio, since I don’t find the conclusion absurd.)
I guess I find it absurd because I’ve personally known a good handful of people who were philosophically and fully committed to an animal rights philosophy a la Tom Reagan, yet none of them did anything more violent than defacing the posters for circuses that came to town. Granted, there are problems with defacing posters; but there are a few steps between defacing posters and declaring bloody genocidal war.
Daniel
Of course animals should have rights; and they do. At this point, I think there’s not so much a need to further define animal rights as there is a need to make sure we’re adhering to what can best be called “common-sense human dignity”. Maybe that could be summed up as “don’t be sadistic”, or “try to empathize a little”.
Unfortunately, many animals raised for food are kept in deplorable conditions that leave them constantly subjected to abject cruelty. Hell, even George Will agrees that much of what passes for animal husbandry these days on the MegaFarm is deeply offensive to the human conscience, and requires only a modicum of compassion (whether or not divinely-bestowed) to be positively sickened by. Long ago I stopped purchasing meat and poultry unless I could be sure it was raised free-range and organic, which naturally affords a better life for the animals before they are slaughtered (though I’m aware the standards for the “free-range” and “organic” designation could use a great deal of improvement before being truly reliable for discerning consumers). I’m trying to find ways to determine if a rating for methods of slaughter and the relative pain and suffering inflicted can be had by concerned citizens, but so far not much luck in that area. Anyway, animals raised on something at least approximating the idealized bucolic farmstead are just better for you (free-range, grass-fed beef, for instance, tastes better, and has a much higher (5-10x) percentage of fat-metabolism-enhancing fatty acids like conjugated linoleic acid); and the expense limits consumption, which probably isn’t a bad thing at all. I’m happy to support such farmers by paying a premium, at any rate.
I don’t see much sense in going the vegan route, though I wouldn’t discourage it. We are animals; and animals kill each other all the time, in perfectly natural fashion. My cat is a positively vicious and sadistic carnivore, though I don’t draw inspiration from my cat for ethical guidance. I also don’t think it’s entirely reasonable to treat creatures with little or no comprehension of our complex human emotions and empathetic projections as if they were just people with odd morphology. It’s pretty obvious that animals can feel pain and can suffer. They also seemingly can feel happy and content. It’s not hard to ease their suffering (though it might be expensive for the human omnivore), to tell when suffering is being inflicted, and to give them a little space and opportunity for activity that is both physically and mentally salubrious. If we can put people down with a minimum of suffering and at least half of society feels no moral qualms, it’s also shouldn’t be difficult to figure out ways to kill animals that minimize, or even eliminate, any fear and pain associated with death.
In short, I think it’s possible to be that most human of oddities: The ethical carnivore. One does this by recognizing that bestowing certain rights upon animals is a good way of assuring we preserve our own capacity for compassion, empathy, and that “common-sense human decency” I mentioned above.