Technocrat

I am sorry. That was my fault do to being vague, so I understand why you see a contradiction. Let me rephrase. I do think that people who deliberately harm themselves for temporary, subjective gain really is their own fault, in part (not totally, since nutritional infomation is poor and often deceiving). They probably do deserve their problem, as they are the utlimate cause of it. However, I don't think their decisions are moral insofar as the impact they have on others. They ideally ought to choose more wisely to avoid the emotional suffering of their families having to deal with obese members who are more costly in terms of health care and emotionally taxing due to the health issues they often suffer. They also cost society in a variety of ways. THey are irresponsible people. They act like children in that they don't know how to limit themselves. That's why America has such an obesity problem. Trying to let people go it alone and fix their own problem didn't work. Children require nannies because they act irresponsibly, immaturely. Many Americans do as well; like children, they know not better or what they do. Like children, they also need a nanny. The State is that nanny. Those who act like children ought to be treated like them. A ban is fundamentally good because it prevents the morons who don't know what they are doing from causing harm to themselves and those who love them (and society due to extrinsic costs). It also prevents the overall utility drop from such unhealthy populations. It also prevents the objective harm from comming to those who do know what they are doing, which in turn affects society anyway. Even if they deserve it, it's irrelevant to the utility or ethics of the situation. Utility doesn't necessarily support what individual people deserve, but where the utility lies and what people need. Utility should be maximized. Someone might not deserve X treatment, or maybe he might, but if doing X brings about more utility, you do it anyway. You are sort of right, though. No. It's not really a line in the sand. There are many other unnecessary and bad things that cause tremendous harm and can easily be replaced by something healthier. It's good to tackle the problems that cause the most harm, though. To pick battles. Not everything is equally able to be regulated anyway, and not all can be as pragmatically. I will leave it up to doctors and health professionals to determine what is a safe level of consumption, since I am not qualified to do so. Most have deemed transfats bad alltogether and easily replaceable at little or no "taste" difference or monetary cost. It's about magnitude of harm. Obesity is a serious problem, and even if the morons bring it on themselves, ultimately, the probably still should be fixed. Ideally, people ought to have portion limitations, readily available information about nutrition, and intense dining and cooking training programmes. Incentives and disinentives ought to be used to control unhealthy eating habits.

Bout time they banned it. Good job. Right decision. It's bad for you, costly for o reason, could be replaced with minimal loss, and represents a minor sacrifice for objective gain. Anyone who weighs temporary subjective benefit over objective loss is a blooming idiot and get's what he deserves. A good example is: "I know it could turn my insides to sludge, but if it taste good, pile it on!" They probably deserve to die. It's the same moron logic used by chain smokers--another type of worthless scumbag addict who values his subjective pleasure from his disgusting habit over the harms it causes to himself and others.

Just summarizing: 1. Ok. Morality is good and cool tool for humans to get along with one another. 2. Without the morality tool, and a way to enforce it, society won't function, since people wouldn't cooperate or be able to thrive 3. We are pack animals. It is part of group in and out-based psychology. Analysis: 1. You are making a normative statement, which is an ought statement (an ethical one). You are tacitly assuming that cooperation and having the functional building-blocks of a pack is a good thing and that they create morality as a tool to make sure it happens in the group. This ought statement is partly based on nature. You imply that we ought to cooperate and have rules because we are pack animals, and pack animals need to cooperate to function. This happens naturally as per human nature, therefore it's moral. However, an inconsistency arises. More importantly, we ought to have rules that enforce only certain TYPES of natural behaviours and discourage others. Interesting. The problem is that this is cherry-picking naturalism. You earlier claimed that X is moral because it's natural. However, humans are both violent and selfish as well as altrustic and cooperative depending on the circumstances, both in in-group and out-group situations. Both are natural, so both should be entirely moral. However, your scenario only advocates and enforces one. Ethical behaviour 1 is murderous, violent, raping. This is moral. Ethical behaviour 2 is altruistic, cooperative, helpful. This is moral. They are both moral because they are natural. Each equally moral behaviour contradicts the other. So you have two totally different virtues or recomendations of what one ought to do that are mutually exclusive being both moral at the same time. There is no contextuality or situational ethics that can be derrived from the premises of your argument from nature. That which is moral isn't depending on the consequences of given situations, but whether or not something is merely natural. If it's natural, it fits the bill of being moral, regardless of what it is. Is that which is unnatural, immoral, if that which is natural is always moral? Your argument makes no mention of what is wrong, only what you think is right (which basically allows anything to be right, so long as it's natural. Even self contradictory behaviours!). If it is the argument that what is moral = what is natural, then there's no logical reason to claim that the in-group cooperation model is any more moral or immoral than the selfish kill them all to rise to the top model. Indeed, both are found frequently in nature, and even in early homosapien states of nature. Either is just as good and you cannot distinguish between them. Your argument logically implies that it is just as good to murder and kill whenever you want to, simply because you can and want to (since that's a natural human behaviour. Indeed abnormal, but natural notwithstanding). Whether ir violates "pack cooperation needs" is irrelevant. You validate this claim by your later statement in the last two paragraphs. It's perfectly natural to rape, kill, and hurt for no reason (since it often happens in a state of nature). I don't think you "got it," son. I get it fine. That's the problem. Really? Animals eat other animals? It's natural? Geewiz, you must have been at the head of your ecology class at Cluck'U. Of course it's natural. No one said it's not. Natural doesn't automatically mean ethical. Again, such reasoning that it is moral is fallacious. Whether something is natural or unnatural is irrelevant intrinsically. Two-ply toilet paper is unnatural. That does not mean it is wrong to exist. Rabbits ****ing dogs is not natural. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Tree's sometimes fall on people in nature. That doesn't mean it's natural. According to Retard Ethics 101, however, since trees falling on this is natural, it must logically also be ethical. This means nothing as to what ought to be. You cannot derrive an ought from a straightforeward is. Life might be hard, and life might be unfair, but that doesn't constitute an ethical argument. Don't be a moron. Going "life's unfair!" is not a moral argument. The more you talk, the less you seem capable of employing actual reasoning skills. Do try to keep the sophistry to a minium, boy. 1. Perpetuation of the species and DNA at all costs isn't an inherently "ethical" criterion. You assume need and necessity are "good" and "moral," yet later arguments contradict this (as usual). 2. Nature itself cannot be ethical. That natural selection and mutations happen has no bearing on whether or not it is moral. Some people are born with horrible deformities. Occording to your retard logic, that's obviously moral and good. It's not good to apply any logic to your arguments, since they virtually make no sense. They aren't even internally consistent. Your premises don't lead to the conclusion, and you arrive at a non sequitor. Observe: Animals eat other animals in nature This is reality. Therefore, humans ought to eat other animals. This argument fails on premise two as a normative argument because it treats an Is statement as an Ought statement. The first premise is true, but doesn't lead to the conclusion, thus presenting the non sequitor. This non sequitor exists because of the Naturalistic Fallacy. That which is natural is not necessarily moral any more than that which is unnatural is necessarily immoral. For instance, two-ply toilet paper is unnatural. That means nothing about morality. Eating animals naturally has no bearing on whether or not you ought to. That chimpanzee's beat the shit out of fellow Chimps has no bearing on wheather they ought to do so. Natural Selection is not an ethical mechanism. The only conclusion you can derrive is that it is indeed how nature works, not how it ought to work. It could entirely be preferable if all species cooperated, worked together, and shared. If they could, and it was against their nature, it wouldn't be immoral simply because it would be "unnatural." A. The argument based on "natural = gOoD LOLzers!" is invalid as it rests upon a non sequitor. That which is natural doesn't necessarily imply good. That Chimpanzee's rape and kill the babies of competing tribe members so they can dominate and spread their DNA does not imply ought. That is merely a statement of what is. The only valid conclusion from nature is descriptive, not normative. B. That which IS doesn't necessarlly imply ought. This is the Is/Ought fallacy. That X is done doesn't mean that X ought to be done. In the absense of any compelling reason why it ought to be done other than "it's natural and is the case" your argument may be dismissed as the broken-record sophistry it is. C. Your argument fails because you contradict yourself and really don't care that you do it, since "logic" is a human contrivance. This problem with your post is self-evident. D. Your argument fails because your facts are simply wrong half the time. E. You contradict yourself every other paragraph. X is moral because it's natural. Yet, morality defined BY YOU really means to hold back natural tendencies. The only justification you give is "this ought to be because I say so." You artificially create a dichotomy between what is right for an insider and an outsider with no argument other than "some animals do it in nature, therefore we ought to as welll." Not very compelling. E. You have demonstrated you have no concept of ethics and are ethically bankrupt, since you really see nothing wrong with rape, murder, and mindless violence, but then contradict yourself again by shifting goalposts. For the audience, here's a perfect example of his sophistic doublethink. Prior, he said that which is natural is moral. Now he says this: 1. He admits he has no need for morality, because it's bullshit. This makes no sense, his all his preveious argumentation has indeed been moral in nature. All his arguments, although invalidly based on an is----> ought reasoning, are based on moral reasoning of some form. This is evidenced by his claim that what is moral for him is what is natural and that what is seriously ought to be. Logically, this makes no sense. He's calling his own concept of morality bullshit. Now that's all bullshit, he's self invalidated his own claims according to the logic of his new argument. You can obviously see that he doesn't have the mental capacity to at least make his arguments internally consistent. Let's see if the audience here can follow his warped illogic. Here you see he contradicts his above statement yet again. I reinterate what he said for your convenience. 1. Not but a paragraph earlier, he claimed that he doesn't need bullshit like morality. If morality is bullshit, and morality is a code or tool of humanity to regulate conduct, then his statement that X would be "unacceptable" in Y is a normative statement, which is a moral statement, which is bullshit. He obviously doesn't take his own arguments seriously, so neither should you (in addition to the fact that he makes no sense). 2. Add this obvious self-invalidation to the notion that his actual arguments in favour of morality (which he now contradicts yet again) were based on natural = moral. Now we realize that's not what he actually believes, because he really means that: A. Something is moral if it's natural and only if it's something that contributes to in-group cooperation. B. But then he changes even the above criterion by really claiming there's nothing wrong with murder, rape, incest, and other things, becaues it's all natural! C. Then he contradicts that statement again. Even though it's natural--perfectly natural---thus moral, it is still unacceptable, but only in an in-group setting. Then it becomes unacceptable. Again, he's making a new normative claim. He's got so many contradictions I doubt he's even serious. It's obvious that he's trolling at this point. He's merely saying anything to rile people up here. Either that or he's been classified as retarded and is in special ed.

No. I perfectly understood it. Apparently, you really don't comprehend the implications of your own statements. My point 1 was far from silly; it was dead accurate. That's entirely irrelevant to what is and is not ethical. "nature" doesn't give a rats ass because nature is mindless. It's not a volitional think. Then again, many volitional beings don't care either. Your point is effectively pointless other than to reiterate the already invalid "nature = moral." Again, nature cannot simultaneously be the criterion for what's moral and morality be a tool to control natural impusles. That doesn't make sense. It's also incorrect to say they don't commit those activities in the pack; they, and many other animals certainly do. Again, refer to the chimps. They rape, kill, and murder within their own groups quite often. It's natural, therefore moral, according to you. You haven't addressed your inherent logical contradiction in your argument. If you don't want to keep a logically consistent argument, then fine. You really can't discuss this issue though, until you do. You said X and then said Y. Y contradicted X. Therefore, that argument is invalid. One of your premises is wrong if you form a contradiction. Check those premises! You haven't pointed anything out that's obvious. You have pointed out something that contradicts itself; that is, your own argument. You are right. Nothing I say will change the fact that you hold doublethink and are fallaciously arguing that nature=moral. Do you understand what a fallacy is? Whether you believe in it is immaterial. Logic is logic, and your argument is fallacious. Any moron can claim "I don't believe in X fallacy," as a means of slipping out of it. ****, christian fundamentalists don't believe in logic at all. Sorry, but your approval of logic isn't required any more than it's required that someone believe in the Strawman or the Red Herring. You cannot logically go from an IS to an Ought. Just because something IS the case in nature doesn't mean it ought to be. You cannot go from the fact to the normative. It's fallacious reasoning, period. Semantics. It's an arbitrary distinction. You cannot justify within group violence any more than you can justify extra-group violence using nature as the measuring stick of morality for a variety of reasons, some already mentioned. 1. In-group violence is natural 2. Extra-group violence is natural. They are both therefore moral according to nature=moral. That's an illogical self-contradiction in terms. 3. In-group morality that excludes all others simply because they are not part of the group vague and unjustified. Using that logic, anything can be used to justify doign anything to some other group that you arbitrariy define simply because they aren't part of the group. Murder is only wrong between catholics. It's entirely ok to murder outsiders. Of course, you can arbitrarily claim "this only applies to humans," but you cannot justify it using the nature premise, nor is it universally valid. There is zero objective criterion for discrimination. You have to universalize in ethics; you cannot discriminate simply because of insider-outsider relations. Irrelevant whether or not they contradict themselves. Contrived human logic? Do you deny logic as well as fallacies? And no, they don't "suspend them" on members of the group. Why the **** do you think humans have been murdering each other for years personally and on a social basis? Your argument has no basis in fact. I am far from upset; I am more amused that you think logic and fallacies are defeated by your belief in them and that it's perfectly valid to have an argument riddled with self-contradictions. "I don't believe in fallacies" and "contradictions occure in nature" do not consitute rebuttals.

Ok. I should reinterate your point for everyone else here so we don't misunderstand you in the future. 1. He is seriously arguing that it's better to rape, kill, and beat the shit out of everyone becaues said behaviour is natural. So, in essence, violence simply because it's natural is good, since nature = good. In essense, according to his logic, we ought to get rid of the police and just let nature take it's course as the violent sociopaths overrun the rest of society and beat them, rape them into submission. After all, natural behaviour is always moral. Compare to the previous statement where he claimed that morality = nature = good. In one fell swoop, he flat out contradicts his own concept of morality. Observe. He wrote: "I do believe it is better for the animal kingdom to rape, kill, beat the shit of each other, all that stuff. To me, what is natural equals good." His first set of premises and the conclusion: 1. That which is natural is moral 2. Rape, Violence, and Killing is natural 3. Therefore, they is moral. He's obviously saying that morality is determined by what is natural. All the above are natural, therefore, they are all good. Ignoring that this falls into the naturalistic fallacy, let's move on to his second argument in the following paragraph. 1. Morality is a tool created by man 2. The tool is to avoid rape, killing, and violence (murder). 3. Therefore, morality is to counteract many natural impluses. As you can see, the first statements he made about morality directly contradict his second statements. It cannot simultaneously, without qualifiers (and those qualifiers have to be objective) be natural desires, instincts, occurances = moral and moral = that which holds back natural impluses and drives and instincts. He's tacitly implying it is part of morality to counteract that which is already de facto moral by virtue of being natural. This creates more problems, though, since both "nice" behaviours and "bad" behaviours are equally naturally for humanity, so in his view, he exihibits twice the double-think. Since natural = moral, it is both moral to rape and kill and cause violence as well as to cooperate, help the sick and injured, and take care of others (and stop rape, murder, etc). Natural behaviours contradict one another about as much as his ethical "philosophy," which he hasn't even thought out enough to stop from contradicting himself from one paragraph to the next. Just think folks. It's ok to rape and murder, but also ok to stop rape and murder. Both are natural, and natural is good, but the good is also to hold back that which is natural which is moral! Anyone seeing his problem? Which is true. Humans are the most intelligent and self-aware creature we know of. Humans are extremely intelligent compared to other animals. They are also capable of great unnecessary harm and significant altruistic behaviour. Both are natural. It's a bit of both. Humans are both "good" and "bad." They are not evil as a whole. It's not inherently evil to do something for self-interest. It becomes wrong when you disregard the interests of others which are similar specifically because they are not you. Humans could be nicer. They also could be a lot worse than they already are. I doesn't really or ultimately matter which semantic wrangle we choose to accept. Our aim should be to stay alive, but case the least quantity of uwanted, objective pain and suffering to others while doing so.

Are you saying the middle way is the right way? Inherently sane between the two? I wouldn't say the Golden Mean is necessarily moral. Hunting can indeed be ethical for a variety of reasons,if there are not suitabl e alternatives: 1. For those who need meat. 2. To cull populations to save people 3. To cull populations to save the animals themselves (from overpop) There are more, but I can't think of them right now. Are you saying instinct=ethical? If so, I hate to break it to you. Just because something's natural doesn't mean it's moral. Many animals, including humans, naturally beat the shit out of others, murder, and rape (Chimpanzees, especially). Obviously, since that's their instinctual behaviour, they ought to follow it. Therefore rape becomes good because it is natural behaviour. Humans are rotten because we can choose; we have volition. We understand and have the capability to understand right and wrong. Automatons and low intelligence creatures cannot. It doesn't mean they cannot feel pain or suffer; it just means they cannot comprehend the abstract concepts (and this ability increases with intelligence increases). Humans shouldn't behave like they do if they don't have to for suvival, because it causes unnessary harm. Whether it's our natural instinct to be assholes is irrelevant to the morality question. Do you really want to put yourself on the same level as a mindless frog that doesn't know any better, therefore is not immoral? Hardly. Animals are amoral. They cannot be held responsible any more than jimmy the retard with an IQ of 20. Lots of animals suffer. Some from their own stupid actions, and some from a predatory action - some are one in the same. That's life - and death. Humans cause suffering to other humans and other animals - and so do other animals. What have you seen in nature that would suggest we shouldn't cause suffering? Again, you hit upon the "natural diet and instinct," as if anything that contradicts that is automatically goofy and stupid. That's absurd. Accoridng to your logic, since rape is a natural behaviour of humans and other animals, as is war and other hyperaggressive "instinctual" behaviours, any morality system that contradicts nature is goofy. Whether a diet is natural or instinctual is irrelevant to the morality. Natural != moral. There's nothing in nature that leads to the conclusion that it's ethical in the slightest. Any argument you can make for humans being ethical if they follow their instincts immediately backfires as you also see perfectly moral many other henious, but equally "natural" behaviours. Sociopathy is natural. Therefore, it is good. You really don't mean that at all; you wouldn't want the "system" or "nature" to work its course. ONce you experienced that, you would be clamouring for civilization and "ethical rules and regulations" again. You cannot glean ethical behaviour by simply looking at nature, unless you realy would prefer to live in a chaotic, nasty society like the Chimpanzees where your competitor, due to "natural instincts" will eat or kill your kids and then rape you to maintain hegemony over the group. It's natural! Therefore moral! Don't mess with the ecosystem!

Well yes, I do support Euthanasia. I will try to cite the source I found describing PeTA's methods, because it seemed cruel to me. I don't necessarily think it's wrong to kill animals: I more think it's wrong to cause suffering, pain. I don't think most animals have any desire or preference to continue living or make future plans like Humans. I am also familiar with Dr. Singer, yes. I am a fan of his, although I take issue with some of his stuff. I enjoyed his work in Practical Ethics, and that's actually where I agreed with him on the issue of utility recepical farm animals. Kill and replace etc. He describes why that wouldn't necessarily work with higher level organisms (with a concept of the unique self). I really don't see a problem with killing a rat and replacing it with another one. It's not as if they demonstrate any unique lifeplans from the other. THey are mostly instinctual stimulus-response organisms. Ahh, I quoted in the wrong order. The above comments were directed toward this one. Sorry. But I will reinterate, I don't believe a life killed can always be cancled out by a life created, no. Sometimes, yes, depending on the cogntive capacity of the creature. Without any higher order functions, they are a lot like machines. I would also agree that a life destroyed would be equal to a life saved, though, given that they are relatively equal in extrinsic worth and characteristics. If I kill a rat and replace it with 4 other rats that wouldn't otherwise come into existence, and will have relatively good lives, that's a fair exhange, I think. I just created a + 3 balance of utility. I don't think it's necessary to bring more happy beings into existence merely for the sake of it, though. I don't, though. I see that as fine. The problem I have with it isn't intrinsic, but rather extrinsic. No one would tolerate it. The calculation works out intrinsically, to me. 10>1. I don't think it would work in practicality, though.

Well, I said intelligent grouping. Your teacher is obviously lazy if he allows people to sponge off of others. I used to have that problem in highschool too, and it usually occured when there were no individual incentives for achievement. What he ought to do is give both group and individual incentives for participation. You certainly are right in that some people will take advantage of groups if the teacher is lazy. I don't believe in "group grades." I believe in team work, but individual accountability. People will either work on the team, or they won't pass. You wouldn't be responsible for them not doing something. The key is assigning group assignments, but with individual tasks that count as the individual grade under that assignment. I assign group work teams, but individual grades and bonus points if they work together, but if one person says someone slacked, there are no bonus points for that individual. I like to use the smarter kids to scaffold the "dumber" kids, but I wouldn't advocate splitting and never returning to the group (as the teacher). It doesn't have to be in class. It can be a form of peer tutoring as well or group study.

Well actually, it's not just a "left-wing" catchphrase. However, a test would likely be useless anyway, since sociopathis are known to manipulate psychiatrists AND psychologists into thinking they really are not sociopaths. I think the sociopath would know what you are doing and simply lie. Their goals are to win. However, as for the concept of "corporate" attatched to it, that's not left-wing either. Business is usually a favourable field for socipaths because the skills necessary to survive are usually those socipaths happen to excell in. There ought to be some form of testing for both voting and office placement based on meritocratic (technocratic) standards. Do we have a form of evaluation today? Sure. Voting and electing, someone mentioned. It's not a very good one, however, and is dumbed down insofar as it's merely a test of who can superficially capture the attention of the nation's most moronic group of people who caught his candidate's soundbyte on Fauxnews.

Good teaching has a lot of qualities, but it depends on what information you are trying to convey. I do not know a lot about physics; I am a History/Special Ed major, but there are a few techniques I value. First, if you are a highschool professional, I would recomend combining both formative and cumulative sumative evaluation methods. Essentially, it's important to test material at periodic lesson-based intervals as well as at the end of a unit. In the former case, you are able to evaluate what the students understand after and during your lecture, which prepares you for a form of critical reflection of your own lecture practice. Naturally, I assume you already know what unit testing is. Some teachers only rely on that to make key changes in their lecture method. I don't support that though alone. 2. It's also important to get your students interested; show you care. This involves not looking like you couldn't care less in class about being asked questions. It also involves staying after for those who want or need help. At least acting like you care promotes self-esteem of the student without being wishy-washy in promoting self-esteem (like in grading). 3. From a methodological approach, I recomend "FRICNF." Essentially, you want to make use of flexibility, reflection, individualization, caring attitudes, natural supports, and something else I can't remember right now. =D The idea is that you want to use differentiated instruction and UDL. In differentiated Instruction and UDL you want to modify the curriculum as much as possible to make it accessible. A good way to do this is to make note of learning styles and try to be flexible in your ability to account for learning styles in your lesson. For instance, vary the medium by which you relay information and try to use multiple formats. It really does help with people who have different combinations of kineasthetic, audio, visual, and tactile learning styles. As well, flexibility can manifest in the means of engagement of students. To make the motivated to learn and spice up your lecture, give students a choice in assignments, grouping, activity, and evaluations. Now, this doesn't mean they make up the stuff. You choose ultimately before hand the types of variation form which they will get to choose. Use peer natural supports; this means apply grouping intelligently. It is often good to pair the more intelligent students with the lesser achievers. In most studies, it doesn't negatively affect the higher achievers and does benefit the lesser achievers. Group work on projects can be useful if you combine group incentives as well as individual incentives. Allow students to work together in class and at home, and give them opportunities to do this; they need to learn how to collaborate, because that's what happens in real life. I also do support Direct Instruction, but not for an entire lecture. Mix it up. Allow for experimentation guided by the teacher, but combine it with lecture, demonstration, discussion (questions). THen have kids go off in groups and discover using the scientific method. They have to learn how to apply information and develope/test hypotheses, especially in your field. I find this is often overlooked in most highschool science courses.

Just because something doesn't have the capacity to reason doesn't mean it cannot suffer. Suffering is a vague term, but it's not one that's relegated to creatures that are highly self-aware or rational. You can suffer on many levels. Creatures with higher levels of intelligence and self-awareness ought to be able to suffer more due to foreboding and understanding of the pain. It creates different types of preference. Many animals without the required intelligence cannot be held morally culpable for their transgressions anymore than retarded people can, especially as the retarded slip down the slope to increasing levels of mental degeneration. You cannot be willfully immoral or making an immoral choice if you can't comprehend the concept. Moral judgement as an agent requires rational volition. Suffering of any type doesn't. I really have no problem with animal testing because it is necessary for preventing significant human as well as animal suffering, but I also take morality from a Utilitarian standpoint. There are too many benefits both to Humans and non-human animals to get rid of experimentation, especially for medicine. It helps prevent a lot of suffering and increase the quality of life in medicine and veterinary science. Human interests also diverge from many animal interests due to the mental capacity of Humans vs other animals; they don't necessarily have the same interests as other animals, nor do they have the same capacity for suffering. We ought to treat creatures equally wherein they are actually equal or roughly equal. Even if one considers the principle of equality of interests, this doesn't mean Humans ought to be treated equally with other animals in all regards; equality doesn't imply equal treatment across the board regardless of actual differences. However, the only differences than ought to matter are matters of utility; pain, pleasure, and welfare preference satisfaction. The idea ought to be to minimize unnecessary harm to all involved. While it is true that human toddlers are smarter, already, than most other animals, that doesn't mean their interests should always trump the interests of other animals. In most cases, it probably would, but not always. It depends on their capacity to form and access preferences, be happy, suffer, feel pain, etc. It's rather absurd and completely unsubstantiated that ethics ought only apply to Humans' ethics isn't intrinsically directed only at the conduct of Humans toward other Humans. That would not only be arbitrary discrimination, but also would allow anything to be done to non-humans purely at the caprice of Humans, regardless of the actual similarity to Humans, intelligent, or capacity for suffering. That's morbid and bankrupt ethics. There's nothing special about Humans that could justify propping them up above all else, regardless of the characteristics of "all else." If there were indeed aliens with similar mental capacity and feeling capacity, they ought to be treated with equal consideration of their welfare interests whether they are Human or not. Ethics requires universalization and equality of interest consideration of like interests. Ethics which only revolve around Humans increase needless suffering and would necessarily justify the most henious action against another animal for any type of benefit accrued. Like to kick puppies and slowly ram nails into them? It's ok! Because ethics only applies Human to Human! On that note, I would like to comment on PeTA and ALF. The latter really is a terrorist organization, and since learning about that, I no longer fund it. They are wrong. Humans are animals too, and they deserve moral treatment. Violence also rarely solves the problem; it often makes it worse and helps the movement backfire. They represent the wacky branch of animal welfare movements. Not all are like that. PeTA is crazy in a non-terrorist way. They go overboard, and they are often hypocritical, killing tonnes of animals anyway. I don't support them either. Both of these organizations make the movement look bad. I really don't believe in Animal Rights, since I am a Utilitarian as well; animals don't have rights. Neither does the Human animal, except for legal ones. Rights are protections of key welfare interests. They don't exist intrinsically. In that case, rights can be used as a social rule of thumb to promote social utility by protecting key welfare interest. Doing that usually makes people happy and increases social functioning. Edit: It's not even necessarily immoral to kill all animals. It would rather depend on their nature. Are they capable of understanding they exist and forming a desire or preference for continued life? If not, then if you kill it, can you replace it with another which will have a similar life or one with a better life? Both of those considerations matter. It might be the case that you can STILL farm and kill animals as long as you replace them with animals which will have a happy life similar to or greater than the one killed. In that case, you can benefit Humans. The key is that you try to give the farm animal some semblence of quality life, happiness while they live prior to slaughter. If you kill them, you replace them and maintain the utility pool. If they are not self-aware creatures that can form complex, but different goals, desires, preferences, they are relatively replaceable utility recepticals, like fetuses.