Should other animals be considered equal?

[imperistan]

This may seem like a bit of an odd, out there sort of thing to bring up, but I was recently reminded of it in another topic. In that topic, we were talking about racism (in regards to Ulfric in Skyrim) and it got to a point where I was trying to drive the point home on how the different races view each other.

 

And my example was to compare how racism in real world is far easier to dissolve compared to specie-ism. Racism in the real world has been based on nothing carrying any actual weight. The differences being picked up on and being oppressed/hated/etc were cosmetic at best, and based in total ignorance at their worst. Meanwhile, specie-ism has been based on a weighted fact. IE, the fact that humans are at the top of the food chain, and in many ways are, in fact, superior to other animals.

 

The former concept is relatively easy to dissolve with education and is generally not as prevalent as it once was, whereas, comparatively, the latter concept is still going on in its virtual full strength and is no where near being resolved. Even among those self-proclaimed "animal-lovers", a good bit of them are still speciest. Most humans still consider other animals "below" them.

 

Now, I personally am not speciest, and do believe all animals to be equal with humans, and truly I think all life is equal with one another. My reasons for this are partially based on my religious views (though they only served to solidify what I had already believed, not to actually create these beliefs) but the way I see it is is that just by the virtue of being alive, in whatever form you might be alive in, you deserve the same rights as every other living being. And presuming that human rights are the highest form of social rights currently existing on this planet, every form of life, whether its superior or inferior, deserves the same rights, again just by the virtue of being alive.

 

Now, obviously this shouldn't translate into other animals being able to vote, or start collecting unemployment or anything stupid like that. No, I think it should just translate into a move towards a vast improvement in how we interact with other animals and obviously how we treat them in society. For instance, I don't believe in euthanasia for any reason whatsoever, other to relieve suffering. Even in the case of animals that have been dangerous (all animals can be dangerous, so it really muddles things to try and separate animals and "dangerous" animals. Honestly, humans are the only real "dangerous animals") I don't believe in it. Granted, if X animal becomes a repeated problem then yes something needs to happen to deal with them, but if a dog bites someone once that doesn't call for them to be put down. A bear doesn't need to be hunted down just because it wandered into a residential area one night.

 

Another thing I generally take offense to (and this is the only thing I get hung up on to the point that I become one of those "preachy" sorts of people) is when people say they "own" their "pet". A proper term is companion, and in my case I actually consider Nir (he's an Irish Wolfhound, and yes he looks just like the dog model in Skyrim) my adoptive son, as I literally look at him no differently than I wouild one of my nieces nor my imagined human son (haven't had the pleasure of kids yet).

 

 

Now, the next thing I'm going to talk about is something I know is inevitably going to come up, and the answer is this: No, I am not a vegetarian. And the reason for this is because 1, I like meat (and as such embrace the omnivorous nature of my species), and 2, because I'd have to rely on purely synthetic nutrition in order to live if I (stupidly) wanted to adhere to some strict, "no eating life" sort of diet. Plants are living too after all, and just because plants don't have faces doesn't mean you aren't still killing an innocent lifeform just to sustain yourself. However, doing so does cause some issues with what I believe even so. And my rationalization for this is this: I embrace eating other lifeforms only on the understanding that if I am to eat something, that I put every part of its body (I almost exclusively hunt when I can, or at the least buy from other local hunters) to use and give proper burial to what I can't use (its mostly bones that I don't have a use for). This to comes from my religious beliefs. I honor everything I kill to sustain myself by not disgracing what that life worked for its entire life. I don't hunt and put my prey's head up on the wall, I eat what I can, use what I can for other purposes, and bury the rest.

 

 

But that's it as far as what I can provide to kick this little discussion off. So you're thoughts, opinions etc?

 

 

 

*note: You'll notice how I really drive the "other animals" bit. I do this to drive home the point that humans are animals too.

*note2: I'd prefer that this didn't go into racism or religion. I only brought up racism to frame where this discussion is coming from and I only brought up religion to help put what I believe in perspective and show where it comes from (even though it doesn't come from my beliefs, as I said above). To end any questions regarding that, my beliefs have a basis in Animism combined with pantheism and Asatru, ie, norse paganism. This is strictly an animal rights/animal equality debate.

[marharth]

People are likely going to completely dismiss this topic, but this is something I have thought about for a while.

 

What gives human life more value then the life of a dog? Is it just because of our genetics? Is the value of life based on intelligence?

 

So pretty much to answer your question, you need to know how to give a value to life.

 

I also find it weird when people say they "own" a pet. It doesn't really bug me much though.

Edited May 23, 2012 by marharth

[etang2]

Altimately, what you have just posed is a extremely complex question that exists on three levels and throught about five different era in various forms. The levels in themseles pose fundemental questions pertaining to that of human origin and have created a serious juxtaposition for scholars and philiphoists throughout history. Inversely, this in addition to having increasing baffling attributes, the question in itself is fundementally simple.

"Creation or Evolution"

The reason is simple enough.

Creation clearly states that Man is not and should not be considered an animal. It insuates that Man as a primary species, in all of its benevolency and fundemental traits, was put here with a specific reason only known to a superior being, that being God. It also clearly states that Humans, or Man, becase Humans is dervived from the greek word Homo which I think that which walks on two legs. Christianity and creationists would not support this word because "That which walks on 2 feet" is a clear derivitive from monkeys which tranversely also supports the Evolution theory, is in fact vastly, not just partially superior to that of Animals in a truly remarkable and comprehsively way.

However, supporting this creates several fundemental moral voids, those which are not contextually relevant.

On the other hand, Evolution suggests that whilst maintaining a superior generality to animal, Humans are no more than bi products of millions of years of breeding in and out and that which leads to current humans.

 

My answer is no, to the question.

My reasoning is simple.

Animals fail to show complex thought patterns assciated with even more complex problems. Throughout history and tradition, animals have fought but not with the pure destructive power and intent of our own species, they have not advanced in social-economic knowledge and are yet to build up what can be considered "sociolizated enviroments". THis however, harks back to religion or evolution, questioning the true morality of the human race.

The other argument is that whilst animals have shown some small levels of complex ability, they also have failed to advance in effeciancy, failing to apply the flame, tool or any other signifcations of basic cultural advancements, in fact monkeys have yet to proceed beyond rocks and sticks.

Additionally, it has been comprehsively proven that animals acts on a fundemental basis known as "survival instinct", rarely showing other instinctual behaviour. They have failed to produce cohernet music, litriture.

The other major thing that Humans have on animals is that they have the ability to keep history. Whilst this seems irrelevant, this proves that although we defy basic instinct, Humanity has attempted to learn from past mistakes, albeit with limited success.

Also, the other thing that sets us apart from animals is the fact that Animals adapt, evolve to suit their enviroment. Suitably, this means that they may change biologically, physically or behaviourly whilst humans alter their enviroment to suit themselves.

Whilst supporting evolution is a clear indicator of religion grounding or ingrounding, supporting this theory also requires that you support the fact that whilst humans are quite advanced, they are no more the bi-product of sulective breeding and 15 genes away from being a plant and one senario away from never developing. In fact, the corn has gone through much more development, evolutionary than humanity!

 

But, as I said, it all depend on what side you are on, Evolution or Creation.

[JimboUK]

You cannot equate racism with what you call "specie-ism", the former is treating our equals as inferior, the latter is treating our inferiors as inferior. We should treat them with respect but treating them as equals is a non starter for me, I eat animals but find the idea of eating humans disgusting therefore I discriminate and discrimination is discrimination no matter how you try to justify it.

[etang2]

@jim_uk

Animals are not equals therefore, their treatment should reflect their superiority or inferiority

[imperistan]

Snippy Snip

 

But does a difference in behavior truly mark other animals as inferior to us, to the point that we call them subject and they call us master? Your argument here seems to hinge on the premise that certain behaviors indicate superiority. But what exactly makes those behaviors superior? Yes, we make use of tools and have done astonishing things with them. But why is that something that puts us above other animals? What fundamental and inherent worth is there in these behaviors that are supposedly superior that makes us as a species superior?

 

Certain behaviors may make us factually superior and puts on top of the food chain, but again, why does that deny equality between species? Our own behavior shows we have the capability of looking past the cold logic of factual superiority. The healthy man is, factually superior to the sick man or the disabled man. And yet we do not abandon the sick or disabled. We don't look at someone of lesser intelligence and let them die off. So why can this not be applied to species who are not on par with us according to our own standards? In fact, why put ourselves as the standard when, for one, we aren't that great of a standard, and two, we have no perspective on what other standards might be acceptable. This is why I think the only acceptable standard is if the other being is in fact alive. That is the only standard that can universally be applied without holding the being to any other standard that may or may not even be able to be applied to it.

 

And no, we aren't past instinctual behavior, far from it. In fact, everything we do can be traced back to our primal instincts, and in particular those dealing with survival. Use of tools, farming, building civilizations, marrying, religion, and so on and so forth can all be seen to have their roots in some kind of primal instinct or emotion. I don't see the logic in holding our behavior as "superior" when in truth all our behaviors are are just a different endpoint of our instincts. Two beings have a particular instinct, and they both react in different ways. Over millions of years, this can translate into the status apes currently have, or it can translate into where humans have gotten to status wise. Neither situation is superior or inferior. Just two sides of the same coin.

 

You cannot equate racism with what you call "specie-ism", the former is treating our equals as inferior, the latter is treating our inferiors as inferior.

 

You realize thats the exact logic behind racism right? You believe that some other being is inferior, based on whatever standard you might have that in all likelihood doesn't apply to that being, and you use that standard to to discriminate.

 

I also have to ask if you're mad at daffodils. Because when you end up 6 feet under, thats whose going to be eating you. No offense intended, but its true.

[IndorilTheGreat]

 

*snip*

You cannot equate racism with what you call "specie-ism", the former is treating our equals as inferior, the latter is treating our inferiors as inferior.

 

You realize thats the exact logic behind racism right? You believe that some other being is inferior, based on whatever standard you might have that in all likelihood doesn't apply to that being, and you use that standard to to discriminate.

 

I also have to ask if you're mad at daffodils. Because when you end up 6 feet under, thats whose going to be eating you. No offense intended, but its true.

 

I feel that last comment was a bit unnecessary; not to mention a bit snarky...

 

The reason humans are "on top," if you will, is because of how we have evolved throughout history. We developed the use of tools, which we used to more effectively hunt and gather, as well as create a societal infrastructure. These actions are what allowed us to create a "great empire" of humanity (i.e. we are the dominating species on this planet). Now, that's not to say that nature can't kick us in the butt every so often just to say, "Look, I'm in charge here." Which I think we need every so often... :rolleyes:

 

Also, I wouldn't consider daffodils to be an animal. They're a plant.

 

Reason for edit: Added *snip* at the top.

Edited May 23, 2012 by IndorilTheGreat

[JimboUK]

@jim_uk

Animals are not equals therefore, their treatment should reflect their superiority or inferiority

 

They are inferior, whatever way you look at it they are beneath us. They're not our equals, they can never become our equals so treating them as such is all rather pointless.

[Ghogiel]

 

They are inferior, whatever way you look at it they are beneath us.

Try telling that to a cat.

[Tamujiin]

See the thing is, we are the inferior species, we are destroying the earth, our only home. Animals are a part of it, most animals run from humans or are afraid because we have been ruthlessly killing them for 10,000 years.

 

Are animals less intelligent than humans? Some yes. Elephants actually speak to each other, over miles, using low bass tones human ears cannot pick up, Dolphins speak using hi pitched clicks, and Whales, have a complex communication also. Insects. Millions of species, undiscovered still, and the insects we know of, out weigh the human species 10-1.

 

There are only three things that seperate animals from humans, the hippocampus in our brain, and our complex form of communication, and our "complex imaginations" we developed over a hundred thousand years. That "imagination" gave us technology, that we use, on a daily basis, that we use for good, but are also inadvertantly using to destroy our only planet.

 

Native American people i think had it correct, this is our only planet, animals are our brothers and sisters, and we should respect them. When we slay an animal, it should only be used to provide sustinace. Am i guilty of killing an animal with out eating it? Yes, but when i did that, i felt guilty. Perhaps knowing this, is why i felt the guilt.

 

Here is another question, if the animals of the earth could communicate with eachother ( multi species wise ) do you think that they would let us continue living? Or do you think that they would protect the earth?

 

So really, the only way animals are "inferior" is communication, and a lack there of.

The reason animals flee, is because, humans, are known to ruthlessly kill, without abandon, and the animal kingdom, has been afraid of humans and there ancestors since prehistoric times.

 

Another reason animals are "lesser" beings, is look at those things called "thumbs" on yer hands....