The human-centricism of morals. Any good justification beyond "a gut feeling"?

[Lakai]

@ITR_champion

I see plenty of reason in ZPHOBIAZ’s argument that animals are too simple to be grouped with us, and plenty is Curtis Lemay’s argument that humans have souls while animals don’t, but the best argument is just good sense. Humans are humans. Animals are animals. Animals are not grouped with humans because animals are not humans. Humans can read, write, talk, do math, study the past, analyze the present, theorize about the future, think abstractly, philosophize, follow God, make art, educate others and themselves, etc…

The problem is that you’re making distinctions that are not absolute. Humans and animals do overlap in cognitive ability in some areas. We treat juveniles differently from adults and people who lack mental capacity differently from juveniles. The strongest argument against human-centric morals is why should we treat humans who lack mental capacity differently from animals? The common sense differences disappear in that category so why are we treating them differently?

Treating things as they are does not mean treating things badly. By any reasonable measure, recent trends in thought have been bad for animal rights. While philosophers in academic departments churn out books and papers purporting to prove that animals have rights, the treatment of animals has gotten worse, as anyone who’s been to a slaughterhouse or factory farms can testify. Animals would be better off if we jettisoned all the modern, philosophical garbage and went back to the sensible beliefs that humans are the capstone of creation and as such, have a responsibility of stewardship for the lower levels of creation including animals.

I don’t see how philosopher’s are making the problem worst. If anything they are doing a lot to give some animal rights groups moral credibility. If animals are treated worst right now it is probably because we have better technology than before and more demand for food.

If you think that philosopher’s all have the same argument as PETA, then read Peter Singer some day. PETA wants to liberate all animals, which is crazy. The more sound arguments call for animals to be treated as well as humans with lower mental capacity.

[Blackberry]

I haven’t read the replies yet so I apologize if I’m being redundant.

I don’t have the gut feeling that morals should be human-centered.

The thing is, other animals use other animals for their purposes too; we just happen to have the capacity to do it on a larger, more evil scale. But I don’t think that justifies it. To some extent, yes, we’re going to do things to animals that we wouldn’t do to humans, but I think it’s a matter of degree, and I think we take it way too far. With great power comes great responsibility, and all that.

I’ve been a vegetarian for a million years and find the idea of eating animals barbaric on an intrinsic level. It bothers me GREATLY that animals are experimented on and made to suffer. But I don’t know what the solution would be, because I do feel that we need some amount of animal testing, conducted in the most humane way possible. And even though I’m a vegetarian, I’m not a vegan, and that’s something I feel guilty about. So all I can say is that I’m conflicted about the whole topic, but I’m sure that animals’ rights need to at least be a CONSIDERATION, and it’s evil for them not to be.

[Der_Trihs]

@ITR_champion

By any reasonable measure, recent trends in thought have been bad for animal rights. While philosophers in academic departments churn out books and papers purporting to prove that animals have rights, the treatment of animals has gotten worse, as anyone who’s been to a slaughterhouse or factory farms can testify.

What makes you think that slaughterhouses are more cruel than they used to be? IIRC, at least third in the US are designed specifically to reduce emotional trauma to the animals.

@ITR_champion

Animals would be better off if we jettisoned all the modern, philosophical garbage and went back to the sensible beliefs that humans are the capstone of creation and as such, have a responsibility of stewardship for the lower levels of creation including animals.

Hardly. That just means we would show them no consideration at all, or act deliberately sadistic to them. Just like in the “good old days” you want us to return to.

[foolsguinea]

I and Somalia against the world
I and my clan against Somalia
I and my family against the clan
I and my family against the clan
I against my brother

Supposedly a Somali proverb. I read it in a Time magazine article–18 years ago! And it sticks with me still.

I prefer this one:
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

[Imago]

One point I don’t think anyone’s brought up in more than passing yet is empathy. It’s pretty simple- a bit like the contract theory without the inherent belief in evolutionary competition being the root of all. Essentially:

I can empathize with a human I have never met- even one marginally stupider than I could imagine being- pretty uniformly across the board. Yes, it is easier to empathize with someone closer to my intelligence level, but the differences are minimal or negligible in comparison to, say, an ostrich. I hear of them suffering and/or dying and am saddened even if I have no personal connection to them.

I can’t empathize with an insect. I know that millions are casually and in ways that, if they were sized proportionally to me, would be unimaginably horrific/gory and am not moved.

Now, to move into grey areas:

I can empathize to a considerable extent with a domesticated dog. His owner dies, he grieves; if his owner is a friend of mine, I may even grieve too, and some would say in startlingly similar ways.

I can barely, if at all, empathize with a cat. His owner dies, his first concern is where to find a new two-legged slave. Therefore I consider a dog to be more of a person and entitled to more rights than a cat.

After thousands of years of genocides and conquering we have begun to formulate and agree on a universal set of rights within humanity as repetitive experience teaches us that many if not most of the experiences with which we empathized in close friend/family bonds are universal to the species. We’ve still got pretty far to go, but we’ve moved somewhere.

More complex elements of this idea, such as the rights of very simple humans, animals, humans who have committed atrocious crimes, humans suffering from psychosis, juvenile humans, and even those influenced or manipulated by fellow humans are to this day still being debated and defined. IANA expert but I would not be at all surprised if in the end these decisions all came down to what extent the general populace can understand and empathize with each case.

Is it right to base everything on empathy? Possibly, as the very nature of that criterion could force us to use it responsibly. Most of us have heard it’s much harder to commit a war crime while looking your victim in the eyes; if we do our best and apply ourselves to comprehending and “feeling” the situation as much as possible, then causing undue harm to any creature which perceives and endures that harm will sicken us and that guilty response will keep us in check.