Philosophy Now Forum

Sentient Animals
After millenia of religion, at last we are to have a law recognising animals as sentient creatures.
Not quite the same as sapient.
It is here that the ethical questions begin.
Do we treat animals ‘humanely’ but there to serve our needs.
Merely tolerate them as part of the natural world.
Or relate to them as metaphorically having ‘souls’.
These are alternatives and there is no ‘right’ answer.
But if a person Is and Altruist he will know what he thinks is right.

the smartest animals are the tastiest

-Imp

We should "respect" the intellect of persons to the extent they display intellectual capacity. We should respect the sentience of animals to the extent they display emotional capacities.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 9:18 am Sentient Animals
After millenia of religion, at last we are to have a law recognising animals as sentient creatures.
Not quite the same as sapient.
It is here that the ethical questions begin.
Do we treat animals ‘humanely’ but there to serve our needs.
Merely tolerate them as part of the natural world.
Or relate to them as metaphorically having ‘souls’.
These are alternatives and there is no ‘right’ answer.
But if a person Is and Altruist he will know what he thinks is right.

Personhood is recognized, not bestowed.

First, we need to come up with an accurate definition of person.

With that we can decide (recognize) what is a person (and treat them as such) and what is not a person (and eat them).

I'm hopin' cows and pigs fail the test...I like beef and bacon.

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=511001 time=1621173172 user_id=472]
[quote=RWStanding post_id=510658 time=1620807510 user_id=13021]
Sentient Animals
After millenia of religion, at last we are to have a law recognising animals as sentient creatures.
Not quite the same as sapient.
It is here that the ethical questions begin.
Do we treat animals ‘humanely’ but there to serve our needs.
Merely tolerate them as part of the natural world.
Or relate to them as metaphorically having ‘souls’.
These are alternatives and there is no ‘right’ answer.
But if a person Is and Altruist he will know what he thinks is right.
[/quote]

Personhood is recognized, not bestowed.

First, we need to come up with an accurate definition of [i]person[/i].

With that we can decide (recognize) what is a person (and treat them as such) and what is not a person (and eat them).

I'm hopin' cows and pigs fail the test...I like beef and bacon.
[/quote]

Eating humans isn't of moral weight either, it's how humanely they're treated while they're alive. The difference lies only in whether you're interrupting their plans and in whether their death is painless (including anticipation of it).

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 3:02 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 2:52 pm

RWStanding wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 9:18 am Sentient Animals
After millenia of religion, at last we are to have a law recognising animals as sentient creatures.
Not quite the same as sapient.
It is here that the ethical questions begin.
Do we treat animals ‘humanely’ but there to serve our needs.
Merely tolerate them as part of the natural world.
Or relate to them as metaphorically having ‘souls’.
These are alternatives and there is no ‘right’ answer.
But if a person Is and Altruist he will know what he thinks is right.

Personhood is recognized, not bestowed.

First, we need to come up with an accurate definition of person.

With that we can decide (recognize) what is a person (and treat them as such) and what is not a person (and eat them).

I'm hopin' cows and pigs fail the test...I like beef and bacon.

Eating humans isn't of moral weight either, it's how humanely they're treated while they're alive. The difference lies only in whether you're interrupting their plans and in whether their death is painless (including anticipation of it).

Eatin' persons is very weighty (morally); how we treat non-persons (like Bessie & Arnold), not so much.

Don't eat people.

Non-people: knock yourself out.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 9:18 am Sentient Animals
After millenia of religion, at last we are to have a law recognising animals as sentient creatures.
Not quite the same as sapient.
It is here that the ethical questions begin.
Do we treat animals ‘humanely’ but there to serve our needs.
Merely tolerate them as part of the natural world.
Or relate to them as metaphorically having ‘souls’.
These are alternatives and there is no ‘right’ answer.
But if a person Is and Altruist he will know what he thinks is right.

How do you know any animal is sentient?
You cannot possibly know what any other organism experiences. Perhaps those animals human use for work and food enjoy what they are used for.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 2:52 pm

RWStanding wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 9:18 am Sentient Animals
After millenia of religion, at last we are to have a law recognising animals as sentient creatures.
Not quite the same as sapient.
It is here that the ethical questions begin.
Do we treat animals ‘humanely’ but there to serve our needs.
Merely tolerate them as part of the natural world.
Or relate to them as metaphorically having ‘souls’.
These are alternatives and there is no ‘right’ answer.
But if a person Is and Altruist he will know what he thinks is right.

Personhood is recognized, not bestowed.

First, we need to come up with an accurate definition of person.

Has already been done.

'person', the invisible thoughts and emotions within.

'per', through
'son', of man, or, of God.

Thoughts have either come from human, which are either good or bad, or right or wrong, or have come from God, which are good and right only.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 2:52 pmWith that we can decide (recognize) what is a person (and treat them as such) and what is not a person (and eat them).

You cannot eat 'people'. You can only eat the body, of which 'people,' are within.

Also, you talked here about, "and treat people as such". So, how, to you, are 'people' to be treated?

You have, after all, clearly expressed that you believe you have a right to shoot dead any 'man', or human being, who just 'touches your stuff', correct?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 2:52 pm I'm hopin' cows and pigs fail the test...I like beef and bacon.

And this is one reason WHY some animals are abused and are mistreated so poorly by 'you', adult human beings.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 9:18 am Sentient Animals
After millenia of religion, at last we are to have a law recognising animals as sentient creatures.
Not quite the same as sapient.
It is here that the ethical questions begin.
Do we treat animals ‘humanely’ but there to serve our needs.
Merely tolerate them as part of the natural world.
Or relate to them as metaphorically having ‘souls’.
These are alternatives and there is no ‘right’ answer.
But if a person Is and Altruist he will know what he thinks is right.

What if Animals know everything and just come to this world to play the role of a fool/victim and be eaten by us?