Thoughts on animal welfare, animal rights, etc. | 58 comments (58 topical, 0 hidden)
Qualia (none / 1)
Wow...i never thought I would run into a discussion of qualia on TYT!! Well done!!
I actually do think that qualia, as far as I understand the phenomena, are too vague to be used in consequentialist arguments. I don't have a great background on the subject, so I am happy to be corrected if you disagree. My only real background on the issue is a philosophy of mind course I took last semester (AWESOME class...btw). I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of ethics. As a secular humanist, I have no choice but to turn to such philosophical discussions as one source for morality. I believe that there is no objective right or wrong. We live as social animals though, so we must find some source(s) for morality/order. I'm not sure where else we could turn for analysis of such issues. I also think we can all agree that such moral decisions cannot be wholly ignored.
I agree that pain is not necessarily the primary factor. Intelligence seems more important in some ways. However, there are plenty of examples in rights given to human beings that basically undercut the use of intelligence as well. Republicans (lol), mentally handicapped, infants...there are plenty of humans that rank sufficiently low on the 'intelligence' (that term obviously needs much more definition) scale. We still endow these people with many of the same rights afforded to everyone else. There are exceptions, obviously...driver's liscences, etc.
So...what am I trying to say? I think that throughout the evolution of human morality and ethics, there has been a general trend toward expanding rights to more and more people. Not that long ago, black people and women were not entitled to the same rights as white men. We still debate rights for the rest of the world. Do we have a moral responsibility to do our best to feed all of the people of the world insofar as we can? etc...
I do think this trend will eventually move on to address some of the potential rights of other animals. Where and how such lines will be drawn, I have no idea. I am not as well versed on the subject as I should be.
As far as vegetarianism goes, I am a meat eater. That doesn't mean that I don't feel compelled in many ways to give up meat. Maybe sometime in the future I will, but so far I haven't been able to take that step. I admit this makes me somewhat of a hypocrite. I do that by a utilitarian argument, vegetarianism probably makes sense.
I also agree with you on the Michael Vick, etc. examples. I find what he did horrible, but how can we justify jailing and vilifying (sp?) him when atrocities (Iraq, etc.) are committed daily. This point I don't hold so strongly, but that's my overall reaction so far.

by LadyFriend on 06/28/2009 12:57:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rights, cruelty and consistency (4.50 / 2)
Like the borders between countries, rights are artificial constructs. They are useful in resolving disputes between human beings but they are figments and can be harmful. An example of the harm they can produce is Neo’s view that since dogs are property, it is permissible for humans to do anything they want to them. That is the view of the centuries-old English common law applied in most or all of the states, but it has been modified in modern times by statutes, like the one that Vick violated, that recognize some animals are sentient beings entitled to protection from cruelty.

 

No moral view can dispute that sentient beings, whether human or not, should be protected from cruelty. An argument, like Neo’s, that necessarily implies it is acceptable, for example, to torture a dog eight hours a day for a month on a whim, is immoral unless dogs have no significant capacity for suffering. Only a person with a blind spot, like, perhaps, Descartes, could believe dogs, and many other animals, have no significant capacity for suffering.

 

This does not mean that humans are morally obligated to be vegetarians. Humans are omnivores and I am aware of nothing that can change that. It does mean, however, that we are obligated to treat the animals we eat humanely.

 

The fact that the United States government inflicts unnecessary, illegal or immoral suffering on many, such as the people of Iraq, does not mean that crimes in this country should go unpunished. If, because the government is committing atrocities against other people, it is not justifiable to jail Michael Vick for his crime, it is not justifiable to jail any person who commits murder, rape, torture, or any other crime in the United States. The fact that the government gets it wrong in some instances, such as the war in Iraq, does not mean it gets it wrong in all instances. It got it right with the conviction of Vick.

by Corpusless on 06/28/2009 05:29:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
On Vick (none / 1)
Again, I find what he did morally repugnant.
What you said about US involvement in unnecessary global harm is a point I didn't think of. Have/will the perpetrators be punished? It seems doubtful. Should they be? Of courssseee!
On the other hand, I do find it difficult to reconcile the fact that slaughtering and torturing farm animals is legal while torturing and slaughtering dogs is illegal. Are we against animal cruelty or not?
Perhaps lawmakers see some utilitarian argument here...we get food. We could obviously still be provided with eggs and chicken wings without such brutal treatment.
I'm not justifying Vick's crime. I am also not against him being punished. I am just pointing out how inconsistent it is.

by LadyFriend on 06/29/2009 09:02:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It is inconsistent (none / 1)
I agree that the inconsistencies you pointed out exist. It just may be too much, however, to ask people to give up using animals for food and for other purposes. I don't think it is too much to ask that we treat animals kindly in the process, though. For example, we may never convince large numbers of people to give up meat but it should be relatively easy to give up veal. On the other hand, with regard to issues like the Vick prosecution, I think fairness dictates we must fight to achieve consistency. Obama's refusal, for example, to prosecute Bush administration officials is unjust.

by Corpusless on 06/29/2009 06:09:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Thoughts on animal welfare, animal rights, etc. | 58 comments (58 topical, 0 hidden)