Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:03 pm
Being that these animals are lesser, does this entitle them to a different treatment by humans, e.g. killing them so that humans can survive? What right do they have to survive in competition with humans? Is it just you saying they have the right to survive? What is the authority that says they have a right to live?
PhilX
Non whatsoever! But then where is the authority that says WE have the right to live? Nature is not very helpful in this respect having made no difference between the human animal compared to any other animal that ever lived.
If WE claim that right for ourselves as the master species then it's only fair we pass that right to other lesser citizens of the planet.
You mentioned lab-grown meats. I heard a blip about this once. Looking forward to this science to be rolled-out for us consumers. * It will be a game changer.
Thanks for posting.
...um, guess I especially liked the last post on the first page...
*But I like & appreciate ALL the posts on this thread.
AND I really like the post immediately above this one. Very good.
Lower animals have the same 'rights' as we higher animals: that is, what they can assert and defend.
If Ethel the pig doesn't want me eatin' her, she needs to self-defend, in the same way as when a necrotizing bacteria gets to eatin' me, I self-defend.
What you have stated cannot be denied. There does seem to be a hierarchy of value. Don't know how you would care to define that but what you are saying is true.
I entertain the thought of extending empathy towards other living things. Especially fellow mammals.
Interesting to note that when different tribes of humans prepare to go to battle, they often degrade their opponents to an almost inhuman stance.
Men will sometimes mentally degrade women to an almost naked mammal type of expression. These types of examples seem to reflect a reduction of empathy. What I am presenting here is, Why can't we extend empathy to other human-like mammals?
Bill Wiltrack wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:50 pmInteresting to note that when different tribes of humans prepare to go to battle, they often degrade their opponents to an almost inhuman stance.
Yes, and this is still the case. Pre-war talk is always about objectification - the last thing you want to do is start thinking deeply about the enemies' children, families, friendships, art and culture, cuisine - their loves, passions, creativity, joys, kindnesses and altruism etc.
Also note that predators need to objectify prey. Lions don't objectify each other in the tribe but they surely objectify prey. I see the same thing in humans - simply, we objectify that which we intend treating as objects - anything or anyone that we aim to remove, eat or re-use.
Bill Wiltrack wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:50 pm
I entertain the thought of extending empathy towards other living things. Especially fellow mammals.
Why can't we extend empathy to other human-like mammals?
Yes, why not indeed. Since we force most of them to feed us or use in research, we at least owe them respect and as easy a death as possible. It's a disgusting disgrace to treat them as if they were nothing more than a cardboard commodity instead of sentient creatures who have more in common with us than we feel comfortable acknowledging. If they could talk even a tiny bit we would feel a lot less complacent doing what we're doing.
