animals -they don't even know that they exist!

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » animals -they don't even know that they exist!

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 01:07 am
hey I was wondering wether it's right to treat animals bad -we eat them- or not?
they have no ''own head'' and don't even know that they exist..

?

hope you share your opinion on this one!
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 29 Jan, 2008 08:25 am
@benjamin90,
Just some food for thought...

If we take a utilitarian viewpoint, treating animals poorly (causing them to suffer needlessly) seems unjustified. Animals certainly can suffer, so if suffering is bad, wouldn't the suffering of animals be bad as well?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 06:22 am
@Didymos Thomas,
By the same token should we be able to mistreat humans who have impaired consciousness, like babies and Alzheimer's patients and people with mental retardation?

If not, then self-consciousness cannot be our criteria as to whether to treat something well or poorly.

The reason no one thinks twice about cutting apart a plant while it's still alive is that a plant can't feel or suffer or hurt. Well, except for Treebeard and the Ents from Lord of the Rings. Surprised
 
InsideOutsider5
 
Reply Wed 30 Jan, 2008 10:19 pm
@benjamin90,
benjamin90 , What would you classify animals behaviorial instincts as?
 
benjamin90
 
Reply Tue 5 Feb, 2008 06:36 pm
@InsideOutsider5,
Quote:
By the same token should we be able to mistreat humans who have impaired consciousness, like babies and Alzheimer's patients and people with mental retardation?

If not, then self-consciousness cannot be our criteria as to whether to treat something well or poorly.


Yes I've thought about that too once, and came to my personal conclusion, in respect of any family member of yours that could be mentally retarded or absent-
that people that that ya a COMPLETE retardation and there's no way out to get them''back to earth'' and to think normally..are worth not much to me and I wouldn't spend a lot of time with them so cruel as it sounds...maybe someone can change that point of view of mine?




the thing with the babies ..ya hm I don't think babies should be counted into that category of -''completely retarded and lifeless people/BODIES''- since the babies probably will get their soul at the age of 16 or so when they notice what's going on in the world.
I know that's no argumentation cause it has to do something with time..cause I think the animals will develop intelligence too one day :/ and when that is the case they will get their souls..everybody agree?


Quote:
Animals certainly can suffer, so if suffering is bad, wouldn't the suffering of animals be bad as well?
Ya suffering is bad , suffering=feeling, but to me not a true feeling since they don't have a soul?
I think there is no real solution/answer to my question which was wether to let animals suffer or not.If it was obvious to anyone that it was wrong there wouldnt bee that many animal factories and suffering on this planet!


but i really wouldnt let any being suffer when i can help
 
benjamin90
 
Reply Tue 5 Feb, 2008 06:38 pm
@InsideOutsider5,
InsideOutsider5 wrote:
benjamin90 , What would you classify animals behaviorial instincts as?


as just reactions and reflects
hm
and they got no soul
 
InsideOutsider5
 
Reply Wed 6 Feb, 2008 05:12 pm
@benjamin90,
If you react to something do you not feel a reaction, yes...therefore if you can feel a reaction you can feel your existence.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Wed 6 Feb, 2008 11:02 pm
@benjamin90,
benjamin90 wrote:
as just reactions and reflects
hm
and they got no soul

An experiment was done by scientists in which starving macaques (a kind of monkey) were given access to a button which, if pressed, would deliver them some food. But the button would also cause another macaque (visible to the starving one) to get an electric shock.

It turns out that the starving macaques will not press the button to get food if another macaque gets shocked as a result.

As far as I can tell those macaques have plenty of soul -- and it's the scientists who don't have one.
 
ogden
 
Reply Thu 7 Feb, 2008 08:49 pm
@Aedes,
Animal value and interpretation of thier cognition is something that I have thought about alot. I don't view myself as being endowed with any inherant right to exist above any other life, beyond my survival abilities.

There is no evidence that a humpback whale, or your pet dog, does not know it is alive, or that it is unable to appreciate its life, is there?

Causing suffering for pleasure or whim is masocistic and not a moraly healthy endevor. I'm a meat eater and I realize that animal factories are horid, but I subscribe to a 'eat and be eaten' food web of practical physical sustanance. So while I would like to see human sustinance shift more toward humane treatment of food stocks, I will and do cause sufering to animals for sustnance.

That being said, I think it is a great mistake to vew humankind as somehow superior to animals because we percieve ouselves having a soul, and that they do not. What is the soul? How can we be so narcisistic to think we are above all other life? Yes, our cognitive function is superior (well maybe not mine:D), but I say superior cognition is simply our modis operendi. Can we see in the dark, can we fly, can we do what animals do? No (eccept for when we use technowlodgy to replicate what animals do naturally). So you can't do what they do and they cant do what we do, so what. Thinking is meerly our adaptation that enables us to fill the nitch. This higher thought is all the more reason that we should treat animals with respect. Restect thier lives, thier needs, and thier feelings.

Lower animals that don't have highly developed nervous systems probably dont feel pain the way we do, but higher mamals probably feel alot the way we do.

Belief in soul has religious meaning, and although I am atheist, I continue to derive value from the bible, so I will go to it in order to bring up something that may be relavant to this topic on a footing that relates to christians. After the flood God told Nhoa that he could eat the animals, but not thier blood (Gen 9).

Sorry for all the spelling errors:o.
 
benjamin90
 
Reply Thu 7 Feb, 2008 10:07 pm
@ogden,
Quote:
An experiment was done by scientists in which starving macaques (a kind of monkey) were given access to a button which, if pressed, would deliver them some food. But the button would also cause another macaque (visible to the starving one) to get an electric shock.

It turns out that the starving macaques will not press the button to get food if another macaque gets shocked as a result.

As far as I can tell those macaques have plenty of soul -- and it's the scientists who don't have one.
wow that's interesting ! Hey but I think the monkeys are the closest to the human beings in their way of living and intellect?Mybe they have developed some kind of family feeling and realised that they cant live well with the loss of a family member,maybe they have had that skill since when the human race'' separated from the monkeys , cause I think the humans had to build up such a function to continue with their evaluation and the monkeys could do that too but got stuck at a somewhat time later of their evaluation..hm..

Quote:
Animal value and interpretation of thier cognition is something that I have thought about alot. I don't view myself as being endowed with any inherant right to exist above any other life, beyond my survival abilities.
Oh but I do somehow :/


Quote:
There is no evidence that a humpback whale, or your pet dog, does not know it is alive, or that it is unable to appreciate its life, is there?
Yes there is none but when I see some guy with a dog f.ex. then I just think that's really strange , cause the animals just get used to a person and adopt to the humans actions and they have no idea they exist and the guy looks upon the dog as a family member?!..hm.
Maybe it's just because the animals cant communicate with us that we dont know about their true feelings?
But I don't think a cat or so ,when it's lying quietly there in it's sleeping box,it thinks about philosophy hm haha

Quote:
Causing suffering for pleasure or whim is masocistic and not a moraly healthy endevor. I'm a meat eater and I realize that animal factories are horid, but I subscribe to a 'eat and be eaten' food web of practical physical sustanance. So while I would like to see human sustinance shift more toward humane treatment of food stocks, I will and do cause sufering to animals for sustnance.
Oh sorry I really dont get what you wrote maybe you can explain it again?
But I agree with ur first sentence of course yes.

Quote:
That being said, I think it is a great mistake to view humankind as somehow superior to animals because we percieve ouselves having a soul, and that they do not. What is the soul? How can we be so narcisistic to think we are above all other life? Yes, our cognitive function is superior (well maybe not mine:D), but I say superior cognition is simply our modis operendi. Can we see in the dark, can we fly, can we do what animals do? No (eccept for when we use technowlodgy to replicate what animals do naturally). So you can't do what they do and they cant do what we do, so what. Thinking is meerly our adaptation that enables us to fill the nitch. This higher thought is all the more reason that we should treat animals with respect. Restect thier lives, thier needs, and thier feelings.
What is the soul? '' yes good question , but that sentence''I think therefore I am'' is really great and gets me hope there is some kind of a soul.
YEs we can't fly , see like an eagle,..and stuff but those are just adopted skills to their enivironment :/ arent they? So I think the highest thought one can reach is that we are here and makes us BE.
Thinking= Adaptation that enables us to fill the nitch-given by who hehe?

The animals should have that too..cause as you said we cant do what they do and reversed ya but thats just physical skills and a mental(?) one is much more worthy in my opinion ^^.Yes and as long as we got no proof for their thinking we should respect them and trynot to exterminate them.


Quote:
Lower animals that don't have highly developed nervous systems probably dont feel pain the way we do, but higher mamals probably feel alot the way we do.
yes I think so too


Quote:
Belief in soul has religious meaning, and although I am atheist, I continue to derive value from the bible, so I will go to it in order to bring up something that may be relavant to this topic on a footing that relates to christians. After the flood God told Nhoa that he could eat the animals, but not thier blood (Gen 9).
Life is something very strange and I hope there is something after death on earth hm something that allows us to use the same identity as on earth , with the same memories!!!, and stuff, you know what I'm saying?, but oh man that looks so improbable to me Sad
I would want to know too what soul is and it's existance


''after the flood god told noha that he cold eat the animals but not their blood?''
I don't understand it hm .Blood = soul?

thx for your replies guys I hope I don't write too confusing haha
 
benjamin90
 
Reply Thu 7 Feb, 2008 10:09 pm
@InsideOutsider5,
InsideOutsider5 wrote:
If you react to something do you not feel a reaction, yes...therefore if you can feel a reaction you can feel your existence.

yes and I think animals cant feel a reaction and think about it
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 8 Feb, 2008 11:33 am
@benjamin90,
benjamin90 wrote:
wow that's interesting ! Hey but I think the monkeys are the closest to the human beings in their way of living and intellect?Mybe they have developed some kind of family feeling and realised that they cant live well with the loss of a family member,maybe they have had that skill since when the human race'' separated from the monkeys , cause I think the humans had to build up such a function to continue with their evaluation and the monkeys could do that too but got stuck at a somewhat time later of their evaluation..hm..

They haven't gotten stuck in evolution. It's 2008 -- humans, monkeys, sea cucumbers, and giant squids are all the exact same distance from the beginning of life as one another. We're all just as modern, just as evolved, just as adapted. It so happens that humans adapted to an environment that fostered intellectual abilities that were absent in our ancestors. That doesn't mean that monkeys stopped evolving -- it just means that they evolved in a different way.

But dogs are affectionate, intelligent, can solve problems, and are certainly anthropomorphized. Other animals like pigs, dolphins, whales, and certain birds (crows, ravens, raptors, jays, and parrots) are extremely intelligent as well.

So what's our cutoff? Why can't we look at ourselves as part of a greater world of life, and what separates our intelligence is that we have the capacity to be either good or bad custodians of other species.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » animals -they don't even know that they exist!
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/02/2021 at 11:08:38