ashe

I am having issues with this right now. I have been putting off the idea of animal rights for a long time, not really considering it seriously.

But after seeing Legally Blonde 2 , I started thinking about it again. Not because the movie made any strong points, but rather because I was bored during the more patriotic segments of the movie and I began thinking about the problem of evil.

I was thinking about why an all good deity would allow an animal to suffer by some wasting injury when a happy life or quick death could be obtained through the deity's omnipotence.

Now, if I would hold a deity to that standard, why not myself? If I have the power to prevent pain and cruel suffering to an animal, why not exercise that power? To stand by, knowingly abetting the abuse of an animal when I have the power to prevent that abuse, surely that is as evil for me to do as it is for a deity. Admittedly, it is not within my power to ameliorate all suffering around the world but there must be something in my power.

What do you think? Does the problem of evil as I have described it constrain me to stand up for the rights of all living things to an existence as free of pain as humanity can allow? It seems to me that at some point our survival and continued prosperity may outweigh the lives of so-called 'lesser' animals and therefore we may find ourselves in the undesirable situation of having to cause suffering to survive. (which many unthinking animals and organisms do naturally; but we are self-aware...)

I have been thinking about it ever since it occurred to me and I would like to draw on the experience of the Infidels here. I posted this in Lifestyle and Support because I may have to change my lifestyle quite a bit depending on what I decide, and your input will be valuable in making this decision.

Thanks in advance,

Ashe

Viti

I am not sure this is an SL&S topic. Assuming you wish to discuss the moral questions surrounding eating animals, animals testing etc...I am going to move it to MF&P

You may want to clarify exactly what you are looking for...are you contemplating veganism or animal rights activism or what?

sweep

well, It disturbs me when I find the cats have been up to their old tricks. The worst time was when my 'blue cat' had a small mouse in her mouth- the mouse had been half eaten and every time she took a chew the mouse would go 'eek!' My cat was chewing her way through the mouses guts and I can't understand how it was still alive. So, i picked up the cat and shook her till the mouse popped out of her mouth. Then I took a brick and smashed the mouse to bits.

I have done this on a number of occasions and felt that I had removed the animals dignity, for some reason. Some of the animals simply had stab wounds and they would lay in my palm hyperventilating. If the animal is in some distress, it would be a good idea to put it out of its misery, since we are able to create the choices that our pets face, and we are responsible for keeping the habitat of all creatures free from pollution. Thus we not only remove suffering when we see it, we also prevent suffering in the future due to our own carelessness.

Did you know that during the second world war, in order to increase the productivity in rural England, and save our population from starvation pesticides were invented and employed so that crops would survive unscathed. Unfortunately, this led to the extinction of many species of wildlife. The golden age of England has sadly died, and this country is much quieter as a consequence of our brutality. There is no-one to save us, and our environment, but ourselves.

If you want to read about the issues of pesticide and the dangers we face by abusing our environment try a book called: 'the great food gamble by John Humphreys'.

ashe

I haven't much to add yet, but I think this thread should simply be about animal suffering in general.

For example, do animals suffer? Do they all suffer? How much? If they do suffer, how much suffering is acceptable? How much of any current animal suffering is avoidable? etc etc etc

Thanks for your post, sweep. Your example of animal predators is always an interesting point. It demonstrates the division between animals that exhibit complex thought (you and I) and animals that do not (your cat, who did not think of showing the mouse the kindness you did.) Also, your example of 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater' with respect to saving our food sources is interesting.

Would have, could have England not used pesticides if its populace considered the death of all those species barbaric? Even if everyone believed it to be wrong, might they have been required to bite their tongues and sourly destroy those animals to preserve themselves in the end?

sweep

yes all animals with a peripheral nervous system feel pain. they suffer boredom and get depressed. A small amount of suffering is inevitable. Suffering is what enables all living things to appreciate not suffering, such as hunger and satiation. How much animals suffer depends on contrast. Put a toad in boiling water and it will leap out. Put a toad in luke warm water and heat it slowly until the water boils, and so will the toad. You see? perception relies upon changes in our nervous system, generally. We can avoid a lot of suffering in animals if only we took proper care of them. Look at all the horrible animal experiments using guinea pigs to test cosmetics. A lot of useless suffering. WE are reponsible.

Its possible that if we were sensitive enough, and knew what we do now, that the cost might not have been so high, yet the toll on our own species and the freedom of the world was at stake too. I can't really judge. I can only hang my head and frown in shame.

Jamie_L

This, I think, is the more interesting question than the question of animal suffering. More succinctly, the question is this:

"Is it wrong to say a diety is obligated to eliminate suffering while we ourselves do not do all that we can to eliminate suffering?" Perhaps the Problem of Evil is a double standard (God ought to eliminate evil, but we can spend our money on nice computers instead of giving it to the poor).

I have thought about this as well. Here's my conclusion:

We are fundamentally different than God: we are not omnipotent. We have finite abilities we can use to bring about states of affairs we desire. We are quite likely to have more desires than can be satisfied by our abilities. Thus, we must prioritize. We must necessarily choose some desires which will have less ability applied to them, and many desires which will have no ability applied to them.

We may have two desires, neither of which are immoral (say, helping the poor and buying a new computer), but we may prioritize them in a way that isn't the most moral use of our abilities. Buying a new computer and giving less money to the charity might be less moral than giving all the money to charity. If we had the ability to do both without prioritizing, however, there would be no moral dilemma.

God, on the other hand, is omnipotent. God has infinite ability, so God does not need to prioritize. God can apply ability to all His desires, in sufficient quantity to achieve all those desires. If God does not reduce suffering, it is not because God does not have enough ability to satisfy his desire to reduce suffering. It must mean that God does not desire to reduce suffering. And really, the Problem of Evil isn't saying an omnipotent being is morally obligated to reduce suffering. It says that if an omnipotent being is benevolent, it will reduce suffering. Since there is unnecesary suffering, a benevolent, omnipotent God does not exist.

Thus, the PoE is not a double standard. While it may be true that I am not as moral as I could be, this does not mean that an omnipotent being who chooses not to reduce suffering can be called "benevolent". In reality, an omnipotent God who does not reduce suffering is even more immoral than me, because I am choosing to split my resources between competing desires, while the omnipotent being does not even have the desire to reduce suffering. If I were able to dramatically reduce suffering and buy a really nice computer, no one would see anything wrong with me buying a really nice computer. God can minimize suffering and have the really nice computer. If He goes for the really nice computer and there's still unnecessary suffering around, it's ain't because he couldn't afford both.

Jamie

Pyrrho

In my opinion, you are responsible to the extent that you have the ability to prevent it. Thus, with an omnipotent being, the responsibility is absolute, because the ability is absolute. In your case, you are responsible for the products you buy, and therefore, when a reasonable alternative is available to you, if you select the product that involves more suffering, you are responsible for that suffering. This applies to more than just cruelty to animals, as shoes and other products have frequently been known to be made with extremely poor, inhumane conditions for the workers.

In the case of becoming a vegan or not, it really is an obvious choice, as vegans tend to live longer, healthier lives anyway, so by eating an animal that was inhumanly raised and killed, you are making a very poor choice, both for the animal and yourself.

You can do a search of the Internet for "vegan" to find out how to go about being a vegan, if you wish to do so. You can also search the Internet for information regarding boycotts of companies with poor conditions for their workers.

winstonjen

With regard to reducing animal suffering, we find it good, even humane, to put them out of their misery when they are suffering from a terminal or incurable illness. However, we find it impossible to do this for our fellow human beings. There are also some bigots that get offended when people put animals to sleep - they claim that we have 'no right'. Please. They don't seem to know that people can be jailed for cruelty if they didn't put them to sleep. Somehow, even if they knew, I still think they would condemn us.

sweep

I predict, due to ongoing research in stem cell technology and cloning, we will be able to synthesise 'meat' products without actually needing to raise animals. This way we avoid the moral ramifications involved in butchering and rearing animals. The meat will be produced in giant tubes, and it will all be great quality without the problems of e-coli and bovine spongiform encephalopathy. We may even be able to produce our own synthetic meats at home soon, provided we don't strip the planet of resources before this time.

and, winstonjen, great point- a strange double standard we harbour! I know that when my dog finally loses it, he'll die peacefully and will have lived a relatively pain-free life, and one I add, with freedom of choice that some owners wouldn't consider.

We live in a strange world. In Japan I was surprised to find out that there are dog bakeries. Only a few hundred miles away poor animals are boiled alive, due to the belief that the meat tastes better. The animal gets afraid and this induces adrenaline. I'm sure I'd be shitting myself If I saw my neighbours being singled out for the hotpot. I'm not sure whether the chefs bother to concuss dogs and cats prior to this awful fate. I hope that one day this sort of thing never happens. I can't stand it!

winstonjen

I know. It may seem insensitive, but the only reason I can think of that this taboo against euthanasia still stands in place, other than religious reasons, is that people are more selfish when it comes to their own family - they won't let go, and they call it 'compassion'.