Why should compassion only extend to humans? It's *because* we're able to think logically and understand abstract theories that makes us responsible for our actions.
But your argument ends with it's beginning; a subjective analysis of what constitutes various aspects of character; for example...how do you know animals don't create art? Would it necessarily be something that we recognize? The nearest definition I have heard for art is the result of a creative process...how do you determine that other species do not demonstrate creativity when we can't even communicate with them on their level? This kind of misconception has happened to us within our species more times than you can count...Europeans often dismissed Africans, native Americans, etc. as sub-human because they failed to meet the European criteria for human behaviour...and that belief persisted for centuries. There are other countless flaws/assumptions in your argument; that human beings have an inate sense of right and wrong...hardly a conceded position within psychological, anthropological or sociological thinking...that we are the only species which uses machines or 'tools'...the only one to protect our indigent, etc. Are of these are supposition, not fact, and most are counter-factual within the limits of our knowledge. It would appear that, at it's base, the argument devolves to a simple correlation between intelectual capacity as it relates to complex systems and activites and moral rights. Not to mention the other flaw in the argument; that there is a linear connection between possessing 'rights' and the criteria you ascribe.
Macbeth, Animals have no capacity for creativity or reason. They are driven primarily by instinct. They are able to solve simple problems and have some primitive emotions. But does this deem them to be worthy of rights? Rights require one to take advantage of them and a means to protect them (i.e. a govt.) from the depradations of others. Animals don't form govts. Animals kill and eat each other continually as part of the natural cycle of death and decay. The only law that governs their actions is the law of survival of the fittest. To say otherwise is absurd. Show me some art created by an animal that wasn't the result of a rational, intelligent human programming the creature to respond to a stimuli such as a reward. You can't argue with my definition of rights and what is required to sustain them because animals can not do either one of those things! The whole concept of "animal rights" is ridiculous and perpetuated by people of a lunatic fringe organization who lump in the killing of chickens for food with the Holocaust. It was created in minds of those with far too much time on their hands, because as my mother always says, "the idle mind is the Devil's workshop."
1. Of course. 2. Yeah, emotions get people every time. If they would morn the loss of a pet more than that of there own loved one, there own family, there own RACE, then they surely have issues, and are the exception. To love a pet THAT much, so much as to think of their own kind as secondary in their life, seems to indicate a feeling of seperation, rejection from the victims own kind. I know there are exceptions to the rule, there always is, so should I then conclude that there IS NO RIGHT ANSWER? We should just simply point out all the if's, and's, but's, coulda, woulda, will be, bla bla and appease everybody. Nah, take a stance, please. Tell us what you believe. And you'll have to define the word "Superior" from the Macbeth dictionary so I can properly reply. 3-4. What God has told us through his word, is what he wanted us to know. Other things we can explore as we wish, to learn about the past. Nobody can say for sure how things were at that time. Neither through any faith, or science, or argumental theory. What do you think? I bet many of them had arms and legs, just like we do, they ate each other, killed each other, lived, died, and held elections. What do you think? There is a clear distinction from a bowl and a plate. One holds water, the other doesn't, but they are both glass.....oh wait, how do I know that one isn't metal? Or plastic? I don't recall saying anything about art and animals.......??? I guess if you tie a paintbrush on a fishes tail, and let if flop around on a canvass, it could be interpreted as art. You could call it "Desperation".
This deserves to be read again. Interesting post. Re. your tangent (i.e. nature striking back against the human 'plague'), civilization is a most inefficient beast. A lot of poisonous waste product. As it evolves though, we see more environmental focus ... outlawing pesticides and ozone-depleting chemicals, recycling, renewable power, etc. I think of the evolution of mankind in a more gaia-esque sense. Mankind will become efficient and Earth friendly. As for the population issue, I envision man colonizing space...in the nick of time most likely, but probably not, coincidentally, before we have evolved into a 'positive' entity. Don't be so negative about Humankind. Man's brain is the most complex creation by the universe (known). It is the universe's most advanced ability to capture, store, and apply information. It is composed of material from dead stars, and supported by billions of individual living cells working in unison to sustain it. Someday, it will be the vehicle by which Earth spreads it's seed through space (i.e. the surviving species).
First of all, I didn't say a thing about art, although I was very good at ceramics, and drawing in High School. Still am. If a 3 foot long turd in the toilet is viewed as inspirational to some, and they want to call it art, hey, who am I to argue? Second, being that religion, faith, beliefs, traditions are all taken with a grain of salt by ones such as you, I'd be wasting my time on the subject. Let me ask you this though...... Human relations-most of the people of the world view murder as wrong. Theft is wrong, unless you're Robin Hood. Adultery, wrong. Fornication, wrong, but nowadays....nobody cares. On and on. Most people believe that RAPE is wrong. But I guarantee you that there are people who would disagree. So what is your view on this question: Why are the morals of the human race, MOSTLY in agreement? Why are we not all just preying off of each other? Instinct? Fear of God? Faith? Lastly, I agree that my statement was a little off key. To people who understand sport, like myself, would understand what I meant. Hunting legally, for food, hide, population control, whatever, is what I call sport. Sensless killing, to me, is seeing an animal and killing it for no intended purpose other than say target practice. People who don't participate in outdoor sports or recreation, likely won't draw the distinction, but they'll go out of there way to prevent hunting, for whatever reason. Don't kill Bambi! Nevermind that many people enjoy it as part of their recreational lives. It is a form of ignorance in my mind, but that doesn't mean a person is uneducated. I'm ignorant about many things, but am an educated man. I was once ignorant of this word: Agog: Full of excitement or interest; in eager desire; eager, keen.
If you believe in God at all, and if the subject is worth all that trouble in studying and interpreting and following, then you would have to acknowledge that at least some of it may be true, and that a LITTLE more respect would be in order. If it's not conclusively, comprehensively, absolutely for surely, most definately, no doubt about itably, certain for you, and thus you totally call BS on it, then by all means mock it. A man with a big stick sees a wasp nest on the ground. Are the wasps at home, or have they fled? You can jab the stick in it if you want, if your sure that it's safe. But it may not be, and you could get stung. Wasps have the RIGHT to protect themselves.......
1. Cool... 2. But don't you see that you are ascribing value to emotional reactions when it suits you and dismissing them as irrational when it doesn't. Either it has value in the argument or it doesn't...It is hardly a worthy position to say that it only counts when it agrees with you. I don't really know what I believe about this, I just know what I see as faulty reasoning. 3.> I don't get your point here...You suggested that our place at the head of the food chain was a direct result of divine will. I asked, reasonably, where was that divine will when the dinosaurs were the head of the food chain. You respond by claiming apples and oranges, while true, really avoids the implication of the possible answers. 4. Sorry, I thought you were among those citing a link between rights and the ability to create art...was I wrong? Beyond that, in terms of your defintion of art, again, entirely subjective. Obviously, were animals to create art, it would be for other animals to appreciate, not ours, so our inability to percieve the value in them would hardly invalidate them. I doubt a martian would appreciate Cezanne.
Of course all this when he makes darned good money selling hot dogs and burgers. Well principled he is.
I've always despised waste. Unless a animal is killed for consumption only, I have a huge problem with killing for fun.
So under this theory, if animals have rights as we would define them, does that also mean that when one fox brutalizes another, we should hold a trial and jail him if convicted? It follows logically. Where there are rights, there are responsibilities.
Sorry, but that's an ignorant statement. What, precisely, do you know about my position on religion, let alone the worthyness of same? Other posters in here will tell you that I have, on many occassion, defended religious positions. I have studies it for years, and taught elements of it. Where exactly do you get off classifying 'ones such as me'? You seem to be replete with subjective opinion as fact. Historically inaccurate, to a degree, and largley culturally biased. Ok...taken one by one...Define murder. The taking of another life? For most of history many people were in a socially accepted position to take the lives of other humans with no need to justify it. Slaves could be killed by their owners with no repercussion, and the vast majority of human history contains large degrees of slavery. In many class systems it was perfectly acceptable to kill someone of a lower class. Royalty was often answerable to no one but themselves when dealing out death, and did so by the ( combined) millions. Again, to apply limited contemporary values to human nature is subjective and faulty. Theft? Several very human cultures never even incorporated the concept of individual ownership, let alone ascribed an inherent eveil to the concept of theft. Several others which did saw theft as natural. The Spartans, for example, encouraged it in their young men. Again, same deal with regards to your reasoning. Adultery? Incredibly wrong. Many, many cultures don't even have institutions which you would recognize as marriage, and in the vast majority of those that did, amrriage was a property transaction, not a moral one, and the violation of it was, if considered wrong at all, only done so insofar as it couded parentage/property issues. Because of this we see, in the vast majority of human nature, a double standard for adultery even within those cultures which dientified it as a wrong; men were expected to have extra-marital sex...and wonmen were restricted. Fornication...dead wrong. Many socities and cultures have never had any moral problem with it, and those which have again have largely practiced it for the reasons I gave, parentage, and in the same sex-discriminated manner. Rape was, for thousands of years, pro forma for soldiers conquering areas, with no moral condemnation. Also, by current definitions, much of the human sexual interaction between spouses over history could be classified as rape, in that women had no choice at all. Your argument that we have these inherent moral values doesn't hold water when looked at through the lens of history. Certainly at various times certain cultures have become so powerful that they exported their social values to such a wide geographic area that they became something of a 'standardized moral code', ie the Macedonians, the Romans, and currently much of the globe is practicing those values exported by the British and somewhat reinforced by the Americans...but it is still far from universal, and miles from being so when cooked at through the lens of history. Fair enough on the sport hunting thing, although I am not sure that the definition os as universally accpeted as you suggest. I have watched hunting shows, and they make much out of the target practice angle, and little out of the aspects you mention. An examination of the effect we have had on species extinction would seem to support this.
ROFLMFAO! A word from MacTECH....... How can we conclusively acertain that said meat products were acquired through the demise of our brethren, the animals? Synthetic technologies are a marvelous thing!
1) Again, ignorant. Upon what basis do you make your conclusions about my percpetion of religion? I asked a legitimate question which, ironiically, comes from knowledge of the history of Christianity..and you respond by ignoring the import of my point and instead classify me as a close mided critic of religion. 2) Where on earth did I mock religion? Pointing out that knowlege of the process by which the Bible was compiled undermines the position of it's comprehensive inviability does not, under any standard I have heard, consitute mockery. This is getting a little insulting. If your arguments can't stand up to objective academic scrutiny, possibly your problem isn't with me.
To not run off (infants can't), so that the caretaking parents of infant fox can represent said infant of it's rights, until such time that said infant can function and comprehend said rights on it's own, and act upon them.
