Freethought & Rationalism Archive

99Percent · 04-11-2002, 01:07 PM

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 ....

You said it: they react. Animals are not proactive, they are reactive. Animals don't create or produce, they just consume and metabolize. They are like robots that follow commands. They follow their instincts because that is how they survive. Man, OTOH, is a productive being, a moral being, a being with will and rationality, and this is how man survives. Can you deny this?

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?

They certainly have feelings and react to pain, I don't refute that. But do they have morality? Hardly.

free12thinker · 04-11-2002, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent:
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 ....

You said it: they react. Animals are not proactive, they are reactive. Animals don't create or produce, they just consume and metabolize. They are like robots that follow commands. They follow their instincts because that is how they survive. Man, OTOH, is a productive being, a moral being, a being with will and rationality, and this is how man survives. Can you deny this?

I don't deny that animals react, but so do we. And in order for us to react, we need to be equipped with a mind to do so. Do you deny this? If we need a mind to be able to react, than why wouldn't animals? Human's without minds are unreactive (see human vegetables). Animals are pro-active according to how they need to function. Animals, much like humans, have evolved mentally to meet the challenges and requirements of life, much like us. Being pro-active in their lives and environments are no different than us being pro-active in ours, except that the requirements are on a smaller scale.

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?

Do animals have morality? I would say no. I will agree with you there. I don't think their minds (which they do have) are as progressed as ours, I won't refute that. But that doesn't mean we should take advantage of them. We don't take advantage of the retarded, who themselves don't have the capacity to portray morals. Do we?

(edited to correct UBB code only)

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]

99Percent · 04-11-2002, 01:39 PM

free12thinker: And in order for us to react, we need to be equipped with a mind to do so.

I think you are abusing the word "mind" here. You don't need a mind to react, just a bunch of neurons, and not even that. An automatic door at the supermarket reacts when you step under it. To me a mind means that it is free thinking, it thinks independently of direct impulses. It has long term memory, consciousness and is sentient.

Do animals have morality? I would say no. I will agree with you there. I don't think their minds (which they do have) are as progressed as ours, I won't refute that. But that doesn't mean we should take advantage of them.

That is precisely why have the liberty to take advantage of them. Animals are part of nature which does not have a mind of its own (see previous point), therefore we have the right to take advantage them. In fact it is our moral imperative as human beings. That doesn't mean we can inflict unnecesary pain on them though, we do have empathy too.

We don't take advantage of the retarded, who themselves don't have the capacity to portray morals. Do we?

Well, the retarded are humans even though individually they are not moral perse, so we take care of them out of empathy for our own kin. However a retarded person who kills or does damage is not normally going to be morally reprehended or punished. He will be locked away, certainly, but not as a "punishment", but rather to keep him from killing or committing more damage.

free12thinker · 04-11-2002, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent:
free12thinker: And in order for us to react, we need to be equipped with a mind to do so.

I think you are abusing the word "mind" here. You don't need a mind to react, just a bunch of neurons, and not even that. An automatic door at the supermarket reacts when you step under it. To me a mind means that it is free thinking, it thinks independently of direct impulses. It has long term memory, consciousness and is sentient.

Do animals have morality? I would say no. I will agree with you there. I don't think their minds (which they do have) are as progressed as ours, I won't refute that. But that doesn't mean we should take advantage of them.

That is precisely why have the liberty to take advantage of them. Animals are part of nature which does not have a mind of its own (see previous point), therefore we have the right to take advantage them. In fact it is our moral imperative as human beings. That doesn't mean we can inflict unnecesary pain on them though, we do have empathy too.

We don't take advantage of the retarded, who themselves don't have the capacity to portray morals. Do we?

Well, the retarded are humans even though individually they are not moral perse, so we take care of them out of empathy for our own kin. However a retarded person who kills or does damage is not normally going to be morally reprehended or punished. He will be locked away, certainly, but not as a "punishment", but rather to keep him from killing or committing more damage.

You think I'm abusing the word "mind", and I think you're underscoring an animals "mind", so we agree to disagree.

You saying that we have the liberty to take advantage of them is just the same selfish superior attitude that men had towards women and we had towards minorities. Because, according to scripture, women were less intelligent than man and according to law, minorities were beneath us. Yes our minds far exceed animals, and the only reason we treat them differently than we do retarted people is because we have a "special" kinship with our own kind, a kinship which is taught to us.

I don't think we should have that right, you think that we're entitled to, agree to disagree.

tronvillain · 04-11-2002, 03:19 PM

99Percent: I think you may be underestimating animals a bit.

99Percent · 04-11-2002, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
99Percent: I think you may be underestimating animals a bit.

How so? Don't tell me you are going to bring bonobos to this discussion...

Quote:

Originally posted by free12thinker:
You saying that we have the liberty to take advantage of them is just the same selfish superior attitude that men had towards women and we had towards minorities. Because, according to scripture, women were less intelligent than man and according to law, minorities were beneath us.

There is fundamental difference between the way I am saying it and the way the "scripture" or "laws" say it. Minorities and women are human beings with free will and morals.

Man has the natural right to take advantage of nature and therefore animals because we are born with the tool of survival that no animal has: reason. Without our capacity to reason we die. Reason not only allows us to live, but makes us want to live better. For some, living better means having variety of food and therefore eating meat. Animals are just content to live. They careless about living better.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]

daemon · 04-11-2002, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

This is a misinterpretation of what the phrase "survival of the fittest" means, in the first place. In and of itself, it's misleading because it's simply tautological. It isn't some sort of philosophical truth about the world, but merely stating the obvious: That which is most fit to survive, survives. This is not any sort of moral argument.

Quote:

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.

If you believe killing a pig and stealing from the elderly are morally quivalent, you may be correct. I do not, however.

Quote:

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.

This is not a moral argument; it is a non sequitur. Can does not equate to should.

Quote:

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.

While I do agree with your moral stance on this, this does not constitute any sort of argument either. It appears to me that you're erecting a strawman of and beating it to heck.

hal9000 · 04-11-2002, 06:47 PM

All this moral and gastronomic huffing and puffing and you vegetarians still have no answer for the question in<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000118" target="_blank">This thread.</a> Not very impressive on your part Spin, Shamon., The AntiChris, and the rest of you vegetarians. Hell at least MeBeMe gave it a shot. His last shot as it turned out. You guys keep hiding here, I understand your fear of the question DP posed for you.

free12thinker · 04-11-2002, 06:53 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by daemon:
This is a misinterpretation of what the phrase "survival of the fittest" means, in the first place. In and of itself, it's misleading because it's simply tautological. It isn't some sort of philosophical truth about the world, but merely stating the obvious: That which is most fit to survive, survives. This is not any sort of moral argument.

While you may see survival of the fittest in that regard (as I do too), those who argue for hunting and killing and animal experimentation, do so by simply stating, "hey, we're stronger than them, and in that, we are meant to dominate them". If you would've read from my first post, you would know that I am simply taking their approach and making an example out of it, in their context.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by daemon:
This is not a moral argument; it is a non sequitur. Can does not equate to should.

If you don't believe that if we "can" live without meat, and without killing animals, than we should, and your reason is going to

[QUOTE]Originally posted by daemon:
While I do agree with your moral stance on this, this does not constitute any sort of argument either. It appears to me that you're erecting a strawman of and beating it to heck.

I don't know how you see no argument here. Perhaps you're thinking too hard. Either you believe that a pit bull on the prowl is equal to a hunter on the prowl, or you don't. In previous posts to this subject (you should probably read them before responding), people who disagreed with my stance stated that we are predators, and as such, we kill. Fine and dandy. I'm simply stating here that so are pit bulls, yet we choose to kill them, yet we don't make a connection between them killing us (as has happened recently) and us killing them or any other species (hunting, experimentation). It's all predatory, yet ours seems justified. You lost me on the "erecting a strawman of and beating it to heck."

droolian · 04-11-2002, 09:51 PM

It sounds fraudulent to argue that since animals aren’t human and can’t think morally that we could justify our own enslaving, killing and eating them. Doesn’t this somehow negate us as moral?

“They are not moral, so it is just to treat them immorally.”
I don’t understand that line of thinking. Can morality be turned on and off like a light? Doesn't it just become "might makes right" if it's not essential to our well being?

<a href="http://www.eatright.org/adap1197.html" target="_blank">http://www.eatright.org/adap1197.html</a>

Quote:

Tom Regan: 9. The philosophy of animal rights is environmentally wise.

Explanation: The major cause of environmental degradation, including the greenhouse effect, water pollution, and the loss both of arable land and top soil, for example, can be traced to the exploitation of animals.
This same pattern exists throughout the broad range of environmental problems, from acid rain and ocean dumping of toxic wastes, to air pollution and the destruction of natural habitat. In all these cases, to act to protect the affected animals (who are, after all, the first to suffer and die from these environmental ills), is to act to protect the earth.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: droolian ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-11-2002, 01:07 PM	#11
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	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 .... You said it: they react. Animals are not proactive, they are reactive. Animals don't create or produce, they just consume and metabolize. They are like robots that follow commands. They follow their instincts because that is how they survive. Man, OTOH, is a productive being, a moral being, a being with will and rationality, and this is how man survives. Can you deny this? 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? They certainly have feelings and react to pain, I don't refute that. But do they have morality? Hardly.

04-11-2002, 01:39 PM	#13
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	free12thinker: And in order for us to react, we need to be equipped with a mind to do so. I think you are abusing the word "mind" here. You don't need a mind to react, just a bunch of neurons, and not even that. An automatic door at the supermarket reacts when you step under it. To me a mind means that it is free thinking, it thinks independently of direct impulses. It has long term memory, consciousness and is sentient. Do animals have morality? I would say no. I will agree with you there. I don't think their minds (which they do have) are as progressed as ours, I won't refute that. But that doesn't mean we should take advantage of them. That is precisely why have the liberty to take advantage of them. Animals are part of nature which does not have a mind of its own (see previous point), therefore we have the right to take advantage them. In fact it is our moral imperative as human beings. That doesn't mean we can inflict unnecesary pain on them though, we do have empathy too. We don't take advantage of the retarded, who themselves don't have the capacity to portray morals. Do we? Well, the retarded are humans even though individually they are not moral perse, so we take care of them out of empathy for our own kin. However a retarded person who kills or does damage is not normally going to be morally reprehended or punished. He will be locked away, certainly, but not as a "punishment", but rather to keep him from killing or committing more damage.

04-11-2002, 03:19 PM	#15
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	99Percent: I think you may be underestimating animals a bit.

04-11-2002, 06:47 PM	#18
hal9000 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: just over your shoulder Posts: 146	All this moral and gastronomic huffing and puffing and you vegetarians still have no answer for the question in<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000118" target="_blank">This thread.</a> Not very impressive on your part Spin, Shamon., The AntiChris, and the rest of you vegetarians. Hell at least MeBeMe gave it a shot. His last shot as it turned out. You guys keep hiding here, I understand your fear of the question DP posed for you.

04-11-2002, 06:53 PM	#19
free12thinker Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: DC Metropolitan Area Posts: 417	[QUOTE]Originally posted by daemon: This is a misinterpretation of what the phrase "survival of the fittest" means, in the first place. In and of itself, it's misleading because it's simply tautological. It isn't some sort of philosophical truth about the world, but merely stating the obvious: That which is most fit to survive, survives. This is not any sort of moral argument. While you may see survival of the fittest in that regard (as I do too), those who argue for hunting and killing and animal experimentation, do so by simply stating, "hey, we're stronger than them, and in that, we are meant to dominate them". If you would've read from my first post, you would know that I am simply taking their approach and making an example out of it, in their context. [QUOTE]Originally posted by daemon: This is not a moral argument; it is a non sequitur. Can does not equate to should. If you don't believe that if we "can" live without meat, and without killing animals, than we should, and your reason is going to [QUOTE]Originally posted by daemon: While I do agree with your moral stance on this, this does not constitute any sort of argument either. It appears to me that you're erecting a strawman of and beating it to heck. I don't know how you see no argument here. Perhaps you're thinking too hard. Either you believe that a pit bull on the prowl is equal to a hunter on the prowl, or you don't. In previous posts to this subject (you should probably read them before responding), people who disagreed with my stance stated that we are predators, and as such, we kill. Fine and dandy. I'm simply stating here that so are pit bulls, yet we choose to kill them, yet we don't make a connection between them killing us (as has happened recently) and us killing them or any other species (hunting, experimentation). It's all predatory, yet ours seems justified. You lost me on the "erecting a strawman of and beating it to heck."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.