Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Great apes serve no purpose to the world. Place them on the value menu.
Should we value animals as something more than sources for us?
- Thread starter Kyriakos
- Start date
Great apes serve no purpose to the world. Place them on the value menu.
Narz
keeping it real
The same could be said about many/most humans (depending on who you ask). A ecologist or a primatologist would disagree.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
No we do not. "What is human" is being a member of the human (animal) species. It's as easy as defining what is any other animal species.
Not everyone things it necessary to search for any additional justifications to treat our own species differently from any others. That it is our species is enough.
Still, the obvious test is: other species can have "rights" if they can demand rights, communicating and arguing for that demand. None other in the planet can, therefore we humans treat them as objects. Because they cannot communicate effectively with us, we cannot really treat the any other way. Even those who want to grant them "rights" are treating them as objects to be manipulated according to the will of humans. They only disagree as to what they will for those other animals.
Narz
keeping it real
Disagree 100%.
Victims of severe abuse from childhood (like that chick who's father kept her in the basement & had six kids with her) & the severely ******** probably wouldn't dare demand "rights" beyond what they were given but that doesn't mean they don't deserve rights.
Anyway, animals do express themselves, just not in human language. When we violate them, they protest. Just because they're not saying "hey, stop destroying my ecosystem &/or poking lipstick in my eyeballs" doesn't mean they don't have an objection.
I don't deny we're a species all on our own but, as corny & cliched as it sounds, with great power comes great responsibility. It's personally embarrassing to me as a human that our uber-smart species is wrecking an extinction event on the planet & ruining life not only for billions of animals but also for billions of humans (who live below the poverty line).
The welfare of all life is intertwined. So whether you're coming from a selfish human-centric perspective or a touchy-feely save-the-trees one, if you're logical, you should come to a similar conclusion (that our non-human ecological neighbors deserve basic respect).
A child who abuses animals will often abuse weaker humans later in life. Likewise, a society that abuses animals also seems to be apathetic towards suffering of other humans (especially ones from far away or a different class).
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
It's not about daring to demand rights, it's about being able to communicate effectively. Unless a human is in a vegetative state (in which case I bet that plenty of environmentalists would call for his/her immediate death as a useless burden on the planet) or insane (and those we still understand to some degree because they are our own species and we generally know how humans think and feel), we can always find ways to communicate effectively. Sometimes there' no one to listen, but the ability exists.
If animals cannot make their will known and argue it, how can humans legislate on their behalf? Any attempt to do so is still a group of humans treating animals as objects to legislate about, advancing not the wishes of said animals but their own - and usually against other groups of humans. Like Winner's idea about an environment police somehow exterminating subsistence farmers...
Correlation is not causation.
Likewise. And in any case I have yet to see any proof that societies which somehow grant "rights" to animals (were there any?) also care more for other humans. Or the opposite, as you imply above.
I also notice that above even while trying to argue for rights for animals you were make a utilitarian argument appealing to human self-interest.
If animals cannot make their will known and argue it, how can humans legislate on their behalf? Any attempt to do so is still a group of humans treating animals as objects to legislate about, advancing not the wishes of said animals but their own - and usually against other groups of humans. Like Winner's idea about an environment police somehow exterminating subsistence farmers...
Correlation is not causation.
Likewise. And in any case I have yet to see any proof that societies which somehow grant "rights" to animals (were there any?) also care more for other humans. Or the opposite, as you imply above.
I also notice that above even while trying to argue for rights for animals you were make a utilitarian argument appealing to human self-interest.
Narz
keeping it real
Animals experience stress as humans do. Simply because they can't articulate it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A baby can't articulate very well either.
Humans should use their own reason & wisdom to legislate on their behalf. Protecting national (and international) forests & the oceans is a large step. Increasing standards of treatment for food animals is another. With modern brain imaging it's clear to see that certain conditions in animals cause severe stress & pain, it's our responsibility to minimize that which we can (if the situation is our fault). Again, it's not a dichotomy between humans & animals, human & animal exploitation often go hand in hand. For example slaughterhouse workers rarely dream of such work as children, they're usually economic causalities who are taking what they can get. Farmers who destroy the Amazon to grow soybeans to feed factory farmed cows for McDonalds customers (made profitable by US govt. subsidies) are victims just as the non-human inhabitants of the Amazon are victims, the cows in the US are victims & those who suffer degenerative diseases from eating McDonalds food are victims. On the flip side, in other parts of the world, people are able to make a living off of ecotourism.
No but it's something to think about.
The word "rights" seems to send people into a tizzy, just legislation to protect the welfare of animals.
What can I say, I'm only human.
How we differentiate ourselves from other animals has been a moving target for many years: language, tool making, laughter, self awareness (using different definitions) have all been used. tool making was the dividing line when I was growing up. You may feel that our "species label" is sufficient to separate us from the animals, but for the most part people do not feel that way. We keep looking for reasons that our species is somehow "better than" or "sufficiently different from" all other animals. We apparently do not like to think of ourselves as merely an extension of an evolutionary process.
Humans the only animals that laugh! No.
Humans, the only tool making animals! No.
Humans, the only animals that use language! No.
Humans, the only animals that are self aware! No.
Humans, the only animal who can demand rights! Well, yes.
But, you might as well add "playing the trombone, flying airplanes and taking pills for ED" to your "demanding rights."
You have sought out that differentiation in the same way by declaring that "no critter gets rights unless they ask for them," and claiming that human standards are the only standards that count. The same kind of thinking led to the worse abuses of European colonialism when they met "non European species" of humans for the first time. I think, for the most part, we have moved away from such ideas and it has been to our credit and benefit. The next barrier is thinking like yours that say, "If the can't hire a lawyer to file a suit, then they don't deserve to live." Therefore animals should be exploited.
It is not really about rights; it is about respect. It is just that our system only respects that which has been adjudicated by the courts. We demand that the courts tell us who and what to respect. We needed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to tell us that segregation was wrong. That law was passed because white people insisted it be passed. Black people had struggled for a hundred years and they couldn't do it on their own. People have to act on behalf of animals just because there are people like you who refuse to accept their value unless a court says they must.
Those who really understand evolution realize that it is a seamless weave of all life and for the moment humans are the current front runner. We are paying a high price for our lack of respect for the rest of life.
Cynovolans
Not in my dimension.
Isn't that how AIDS came to humans?
