Forums → WEPR → Animal Slaughter
| 588 | 143605 |
I my self am a proud veg and im a guy i dont see any thing wrong with that, however my peers constantly put me down for it. I question others about it and some say that animals are kiled to keep the population under control, then shouldnt we do that to humans? are there any other vegetarians on armor? if you are a caravor responding to this please try not to be insultive i get enough from my freinds and family
- 588 Replies
By 'appreciate' I mean experience the fullness of a particular emotion, like happiness or pain. If you've ever stubbed your toe, you know that it sucks. You have pain, but you also have the experience of feeling pain - you appreciate it on a different level than an animal would.
I've heard this before. We don't know for sure what animals feel, but I've heard it could be more like this: When we are hurt, what goes through our mind is "OH SNAP THIS HURTS, MAKE IT STOP" and we do whatever we can to stop the pain, often because it's just uncomfortable. When an animal gets hurt, it may be thinking "OH SNAP, TISSUE DAMAGE, MAKE IT STOP", and they will try to stop it because they know it will be more beneficial for survival, not for the discomfort. This is probably not accurate, but I feel like the fact the fact that we are capable of intelligent thought, and never have to rely off instinct, that the way we experience and the reason we react to pain would be different.
This is probably not accurate, but I feel like the fact the fact that we are capable of intelligent thought, and never have to rely off instinct, that the way we experience and the reason we react to pain would be different.
Yes, you might be right but I am pretty sure that animals are smart too and know what pain feels like so it would feel the same because nerves in our body dedect pain and animals have nerves too so the pain feeling would be the same but maybe not the thought.
I'm okay with anyone killing anything except Monkeys and Dolphin. Monkeys have war on other tribes, and some actually do know how to make weapons. Dolphins are the most intelligent, though I just think they want treats :P
Dolphins are the most intelligent, though I just think they want treats :P
No, monkey's are the most intelligent animal.
it would feel the same because nerves in our body dedect pain and animals have nerves too so the pain feeling would be the same but maybe not the thought.
Sure, we both have nerves and a brain. The premise of the argument is that the experience itself is different. The big word for this is the phenomenological experience - the 'what it's like' of having pain. We know what it's like to suffer, but animals (it seems) would have a different phenomenological experience.
But what I'm hoping for is to get from the given premise to the conclusion. Like I said, put aside your personal feelings and see if you can develop an argument. I think there are plenty available.
The question is why would animal's feel pain differently then us. Pain is pain and that's that.
The question is why would animal's feel pain differently then us. Pain is pain and that's that.
Did you read my argument in support of the premise on the previous page? I feel like if you read it then you wouldn't be asking this question. We know that humans can experience similar pains differently. And since animals have a very different experience of the world than we do, it stands to reason that pain would be among those experiences.
But for the third time, I would like to point out that I'd rather not get into the argument for this premise. Just grant that it's true to see if we can get from the given premise to the suggested conclusion.
So from here:
P: Animal experience is very different from our own.
To here:
C: There is no ethical obligation to treat animals humanely.
Easiest way to make this is probably to say that, premise granted, since we cannot project our own phenomenological experience of pain and suffering on animals, it makes few sense to also project our own ethical sense on animals. Thus why treat them ethically?
There's a flaw, or rather a downside, in this argument though. Since we cannot comprehend how animals experience pain and torture, how can we know what attitude/method to apply? Treating them unethically would be just as baseless than treating them ethically. This doesn't get us further.
There's a flaw, or rather a downside, in this argument though. Since we cannot comprehend how animals experience pain and torture, how can we know what attitude/method to apply? Treating them unethically would be just as baseless than treating them ethically. This doesn't get us further.
Good gravy, finally an intelligent reply to my post. Thanks HahiHa!
And what you're saying seems right. We have no idea what their phenomenological experience of pain is, so we have no basis for treating animals one way or another. But notice the conclusion: There is no ethical obligation to treat animals humanely.
The reason I picked this conclusion (which is far weaker than it could have been) was precisely because of this worry. But the conclusion simply states that have no obligation to treat them humanely - not that we ought to abuse them. Even though the conclusion is weak, I think it still avoids much of the force behind animal rights arguments. We can burn pigs to practice treating human burns, we can shampoo rabbits and give pills to mice to test the effects. These are things that benefit humans and, since we're under no ethical obligation to treat animals humanely, what we're doing is fine!
At least, that's the line of thought I have in mind. You might find that it's entirely unmotivated - a view which I'm sympathetic to. But I'd like to hear more.
before the humans evolved nobody thought about how or why to treat animals humanely.
before the humans evolved nobody thought about how or why to treat animals humanely.
That is because there was not intelligent enough life to think of these thing before humans came.
But notice the conclusion: There is no ethical obligation to treat animals humanely.
True, didn't see that coming.
Now, the premise is that we don't have the same phenomenological experience than animals; but when we talk about animal cruelty, most often we don't talk about fishes or shrimps, but chicken, geese, pigs, cows... in short, birds and mammals. Being mammals ourselves, don't you think we can at least extrapolate a certain part of our experience and accept that a chicken simply doesn't feel well in a cage hardly bigger than her, even mroe when they look like it? We don't have to apply our ethical code on them to the letter, but we can apply a sort of adapted ethical code specifically for animals. Yes, this adapted code will still be an assumption through and through, but not completely baseless IMO.
That is because there was not intelligent enough life to think of these thing before humans came.
Thanks Cpt. Obvious, xAyjAy completely left that out...
I think you have to kill animals or the disese would spread and become awful and people would die. Plus God made it for you to be able to eat them. Just don't go around and kill every thing you see. I am an animal lover but it is something that has to happen for the good of people.
It is called the food chain. We are on the top because we can eat almost everything. But I do not agree when we slaughter many animals at once when we don't need all that food and could give it to people in third world countries.
Deer and other game hunters do a messy job that many people good not do. It is their responsibility to keep the population of the "rey" animals at a manageable level, or else they would become overpopulated and would be forced to move into suburban areas to compete for food. This is already happening.
You must be logged in to post a reply!