free12thinker

I have a hard time swallowing the notion that animals are here for us to do with as we please, the idea behind this being, survival of the fittest, yada yada yada.

If we maintain that this is the correct mentality to hold, than it is okay for humans to die by the mouths of a shark, or the paws of a lion, or even by the gun of another human. Take a bum who is starving to death, and is literally on his last leg. Survival of the fittest means that since he is more fit than the elderly man walking his direction, than by all accounts, him overpowering the elderly and taking their money is on the same wavelength as us overpowering a pig and killing them for food.

Now we can break this down into two categories if you like. 1)Animals for food and medicine research. 2)Animals for sport and other research.

Argument against 1) People have lived as vegetarians since time began.

Argument against 2) What is the real difference between a pit bull looking for sport and a hunter looking for sport? We are putting dogs to sleep for mauling humans, yet humans are free to kill animals. Does anyone see any fairness? Survival of the fittest does not work in this argument since we don't need make-up and other animal experimentation products (medicine aside) to live. Nor do we need the trophy of another animal to live.

And then there's the homeless man, or anyone else for that matter that is dying and takes it upon themselves to overpower someone else in order to get something from them, to further their own life.

Any thoughts?

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]</p>

Wyrdsmyth

Your topic heading, to me, looks like "Tree & Plant" (Who's better than who?).

Man is an animal, a kind of animal.

But I get your point, if all were are is just another animal, why do we give such "special status" to men? Why all these complicated rules and ideas about the conduct of men, while we typically just regard other animals either as resources or playthings?

I guess the simple obvious answer is that we are prejudiced in favor of our own species, and we think the moral code we have in place is important, so we enforce it.

free12thinker

Unfortunately, you're right. This is the real reason. I just want to hear someone tell me they think it's right.

Jamie_L

I think its appropriate to place our own species above other species. It's how we're programmed, and I don't feel it's particularly necessary to fight that programming.

Example: you see a man and a dog in a life-death struggle. You don't know who started it. You don't have the power to separate them, but you can kill one and save the other. You know nothing about the dog or the man.

Do you:
a) Kill the man.
b) Kill the dog.
c) Let the situation resolve and see who kills whom.

Me? I'd kill the dog, because given no other information, I value the human life more than the dog's life.

At the same time, I've always been annoyed that you can't use deadly force to protect a beloved family pet. If a stranger breaks into your home, and is about to shoot your dog, you are not legally allowed to shoot him.

Am I confusing things? Probably. Oh well, I'm good at that.

Jamie

free12thinker

You're not confusing me. I think I get your take on the matter. You place human life above that of other species. Because that's how we're programmed.

I agree with that. I simply don't think we should program our children that way. There is nothing that makes us better than them. So what if we are stronger. I defer back to the argument that a lot of humans are stronger than other humans, but that doesn't mean they should be able to do as they please with them.

And to answer your dog/man scenario. If I did not have the power to separate them, I would let them hash it out. Survival of the fittest right?

brighid

No – it’s not wrong for the shark to eat a person, or even a bear or any other predator. You are food to them, you look like, you smell like and it and damn it you taste like it too. You aren’t their normal food source, but if you happen into their territory and happen to get eaten by one, it’s going to be a very unfortunate loss and once that hurts like a bitch but it’s not WRONG for the animal to eat you! Animals aren’t moral agents, therefore it’s not wrong for them to do as they are naturally inclined to do.

Nor can killing animals for the sake of their meat be equated to the homeless guy mugging an elderly man for his money. It’s not like he is going to eat the poor bloke and it’s against the law to do either. Being that both are moral agents they bear responsibility for their actions.

And we ARE animals, highly evolved animals and one of the major factors I brains have evolved disproportionately to our bodies (in relation to primates) is because me ate more meat in our diets. And it is incorrect to state that we have lived on vegetarian diets for thousands of years. We evolved to have the highest brain function because we ate more meat then the other animals. Check out <a href="http://www.beyondveg.com" target="_blank">http://www.beyondveg.com</a> for more info on that.

Each species of animal, including the human animal values it’s own life over that of other species. It is part of survival, just as you favor your own genetic counterparts to those of other human families. And as a human you are able to make conscious choices and wallow in your thoughts and pain. The animal that eats you or kills you to protect it’s offspring or defend it’s territory isn’t going to feel bad if it kills you and then eats you.

You are uncomfortable with killing any animal, and as a moral agent you may choose not to. However, it does not make the killing of animals for sources of food, or other resources immoral, it simply makes you uncomfortable.

We evolved to be the intellectually superior race and we have a duty to our brethren that have varying degrees of capacity. We have a duty to be humane to them, the preserve and protect their environments and act responsibly, but that does not mean we can kill them for food, population control, or use of their raw materials. We are predators and because we have eliminated so many of the natural predators that would help with controlling populations and maintaining proper eco-systems we have responsibilities as predators. I think it’s better that we kill our prey much more swiftly and humanely, then the predators beneath us in the food chain.

Brighid

99Percent

I go along with what brighid says but I add one more distinguishing feature between man and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Man has free will. Our actions are chosen. Animals don't have free will, they simply act.

When a shark attacks you it is acting on impulse, because it is its nature. When a another man attacks you he is choosing to, and you know it because you know he has free will. He can or not go against his own nature.

That is why you can kill another animal, because it is simply part of nature. It does not have a mind of its own. When a dog and a man are fighting you chose to kill the dog, because the dog is amoral. Killing the man would be immoral, because you would be going against the free will of another person. By killing the dog you are not going against the free will of another being, because this free will does not exist.

Wyrdsmyth

I guess it depends on the context. What if it's a police dog trying to catch a crook? What if it's a seeing-eye dog who is fighting with someone who attacked his master or stole his mistress's purse? What if it's a guard dog defending it's territory against someone who was trying to break and enter?

There are a number of situations where I can imagine the dog in the "right" (I use that term loosely), by which I mean in where I'd take the side of the dog against the man. I just don't think we can separate "right and wrong" from the situation.

But I guess the question was intended as being "situation-neutral," i.e., without knowing any details of the conflict, who's side would (and should) I take? Man or dog? I suppose in that case, I'd repel the dog from the man, and then try to ascertain what the situation was -- but I wouldn't kill the dog, unless I felt it was necessary.

I agree that we shouldn't teach our children were are "better" than animals in some kind of metaphysical way -- like the idea we have souls and they don't, in order to justify using them however we see fit. On the other hand, I think we all naturally incline to favor our own species, and there's nothing really wrong with that, in my opinion. But if your overall point is that animals ought to have more rights, and be treated with more compassion, I strongly agree. I think our attitude about animals should be that we ought to care for them, care about their quality of life, and minimizing their suffering. That being said, I'm not totally against using them as resources, either. I have no problem with raising pigs or cattle or chickens as food... but I also think they ought to have a certain amount of quality of life given to them -- allowed to roam about, be outside, see the sun and sky, and not raise them inside warehouses where they spend their whole lives in cages where they can't even turn around. I find that repugnant.

P.S. If someone broke into my house and was fighting with my dog, I'd shoot the guy and save the dog.

free12thinker

[QUOTE]Originally posted by brighid:
Nor can killing animals for the sake of their meat be equated to the homeless guy mugging an elderly man for his money.

I didn't equate killing animals for food to getting mugged by a homeless guy. What I said was that a homeless guy killing someone who is not as fit as him is no different from an animal killing someone not as fit as them. It was a "Survival of the Fittest" argument.
-----------------------------------------------
[QUOTE]Originally posted by brighid:
And we ARE animals, highly evolved animals and one of the major factors I brains have evolved disproportionately to our bodies (in relation to primates) is because me ate more meat in our diets. And it is incorrect to state that we have lived on vegetarian diets for thousands of years. We evolved to have the highest brain function because we ate more meat then the other animals. Check out <a href="http://www.beyondveg.com]http://www.beyondveg.com[/URL]" target="_blank">http://www.beyondveg.com]http://www.beyondveg.com[/URL]</a> for more info on that.

I have read that, but for every argument that states an essential diet includes meat, there are other articles that state otherwise. We can both agree on this, right? I haven't eaten meat my whole life (nor has anyone in my family), nor has dozens of my friends, and our brain capacity is just fine. Thats why we're atheists (insert laugh).

I dont disagree that animals who are carnivorous don't give a crap about killing us, nor do I blame them for not caring. Because they are carnivores, meat is required for survival. We, on the other hand are omnivorous. We are simply programmed to eat meat and put other species on a lower level, hence our disregard for their lives. But why can't we change that way of teaching? We use to place minorities on a lower level, teaching our kids to hate the "other" color. But then we stepped back and questioned our right to do such a thing. We need to do the same things with animals.

But we won't. Because as someone noted in an earlier reply, we are prejiduce to other species, and we are just plain selfish.

free12thinker

Animals have a mind of their own, i've never heard something so absurd. How do they learn new tricks. How do they react to our feelings and commands. How do they do anything that requires motor skills, or balance, or ....

And not only do they have a mind, but they have feelings. And they feel pain. And they react to pain. Can you really refute this?