Animal rights, split from dictator thread

[In My Memory]

Mokele,

 

If we attribute the interests you describe above to a mouse, and accept that killing the mouse ends those interests, how does a hawk or snake killing the mouse not end those interests with just as much finality as any mousetrap?

Even if it comes to the same ends (that being a dead mouse), the moral differences are vastly different because hawks and snakes cant make ethical decisions about killing, (most) human beings can. From Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" (p 277):

... it is important to realize that even if there are other animals that could live on a vegetarian diet, but sometimes do kill for food, this would provide no support for the claim that it is morally defensible for us to do the same. It is odd how humans, who normally consider themselves so far above other animals that, if it seems to support their dietary preferences, use an argument that implies we ought to look to other animals for moral inspiration and guidance. The point is, of course, that nonhuman animals are not capable of considering alternatives, or of reflecting morally on the rights and wrongs of killing for food; they just do it. We may regret that this is the way the world is, but it makes no sense to hold nonhuman animals morally responsible or culpable for what they do. Every reader of this book, on the other hand, is capable of making a moral choice on this matter. We cannot evade our responsibility for choice by imitating the choices of beings that are incapable of making this kind of choice.

 

The idea that identical ends having different moral implications is a non-controversial part of your everyday moral reasoning, and its very simple to demonstrate: we excuse a young child for setting something on fire that we would never excuse an adult for the same action, it doesnt matter that both actions result in the same burned down house. Obviously, this should answer your second question "does the motivation of the predator really matter" - yes it does.

 

Killing only becomes highly unethical if you fail to acknowledge that death is one of the two universal certainties, and that the manner of death doesn't really matter much beyond ensuring minimal pain.

I dont know what you mean by "two universal uncertainties" (unless you are implying an afterlife). But, with exception to cases of euthanasia, do you think a human being could get away with killing another human if they did so painlessly? I think you would agree that its probably less unethical to anesthetize someone before hand, but you would not be able to condone the killing. If that makes sense to you, then try to imagine how I, as someone who reasons that animals are the moral equals to human beings, would see the scenario you put together?

 

Why would it not be strong enough? Isn't sacrificing a few hundred lives to save hundreds of thousands worthwhile?

Tell that to the ethics committees who are worried about environmental variation between humans but not between species. In any case, I'm sure you would reject your own statement outright if the hundreds of lives sacrificed were humans, and in an appeal to most peoples sense of "inherent value" I also speculate that you would probably find that the moral worth of a human beings life is not diminished by his or her usefulness to medical researchers.

 

(I apologize if I come off as a brick wall.)

 

 

Demosthenes,

 

Before you argument was that animals feel pain' date=' now it's about taking life. There is a problem with the second argument, according to it's logic you shouldn't kill any life: plant, protist, or mold.

 

So, according to your "animals feel pain" argument, they shouldn't be allowed to suffer (but they can be killed painlessly). And in you other argument ("life is important") you can't kill any life. What you have tried to do is blend them together and take parts from both that you like, but in reality you must choose one, because they contradict each other.[/quote']

Re-read some of the key points I've made about killing:

Post #10:

animals share with human the capacity to feel pain and value the continuation of their own existence (those matter morally), and there is no good reason to refuse to consider any of those capacities regardless of how far humans have come as a species.

 

Post #41:

[My veganism is based on] very mundane reasons such as the fact that animals feel pain and that they have an interest in continued existence.

 

Post #70:

[it would be ethical to eat an animal that] has no interest in its continued existence [n]or the capacity to feel pain

 

Before you accuse me of inconsistency, you have to know what I've actually said. I've stated for the entire time in this thread that two things fundamentally matter when you consider the moral worth of any organism: whether the being feels pain and whether it has an interest in continued existence. Obviously, when you consider the moral worth of an organism, you have to take into account its capacity to suffer and its interest in continued existence at the same time - this is the reason why I've stated a few times in this thread that it is obviously wrong to torture something to death, but slightly less unethical to kill it painlessly against its interests. Obviously, there are implications that unnecessary suffering + killing are the worst things you bring upon an organism, unnecessary suffering alone or unnecessary killing alone is unethical to a lesser extent.

 

You'll not find in any post I've ever written advocating "life is valuable in itself" or anything to that effect, in fact you'll notice that I've been consistent that destroying life isnt wrong in itself, but rather the action is wrong because it systematically violates all of the interests a being may have in continued existence, fulfillment of future goals, future happiness, etc. However, as in the case of plants and protists, if the organism cannot feel pain or if there are no interests, then there is nothing to consider morally, implying that it isnt wrong in itself to kill plants and protists. Although it hasnt been relevant to the thread, you've picked up on a few allusions to euthanasia, I think it should be no surprise that in some circumstances I would find it more ethical and humane to euthanize something painlessly rather than see it in a prolonged state of agony where there is no possibility for relief.

 

Now we should be on the same page with one another, it should be evident that in so far as my veganism goes I am fully consistent.

 

Animals on traditional farms certainly do suffer...

Again' date=' this means nothing if the animal is not aware.[/quote']

I dont understand. Are you saying animals dont feel pain?

 

Because no one will use a mentally retarded infant in experiments. It's not a question about "mental level". Just as someone won't experiment on their pet dog or cat, no one would ever do that to an infant.

Darling, you've missed my point entirely, because your response is essentially a red herring to shift discussion away from the actual moral rightness or wrongness of experimenting on retarded humans over to humans sentimental attachment to cute and furry things. This is exactly what you said animal rights supporters do in your posts #46 and #54.

 

 

AL,

 

Certainly if I were diagnosed with a terminal illness, I'd probably not be too concerned with the risks of trying out experimental treatment or pharmaceuticals (provided the known side effects aren't immediate death or agonizing pain). I'd probably encourage people I know in that situation to do likewise. In the case of a cognitively-impaired human, we might allow someone else to make that decision for them in the same way we allow a parent to make many decisions for their children.

I agree, if there was no pain or death to take into account, I would not object to human or animal experimentation. Unfortunately, based on your earlier comments in Post #71 "giving tumors to mice to learn more about how cancer works is something else entirely" clearly implies that the kind of experimentation you are talking about does involve suffering and eventual death.

 

Also, I'm not sure if I feel comfortable with your answer that we should appoint a parent to make the decisions of severely retarded infants - I agree with you in principle, but you havent stated that there would be any moral difference involving experiments resulting in suffering and death between severely retarded infants and animals. Instead, your later comments "equate the mouse's life experience with the human's life experience" necessarily shift the focus from severely retarded infants to fully rational humans, such that it isnt actually clear whether you find my comment "willing to perform his experiment on a retarded human infant at a similar mental level of an animal" reasonable or not. Its a very salient point, because the willingness to perform on experiments on animals but not on humans of equivalent capacities demonstrates an unjustifiable form of discrimination - I just dont have any other conclusion to come to when we have two groups of organisms whose mental levels are equal, but one of those groups is ever the subject of experimentation. (At the very least, I suppose it could be suggested that a severly retarded infant has experiences "greater" than that of any rat, but that is certainly contentious.)

 

In terms of mental capacities, if someone wanted to weigh the benefits of experimenting on a rat or a severely retarded infant, there is a callous justification that these test subjects can be mass produced in a Brave New World kind of way (or in the way that we already breed animals), and that it could imply providing direct answers about helping the human race rather than using animals and speculating how similar the effects would be in humans. But, as mentioned, many people would find this utterly nihilistic and abomidable whatever the medical benefit would be. This kind of reasoning serves as my primary opposition against animal testing, and to date I've never heard an explanation for why its wrong (however, its only been a few times that I've seen people say they would have no problems with using infants as experimental subjects, but object for the sake that we just dont have enough of them - certainly that makes the ethic consistent in experimentation, albeit as utterly repulsive as genocide.)

 

Its a generally simple viewpoint to understand, that a beings moral worth is determined by the morally relevant properties they really have, and not relevant to their species membership, so that consistency demands that we treat all of the beings with equal consideration. Generally, I find the justification for animal experimentation "they are so much like us" wholly undermines the justification for not giving animals moral consideration "they are so unlike us" is specific to animals, but for the most part the justifications against animal experimentation are the same justifications against experimentation on unwilling humans or infants at a similar mental capacity. Aside from typing more excepts out of my books on animal rights, I'm not sure I can say much more on the subject without becoming tirelessly repetitive.

[Mokele]

I don't have time to full respond, but I'll just clarify somthing:

 

I dont know what you mean by "two universal uncertainties"

 

"...in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." - Benjamin Franklin

 

hehehe

 

Mokele

[AL]

(At the very least, I suppose it could be suggested that a severly retarded infant has experiences "greater" than that of any rat, but that is certainly contentious.)

This then, is our irreconciliable disagreement. I stated earlier that some of the "higher" animals should be given greater weight such that any proposal to experiment on them would be less likely to receive a green light. Although there really isn't any exact, quantitative way to measure or distinguish a "higher" or "lower" animal (and we can debate this 'til Hell reaches absolute zero and whether or not intelligence should be given greater weight in valuation than say, the ability to fly or use sonar), I do know which animals I'd save first from a fire at a zoo, and implicit in that subjective "measure" is this ranking of "higher" and "lower." As far as retarded infants go, given the greater capacity for the loved ones of the retarded infant to feel pain and suffering than the loved ones of a chimp, the retarded infant gets priority.

[-Demosthenes-]

Even if it comes to the same ends (that being a dead mouse), the moral differences are vastly different because hawks and snakes cant make ethical decisions about killing, (most) human beings can.

 

Regardless, humans can prevent this, and can make ethical decisions, and according to the "animals feel pain" and "interest in continued existence" arguments the animal should be saved, right?

 

But, with exception to cases of euthanasia, do you think a human being could get away with killing another human if they did so painlessly?

 

Of course not, but killing a an animal painlessly is ethical under your first "pain" argument (animals should not be killed because they feel pain), althought it could be against the second part of the argument (the interest in continued existence part).

 

...when you consider the moral worth of an organism' date=' you have to take into account its capacity to suffer [i']and[/i] its interest in continued existence at the same time...

Again, this means nothing if the animal is not aware.[/quote'] I dont understand. Are you saying animals dont feel pain?

 

Most of these things don't matter as much if the animals is aware. An animal can feel pain and still not be sentient and aware. If all pain is a response to something meant to entice a reaction in an instinct driven animal, then it doesn't seem like avoiding that pain would be as important.

Human beings are sentient and aware, and understand pain. They can fear pain, and are completely aware of what it is. There is little evidence to suggest that other animals understand pain in the same way, it's just a response.

 

Darling' date=' you've missed my point entirely, because your response is essentially a red herring to shift discussion away from the actual moral rightness or wrongness of experimenting on retarded humans over to humans sentimental attachment to cute and furry things. This is exactly what you said animal rights supporters do in your posts #46 and #54.

 

Aside from the vague patronization which I won't pretend that I don't completely enjoy , you said:

 

because a retarded human infant possesses no characteristics fundamentally greater than any non-human animal, then all I have to ask is whether the experimenter is willing to perform his experiment on a retarded human infant at a similar mental level of an animal

 

...and I was just saying that people don't experiment on mentally retarded infants because of sentimental value, just as you wouldn't experiment on a pet because of sentimental value, although I did go a little bit off the topic the post I responded to.

 

 

 

 

I have great respect for your (In My Memory) views and opinions, and I've had fun talking about and debating them. This has been one of my favorite threads and I have enjoyed it immensely, and I hope it continues for a least a little while longer.

[In My Memory]

Demosthenes,

 

Aside from the vague patronization which I won't pretend that I don't completely enjoy

Its what makes me cute and lovable

 

I have great respect for your (In My Memory) views and opinions, and I've had fun talking about and debating them. This has been one of my favorite threads and I have enjoyed it immensely, and I hope it continues for a least a little while longer.

All the best!

 

 

Everyone else,

 

Thank you for your comments, this thread has been informative and even fun. I think everything that needs to be said has been said, so until another thread is derailed to talk about veganism ...

 

Kindest regards,

In My Memory

[AL]

Everyone else' date='

 

Thank you for your comments, this thread has been informative and even fun. I think everything that needs to be said has been said, so until another thread is derailed to talk about veganism ...

 

Kindest regards,

In My Memory[/quote']

But I thought you'd be OK with beating dead horses, seeing as to how they can't feel pain and all....

[Nemesio]

Bump.

 

In My Memory,

 

Would you kindly empty out enough of your private messages that I might make an Animal Testing inquiry to you?

 

Nemesio

[sunspot]

Should we outlaw animals killing other animals? Are not some animal put here on earth to be food for other animals? Should we lock up wolves for killing deer? Why do these preditors have the right to kill food animals? The answer is that there is a natural order. To forbid animals to do what is natural is to make them unnatural.

[Jim]

Work was consuming me during most of this debate which now looks like is pretty much over. Darn.

 

In any event, I have a lot to digest. My basic take on animal rights is that I respect things which are (i) harmless, (ii) elevate our standards of decency and (iii) about which people are passionate. These doctrines do elevate our standards of decency. It's hard to imagine a global culture which will do all that it can to minimize suffering to animals which also will not treat people decently. I tend to defer to passionately held harmless positions, even those which I don't instinctively share, mostly out of a sense of humility.

 

The animal rights position is mostly harmless except, potentially if it would impact human diet adversely and as it pertains to drug testing. Therefore, I listen receptively but, I admit, can't get over the engrained notion that there is a qualitative difference between human beings and less evolved species. Maybe this has to do with the hope that humans are on the cusp of the next step of evolution, this time of their own making (or something cataclysmic). Maybe it is just my emotional belief that the Cosmos is driving to some unforseeable objective and that humans are the species on this planet which will play the primary role in this process. (I don't mean this to prejudge the issue of ID but instead just mean objectively you can see that a process is in play which led to life and which, at least on earth, has brought that life to the point where it is asking fundamental questions and getting some answers.)

 

I boggle a bit at the notion that there is some kind of calculation of interests which should be used to decide these questions. OTOH, I have some humility here too because I understand that this is a topic on which human intelligence has specialized and it would be arrogant to think that I can duplicate this kind of learning with my gut reaction. At the same time, I don't have 4 years right now to devote to studying such a process. With work, family, coaching a basketball team and now keeping up with SFN, my plate is pretty much full.

 

I'm not trying here to restart the debate but just throwing in my two cents at the conclusion.

[In My Memory]

Bump.

 

In My Memory' date='

 

Would you kindly empty out enough of your private messages that I might make an Animal Testing inquiry to you?

 

Nemesio[/quote']

Sorry, when bascule is always sending you love PMs, your PM box fills up before you know it.

 

But, I think I know what your animal testing question is: if you want to ask me "IMM, do you think it would be justifiable to use just one animal to cure AIDS", my answer is no. If there were any hypothetical experiment that monumentally important, we dont need to hurt any animal for it, I think we would be better off minimizing the harm that we cause by using a human in a persistant vegetative state to get the get the cure. That way, we have all of the cure, with no suffering