Why Should Humans Be So Special? in Philosophy and Religion Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Why Should Humans Be So Special?

Author	Comment
Quontir		#481	[-]
Posts: 4631 Sep 27 12 9:04 AM Pirate Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	El Sinistral wrote: Actually, I think meat eating is acceptable but am trying to be open-minded to the idea that it may not be. I think vegetarianism based on morality has some compelling arguments. There are some compelling and other less so arguments. Especially since animals eat animals in the wild. If we aren't priveledging the deer over the wolf why are we so concerned about the cow over the human? What about humans in areas where they need to survive on meat? What about our pets do we turn cats and dogs into vegetarians despite the fact that they are carnivores? I've begun to agree that we should try and cause "less" suffering if possible, but not to thinking we need to remove animal suffering at our hands anymore than we need to remove it at the jaws of wolves or sharks.
	Remove this ad
El Sinistral		#482	[-]
Posts: 9487 Sep 27 12 6:04 PM Ataco tu abominable cara Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	There's no reason we can't hold human beings to a higher moral standard than animals. We can still value their well-being while understanding they don't have the cortical development needed for morality as we experience it. We don't, really, expect 3 year old human children to behave as morally as adults either. That's why they're assigned to adults who are responsible for their behavior. There's no reason it needs to be black and white within adult humanity, either. If you need to eat meat to survive, you clearly have more leeway for eating meat than someone for whom vegetarian options are available.
Quontir		#483	[-]
Posts: 4631 Sep 28 12 8:07 AM Pirate Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	By holding humans to a higher moral standard than other animals aren't we already saying "Humanity is special"? Once you make that divide and say "we're better than other animals" how do you track back towards it's not okay to eat creatures that we are better than? El Sinistral wrote: There's no reason it needs to be black and white within adult humanity, either. If you need to eat meat to survive, you clearly have more leeway for eating meat than someone for whom vegetarian options are available. I think that makes sense the poorest people in our society and areas where herding just makes more sense. But, what do we do about our dogs and cats? Are we now saying that because dogs and cats need to eat meat to survive they have more moral justification to do so than their human owner? (and yes I just imagined eating from the "Fancy Feast" can...ewww...) The issue is alot more complicated than I used to think it was.
El Sinistral		#484	[-]
Posts: 9487 Sep 28 12 7:41 PM Ataco tu abominable cara Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Quontir wrote: By holding humans to a higher moral standard than other animals aren't we already saying "Humanity is special"? Once you make that divide and say "we're better than other animals" how do you track back towards it's not okay to eat creatures that we are better than? No more than other animal that developed the same or similar cognitive ability. I think the point is, it's not the species classification that matters, it's the skills and talents an individual living organism has, or their potential to develop those skills and talents after having developed them partially. I think that makes sense the poorest people in our society and areas where herding just makes more sense. But, what do we do about our dogs and cats? Are we now saying that because dogs and cats need to eat meat to survive they have more moral justification to do so than their human owner? (and yes I just imagined eating from the "Fancy Feast" can...ewww...) I think so. But you could possibly make a case for fake meat. There's been some headway lately for growing "meat" in labs, and foods with the same content and qualities as meat can probably be artificially processed.
Samnell		#485	[-]
Posts: 14110 Sep 28 12 7:48 PM Panhypersebastokrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	El Sinistral wrote: Quontir wrote: By holding humans to a higher moral standard than other animals aren't we already saying "Humanity is special"? Once you make that divide and say "we're better than other animals" how do you track back towards it's not okay to eat creatures that we are better than? No more than other animal that developed the same or similar cognitive ability. I think the point is, it's not the species classification that matters, it's the skills and talents an individual living organism has, or their potential to develop those skills and talents after having developed them partially. This sounds a lot like my own position for a guy who has moral qualms about eating meat.
El Sinistral		#486	[-]
Posts: 9487 Sep 28 12 8:51 PM Ataco tu abominable cara Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Samnell wrote: El Sinistral wrote: Quontir wrote: By holding humans to a higher moral standard than other animals aren't we already saying "Humanity is special"? Once you make that divide and say "we're better than other animals" how do you track back towards it's not okay to eat creatures that we are better than? No more than other animal that developed the same or similar cognitive ability. I think the point is, it's not the species classification that matters, it's the skills and talents an individual living organism has, or their potential to develop those skills and talents after having developed them partially. This sounds a lot like my own position for a guy who has moral qualms about eating meat. Well, the difference is that I think it's fair to consider some of the more limited skills and talents of other animals powerful enough to consider their interests and suffering worthwhile. After all, as we discussed, many animals are more skilled and talented than newborn human infants.
Samnell		#487	[-]
Posts: 14110 Sep 28 12 8:59 PM Panhypersebastokrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	El Sinistral wrote: Samnell wrote: This sounds a lot like my own position for a guy who has moral qualms about eating meat. Well, the difference is that I think it's fair to consider some of the more limited skills and talents of other animals powerful enough to consider their interests and suffering worthwhile. After all, as we discussed, many animals are more skilled and talented than newborn human infants. We did go over that and there's not much in what you've just said that I have any objection to. In this very thread I made reference to the interests and sufferings of adult chimpanzees being worthwhile due to their high, if not on human adult level, cognitive abilities.
El Sinistral		#488	[-]
Posts: 9487 Sep 28 12 9:13 PM Ataco tu abominable cara Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Sure, I'm just willing to see more value in simpler forms of cognition. Dogs. Cats. Cows. Etc. Pretty much mammals and birds I can generally see a decent case for. Cephalopods, perhaps, as well. Our scales are different.
	Remove this ad
Samnell		#489	[-]
Posts: 14110 Sep 28 12 9:14 PM Panhypersebastokrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	El Sinistral wrote: Sure, I'm just willing to see more value in simpler forms of cognition. Dogs. Cats. Cows. Etc. Pretty much mammals and birds I can generally see a decent case for. Cephalopods, perhaps, as well. Our scales are different. At least we can both admit to having them.
El Sinistral		#490	[-]
Posts: 9487 Sep 28 12 9:19 PM Ataco tu abominable cara Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well, all morals come in scales. Even people who espouse black and white philosophies usually have exceptions they don't readily admit to.
Quontir		#491	[-]
Posts: 4631 Sep 30 12 12:21 AM Pirate Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	El Sinistral wrote: No more than other animal that developed the same or similar cognitive ability. Okay so when animals with those same or similar cognitive abilities eat other animals do we stop them? El Sinisral wrote: I think so. But you could possibly make a case for fake meat. I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that as humans we have some moral obligation not to eat meat, but at the same time we have no moral obligation to stop owning cats and dogs that must eat meat to live? It's okay to own carnivores and feed them, but we're better than that? I think I'm really missing something in my understanding here. Because it seems like we're putting humans on (or maybe making humans be on?) some sort of high moral pedestal and yet at the same time saying humans aren't special....
Samnell		#492	[-]
Posts: 14110 Sep 30 12 1:35 AM Panhypersebastokrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	On lab-grown meat, I would be remiss in my self-appointed duties as a new vlogbrothers fanboy not to share this.
El Sinistral		#493	[-]
Posts: 9487 Sep 30 12 11:09 AM Ataco tu abominable cara Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Quontir wrote: El Sinistral wrote: No more than other animal that developed the same or similar cognitive ability. Okay so when animals with those same or similar cognitive abilities eat other animals do we stop them? Depends on what animal they're eating. I wouldn't let a dog eat another dog. I actually think most people would agree that's a good thing to prevent. I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that as humans we have some moral obligation not to eat meat, but at the same time we have no moral obligation to stop owning cats and dogs that must eat meat to live? The idea of owning cats and dogs is really kind of malleable if you think about it. You're responsible for their welfare in a way you aren't for a couch or a desk. But yes, animals that don't recognize that moral obligation are limited. This isn't an acknowledgment that cognitive ability creates a kind of power and that power should be handled responsibily. We just happen to have a near-monopoly on cognitive ability right now. But not completely. Even Koko the gorilla can take care of kittens.
Quontir		#494	[-]
Posts: 4631 Oct 2 12 12:01 AM Pirate Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	El Sinistral wrote: The idea of owning cats and dogs is really kind of malleable if you think about it. You're responsible for their welfare in a way you aren't for a couch or a desk. But yes, animals that don't recognize that moral obligation are limited. This isn't an acknowledgment that cognitive ability creates a kind of power and that power should be handled responsibily. We just happen to have a near-monopoly on cognitive ability right now. But not completely. Even Koko the gorilla can take care of kittens. I have a few separate questions here: Would it be acceptable to make Gorilla's become vegetarians? Is it acceptable to make a person with extreme autism become vegetarian? If we really are going to go all out and say that for most people (excluding the poor, living in areas where grazing animals makes more sense, unable to process plant protiens, etc.) are morally obliged to be vegetarians in order to reduce suffering shouldn't we also say that owning cats and dogs ought to be phased out as well? If we really do (mostly) have a monopoly on cognitive ability doesn't that make us special? Couldn't that be used to justify why we are allowed to eat other animals that don't? P.S. I would totally eat lab grown meat
Samnell		#495	[-]
Posts: 14110 Oct 2 12 1:22 AM Panhypersebastokrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Quontir wrote: P.S. I would totally eat lab grown meat I would too. Hell, I'd probably eat lab grown human meat. Meat's meat.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Why Should Humans Be So Special?