@prothero,
prothero;114756 wrote:
I think infliction of unnecessary pain on other sentient beings and the random slaughter of other life forms is unethical and unwise.
[/COLOR]
We can survive without meat, and we can not keep livestock animals without causing any pain, stress or fear to the animals. So, livestock industry causes unnecessary pain and suffering. Unnecesarry, because it could be avoided.
I always thought it strange that we are not allowed to burn a dog, even if that would give us a real thrill and a feeling of pleasure, but we are allowed to slaughter a pig just for taste (which is also a feeling of pleasure).
[QUOTE]I have a lot of difficulty, however, in accepting the notion that animals have equal or comparable rights to humans.[/QUOTE]
Well, it follows from the anti-discrimination principle that non-human sentient beings have the same basic right as human sentient beings. Because the property "human" is not morally relevant. What you do is speciecism, comparable to racisme (the property "white" is also not morally relevant to grant the basic right). Or let me put it different: what morally relevant criteria do you think that all and only humans have? In particular, think of the seriously mentally disabled orphan in Vietnam (I am his foster parent). What does he have, that an animal has not and that is so relevant, that we should take care of that orphan but are allowed to slaughter a non-human animal (except dogs)?
Speaking of dogs: are we allowed to eat dogs? Or are people who love dogs crazy?
[QUOTE] Even more difficult would be the concept that individual cells have rights. Maybe viruses or amoeba or bacteria have rights? Maybe antibiotics are immoral. It just gets too ridiculous to be entertained.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I think all living cells have rights (whether a virus is a living cell is open for debate, but as it has no metabolism, so I think it's not a living being). But we are allowed to use antibiotics, because we are allowed to kill non-sentient living beings for our basic needs. And good health is definitelly a basic need.
[QUOTE]Is there a principle or principles for ethical treatment of the environment and of other species? Yes, but it is not the equality of all cells and of all life forms. It has to do with the overall ecosystem and respect for the place of each life form within it. The natural system is competitive and some life forms become food for others. Some life forms have higher levels of experience and complexity and thus have more value than others. Horses get more consideration than flies for example. Human life gets more consideration than bacteria, viruses or fungi.[/QUOTE]
yes, that's what I say. As humans are sentient beings and fungi are not.
[QUOTE]Nature is messy; nature is red in tooth and claw. Nature has seen times when 90% of all life forms have vanished in ecological disasters which make global warming look like a holiday.[/QUOTE]
I know that in nature terrible things happen, but nature is amoral, not immoral. Only beings with a moral consciousness (adult healthy human beings) can do immoral things. And it would be immoral to justify immoral behaviour by pointing to nature and saying that if nature can do that, we should also be allowed to do that.
[QUOTE]
Whether one worships nature of worships god as the author of nature there is no basis for declaring all life forms equal or advocating cells have rights. Man is part of creation not the purpose of creation, I agree. We destroy the ecosystem and the ecological balance which gave rise to our specie at our own peril, I agree. We can eat fish we just can not eat so many we make them become extinct. We can have a hamburger, we just need to slaughter our cows quickly and painlessly and show them the respect they deserve while they live.
It is all about balance;
[/QUOTE]
Well, thye problem is that nature is not really in balance. Most of the time there are fluctuations and disturbances. We can however focus at biodiversity. It is difficult to say we have to protect the balance of nature (although we sometimes should do it if we can), but it is easier to say that we should protect biodiversity and the endangered species.
---------- Post added 12-28-2009 at 05:56 AM ----------
Reconstructo;114792 wrote:Well said. I like cows. But I like humans more than cows. It seems insincere to equalize life forms.
There are different ways to look at the equality principle.
Cows are like humans equal in the sense that both should have the basic right not to be treated as merely means to our ends. The reason for this equality is that there is no morally relevant property that all and only humans have.
Cows and humans might be emotionally unequal, just as humans are emotionally unequal for most of us. I mean, I love my wife more that my neighbour, you would save your child first in a burning,... But this emotionnal inequality can still have a so called tolerated choice equality. If you saved your child instead of mine in the burning house, I tolerate your choice. So although I like my child more than yours, we still have some equality of all children, otherwise I would not have tolerated your choice to save your child.
It's important to remark that, even if I like my child more than yours, I am not allowed to use your child as merely means (e.g. kidney, heart,...) to save my child. A bit the same goes for cows: In general I (just like you) like humans more than cows, but still I am not allowed to use the cow as merelly means for my ends, and certainly not for 'trivial' ends such as taste and pleasure feelings
