[Dave in MPLS]

In a bit of synchronicity, Chicken Run Rescue posted a link to this piece from Karen Davis about animal consciousness to Facebook just yesterday: http://www.upc-online.org/spring07/unscientific.html

 

[Move of Ten]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beancounter

Ok, an enjoyable activity that keeps the dog active, and healthy and extends it's lifespan = survival.

You think a dog's motivation to play is survival rather than fun? Really? In other words, you're suggesting the dog's mindset is something along the lines of "Oh good, an opportunity to exercise. This should help me live longer." as opposed to something like "Oh boy! Playing is fun!"?

Is there any reason in particular you believe this?

Quote:

All species including humans are drawn toward pleasure and away from pain. That's a survival instinct.

No it isn't. The desire to eat twinkies and shoot up heroin is not a survival motive. The desire to avoid the strain and boredom of exercise is not a survival motive.

Quote:

What appears to be a conscious choice (when viewed through an anthropomorphistic lense) is just millions of years of adaption/evolution.

What appears to be a leg is a result of millions of years of adaptation/evolution too. But it's still a leg.

 

[hotcooknmama]

The big deal to me, re ethical reasoning, is understanding of consequences. The greater capacity you have to understand how your actions affect other living things, the more responsibility you have regarding moral/ ethical behavior. So, it's not that other animals don't have the ability to do this; there are clear examples of behavior in other species that parallels our human understanding of what we call moral reasoning. As Darwin said, the difference between us 'is one of degree and not of kind'-- humans have a greater capacity to understand the impact of our actions, so we have a correspondingly greater obligation to consider the implications of our choices.

As a side note, the fact that something gives pleasure doesn't mean it isn't a survival behavior; sex, hellooo...

There's no shame in this premise; loving my child is a good thing to do, whether it's pure abstract conceptual goodness or motivated by intrinsic imperatives to keep my genes in the pool-- good idea/ good outcome either way. They're not mutually exclusive concepts; one does not negate the other.

 

[Move of Ten]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotcooknmama

The big deal to me, re ethical reasoning, is understanding of consequences. The greater capacity you have to understand how your actions affect other living things, the more responsibility you have regarding moral/ ethical behavior. So, it's not that other animals don't have the ability to do this; there are clear examples of behavior in other species that parallels our human understanding of what we call moral reasoning. As Darwin said, the difference between us 'is one of degree and not of kind'-- humans have a greater capacity to understand the impact of our actions, so we have a correspondingly greater obligation to consider the implications of our choices.

As a side note, the fact that something gives pleasure doesn't mean it isn't a survival behavior; sex, hellooo...

There's no shame in this premise; loving my child is a good thing to do, whether it's pure abstract conceptual goodness or motivated by intrinsic imperatives to keep my genes in the pool-- good idea/ good outcome either way. They're not mutually exclusive concepts; one does not negate the other.

I agree. That's a great Darwin quote.

The main reason I think morally judging non-human animals is useless is because we have little-to-no ability to communicate those ideas to them. Not because I think they don't engage in some degree of ethical decision making.

 

[Sevenseas]

I think it's more plausible that most non-humans have some moral rules within their own species, and less plausible that they would have moral rules about how to deal with other species, and even less plausible still that (as cornsail was saying) there could be a way for anyone outside their own species to make them understand such moral rules as "it's unfair to eat the flesh of another species". And whether that would be easy or difficult to communicate to them does in no way depend on whether flesh is needed for their survival or not.

One could make the argument that it might be difficult to communicate Western ideas of animal rights to some very foreign human culture too, since that culture could have a very different way of understanding morality, and might e.g. emphasize tradition or spirituality more than some such notions as 'inherent rights' or 'justice'. However, I think all humans share a sense of basic moral notions such as 'ought' and 'should', and spending time with a different culture, we could eventually learn how to communicate those basic notions. But, for the sake of argument, if this turned out to be impossible in some particular context of a different human culture, then I would say that, indeed, in that case there's not the same kind of moral responsibility.

 

[Nobilis of Wind]

Is there anyone here who supports the right of animals to not be killed, even if you are starving, but who thinks it's wrong to stop animals from killing animals? Those positions seem inconsistent to me, but I have a feeling they're common.

 

[hotcooknmama]

Not me. I don't think my life is more cosmically valuable than that of other animals, but neither is it less; and it is very valuable TO ME, if not to the cosmos. If I had to kill something to not starve, I would; fortunately that's not the reality I live in.

Similarly, I'm not prepared to argue that my beagle is more valuable to the Universe than any other canid-- say, a coyote that wants to eat him -- but if his life were in danger I would try to save it, because he depends on me for safety in a way that a coyote doesn't. I would try to not kill anyone; but I would protect my friend to the best of my ability.

There's a level of subjectivity, in any ethics question; because we're not gods, floating in the heavenly ether, disinvolved from the physical world we're talking about.

I agree that the two positions you describe above are inconsistent; but not that they're commonly concurrently held.

 

[Dave in MPLS]

Quote:

Is there anyone here who supports the right of animals to not be killed, even if you are starving, but who thinks it's wrong to stop animals from killing animals?

The previous discussions of moral agency and of positive vs. negative rights both speak to this question.

 

[SomebodyElse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotcooknmama

There's a level of subjectivity, in any ethics question;...

I disagree. To take the life of another sentient organism just so that you may live instead of him goes out of the realm of ethically justifiable behavior and into the realm of the emotional attachment you have to your own existence, and applying this to the animals you care about is simply valuing your emotional attachment to them over the lives of animals you feel no emotion for.

 

[Nobilis of Wind]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave in MPLS

The previous discussions of moral agency and of positive vs. negative rights both speak to this question.

I know. I'm talking about the negative right. Some people have said they don't believe in an animal's negative right to not be killed. I'm asking if anyone does, and if so, do they also think stopping animals from killing each other is wrong. I am wondering if there is a way to reconcile those two positions.

 

[SomebodyElse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nobilis of Wind

I know. I'm talking about the negative right. Some people have said they don't believe in an animal's negative right to not be killed. I'm asking if anyone does, and if so, do they also think stopping animals from killing each other is wrong. I am wondering if there is a way to reconcile those two positions.

I don't see how they can be reconciled. Stopping a predator from being able to eat will kill him, which would violate his right not to be killed, if you accept, for the sake of the exercise, that he has the right not to be killed. There are numerous carnivorous hunters who will eat nothing but live, moving prey, so no substitutes in the way of food would save their lives if you stopped them from hunting.

 

[Nobilis of Wind]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomebodyElse

Stopping a predator from being able to eat will kill him, which would violate his right not to be killed, if you accept, for the sake of the exercise, that he has the right not to be killed.

So if the only way a given human could survive were by killing another human, would stopping the former from doing so be violating his/her right not to be killed?

 

[SomebodyElse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nobilis of Wind

So if the only way a given human could survive were by killing another human, would stopping the former from doing so be violating his/her right not to be killed?

If you are going to take the position that everyone who is alive and sentient has a right not to be killed, then violating that right for any reason is going to be wrong. You can't alter the nature of an ethical principle by acting against it, no matter how much you think you need to.

In this example, if I were trapped on a desert island with one other human who was allergic to every available plant food, and could only survive by killing me and eating me, if I take it as a premise that preventing him from eating me, and thus causing his death by starvation, is violating his right not to be killed, then I am indeed violating his right not to be killed. Acting upon my own desire for self preservation doesn't negate the truth of my accepted ethical premise, it just means I am violating that premise.

Sometimes necessity is going to make you go against your ethics. That doesn't cancel out the ethics.

 

[Ginariffic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nobilis of Wind

Here are some questions the answers to which I'm interested in reading.

Is it okay to kill animals for food if you're starving, and if so, why?

Is it okay for animals to kill animals for food, and if so, why?

The answer to the first question depends on the circumstances. If you are starving and there are no alternatives available, yes. Humans are omnivorous animals. If we require something to eat and stay alive, there is no ethical boundary that should be applied to prevent us from living. When meat becomes necessary for survival, humans can blame themselves no more than they can blame a lion for eating meat.

If you are starving and the reason you can survive is because circumstances have changed and include a viable alternative to meat (by viable one that will keep you alive and help you recover healthily from starving), then I would say no, there isn't an excuse for eating meat because now you have a choice that you can be healthy while making.

For the second question, it would be fine to kill animals for food for only the reasons it would be okay to eat them. In another thread, I also wrote about how it would be appropriate to eat meat if your resources are too scarce to support a vegetarian or vegan diet.

Later, you asked if it would be okay to kill animals to prevent other, nonhuman animals from being killed. Again that depends.

I think the answer is yes if the animal is exotic and/or otherwise damaging to the natural ecology and any means of containing it are impossible.

The answer is no if even one of those conditions is not met.

 

[SomebodyElse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ginariffic

The answer to the first question depends on the circumstances.

If an ethical framework is to be based solely on one's circumstances, why bother with an ethical framework at all, and just do whatever strikes your fancy at the time, depending on your circumstances?

 

[Ginariffic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomebodyElse

If an ethical framework is to be based solely on one's circumstances, why bother with an ethical framework at all, and just do whatever strikes your fancy at the time, depending on your circumstances?

What a stupid question!

I can see from your other posts that you think ethics are either "kill" or "don't kill", "steal" or "don't steal". You don't seem to think that ethics are a set of moral values. They are. My set for murder specifically is "Kill when necessary. Don't kill when unnecessary. Necessary means you must do it to remain alive or to keep another person alive. These ethics apply to any action one allows for their own benefit."

I do not separate myself from other animals in that I will put an individual life of my own species before an individual life of another species. I put lives of another species before the comfort in lives of my own species. I would never punish an animal for doing the same. This means that if I can prevent a nonhuman animal from killing a human by killing it or harming it, I will. If I am too late to prevent that instance, I will not harm that same animal.

 

[SomebodyElse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ginariffic

What a stupid question!

I can see from your other posts that you think ethics are either "kill" or "don't kill", "steal" or "don't steal". You don't seem to think that ethics are a set of moral values. They are. My set for murder specifically is "Kill when necessary. Don't kill when unnecessary. Necessary means you must do it to remain alive or to keep another person alive. These ethics apply to any action one allows for their own benefit."

What an idiotic response. Thank you for revealing your inability to understand and answer a simple question.

 

[Dave in MPLS]

Quote:

you think ethics are either "kill" or "don't kill", "steal" or "don't steal". You don't seem to think that ethics are a set of moral values.

Actually SE is advocating a more consistent ethic than Ginarific. Relativism doesn't lead to better morality, it leads to ethical nihilism.

 

[Ginariffic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomebodyElse

What an idiotic response. Thank you for revealing your inability to understand and answer a simple question.

You asked, "What can an ethical framework do if it acknowledges circumstances?" to paraphrase.

Whether or not you intended this, your version is not a simple question, it's a loaded question. It assumes that you will easily be able to debate my answer because you have cast it into a negative light from the beginning.

I will admit that at first I assumed the question was rhetorical it seemed obvious to me that I was answering a specific question which gave a circumstance, not stating my ethics as circumstantial. Anybody who simply answered the question could garner the same response that I got from you.

Anyway, the reason for this is that my ethics regarding this can be stated more simply like this:
-Life is more important than comfort.
-The life of a human is more important than the life of an animal. (I admit there's more biological hard-wiring to care about my own species than grandiose philosophical thought at play here)

They are simple and positive. They cover the circumstances I mentioned and are not "based in them".

I came to veggieboards to learn, though. So if you actually have a problem with them, I invite you to critique them. The second one REALLY needs work. We may have started off on the wrong foot, but I really am in these discussions to improve my views, not preach them. If I have to change my mind, I will. I like having to change my mind when I learn something because I learned something.

I am sorry for the snarky way I replied the first time.

ETA:
We talk of the difference between a right to not be killed and a responsibility to not kill. We apply this to other animals, but what about a responsibility to not kill ourselves? Particularly the responsibility parents have to not kill themselves because of the children/dependants whose lives are reliant upon them.

 

[smiling]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nobilis of Wind

Very interesting. I was hoping someone would say no to the second question, so I could ask another question. Is it justifiable to kill an animal to keep it from killing other animals?

Don't we as humans do that with the death penalty? I am against the death penalty, but we do it in our society and have since the earliest times of man.

Also, if I were starving and I had to catch and kill an animal myself, I would say I would starve first. I have no idea what kind of instinct might take over and if I could do it in that situation. But rational me says no way.