Animal Cruelty

EGKangaroo said:

Honestly, with arbitrary inflation or deflation of the us-group vs a them-group, we can make any measure we take beneficial for our selected we-group. As long as we only care about our us-group, we won't feel guilty about what we do to the them-group, and really, the human species is still having difficulties allowing every kind of human in existence into their us-groups. Whether we choose that us-group to be entirely discriminant on human species alone, whether we take dogs, cats, ferrets, goldfish, and other animals we've domesticated and accepted into our society into the equation, or whether we want the best for animals in general, comes down to how much we want to inflate or deflate what our us-group is. In the case of Fenneking, he draws an exact line at where our human species ends. Anything else is a them-group, and their benefits are not part of the benefits of the us-group in many cases. If we can use a them-group to benefit an us-group, only then is it okay to protect. So therefore, we shouldn't be obliged to care about the extinction of pandas, or of some animal that plays a minimal role in the ecosystem. Every line we draw between an us and a them will be arbitrary, even drawing no line will be arbitrary. And you can draw lines within lines. Celebi drew an us-group around not just humans, but around all animal life, and so would I. It's just as arbitrary as any other line to draw. So to establish this, any us-group, whatever you feel personally connected to, be it in essence or in your values, is valid. That's not an arguable point, but a personal question of ethics.

Calling the protection of an animal that does not benefit mankind a waste of resources isn't just logical thinking. It is sheer evangelism of what boundaries we have to set on what we do accept in the us-group and what not. We can be selfish, and say that human survival is our only duty, and the rest can suck it, but that is just as arbitrary as saying we have duty for the survival of our race, language, religion, city, neighborhood, nation, genus, phylum, family, class, order, individual, whatever, that takes precedence over a them. In most cases, that's what politics like to do to us. We have several animals we are okay with accepting in the us-group. Dogs and cats are a good example. We can't say that the extinction of the chihuahua would damage our chances of survival, but it's acceptable to not want to let the breed die out, because people love them and we've long let them into the us-group, into society.

So why should it be acceptable to protect things we love? Empathy. The trait in human beings to empathise helped glue together society, and has taught us to watch for one another. We long to find something in common with each other, and we want to safeguard what we love. Our altruism has brought people together to strive towards a common goal. Heck, the entire project to keep pandas from going extinct is a classic example of how it brought international co-operation into motion. It binds people to share in their empathy. It has come to symbolize the ideal for why we should care about animals, like we care for each other, and not say "Who cares? It's not our problem." Of course, it doesn't have to be a problem of ours, if you define what you do care to protect and what you don't with a thick border, and say that this is what everyone should follow. But wherever we set boundaries does not matter. We protect because we have passion, and please let's never let an arbitrary choice of boundary get in our ways to live passionately.

To care, or not to care, that is the question.

Click to expand...

Should we have empathy for all creatures? Should we assist all insects, or just mammals? Should we help single-cellular animals or multi-cellular animals? Why are some meritable and others not? Is it subjective?

There needs to be more reason than empathy, if so, we would assist all animals. Empathy is therefore arbitrary since it doesn't fulfill an objective purpose since animals are subjectively protected or not protected. The only way to be objective is to make decisions that better mankind. Given the only other objective discourse is to do what is best for the environmental, in which case, man should be eradicated. Therefore, most will go with the first discourse.

Actually, you have a point. Humans developed certain stimuli with evolution that released euphoric chemicals when they assisted other humans. Thus, our ability to survive while similar species died out. Though, this residual physiological feature clouts clear judgement as we began developing sentimentality toward other species, in that we began to not make decision that were best for mankind, and yes, we began to establish subjectivity in who we feel empathy for animal or human and who we do not. Thus, we should try to employ reasoning rather than be driven by our arbitrary sentimental thoughts subjectively save some species that do not assist mankind, but not others that are valuable to mankind.

Now, domesticated animals, we have let sentimentality cause some detriment to society, but there have been reforms. For instance, spade and neutering animals, and therefore limiting the number of their species, has become essential in controlling the pet population. Are we protecting the dogs rights to reproduce? We should remain objective in that human society is affected negatively by too large of a dog or cat population.

Further, labrats, should our empathy for them trump man's ability to do medical research? That is why empathy alone is not the best discourse if one values humankind, one's own species, rather than another. The reason why we allow for lab rat experimentation is for our empathy for man and oneself. It is cost-effective.

The chihuahua example is good though! The difference between protecting an animal living in one's home and any wild animal is key. For instance, economically, the selling of dogs and cats is effective and a part of trade, selling to man's sentiments on a large-scale, any animal that can be domesticated, MASS-marketed, and not pose danger for society could be a viable animal to protect to an extent. One might object and refer to zoos, but these animals are not a marketable good, that one can possess, they are an entertainment service, which is not an integral part of our economy. If dogs ceased to exist tomorrow, the economy would be negatively affected. If giraffes ceased to exist, some people might lament, but generally there would be no SUBSTANTIAL change in the vast vast vast majority of human lives.

All-in-all, very interesting post EGKangaroo.

I agree, really. I did say earlier in this thread that I do support medicinal experimentation on animals because it greatly reduces suffering in the human population. While I love animals and wish to extend similar empathy towards them as I do to humans, I also have to make moral choices, and those choices are going to be hard. There are going to have to be trade-offs and prioritising of whose suffering is greater or lesser, and in most cases that means the closer they are to your ego, the better. We build a group of "us" that can only exist with a self in the middle. That's the sole thing that turns a them into an us in the first place. Makes linguistic sense, and it also makes psychological sense. We put layers upon layers of close individuals that we consider an us and helping anyone who is part of an us makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside, which is the chemicals that are released upon empathy which I cannot name because biochemistry is not my forte.

The human species are unique, in that they're the only species that understand their entire species as an "us". Most animals do not possess these traits. They think mostly of "us" as their mob, herd, pack, whatever. Humans still have it too. We still have our herds of nations and they all more or less want to act in their own diplomatic interests, and kinda recognise that co-operation gets them the things they want so they don't go blowing each other up at the risk of thermonuclear war. It's scaring to be all alone as the only species on the planet to really be this aware of our speciesdom, because there's nothing else we can compare ourselves to and we must work our way out ourselves. And perhaps we all remain egocentric, because we sure as hell always include ourselves, and thus our own species in the us-group, and all must benefit us. But we're also aware we're part of a genus, a family, an order, a class, a phylum, a kingdom. Would the next step be that we should recognise our genusdom? A question that seems irrelevant now, but would probably be raised if the Neanderthals still existed, among other species that used to exist in the homo genus. All hail the homokind though, right? And we're slowly coming to an understanding that Chimpanzees are more like us than we think, and we want to pull them on a more and more equal footing with us.

In the words of Carl Sagan: "Humans — who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals — have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and 'animals' is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them — without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us."
(You seem to agree on the fact animals can suffer as well, so the last couple of sentences are the most relevant here.)

We create layers upon layers of orders in priority in who deserves empathy more when a dilemma arises. Of course, a fly gets some empathy in the end. Most people will find it pointless to kill one that just happens to be standing on the wall. Human priority may take way when we're in a car and we run over countless of insects. There's no possible way to get around when we have to be careful not to hit any bug that happens to be on the road or happens to fly right into the windshield. Humans definitely take priority, but that does not mean other animals are automatically a 'them' in all cases. Even for humankind we see this kind of layering. If you have money to spend on paying the medical costs and saving one of your family members from a rare disease, you'd do that rather than give the money to someone else. Even if the latter would have more of a benefit to humankind than the former.

The layers of priority don't necessarily have to follow the exact distance in biological relation, obviously. What I try to make my moral decisions by, sometimes out of pragmatism, is to ask the question Jeremy Bentham asked: The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

For that reason, we feel little empathy to animals like insects, which have a fairly underdeveloped central nervous system, and certainly don't feel empathy for most uni-cellulars like amoeba, or plants, sponges, coral, whatever, for they do not have a central nervous system at all. For now, that is reason enough to contend that amoeba, plants, etc. cannot suffer. Science has not discovered any other way that suffering can exist without consciousness, or a central nervous system. A lot of pescetarians also defend themselves that fish are less able to suffer than most other foods so it's morally less questionable to eat fish. Whether that's true or not is debatable, to be honest, but I've heard many fish species do exhibit higher intelligence than we take for granted.

But, yeah, I think I owe you a few objective arguments as well. You said it wouldn't matter for humankind so much if Giraffes die out. But have you considered the money nations in Africa make on tourism? Could you imagine the damage a serious decrease in biodiversity would have to the tourism in those nations? It could be quite substantial. And think of all the zoos that lose revenue. Heck, if Australia were to have their macropods go extinct I'd imagine them losing within the hundreds of millions in tourism revenue.

Fenneking said:

snip

Click to expand...

I regret that I don't have the time to make an adequate response to this, as it is very well thought-out. I concede to your criticism, it is entirely correct. I do think the topic warrants more discussion.

I like your proposed solution.

Shiny Celebi said:

Sorry but I do not agree with this. I do not view animals as "property" or "resources". They are not just bags of bones, they are living things like we are. I dont agree with them being cast aside as things people own or tools to use. I dont really believe I own my cat. I prefer to think of myself more as a guardian to her, a caretaker and companion. She is not just another thing I own. She's a living creature with a personality, maybe not like a person's but she has one and is unique. I also dont agree with harming them senselessly. Viewing them as property encourages this treatment of them in my opinion. I think that' wrong.

Click to expand...

Why? Why should an animal be treated as anything more than mere property?

Being a "living thing" does not place something on the same pedestal as we are on. Uniqueness, predisposition to act in a certain way, none of these things place it on a higher pedestal than an object, except for the fact that you are attached to it. And people are attached to certain types of property in a similar way. It's the definition that fits best, plus it still affords them an adequate level of protection under the law.

So much is focussed on the ownership question: Do people own animals?

But here is another question: Do people own their children?

The law grants a child's parents unparalleled control over the life, and even the death of the child. A parent can determine when and what a child eats, whether they are clothed or not, when or if they can play, what friends they can have, and in case of medical decisions, when to no longer allow medical intervention to prolong their lives. They are potty trained just as dogs are housebroken.

In much the same way we make decisions affecting the lives animals that live with us, so to do we do the same with our children. So are they property? They don't have first amendment rights, since parents can easily, and legally, curtail any speech that they might make, they certainly don't have religious freedoms, as parents will always push their beliefs on their children as a way to teach them right from wrong.

In fact, more startling, a fetus is better regarded and protected than a child that is born. For once a child is born, their right to life is secondary to a parents' right to raise that child how they see fit, within the boundries of the law.

I submit that some people treat the animals living in their home better than they treat their own children. Now that is frightening.