Animal Rights.

[Enlightener]

revolution said:

Interesting, but do we use reason as a factor for giving rights?

To quote Peter Singer:
We don't base right on intelligence due to children and the mentally disabled, not on the ability to moralise as the insane and criminals still have rights, no it is but on the ability to suffer.

Animals to can also suffer so they should be given the same basic rights as humanity. A goat may not be as smart as me but it should still be protected from rights abuses.

Ah but this begs the question, do animals suffer on the same level as man? Man, as we should all know, suffers on many levels whereas I would argue that non-domesticated animals only suffer on a purely physical level. This is because they lack the capacity to suffer on mental or emotional levels, purely because emotions are the by-products of society and intelligence.

A wild animal feels very few things beyond the physical realm - it might be able to feel differences in the climate, the sexual urge for reproduction and pain caused by a physical wound but these are not emotions, simply biological reactions to external stimuli. Animals do of course fear but once again fear is a reaction to a context rather than a emotion in its own right - fear is simply a survival instinct.

Man feels a complex range of emotions that are not felt by animals, simply because animals have no need them. Greed is a classic example. Humans feel greed constantly as a result of their heightened intelligence and social context - no matter how much the modern man has, he will always want more, even if he has no need of it. The animal, on the other hand, does not suffer from this - they take only what they need and show no cravings for more.

What I am trying to demonstrate is that man feels on more than one level, unlike animals who only suffer pain from physical causes. If you wound a man, you not only inflict pain but you inflict other things that an animal would not feel with the same wound: anxiety for the future for example. Man, in his intelligence, knows of the concept of future and has realised its importance but animals know little of it - why should they, when the only thing that concerns them is answering their immediate impulses? Thus, when wounded, a man would be worried for his future and so suffering through anxiety is created,among other such emotional sufferings. The animal only feels the physical pain of the wound and the physical impairment that the wound causes.

And so I would conclude that an animal does not suffer on the same level as a human being because its low level of perception (the first form of intelligence) prevents them from doing so.

In reference to your Singer quote, it could indeed be argued that the mentally incapable do not suffer on the same level as those who are healthy, because their ability to perceive the world is damaged and thus the way in which they create and form emotions is damaged. However much is dependent on the extent and the type of the mental illness, for even minimal perception can create intelligence enough for the formulation of emotions. However, this is opening a can of worms, where the answer is no way near as clear cut as when dealing with animal suffering.

Certainly the animal would feel physical pain from cruelties inflicted upon them but not the long term and large scale emotional turmoil that the same cruelties would produce in a human. Thus I cannot say that I value the life of a animal at the same level of that of a human and so I am able to justify causing suffering to animals rather than causing suffering to humans.

The problem of your argument is that you argue from a human perspective, because you are human (I hope ). It is the nature of humanity to place their own characteristics onto those creatures who cannot even begin to perceive the aforementioned characteristics. Humans have difficulty imaging life without notions such as happiness, greed and love but why would a wild animal need such notions? Animals are only equipped with that which they need to survive: anything else would be burdensome to their survival and so nature has taken steps to prevent the presence of human notions in creatures that have no need of them.

[Kakk]

People shouldn't kill things unless they really have to. Animals in the wild only kill for food so anyone who kills an animal or anything for that matter for fun is a twisted bastard.

[Revolutionary Masses]

Well said, Enlightener. I agree the whole topic is quite tricky to determine without actually experiancing what an animal percieves ourselves, for that we both and science in general suffers a great obstacle.
However we can look as observed traits.
I would argue that an animal can suffer on the same level as a human, and that they are emotionally and mentally equipped to do so, also suffering on many levels.
I would like to speak out against the term domestication as most animals can be trained by humanity there is no real distinction.
I would also argue that we are far more "animalistic" than you make out, society has given us much but most of what we feel in terms of thought process is driven by biology and genetics.
On the matter of greed, humans want more, why?, well its because more = security, we desire more as it will protect us when times are harder, a simple hunter-gatherer instinct under a fancy name.
Can animals feel this, yes, even so "primitive" an species as bee colonies always collect more than they need, greed?, maby, survival instinct, definately.
I would also argue that you can inflict psycological damage on an animal as you could a human.
For example if I was to electrify (dont try this at home on your housemates people :.) an object in your enviroment you would get a nasty suprise and would be wary of contact with such items in the future. The same it true for practically every other species, they stop touching or doing somthing that causes pain as they are mindful of the consequences of doing so, they precieve the future, another simple survival mechanism, otherwise they would continue to do the said item reguardless of the pain recieved from doing it previously.
A note on anxiety (sp :.), why does the abused animal always cower when in contact with another moving object even if it looks different to the one that hurt it? It is Anxious of what the unknown or known object might do to it, humans are exactly the same when faced with such a situation, when an abused wife sees a man she feels anxious even if such a person has never harmed anyone, it all survival instinct hardwired during development.
Thus I conclude from the above and many other examples that they do suffer and that laboratory testing is not acceptable and that equal rights should be granted.
On the disabled, even though some are obviously so damaged as emotion is beyond them (even thought in general would seem a bit tricky) they still have rights. A normal animal has preception way way above this and yet has unequal rights.
The main counter argument to that is we give them rights as they are our own species, which in my mind is unacceptable to a socialist as it is a racist opinion when thought through as we are giving rights depending on outward physical characteristics.

On a final point both humanity and animals all have traits given due to survival and some extra stuff that serves no obvious purpose in survival, but in general we are all driven by instinct, all of our "complex" emotions are driven by instinct they are only raised above the terms associated with instinct into ones called love for example as we are just trying to make ourselves more than the sum of our biological parts, to deem ourselves as unique, and etheral in nature. A whole load of religious nonsence in my opinion, we are no more and less than animals :.).

[Kakk]

Well said comrad.

[Enlightener]

revolution said:

I would like to speak out against the term domestication as most animals can be trained by humanity there is no real distinction.

There is a distinction in some terms. Let us consider the dog, a species which has been domesticated by man for millenia. In doing so, it has developed instincts and concepts beyond those found in the wild dog or the wolf. The dog has the concept of love and the concept of sadness because men have bred dogs for their excessive loyalty and so what were mere instincts in wild dogs have become much closer to what we would call emotions. The dog is so far developed in this way that it has even gained nascent concepts of property beyond those experienced by wild animals (who have some idea, dependent on what level of social development their species is at). Thus I would argue that domestication is not a term which denotes man can training an individual creature but a term which defines man's development and co-habitation with an entire species and altering that species as a result of his co-habitation.

revolution said:

I would also argue that we are far more "animistic" than you make out, society has given us much but most of what we feel in terms of thought process is driven by biology and genetics.
On the matter of greed, humans want more, why?, well its because more = security, we desire more as it will protect us when times are harder, a simple hunter-gatherer instinct under a fancy name.
Can animals feel this, yes, even so "primitive" an species as bee colonies always collect more than they need, greed?, maby, survival instinct, definately.

Is greed inherent in humanity? I think you may have problems equating that particular belief with socialist theory.

But greed in humans is more than instinct because (going back to my first post) humans have a choice between instinct, a choice which reason gives them. Going to my original post, it is this choice that elevates man from the animal. The way in which greed (when chosen) manifests itself is different, I think, than the animal expression of gathering. Animals may gather more than they need but do they go to the extreme lengths of man, to the length where they deprive others of their own species of an adequate living? No, there is more to human emotion than mere animal instinct.

revolution said:

I would also argue that you can inflict psychological damage on an animal as you could a human.
For example if I was to electrify (dont try this at home on your housemates people :.) an object in your enviroment you would get a nasty suprise and would be wary of contact with such items in the future. The same it true for practically every other species, they stop touching or doing somthing that causes pain as they are mindful of the consequences of doing so, they precieve the future, another simple survival mechanism, otherwise they would continue to do the said item reguardless of the pain recieved from doing it previously.

I don't think that would be psychological damage. The animal might have some recollection of the pain it felt but not on the scale of a person, who would feel the memory of the pain with the emotions of anger, anguish and others.

revolution said:

A note on anxiety (sp :.), why does the abused animal always cower when in contact with another moving object even if it looks different to the one that hurt it? It is Anxious of what the unknown or known object might do to it, humans are exactly the same when faced with such a situation, when an abused wife sees a man she feels anxious even if such a person has never harmed anyone, it all survival instinct hardwired during development.

Fear and anxiety, though connected, are not the same thing. Fear, I would classify, as being a reaction to an immediate set of circumstances, whether those circumstances should be imaginary or very real indeed. Anxiety, I would term, as fear of future problems, a fear without any direct stimuli. I doubt that animals have the gift of foresight, meaning they can only consider their immediate future and present, whereas humans can generally see and plan for beyond the scope of immediate circumstances. Thus animals cannot feel anxiety - it is a human emotion, separate from the instinct of fear by dint of millenia of social evolution.

revolution said:

The main counter argument to that is we give them rights as they are our own species, which in my mind is unacceptable to a socialist as it is a racist opinion when thought through as we are giving rights depending on outward physical characteristics.

Ultimately it is racism. The question is, do we care? I do not, unafflicted as I am by morals or political ideology. The majority of people ultimately share my apathy, because man as a species believes that ends justify means.

revolution said:

On a final point both humanity and animals all have traits given due to survival and some extra stuff that serves no obvious purpose in survival, but in general we are all driven by instinct, all of our "complex" emotions are driven by instinct they are only raised above the terms associated with instinct into ones called love for example as we are just trying to make ourselves more than the sum of our biological parts, to deem ourselves as unique, and ethereal in nature. A whole load of religious nonsence in my opinion, we are no more and less than animals :.).

As I pointed out, humanity is different because humanity suffers from the issue of choice. Choice, when you ultimately come down to it, is the primary building block of intelligence. The fact that man can choose between instincts means that he is not bound to instinct - indeed our world is full of occasions where men will turn aside from what is in their instinct and nature, precisely because this notion of choice leads to the notion of reason which leads to the notion of intelligence. Rousseau said that this point, the point where humanity makes a choice between what is in his instinct and what is in his reason, is the point where we observe the behaviour of the spirit. For that reason, I subject that man is more than a simply an over elaborate biological machine.

[Revolutionary Masses]

There is a distinction in some terms. Let us consider the dog, a species which has been domesticated by man for millenia. In doing so, it has developed instincts and concepts beyond those found in the wild dog or the wolf. The dog has the concept of love and the concept of sadness because men have bred dogs for their excessive loyalty and so what were mere instincts in wild dogs have become much closer to what we would call emotions. The dog is so far developed in this way that it has even gained nascent concepts of property beyond those experienced by wild animals (who have some idea, dependent on what level of social development their species is at). Thus I would argue that domestication is not a term which denotes man can training an individual creature but a term which defines man's development and co-habitation with an entire species and altering that species as a result of his co-habitation.

I would disagree with the above, as to have changed the species more than individual training then the species would have to show this change as an inheritable characteristic that predominates without human contact.
This is not the case as feral animals from previously domisticated lines show, indeed this can even apply in the case of humanity as there have been instances of where an animal species has raised a human child (jungle book I kid thee not :.0), the child shows no human characteristics as such just basic instinctive behaviour with additional characteristics learnt from the animal. If caught young hoever the child can be re-trained back into being a human.
This shows that all our behaviour is nothing more than trained instinct by collective society nd that we are indeed very close to animals in nature.

Is greed inherent in humanity? I think you may have problems equating that particular belief with socialist theory.

Greed is of cause inherent, the only problem is that we need to manage it better, to focus individual greed into collective greed, where daily purpose is not for the benifit of the individual but for the benifit of society.

But greed in humans is more than instinct because (going back to my first post) humans have a choice between instinct, a choice which reason gives them. Going to my original post, it is this choice that elevates man from the animal. The way in which greed (when chosen) manifests itself is different, I think, than the animal expression of gathering. Animals may gather more than they need but do they go to the extreme lengths of man, to the length where they deprive others of their own species of an adequate living? No, there is more to human emotion than mere animal instinct.

Cases can be found quite readily of one group or individual depriving another for a shared resource. I am a beekeeper so I will use them as an example. Both require nectar and honey and will collect massive ammounts of it for as long as it is avaliable. However if given the oportunity they will "rob" stores from other colonies which is of cause at the expense of the defending colony, this most certainly deprives another group of the same species of an adequate living, indeed full scale war can break out between the two colonies and the predicament can be terminal. There are other such examples.

I don't think that would be psychological damage. The animal might have some recollection of the pain it felt but not on the scale of a person, who would feel the memory of the pain with the emotions of anger, anguish and others.

Unfortunately we are heading into one of those grey areas on this one so I will just say that although we do not know the exact extent of damage it does occur as the animals normal pattern of behaviour is altered.

Fear and anxiety, though connected, are not the same thing. Fear, I would classify, as being a reaction to an immediate set of circumstances, whether those circumstances should be imaginary or very real indeed. Anxiety, I would term, as fear of future problems, a fear without any direct stimuli. I doubt that animals have the gift of foresight, meaning they can only consider their immediate future and present, whereas humans can generally see and plan for beyond the scope of immediate circumstances. Thus animals cannot feel anxiety - it is a human emotion, separate from the instinct of fear by dint of millenia of social evolution.

This is harder to provide an example against, but I find it only logical that a organism with the capability to remmember and alter its responce according to memory will be mindful of the future.
I suppose i could use the example of hunting where a predator has to follow a complex pattern of behavoir to predict and then catch its prey. Such matters need a definate sence of planning and foresight to be successful.

Ultimately it is racism. The question is, do we care? I do not, unafflicted as I am by morals or political ideology. The majority of people ultimately share my apathy, because man as a species believes that ends justify means.

Apathy justifies a lot of unfortunate events, and the above for me opitimises why society is in such a mess it is today.

As I pointed out, humanity is different because humanity suffers from the issue of choice. Choice, when you ultimately come down to it, is the primary building block of intelligence. The fact that man can choose between instincts means that he is not bound to instinct - indeed our world is full of occasions where men will turn aside from what is in their instinct and nature, precisely because this notion of choice leads to the notion of reason which leads to the notion of intelligence. Rousseau said that this point, the point where humanity makes a choice between what is in his instinct and what is in his reason, is the point where we observe the behaviour of the spirit. For that reason, I subject that man is more than a simply an over elaborate biological machine.

Choice, is it really choice or once against instinct hidden behind the perception of a soul. Has the person just made a "choice" or has his brain just determined that one pattern of behavoir is more applicable now that more information has been processed, thus the biological computer just switches to another behavoir pattern?
Incidences of accidents where mental damage has changed the personality of an individual puts doubt on the existance of a soul or spirit, the person has been mearly re-wired.

[Enlightener]

revolution said:

I would disagree with the above, as to have changed the species more than individual training then the species would have to show this change as an inheritable characteristic that predominates without human contact.
This is not the case as feral animals from previously domisticated lines show, indeed this can even apply in the case of humanity as there have been instances of where an animal species has raised a human child (jungle book I kid thee not :.0), the child shows no human characteristics as such just basic instinctive behaviour with additional characteristics learnt from the animal. If caught young hoever the child can be re-trained back into being a human.
This shows that all our behaviour is nothing more than trained instinct by collective society nd that we are indeed very close to animals in nature.

Greed is of cause inherent, the only problem is that we need to manage it better, to focus individual greed into collective greed, where daily purpose is not for the benifit of the individual but for the benifit of society.

Cases can be found quite readily of one group or individual depriving another for a shared resource. I am a beekeeper so I will use them as an example. Both require nectar and honey and will collect massive ammounts of it for as long as it is avaliable. However if given the oportunity they will "rob" stores from other colonies which is of cause at the expense of the defending colony, this most certainly deprives another group of the same species of an adequate living, indeed full scale war can break out between the two colonies and the predicament can be terminal. There are other such examples.

Unfortunately we are heading into one of those grey areas on this one so I will just say that although we do not know the exact extent of damage it does occur as the animals normal pattern of behaviour is altered.

This is harder to provide an example against, but I find it only logical that a organism with the capability to remmember and alter its responce according to memory will be mindful of the future.
I suppose i could use the example of hunting where a predator has to follow a complex pattern of behavoir to predict and then catch its prey. Such matters need a definate sence of planning and foresight to be successful.

Apathy justifies a lot of unfortunate events, and the above for me opitimises why society is in such a mess it is today.

Choice, is it really choice or once against instinct hidden behind the perception of a soul. Has the person just made a "choice" or has his brain just determined that one pattern of behavoir is more applicable now that more information has been processed, thus the biological computer just switches to another behavoir pattern?
Incidences of accidents where mental damage has changed the personality of an individual puts doubt on the existance of a soul or spirit, the person has been mearly re-wired.

A most excellent and well argued reply, I must say and it would appear to have brought this debate to its reasonable climax. The matter at hand here are two different views on humans: one which views humans as intrisically special and one which views humans as something intrisically not special.

To be brutally honest, neither view provides an appealing picture of humanity. The view which I argued means that we cannot excuse human weakness to nature and so all evil in this world has been purely produced not out of instinct but out of deliberate malice and woeful ignorance.

The view which you argued means that humans are nothing more than a piece of inadequate and overburdened machinery which has no choice in the way in which it is run and must obey every primal instinct that nature sends.

Rather like been stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea, eh?

Of course, which view you choose to endorse ultimately answers the question of your views on animal rights. If humanity is special, then it must have more worth than an animal. If it is not, then humanity is worth nor more than an animal.

From a purely realist (read cynical) point of view, you will find that humanity will destroy anything and everything to survive and thrive. No one can justify this action in moral terms, in terms of right and wrong, because right and wrong never actually govern the actions that humans take. We simply do what is advantageous to us. It is impossible to stop that and to try would be pointless.

[Revolutionary Masses]

Thankyou, nice conclusion might I add ;D.

Although I would state that more often than not society makes decisions which are inherrantly wrong for us as humans (LOL an everything else for that matter), the solution for this is to change society to socialism and move away from capitalism. :.)