VeggieBoards banner

Principles

2K views 25 replies 5 participants last post by  Citrus333 
#1 ·
Humans have a moral obligation to protect non-human higher animals.

Higher animals, such as mammals and birds, are born with an advanced nervous system which can enable them to feel. Therefore, like humans, non-human higher animals also have the right to live and not to suffer abuse.

Non-human animals are innocent, but humans can be good or evil.

Non-human animals should not be condemned for killing others. Non-human animals have low intelligence, so they cannot be required to consider other individuals' feelings. In comparison, adult humans are very intelligent, so they are able to consider and understand other individuals' feelings. Therefore, if an adult human has killed or abused a non-human higher animal, this human is evil.

Humans must fight against cruel nature.

Nature has no empathy at all, but human morality is empathic. Therefore, human beings must fight against cruel nature and protect every non-human higher animal.
 
#4 ·
I don't understand the concept of "non-human higher animals" (emphasis mine). Are there lower animals? Which beings, and be specific, "deserve" to be protected and which don't?
Some animals have a very simple nervous system, such as insects and oysters, which means that they have lower ability to feel, or do not have sentience at all.

Higher animals such as mammals and birds have very advanced nervous systems, which means they are more capable of feeling (and suffering). That's why we should focus on protecting higher animals.
 
#3 ·
This exact post was made with a different username some time ago. I don't know if this is a cut and paste thing, or the same person registering a new username, or -- why?

I searched the post and found they also posted it on Happycow.
There is nothing against our terms of service to cause it to be removed, but it certainly goes against my reasons for being vegan!

If animals are 'lower intellegence' why can't humans find each other miles apart? or their direction home? or to safety prior to extreme weather? or be the cause of climate change and species extinction? What is the OP's definition of intelligence? Just what they think matters?

And good and evil? A LOT of hubris in this post!
 
#5 · (Edited)
This exact post was made with a different username some time ago. I don't know if this is a cut and paste thing, or the same person registering a new username, or -- why?

I searched the post and found they also posted it on Happycow.
There is nothing against our terms of service to cause it to be removed, but it certainly goes against my reasons for being vegan!

If animals are 'lower intellegence' why can't humans find each other miles apart? or their direction home? or to safety prior to extreme weather? or be the cause of climate change and species extinction? What is the OP's definition of intelligence? Just what they think matters?

And good and evil? A LOT of hubris in this post!
Firstly I must point out that you are very illogical. Does the ability to sense others miles apart have anything to do with intelligence? You can very well be a retard but with very good eyesight or hearing.

Animals are less intelligent than humans. I think it's a fact so obvious that any reasonable man would have no doubt about it. And the reason why i point out this fact is because i believe with higher intelligence, humans should have more responsibilities.

And because humans have high intelligence, they can understand other individuals' feelings and sufferings well. Therefore, if humans cause suffering to animals, they are absolutely evil, because they are intelligent enough and thus fully aware that their behaviors are causing the suffering. That's why i say there are good people and evil people, but animals are all innocent.

We can't say a cat is evil because he tortures and kills a mouse. But if a human does the same thing, he is obviously evil and should be punished. It's just like the application of laws - usually the same penalties don't apply to children and insane people, because they are considered not intelligent enough.
 
#6 ·
How DARE you use a word like "retard"? To people with developmental disabilities, the people who love them, and anyone with any manners and sense, that's as vile as the n-word. Shame on you and anyone who uses it in any form. I'm convinced, however, after reading your utterly nonsensical response to Silva, that you are likely incapable of shame. Learn things. Seriously, learn things. And please, please stop using that word for any reason, in any form, when applied to any being.
 
#8 ·
Is my word choice relevant to the discussion? Do you realize you are completely off the subject? I think you should really learn to improve your reasoning skills (if you have the capability to do so).

If you think my view is "non-sensical", please explain and give reasons. As for the word choice and other irrelevant comments you made, I won't waste time responding to them.
 
#15 ·
With high intelligence, humans are more capable of understanding things, including other individuals’ feeling and suffering. So, humans who cause suffering to animals are evil and should be punished, because they totally understand that their behaviors will cause suffering but still choose to do so.
 
#23 · (Edited)
1. Kaichen, I think they're right that we shouldn't use the word retard. Some of your wording "evil" and "higher" perhaps wasn't the right choice either. The problem with your arguments isn't that they aren't logical or rational, it's that they are worded in an imperfect way.

2. These type of threads where someone tries to post an intellectual opinion and have a debate, and others just pile on and look for holes to pick and ways to get offended, are sadly common on several of the veg forums, and it's one of the reasons I don't, for now, post as much as I used to. Of course this will also lead to others not bothering to post, or join the forums.

3. Note that in point 2 I'm referring to the initial response prior to the word "retard" being used.

4. I think intelligence is a taboo topic. If someone says that they have always been physically stronger than average, or can run faster than average, or have above average memory, or have above average ability in a certain skill, or a good immune system so they don't get sick, then we think that's fine. But if someone says that they have above average IQ, or intelligence, we consider that a superior and arrogant comment to make and one that perhaps should not have been said. If you consider this carefully, this is simply cultural etiquette. It has no rational basis.
 
#24 · (Edited)
1

Maybe my word choice wasn't quite appropriate. I'm still learning English though. But even so, I think I've expressed my views very clearly.

But as you can see, these two just keep ignoring and distorting my points and denying the facts. I don't know what's their problem.

2

I don't know if intelligence is a taboo topic in the western world, but when we debate with others regarding animal rights, we need to talk about intelligence. Arguments like "because animals are low in intelligence, they can't enjoy rights" are common. But instead of arguing back that individuals with low intelligence, such as children and mentally disabled people, also enjoy rights, some people just chose to deny the fact, like silva who associates better senses with intelligence. Don't you think such an irrational statement will make things worse? If I were a non-vegetarian, I definitely wouldn't be convinced and would probably think that veganism is irrational.

And talking about intelligence is also necessary for explaining one of my points: because humans have high intelligence, they have moral responsibility. People who are less intelligent, such as children and mentally disabled people, can't bear legal responsibility if they commit a crime, because they are not intelligent enough to understand things. Similarly, animals can't be accused if they cause suffering, because they are not intelligent enough to be required to have moral responsibility. However, adult humans are intelligent enough. So, if they cause suffering to animals, they totally know what they are doing, and therefore they have no excuses and are evil and should be punished.
 
#25 ·
Interesting that you say you are learning English. So, you are not a native speaker.


This is one of the reasons we shouldn't attack people for imperfect word choices....which I would argue is what the first two responses to your post were doing...attacking the imperfect word choices in the post rather than addressing the substance of the argument....of course they might feel differently....maybe they think they were addressing the substance of the argument and maybe they are right....that is subjective.


But in general, I think when people post on the forum we should give the benefit of the doubt. They may not be conversing in their native language. They may be children. Perhaps they left school at 14 and never had much of an education. Who knows what's behind an anonymous internet poster?



By all means criticize the word choices....but politely and in a civil way....for instance I think your use of "evil" is rather strong.....and perhaps will cause upset for no benefit.
 
#26 ·
To be clear, I did not attack anyone. Expressing an opinion, or even a fact, is not an attack. Being critical of someone or something is not an attack. The use of slurs is inexcusable and something I will always directly confront. Confrontation is not an attack.

Again, the use of slurs is inexcusable. Calling it out is not an attack.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top