What difference does it make if something feels pain? If there was an animal with a nervous system disorder that couldn’t feel pain would you then be justified in eating it? How about a person? For the former I would say it makes no difference, because animals cannot conceptualize rights. They cannot conceive of them and can’t defend them so they don’t have them. People on the other hand can and will extend those rights to you if you extend them in turn. So if a person doesn’t feel pain, it doesn’t matter because they’re still intelligent and will have some idea of rights. Animals never will.
There was a point when humans weren’t intelligent and didn’t have some idea of rights. So it isn’t fair to say that non-human animals will never develop them.
I would say that an animal with the ability to feel pain is more of a ‘person’ than a human who can’t feel pain and can’t be conscious.
And why would you be bothered about your own demise? ‘Death is nothing to us’ Epicurus.
So really, if you want to take that approach then it is rational to go round eating people, I mean, you will get pleasure from it, and so if pleasure for yourself is your end, then go for it!
If a non-human animal can have rights, then do they have responsibilities of the magnitude of the rights? If not, then your assertion for rights is absurd for the fact that only rights can be afforded to those who can be responsible to the consequences of exercising them. That’s why a person who’s severely retarded isn’t afforded the rights to be a parent, to vote, or even to hold property without a legal guardian. They can’t exercise them responsibly, therefore they effectively have none.
Also, don’t confuse moral consideration for legal rights, they’re not the same. I have moral considerations in the treatment of a human child (or animal), but a child has no legal rights (or properly, no real legal standing).
I am not arguing for animals to have the rights of adults but I am asking for them to have rights similar to those of the mentally disabled or for children.
I say rights but a better term would be ‘protections’.
What would be the purpose of rights for animals? Except compassionate grandstanding. Animals can’t think, they can’t complain. But if they have rights we can’t eat them.
LOL. Obviously I should read a wiki article because you don’t have the ability to understand how your logic is inconsistant and your use of implication completely unjustified.
I simply proposed that we look at morality from the perspective of evolution because evolution has been scientifically proven.
Please explain how something being verified through experimentation implies it can be used as a basis for moral judgement. If you accept this logic then explain why don’t we use Newtonian Mechanics as a moral basis, since it’s been verified on a macroscopic scale, and interspecies morality only involves macroscopic entities.
Are you done with the childish play of words? You know full well I wasn’t impying that I, ‘don’t have the ability to understand how [my] logic is inconsistance…’
Anyway, Newtonian Mecahanics doesn’t explain the existence of morality. And I’m not saying we should base any moral theory on evolution, that’s like saying we should base our language on linguistics or some other related discipline. Instead, I’m saying we should look at morality, you know, why we have it, what role it plays etc etc, and from that increase in our understanding of it, we can see the implications and such of having it.
P1. The killing and eating of humans for pleasure is wrong.
P2. (P1) is such because humans feel pain.
C. The killing and eating of any animal which feels pain is wrong.
Remember, I already have my moral principles; I’m just proposing we study it.
You are not responding to my argument. What would be the purpose, for humans, to grant animals some form of rights? Animals don’t understand what’s going on, they can’t complain about being eaten. They don’t care. So if we grant them rights it would be for the sake of feeling compassionate, not for the sake of the animals. I rather eat meat than to feel compassionate.
Neither does evolution, unless you’re going to show that morality is a biological or genetic trait instead of a prescriptive characterization of action.
You’re making things up.
While this is consistant, it’s a completely arbitrary standard for moral behavior.
Interesting that you would refer to them personally. Do you not claim your principles are objective?
You are not responding to my argument. What would be the purpose, for humans, to grant animals some form of rights? Animals don’t understand what’s going on, they can’t complain about being eaten. They don’t care. So if we grant them rights it would be for the sake of feeling compassionate, not for the sake of the animals. I rather eat meat than to feel compassionate.
We should grant them protections for various reasons because they feel pain and we should not inflict pain on others except in self defence or in defence of allies or wards. If you eat meat and the Animal is treated with utmost care for its suffering I have no objection. A hunter who kills with a single shot is fine by me.
"And why would you be bothered about your own demise? ‘Death is nothing to us’ Epicurus.
So really, if you want to take that approach then it is rational to go round eating people, I mean, you will get pleasure from it, and so if pleasure for yourself is your end, then go for it!
Rights are equally subjective."
Because being bothered about one’s demise is a subjective viewpoint. Quoting Epicurus does not prove that death is nothing to ME. That’s just what some goofball said.
Minus the fact that I have already stated I’m worried that someone might eat me if I go around eating people, we are on the same page here. Preservation of my life takes precedence over pleasure for myself as an end. Or, rather, preservatiton IS my pleasure.
Rights are not subjective. One’s perception of what is or should be a right, however, is. Rights in and of themselves do not exist, but come about through interactions with our fellow beings. They are mental constructs, nothing more.
There is a difference between the ability to complain and the ability to feel. To prove that: Imagine we took away your ability to communicate, and removed your larynx. It would be hard to imagine that you would suddenly stop feeling pain; afterall, your pain receptors would still be in place. And we know that all vertebres have pain receptors and a nervous system, so we can guess that they do feel pain.
As to the purpose, from a capitalistic perspective, I don’t think there is any.
That’s the approach I was taking - that it has some biological basis. It seems that evolution would favour a system which promotes the survival of ones own species; but without evidence that is speculation, so I understand if you disagree.
Arguably, every standard is arbitrary, so we can only hope to be consistant.
No, I don’t think I have once claimed that my principles are objective.
But seeing as there are humans in this world unable to feel pain- and you wouldn’t say its ok to kill and eat them, there has to be something outside of the pain sensation for your reasoning to give animal rights.
I never said anything about consciousness. Just because a person can’t feel pain doesn’t mean they’re not conscious. I find it strange that you could ever consider an animal more human than an actual human.
On another note, I don’t eat humans, not because they feel pain, but because they have rights, emotions, and a basic intelligence that behooves me to afford them the same rights I would like for myself. I can grant rights to a tiger, and that’s great, but the tiger won’t recognize that and isn’t any less likely to kill me. Granting rights to animals just isn’t feasible, it’s a pointless hollow act. I think it’s been established here that rights spring from intelligence, something animals just don’t have.
I’d also be interested to know what you think about a PITA add that ran a couple of years ago comparing the chicken industry to the holocaust. My reaction, as were the reactions of most people, was horror. Why did we all have the same knee-jerk reaction? Because we understand that the life of an animal can never be worth the life of a human.
So from your view, why should we be bothered about death?
If they are mental constructs then they are subjective by definition.
Subjective (adjective): ‘based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions’ and ‘dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence.’ - Mac Dictionary.
Your seemed to be saying that morality is subjective, but so are rights.