I'd think that it's because of our superior reasoning that we think this way.
Oh, really?
I think human life should be valued over an animals. We're the dominant species.
^I refuse to call this "superior reasoning". The only word for statements like this would be arrogance.
Also, I'd like to take religion as an example, please don't start flaming based on my opinion about religion, there are other threads for that.
Anyways, if a creature wonders where life and the world he's on came from, and then comes to the conclusion that an almighty being must have created this, then that is a form of reasoning. I don't think this is correct, but jumping to a conclusion that far-fetched must still have some sort of reasoning behind it. But say now that this creature then comes to the conclusion that this almighty being created the creature in his imagine, and for the purpose of ruling over all other creatures on the world. There is nothing that suggests that this almighty being would favor said creature, so why would it come to that conclusion? Because humans are arrogant. Heck, a while back, some humans didn't even consider other humans equal, because of the colour of their skin. In Germany during World War 2, the Nazi party considered the aryan the superior race, and all other were inferior. This only suggest that it's human nature to consider yourself superior, even superior to others of the same species.
Sorry - I thought more people were nonreligious...I guess not. Christianity, for example, asserts that we should take dominion over animals...so... you know.
Anyways, if a creature wonders where life and the world he's on came from, and then comes to the conclusion that an almighty being must have created this, then that is a form of reasoning. I don't think this is correct, but jumping to a conclusion that far-fetched must still have some sort of reasoning behind it.
Well, you're saying that because of momentum, we will soon realize that animals are our equals, and so it is not good to "discriminate" against them.
But there are two sides to this. Say a rabid dog bites a guy, and say the guy ... dies (just an example). Should this dog be charged for murder or even manslaughter? To say that dogs should have equal "rights" also entails they should have the same responsibilities.
Animals do not make conscious decisions. Therefore, any action the animal did was probably intentional, as a dog with rabies would not be charged with murder, it would be put down for the public good. And why do you think that Christians say we should take dominion over the animals? I'm Christian and I don't go around killing animals whenever it suits me. I don't see any reason in killing just to kill. If you have a reason that's legit (I.e. being attacked, keeping from overpopulation, preventing further pain, necessary for your survival)then you can kill the animal. If you don't have a reason, then you might not want to kill it. Unless it's a spider. I don't like spiders.
But the fundamental question is, "What gives anything rights whatsoever?"
Well, I think the fact that you are alive gives you the right to stay alive. But it also gives you the right to do what you need to do to stay alive, such as eat and defend yourself. But I also believe that everything that is alive have this right. A dog that attacks someone in self-defense had the right to do so, and a predator that ate a person had the right to do so as well.
However, I do not believe that being more intelligent than another creature gives you the right to treat it any worse than it may treat you, or kill for sport.
Well, I think the fact that you are alive gives you the right to stay alive.
Ooh...now what is life? What prerequisites does life require? What are the properties of life - how do you define them?
Are bacteria that infect us "alive" or "not alive"? Are amoebas that cause disease "alive" or "not alive"? Are plants alive? What about fungi? What about sponges (they're animals)? What about jellyfish (they have eyes, you know)? What about sea urchins? What about very small fish? What about larger fish? What about reptiles? What about frogs? What about birds? What about mammals? What about humans?
Where do you draw the line? How do you define the line, and how do you know what the line is?
I'd define a living being as something that, aside from being organic and able to grow and reproduce, is conscious. That means animals, fish, and bugs would be alive. Though plants and fungi might be defined as living things, they aren't really conscious. I don't really know if bacteria or amoebas are conscious, but I'd assume they are. However, if bacterias are infecting us, then fighting them with medication would be a form of self-defense.
I suppose that, according to what I said earlier, animals, humans, bugs, bacteria and, well, all that you mentioned but fungi and flowers, would have the same right to live. I personally have a hard time sympathizing with bacteria and amoebas, but I guess they'd have the same right to live as the others.
Now, I'd obviously not feel the same sympathy with a fish as I would with a dog, or another human being, but I'd have to say that they have the same right to live. I'm not trying to say I'd treat a spider the same way I'd treat another human or anything. I just don't think it's a human's place to decide what's worthy of living or not, and thus everything should be equal.
I hope this makes sense, it's past 4 AM and I've been up for 21 hours, so I'm not gonna bother to proof-read it. Good night.
Watching the bacterium paddling along with its flagellum in the agar plate, I suddenly had a strong emotional attachment to its existence.
OK - a little farfetched, but what about Frogs? What about jellyfish? Where do you draw the line? Can a line be drawn?
That means animals, fish, and bugs would be alive.
OK - then say I had a trolley hurtling towards a person tied to a track...should I change the course of the trolley so it goes toward an anthill, even though there would be a greater loss of lives as a result? I'd definitely hope not!
The reason that humans feel so attached to the cute and defenseless is because we grew up defenseless. Who wins in a hand-to-hand fight, a bear or a scrawny ape with a large head? How about a tiger? or an elephant? I think you get my point.
One human decided to put a sharp pointy rock into the skull of a tiger and WHAMMO! we became the number one species. That rock went onto the end of a long stick, and they made those sticks and rocks smaller and able to be fired at with a mechanism called a "bow". and then we learned we didnt have to kill every animal and we could domesticate them. We crawled our way up from NOTHING into EVERYTHING.
Until some other species does that I think I'll stick with my cheeseburgers and T-bone steaks and animal-tested products, thank you very much.
This only shows that many people must be wrong - not that ALL are wrong. And my example - a utilitarian example bypasses these problems of subjectivity.
Now I don't see where you're getting at at all. Did you not read what I wrote? There is no wrong! There is no right! There is no absolute instance pointing a dirty finger towards you saying "it was wrong to kill that kitty"! That's the whole point I was getting at. What are you trying to point out??
so guns dont kill bears? or tigers?
They do, they do. But they were not invetned to do so. But that's all really only detail and not relevant, sorry for that post.
Animals do not make conscious decisions.
What do you know of that? Why couldn't they make conscious decisions? Think for example of apes?
Are bacteria that infect us "alive" or "not alive"? Are amoebas that cause disease "alive" or "not alive"? Are plants alive? What about fungi? What about sponges (they're animals)? What about jellyfish (they have eyes, you know)? What about sea urchins? What about very small fish? What about larger fish? What about reptiles? What about frogs? What about birds? What about mammals? What about humans?
All of this is life. And there is no higher form of life and no lower form of life. Only higher complexity and lower complexity.
Animals you can become emotionally attached to.
Hey! I'm very attached to my birdspiders, thank you...
Anyway, I am rather on mogwai's side.. I say we shouldn't value life of any animal higher or lower than ours only because we think it looks ugly or what do I know... the only reason valid enough in our society to value different lives differently is a utilitarian reason (in another society maybe survival would also play a bigger role). But on the emotional level, there is no absolute and therefore no difference should be made while trying to value lives other than personal preferences.
OK - then say I had a trolley hurtling towards a person tied to a track...should I change the course of the trolley so it goes toward an anthill, even though there would be a greater loss of lives as a result? I'd definitely hope not!
If you had read this entire conversation you'd already have seen my answer to this. I'll just reply with some quotes of my earlier entries.
Now, I'd obviously not feel the same sympathy with a fish as I would with a dog, or another human being, but I'd have to say that they have the same right to live.
I just don't think it's right to say humans have more right to live than other animals. I agree with that us humans should value the lives of our fellow humans over the lives of animals, but I really don't think it makes sense to say that humans deserve to live any more than animals.
