Should other animals be considered equal?

[imperistan]

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..

 

Yes, but I'm challenging the notion that that means anything ethically. (which I'm not quite sure is the right word to use here but I'm sure you get my point)

 

tamujiin

 

My sentiments exactly.

 

A question for the proponents of equality of species. How far down the evolutionary ladder do you go for equality? Is bacteria an equal life form, if not then you are drawing a line so it's just a matter of degree and perspective as to where you do that.

 

Yes, I even consider bacteria equal. As I said in my OP, I draw the line at where or not X being is alive. Doesn't matter to me what form that life is in.

 

If any of you want to see themselves morally no better than a cow and can't abide their use as edible livestock then thats your privilege, that just leaves more steak for the rest of us.

 

I have no qualms with eating other lifeforms. We currently do not have a Star Trek-ian way of providing sustenance for ourselves so we are right in continuing to rely on other life to sustain our own. Again, as I said in my OP, its a matter of not treating your food with disrespect and ignorance of what had to be done to bring that food to your table. I find that that some times can be hard to understand if you actually haven't hunted before. (not saying you haven't, but its a common issue)

 

On a personal level I agree with your version of 'able-ism's as it relates to a person or the dog (most dogs are more noble than people). But in terms of an impartial view of species as they relate to survival, it (your thesis) is noble in terms of concept but isn't how nature or natural selection really works. A three legged antelope is not going to out run a cheetah .We both know life is not remotely fair.

 

This is true, but then again this isn't necessarily about the cold, scientific view of the Earth's native species', nor about how other animals view other animals. Its about us, and how we view and treat other animals.

[Moveing]

its a matter of not treating your food with disrespect and ignorance of what had to be done to bring that food to your table.

What? Disrespect and ignorance??? Ever tought about a sausage? Its a dead animal in his own bowel. So what could be more disrepectfull than being killed, crushed into pieces and filled in the own ass?

Come on guys, this hole human treatment which always lead us to this animal rights hogwash, its hippie talk. We kill animals and eat them, we do it since we tok up a stone the first time so whats the big deal.

 

 

I find that that some times can be hard to understand if you actually haven't hunted before. (not saying you haven't, but its a common issue)

I know Hunters and even more poachers. Hunters told me i'am not allowed to shoot deers with full metal jacket bullets because that would be cruel, so i have to shoot them with semi-bullet jackets. The Geneva Convention says i'am not allowed to shoot on Humans with semi-bullet jackets because that would be cruel, it must been full metal jacket rounds. And there are thousands of other nonsense regulations out of the quill of Animal Lover Herman Goering.

(I'am going Hog hunt sometimes and i do my best to hit the bladebone or the head but its still a violent death, but thats how it is. Deal with it.)

 

The Poacher don't care. They hunt with homemade firearms, crossbows, bow and arrow, traps. And sometimes they have way more success than the people with hunting licence which learned all this species appropriate hunting nonsense.

Back in days Humans tracked wounded animals for days before they could finaly kill them. This factory farming is way more easier to answer. Don't like it, don't buy it. But they get killed by a bolt gun in the brain so this is way more human than hunting.

[Aurielius]

A question for the proponents of equality of species. How far down the evolutionary ladder do you go for equality? Is bacteria an equal life form, if not then you are drawing a line so it's just a matter of degree and perspective as to where you do that.

Yes, I even consider bacteria equal. As I said in my OP, I draw the line at where or not X being is alive. Doesn't matter to me what form that life is in.

You will make an excellent Buddist but not much of a naturalist.

If any of you want to see themselves morally no better than a cow and can't abide their use as edible livestock then thats your privilege, that just leaves more steak for the rest of us.

 

I have no qualms with eating other lifeforms. We currently do not have a Star Trek-ian way of providing sustenance for ourselves so we are right in continuing to rely on other life to sustain our own. Again, as I said in my OP, its a matter of not treating your food with disrespect and ignorance of what had to be done to bring that food to your table. I find that that some times can be hard to understand if you actually haven't hunted before. (not saying you haven't, but its a common issue)

The logical and moral contradictions of being willing to eat an equal life form is an irreconcilable contradiction of philosophical concepts and slightly hypocritical. Just an FYI.... I have more than likely been hunting longer than you have been alive.

 

On a personal level I agree with your version of 'able-ism's as it relates to a person or the dog (most dogs are more noble than people). But in terms of an impartial view of species as they relate to survival, it (your thesis) is noble in terms of concept but isn't how nature or natural selection really works. A three legged antelope is not going to out run a cheetah .We both know life is not remotely fair.

 

This is true, but then again this isn't necessarily about the cold, scientific view of the Earth's native species', nor about how other animals view other animals. Its about us, and how we view and treat other animals.

So this is a touchy 'feely' feel good seminar with no actual philosophical basis to which to adhere to.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Aurielius

[imperistan]

its a matter of not treating your food with disrespect and ignorance of what had to be done to bring that food to your table.

What? Disrespect and ignorance??? Ever tought about a sausage? Its a dead animal in his own bowel. So what could be more disrepectfull than being killed, crushed into pieces and filled in the own ass?

Come on guys, this hole human treatment which always lead us to this animal rights hogwash, its hippie talk. We kill animals and eat them, we do it since we tok up a stone the first time so whats the big deal.

 

It's a lot better than just throwing the intestines away. Which is infinitely more disrespectful.

 

I find that that some times can be hard to understand if you actually haven't hunted before. (not saying you haven't, but its a common issue)

I know Hunters and even more poachers. Hunters told me i'am not allowed to shoot deers with full metal jacket bullets because that would be cruel, so i have to shoot them with semi-bullet jackets. The Geneva Convention says i'am not allowed to shoot on Humans with semi-bullet jackets because that would be cruel, it must been full metal jacket rounds. And there are thousands of other nonsense regulations out of the quill of Animal Lover Herman Goering.

(I'am going Hog hunt sometimes and i do my best to hit the bladebone or the head but its still a violent death, but thats how it is. Deal with it.)

 

Killing is violent period. I don't have a problem with it, however.

 

Aurielius

 

There's an awful lot of uncalled for hostility in this post. I'm not bothering going down that road again.

[Nintii]

Oh wow, I just love this kind of stuff ... it is beyond incredible ... me and animals equal ... next thing you know because animals are equal with humans we'll soon be fighting for the right to be married.

Animals and humans ... where to begin ? ... those animals in the wild should be protected unless my fellow humans in the wild survive on them.

And if you know anything concerning those types of people you'd know that they respect animals and their environment.

And the animals that are domesticated should either protect me, look pretty, sing nice little pretty songs, or smile as I stuff an apple in their mouth.

[Vagrant0]

Ethics is a fancy way of trying to quantify right and wrong in absence of logical explanations for why things have to be the way they are for mutual benefit. You don't rape, pillage, and murder because others may also be inclined to rape, pillage, and murder you, and a society cannot exist in that environment. It is also usually a much better use of resources working with others in cooperation, than in stealing from them, harming them, or demanding tribute since this usually allows both parties some level of benefit without being in a declining state of capability. A despot who cuts off the arm of every farmer in order to encourage them to work faster will quickly go hungry, or will likely be poisoned/overthrown shortly. It is simply easier to say that these things are unethical than it is to sit down and explain the individual reasons as to why it would be a bad course of action... Also, people being generally more concerned with the immediate usually don't care about how their actions now will affect things 6-12 months down the road, or in relation to a picture bigger than themselves; so framing things as ethically wrong implies immediate consequences for those actions. Most classically ethical grounds are ones based on logical reasoning for those things. Most classically cruel or unethical grounds are based on things which would be a mark of poor logical reasoning.

 

Life is origins, materials, time, and eventual impact on an environment. If those things are properly accounted for and there is a rational and mutually beneficial reason for a given action against that life, then people should be able to do so as they wish. The problem is that few are willing to shoulder the responsibility when it comes to it, or are interested in only their own benefit.

[Nintii]

Ethics are fine provided they are built on a mutually agreed foundation ... which is normally the case, however, they are not absolute and therefore open to interpretation ... nevertheless, in the current climate they serve their purpose until the antagonist speaks.

 

Preserving origins is indeed our inherant duty as a master protector, yes, a superior overlord with a sceptre of benevolence not an equal with inferiority which thought undermines our authority and reduces us to the level of competiton with our minions in a (falsely) perceived survival of the fittest ... to their detriment.

 

Instead of creating a platform to level up the playing field and thus protect the weak amongst the strong, educate the strong in their obligation ... perspective is better than idolatry.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Nintii

[imperistan]

Ethics is a fancy way of trying to quantify right and wrong in absence of logical explanations for why things have to be the way they are for mutual benefit.

 

This doesn't seem to relate to anything in this thread.

 

Oh wow, I just love this kind of stuff ... it is beyond incredible ... me and animals equal ... next thing you know because animals are equal with humans we'll soon be fighting for the right to be married.

Animals and humans ... where to begin ? ... those animals in the wild should be protected unless my fellow humans in the wild survive on them.

And if you know anything concerning those types of people you'd know that they respect animals and their environment.

And the animals that are domesticated should either protect me, look pretty, sing nice little pretty songs, or smile as I stuff an apple in their mouth.

 

You know, if you replaced the word "animal" in that with virtually any ethnic group you'd be marked for racism faster than the Road Runner could outrun a rocket right? Except for the third line, this is rather offensive.

Edited May 28, 2012 by imperistan

[buddah]

This has drifted well off course and has turned into somewhat personal attacks.

 

Closing it with a warning, enough.....when you take it personal you are across the line.

 

Buddah