Forums → WEPR → Animal Rights
| 83 | 33392 |
"Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: theyâre only animals."
â Theodor W. Adorno
I haven't really waded into the discussion on animal rights, but from what I believe so far, yes blah blah, animals have to have their modicum of rights as well. But what really grinds my gears are animal activists who go on and on about pictures of safari hunting, etc. There's a certain extent that I would care about animals and cruelty (experimentation, pet abuse, etc), but until we stop eating battery farmed animals, I don't think much moral high ground can be taken.
So yes, your opinion?
- 83 Replies
Ungulates can't climb trees.
With the exception of the hyrax, anyway.
Anyway. I'm aware that FishPreferred asked this question, but we're getting a bit far from the original topic.
Ooh, tired already? To me this point seems relevant to the question; if people like you think we're so much better, why the hell would we give those beasts rights?
No animal has any reason to climb a snow-covered mountain.
So why do we still find animals there? Shelter from predators, vegetation otherwise untouched from other animals. Peace and quiet from all of the hassle down there.
There is no scientific explanation as to why a species that exists for survival would do the incredibly stupidly dangerous things humans do, only to be rewarded by other humans with something as simple as "breaking a world-record."
You seem very certain of that, but do you have actual evidence that there is absolutely no reason, for example recognition, subconscious bravado for ranks, or other things like that? Doing what few have done before certainly feels very rewarding..
And anyway, how do you explain dolphins jumping out of the water in the ocean? They have absolutely no gain from jumping around, except fun. Why would elephants agree to draw things on a canvas? It certainly does not get them a mate. Why do elephants even mourn dead ones? How does that feed them?
Your argumentation seems intuitive on the first sight, for someone with not much knowledge of the animal world. But to me, that's exactly what it is: an opinion based on lacking knowledge of the topic. Of course that's your opinion and I won't be able to change your mind, but it just seems deeply fallacious to me.
A species of animal (say the African lion) is for all visual purposes identical to another of its species, minus a few exceptions. A lion cub with have brown eyes, gold fur and, if it is male, a mane. It will live with a pack (is pack the right word?) of other lions in Africa and it will hunt whatever species are available to kill.
This is in no way indicative of anything. All humans looks the same to a lion. A farmer, on the other hand, can recognize all his cows just by looks. Crows can even remember different faces of humans.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Is survival not a goal? On what possible grounds can you assert that thought and concept are almost or in any way exclusive to humans?
Nawww...I didn't postulate that humans are the sole progenitors of thought and concept, nor do I mean to express the point that humans do not pursue the aim of survival. What I did express was the following:
I would say that it isn't the exclusive domain of humans to think, but it's almost the exclusive domain of humans to think and pursue goals, concepts, lives that are not completely or mostly dedicated to plain survival.
What I mean to convey, was the idea that humans are the only ones amongst animals that pursue activities on such a grand scale that does not relate directly to survival. Aspects common to virtually all independently developed human societies such as art and music. We have professions geared towards such activities, which are celebrated amongst the rest of us; something not many animals do.
Currency: We wouldn't either if we could not exchange it for the goods we need. Humans only have currency because we aren't adapted to provide for all of our needs alone. Nobody makes a burger by harvesting wheat, grinding it in a mill, milking and butchering a cow, pickling the relish, baking the dough, cooking the meat, and putting it all together without any assistance.
Yes, but that makes us a class above animals. We have moved beyond the point whereby individual humans, or a small group of humans had to accomplish every single task to fulfill our needs, we have specialised, and in doing so, increased our capacity to lead a more diverse life than what we could if we had to provide for all our own needs. Such a development puts us above other animals imo.
This is only perceived as a need. Such experiments are not vital to society or the species as a whole.
I would say that this is another sign of our status above other animals. We can lead a life where we strive to survive, and do so to a moderately acceptable level, where we can feed ourselves, shelter ourselves adequately, and take care of our young to the best we can. But we have not only started to and conquered such basic needs, but we have gone even further to supplement it, via say entertainment, or intellectual pursuits.
I did a research paper and experiments using fish as a model guinea pig for bone-growth substances. They were meant to (hopefully) develop a cure for osteoporosis; whilst not pertinent to our survival, and hence a vital need, would certainly help the elderly function better in their dotage. Osteoporosis isn't one of the more potent diseases, yet we strive to find solutions to it, to better our lives beyond the point of just survival.
So yes, it then boils down to the question, of if we're better than animals, why extend rights to them? This is something that bothers me, and so far, the best reason I can come up with, is just based on morality.
What I mean to convey, was the idea that humans are the only ones amongst animals that pursue activities on such a grand scale that does not relate directly to survival.
This is purely because our survival advantage gives us the opportunity, which is largely due to our being an invasive species.
Yes, but that makes us a class above animals. We have moved beyond the point whereby individual humans, or a small group of humans had to accomplish every single task to fulfill our needs, we have specialised, and in doing so, increased our capacity to lead a more diverse life than what we could if we had to provide for all our own needs. Such a development puts us above other animals imo.
This is a consequence of our success coupled with our social behaviour.
Osteoporosis isn't one of the more potent diseases, yet we strive to find solutions to it, to better our lives beyond the point of just survival.
And another of the same. It seems what really sets us apart from the rest of kingdom animalia is just our evolutionary fitness. This, at least, I can understand.
This is purely because our survival advantage gives us the opportunity, which is largely due to our being an invasive species.
This is a consequence of our success coupled with our social behaviour.
I disagree. Yes, it is our survival advantage that gives us such opportunities, but such ''advantages'', whilst no doubt possessed by all animals, differs widely when it comes to specifics. We don't have the strength of an elephant, nor the hardiness of a roach, nor perhaps the hunting prowess of a shark which makes all of them great survivalists, but what we have is vast cognitive function, creativity, and ingenuity, which are the key areas that set us apart from normal animals. It's to me, a little like saying, though all scientists have an intellect that enable them to take up the field adequately, only a tiny minority of scientists have the extra genius that can make them Nobel Laureates. That for me, makes humans a species apart from other animals.
I'm going out on a limb to assume that when you meant ''invasive species'', you meant a widespread non-indigenous species that can adapt to most environments, and in doing so, disrupt the original ecosystem? If this is the case, I do not think that is the direct factor as to why we as a species, have developed far beyond what other species have. Pick out any on the list of invasive species, and I think that we can differentiate ourselves from them due to our cognitive functions, and hence the ability to manipulate our environments to our benefit.
Are we really a class above animals? If examined, almost everything we do is tied to basic wants needs required for species survival, even if they no longer fulfill that function. Forming groups and assisting others, eating, competing with others and winning and the act of making things make us happy because happiness is a reward we get for performing acts beneficial to species survival.
For example, this forum thread fulfills our desires to form groups and to compete and win.
Are we really a class above animals? If examined, almost everything we do is tied to basic wants needs required for species survival, even if they no longer fulfill that function. Forming groups and assisting others, eating, competing with others and winning and the act of making things make us happy because happiness is a reward we get for performing acts beneficial to species survival.
For example, this forum thread fulfills our desires to form groups and to compete and win.
I would say yes. I don't need to post in this Forum, I want to do so. It has no impact on my survival chances. I would say yes, it fulfills our desires to form groups, but not like how early humans formed groups for protection, but rather, we form groups now to interact and discuss issues, some of which have no impact on our day to day interaction.
I think that's a little over-generalizing, though it definitely has validity in it. Suppose I like to draw , and I derive happiness from it. But such happiness has no impact on my basic survival.
but what we have is vast cognitive function, creativity, and ingenuity, which are the key areas that set us apart from normal animals
Pick out any on the list of invasive species, and I think that we can differentiate ourselves from them due to our cognitive functions
*** hoc ergo propter hoc? You seem to be assuming that intellect must be the sole/primary cause of our success. If this is the case, you are affirming the consequent (for humans) and denying the antecedent (for non-humans).
If you have anything more than an argument from ignorance, incredulity, consensus, or antiquity (I'm not saying you would resort to those, just that I won't accept them) to support your claim of superior intellect, we might be able to reach some conclusion.
And apparently saying "when", "with", or "coincident to" in latin is now obscene.
*** hoc ergo propter hoc? You seem to be assuming that intellect must be the sole/primary cause of our success. If this is the case, you are affirming the consequent (for humans) and denying the antecedent (for non-humans).
I didn't opine they are the sole/primary cause of our success; I instead mentioned that they were the ''key'' areas, which is indisputable. As such, I do not think I am committing a fallacy.
If you have anything more than an argument from ignorance, incredulity, consensus, or antiquity (I'm not saying you would resort to those, just that I won't accept them) to support your claim of superior intellect, we might be able to reach some conclusion.
Yes I think I do have, but since I'm not a science, it would probably be best for me to link more credible sources; I use the terms intellect and cognitive ability interchangeably as a layman for instance.
As such, I do not think I am committing a fallacy, please correct me if I'm wrong!*
Not a science student.*
Oh dear me.
Again I will have to ask what makes jumping out of the water so relevant for survival in the case of dolphins.
But let's assume for a moment that it would indeed be unique among animals to do things for fun. In what way does that make us supreme? There is a reason to us doing such stuff, usually it just feels satisfying, or rewarding, or challenging; in all cases we strive for a shower of hormones (adrenaline, dopamine etc. ) or a sense tickle (art,..). We can get those by doing fun stuff; we can also get those by doing drugs for example. Ignoring the animals eating fermented fruits and becoming easy prey, let's say this is unique to humans. My big question is: so what? Prompting certain natural signal pathways for uses other than their original one may have played a role in why we have such developed societies, making up for some of our more mediocre biological aspects; but many animals have been enormously successful for millions of years, without all that intellect and culture. We may be proud of our cognitive abilities, and that's ok, but I wouldn't say that that makes us better than everyone else.
I instead mentioned that they were the ''key'' areas, which is indisputable.
I just disputed it on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
Relating to the article:
[...] the ability to combine and recombine different types of information and knowledge in order to gain new understanding [...]
I can't check the veracity this, unfortunately, as the original research article was not cited. Therefore I cannot accept this as scientifically accurate.
[...] to apply the same "rule" or solution to one problem to a different and new situation [...]
This is related to our expectations of causality, which I find to be commonly overlooked. Humans raised in an enriched environment full of reliable tools and predictable events can pull a switch or turn a handle and expect it to do something useful. Through experience, we can make these associations and take them for granted.
I like to consider the analogy of being a stowaway on an alien spacecraft. Thre are doors, but it is not clear how to open them. There are gizmos all around, but their purpose is unknown.
Sure, you could go up to a console and try pressing anything that looks like a button, but maybe it doesn't have buttons. Maybe it's thought-controlled, or motion sensitive, or photosensitive. Maybe it's autonomous and controlled by the craft itself. Maybe the controls are internalized or indistinguishable from other parts.
If it does have buttons, who's to say they won't open an air lock, or sound an alarm, or unleash a ravenous space monster, or inject you with toxins, or explode? If not on the first attempt, maybe the second. Maybe it all rests on how you press a button; the amount of pressure, the heat change, the electrical conductivity, the pigment of your skin, the alien words that sound closest to whatever you're thinking at the time, anything that an alien species might be able to operate easily because it's aware of the actual mechanism involved while you are not.
That's an example where you're trying to solve one problem. If all of the devices are vastly different in design and purpose, why should we expect a button on one to have the same effect as a like button on another? If the aliens are nice enough to feed you and take you out for walkies, you might be able to figure out a few of these, but it would take a considerable amount of time.
[...] to create and easily understand symbolic representations of computation and sensory input [...]
I have no objection to this.
[...] to detach modes of thought from raw sensory and perceptual input.
Again, because there is no indication of how they arrived at this conclusion, I cannot accept it.
Again I will have to ask what makes jumping out of the water so relevant for survival in the case of dolphins.
I suspect it's related to the greater resistance of water to a fast-moving object.
You must be logged in to post a reply!