|
I'm a bit more sensitive to the whole slaughtering elephants and rhinoceros actually.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Once you declare an animal to be a person you can legally gently caress it. That's really the only motivation here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:But the people arguing for personhood aren't arguing they should get unrestricted legal rights. Like someone said earlier, there's a confusion in this thread between the legal and philosophical definitions of personhood. Right! Like, just because something gets the protections conferred by personhood does not necessarily mean that they automatically get the rights and duties entitled by personhood. See again -- babies and the mentally incapable. We don't allow experimentation on babies or the euthanization of the incapable, because they are considered people in the eyes of the law, and it would be illegal as such; however their being protected as people under the law does not mean that babies and the incapable are allowed to vote, sign contracts, represent themselves in court and so on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I don't think anyone has a legal duty to intervene even in the case of humans...unless they are professionals like cops Whoa there. Cops have no duty to protect you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Isn't an ape's ability to use sign language extremely limited? Yeah, it is. It's not really communication on the level of intelligence. An anthropologist explained to me once that it was closer to how a dog communicates then a human.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Because its not a human. Why would you need any more reason than that? Why is that human, with the intelligence level of a chimpanzee, worthy of more dignity than the chimp? They both have the same level of awareness and capacity to contribute to society so why not treat them the same? If we treat the severely mentally retarded as persons than there is no logical reason to extend the same protections against abuse and the same rights to a comfortable life to our closet cousins.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:Yeah, it is. It's not really communication on the level of intelligence. An anthropologist explained to me once that it was closer to how a dog communicates then a human. What does "on the level of intelligence" mean? What were the anthropologist's arguments? Would the gurgles and gestures of a baby be not "communication" on the level of intelligence. Note that some academicians have this weird attitude towards nonhuman language and behaviors like tool use, where they keep redefining them when every time a nonhuman animals displays something like language or tool use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Given that it would be humanity granting the concept of 'personhood' as it relates to humanity to these creatures, I think it would probably require a level of language comprehension that could pass some kind of basic tests to even begin that. But really, who cares?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Because its not a human. Why would you need any more reason than that? You're so speciesist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:Given that it would be humanity granting the concept of 'personhood' as it relates to humanity to these creatures, I think it would probably require a level of language comprehension that could pass some kind of basic tests to even begin that. Because an animal with a sense of self may be suffering needlessly by human actions if it doesn't have the rights of personhood and a situation like that is immoral under any humane metric.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:Because an animal with a sense of self may be suffering needlessly by human actions if it doesn't have the rights of personhood and a situation like that is immoral under any humane metric. Animals suffer needlessly in nature every single day by the millions. What should we do about that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:16
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I would say just because animals suffer in nature doesn't give us an excuse to cause even more suffering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Animals suffer needlessly in nature every single day by the millions. What should we do about that? Nothing because it's outside of our power, but if it's within our power to stop suffering in any form I would say that as rational beings we have a moral imperative to stop it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:but if it's within our power to stop suffering in any form I would say that as rational beings we have a moral imperative to stop it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
blowfish posted:...so should we set up an organisation to stop chimp-on-chimp violence or orcas eating blue whales alive? I'm pretty sure we could if we gave enough of a poo poo. No, but we should certainly afford protection to animals that we feel the need to put in captivity, certainly the more intelligent of them at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:No, but we should certainly afford protection to animals that we feel the need to put in captivity, certainly the more intelligent of them at least. Why not? It's ~within our power~.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Why not? It's ~within our power~. Because it's not exactly a problem we created and are therefore responsible for, whereas when we take an animal out of it's habitat or breed it in captivity we should have a moral duty to make it's life comfortable since the humans responsible for the situation would be responsible for any suffering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:Because it's not exactly a problem we created and are therefore responsible for, whereas when we take an animal out of it's habitat or breed it in captivity we should have a moral duty to make it's life comfortable since the humans responsible for the situation would be responsible for any suffering. Ok so according to that logic I should just keep driving when I see the car in front of me do a hit and run instead of stop and help since I am not responsible for the situation (as long as I don't run the person over again myself  ).I mean yes, it's taking your argument to the extreme, but assigning moral value to the suffering of animals tends to opens a can of worms either way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Ok so according to that logic I should just keep driving when I see the car in front of me do a hit and run instead of stop and help since I am not responsible for the situation (as long as I don't run the person over again myself I take your point, and it actually does poke a rather good hole into my argument. It just seems that we should at the very least not be intentionally cruel to other life forms in our care that can feel pain. I would argue if we assign value to the life of a severely mentally disabled human we should assign the same value to the life of an animal of similar mental capacity. Of course that opens up a further problem of if animal suffering is actually wrong or if it's just part of nature and our causing suffering is no different from any predatory animal. Which I will admit is an argument with some strength behind it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Animals suffer needlessly in nature every single day by the millions. What should we do about that? Make sure their precious fat doesn't go to waste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
ClearAirTurbulence posted:You're so speciesist. Humans are a type of ape. Derp.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:Nothing because it's outside of our power, but if it's within our power to stop suffering in any form I would say that as rational beings we have a moral imperative to stop it. Hold up here. This is a major philosophical claim you're making here, and one that's not at all agreed upon. If it's within our power to stop suffering, do we really have a moral imperative to do so? There's tons of actual human suffering already in the world which I feel no moral compulsion to stop. Why should I suddenly worry about animal suffering when I'm not even worried about most human suffering? That is to say, I certainly agree that stopping suffering is morally good. It's definitely a good deed to stop both human and animal suffering. But am I morally obligated to do so?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
I think that the ideals beneficence and non-maleficence should be the focus of animal welfare. Not the bestowing of rights. Rights, in an ethical sense, are a claim or potential claim by a moral agent to other moral agents acting within a moral community. Apes or any animal for that matter, dont engage with humans on any sort of moral code. Rights are an intrinsically human construct. We should value the interests of animals but not at the cost of the rights of a person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Also there is no moral imperative to end suffering, as moral beings we are obliged to not cause suffering as we can understand the intrinsic value of living beings. You are not immoral if you don't spend every waking moment ending suffering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
ClearAirTurbulence posted:You're so speciesist. More like genusist I feel like we have an obligation to treat animals, especially our closest relatives, humanely. We can do that without giving them personhood rights though. Making laws that apes shouldn't be kept in literal cages or banning exotic pets (and actually enforcing this) would be some good first steps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
McDowell posted:If the animal could talk and express a wish to be allowed out that could be different. But there was Koko's ability to learn sign language, and touch screen devices are quite intuitive... Koko's ability to allegedly learn sign language. The problem with a lot of claims about animal language is that it's the animal researcher interpreting the animals' actions and understanding, and usually doing so with about as much rigor and accuracy as ESP "researchers". Koko's handler and teacher, Patterson, allows very few people access to Koko and graciously takes command of interpreting her signs and what they mean for humans and media, but basically everything I've seen about Koko's supposed sign language reminds me quite a bit of other debunked ape signers, like Kanzi and Washoe. Patterson herself seems to be a fine bullshit artist, and I wouldn't put a lot of faith in her claims. For example, someone once asked Koko in an "interview" if she liked to chat with other people and Koko responded "fine nipple", which Patterson explained as "Nipple rhymes with people, she doesn't sign people per se, she was trying to do a 'sounds like...'", which is grade-A prime bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 21:22
|
|
blowfish posted:Animals suffer needlessly in nature every single day by the millions. What should we do about that? I'm not sure how serious you are, but the philosophical case has been made that even though we can't do it now, eventually humans will have the genetic/biological knowledge to basically convert the entire ecosystem to into an herbivorous mode of existence. And that it would be morally wrong not to do so.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Why not? It's ~within our power~. It's certainly not in our power to take that sort of stewardship over wild animals, but if in the future if it is, we should. If we could deploy nanobots or whatever to release selective analgesics to ease animal suffering without hindering necessary survival instincts based on pain, why not?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:I'm not sure how serious you are, but the philosophical case has been made that even though we can't do it now, eventually humans will have the genetic/biological knowledge to basically convert the entire ecosystem to into an herbivorous mode of existence. And that it would be morally wrong not to do so. eSports Chaebol posted:It's certainly not in our power to take that sort of stewardship over wild animals, but if in the future if it is, we should. If we could deploy nanobots or whatever to release selective analgesics to ease animal suffering without hindering necessary survival instincts based on pain, why not? I think we're starting to fly off in a crazy sci-fi direction, the first one is really some absurd nonsense. How would you go about converting the whole planet to a 'Herbivorous mode of existence'? What would you do with all the predators? Why are we imposing morality upon nature in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I think we're starting to fly off in a crazy sci-fi direction, the first one is really some absurd nonsense. How would you go about converting the whole planet to a 'Herbivorous mode of existence'? What would you do with all the predators? Why are we imposing morality upon nature in the first place? The whole point is that our moral obligation to protect wild animals from non-anthropogenic suffering is itself a sci-fi/futuristic discussion, but that doesn't obviate our obligation to minimize human-caused suffering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:I'm not sure how serious you are, but the philosophical case has been made that even though we can't do it now, eventually humans will have the genetic/biological knowledge to basically convert the entire ecosystem to into an herbivorous mode of existence. And that it would be morally wrong not to do so. I hope that plants gain sentience in the future because then that would make it morally okay to eat meat again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:I'm not sure how serious you are, but the philosophical case has been made that even though we can't do it now, eventually humans will have the genetic/biological knowledge to basically convert the entire ecosystem to into an herbivorous mode of existence. And that it would be morally wrong not to do so. eSports Chaebol posted:It's certainly not in our power to take that sort of stewardship over wild animals, but if in the future if it is, we should. If we could deploy nanobots or whatever to release selective analgesics to ease animal suffering without hindering necessary survival instincts based on pain, why not?  ...and that's where the animal rights discussion leaves the realm of reason and enters the domain of intellectual circle-jerking. I sincerely hope that none of the nonsense you propose is done even if it eventually becomes possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
blowfish posted:
eSports Chaebol posted:The whole point is that our moral obligation to protect wild animals from non-anthropogenic suffering is itself a sci-fi/futuristic discussion, but that doesn't obviate our obligation to minimize human-caused suffering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:I hope that plants gain sentience in the future because then that would make it morally okay to eat meat again. Plants feel pain though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Plants feel pain though? "feel" In the same way that Conway's Game of Life is artificial life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Plants feel pain though? Not really on the same level as animals though which is why "Plants are alive too!" similarly gets shot down pretty quick by vegetarians/vegans. That's why if plants gain sentience then their arguments go to poo poo and eating meat becomes okay again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Vat grown meat seems a more plausible thing to hope for?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Vat grown meat seems a more plausible thing to hope for? I feel like I probably should be a vegetarian but am too lazy, but if/when vat grown meat is a viable thing I'd certainly eat it and encourage others to do so as well to the exclusion of eating animals, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
If you can eat meat without killing something why wouldn't you? Like drat, meat is really good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I feel like I probably should be a vegetarian but am too lazy, but if/when vat grown meat is a viable thing I'd certainly eat it and encourage others to do so as well to the exclusion of eating animals, yeah. If your not ok with killing an animal but still eat meat that's actually super hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:43
|
|