I saw a chimpanzee who was stuck in a cage all the time. One day he escaped and attack. Is this the idea of freedom and independence?
Fighting for his own existence as free creatures?
As moses said, " The Amorites are fighting for loot and spoil, but we are fighting for the existence of free men, our cause is the better one, God is on our side"
The Jungle boy reply in the answer, you kill him, " You eat him? He wanted to eat you? Then why kill him? "
I hate pets as so if I don’t have to take care of one.
To Iacchus - this is not entirely true. I can quote Ernst Werklempter’s cat, Willy, from his seminal but incredible treatise, “If You Step on My Tail Again, I’ll Remove All of the Flesh From Your Shin”, a bellicose and Machiavellian essay on the subject of Transgressional Morality.
“I maintain that all sentient beings, including humans, have the inalienable right to think that you are an insufferable toad. In fact, I hate you. And I am free to express this disdain until you finally kill me. Moron.”
I think it’s clear that Willy was show that moral sentiment is not exclusive to humans. Sentimental moralists, therefore, must include animals in their ethical calculations.
Willy’s master elaborated and expanded upon this idea in his masterful but puzzling piece, “Beyond Good Animals and Evil Animals”: “It is bad taste to harm any animal, especially if the animal tastes bad. Had some wonderful veal with leeks the other night, though. Upchucked it later while reading a Socratic dialogue. I think it was the leeks”.
Forgive me on my grammar. I hope you can understand the question and everything onwards, as you can understand Neitchze and Kant.
Are not human, animals? Then animals and human are equal. Then you may challenge the intelligence, and say human have more rights then animals do, and we have the right to do whatever to them.
Now what about human slaves? Haven’t time treated them alienated. Then someone came and free them and say slaves are equal and has rights.
I know this post is a waste of time but still I want to know. Animals fear humans, and human fears animals. Through armed men vs. roaches to giant sharks and lizards.
i saw a lecture on this a few years back. dont remember a damn thing about it. i know the animal rights activists made a very compelling case and that the opponents made virtually no case (probably because they were idiot professors). their case though wasnt so much that a human was more valuable than an animal because value is subjective. nor was it that they believe animal testing to be a humane way of behaiving. i remember it being more along the lines of beyond eating them for survival any other way that we abuse them doesnt improve our personal well being. like we can take advantage of everything and we do but none of it really makes your life that much better. it might make you live longer or be able to make some really nifty genetically engineered kids but the future of the world where everything is perfectly developed and all that doesnt make one happy nor does it define the persons correlation to the rest of the world and that is supposedly what matters. it doesnt answer the question though which was my problem with that arguement. it just kinda makes you not want to abuse animals.
if i was to answer it i would say life is an amazingly rare and extraordinary phenomenon. i dont think we appreciate it nearly as much as we should. that humans are wasteful and that wastefulness carries over into all their actions including the way they treat animals.
i think its not the fact that we kill animals for food or survival (not that they really do much else for us anymore… you dont need fur coats or deer skin tents anymore. while im at it you dont really need meat either but thats pushing it.) isnt what offends. i think the way we do it in such amazing quantities is what bothers us. that is wrong. a human trying to survive by hunting deer offends no ones sense of morality. a human fattening cows so they produce more meat and then killing off millions a year is offensive to a lot more people. same result in a sense just on a large scale i dont know why. i can only say its our sense of wasting.
Since you talk about food. Do you know food industries, give shots to chicken and perhaps pigs, and cows, for the sake of producing eggs faster and making the meat more tender?
By putting these chemicals to them, and then we eat them, the child expectation of puerty is increased. Kids are having a full grown beard early in this generation.
There are also more sources about food, that companies hide their secrets. Like the low carb diet scam, low fat scam, diet pepsi scam, everyone thought you will lose weight but in reality it gains weight and make you buy their products. Like the food pyramind as well. Made the people think they will live better and healthy by following the routines, that was how dairy came about.
yea ive heard about a lot of that. plus if youve ever seen the videos on animal testing or cruelty in factories its pretty disturbing to most humans.
im a vegetarian and i only buy organic stuff. the food pyramid is fairly accurate though. ive read a lot about how to keep a balanced diet people usually refer to similar concepts as the food pyramid.
Your high need to defend animals becomes a symptom of your own narcissism and neglection of reality. Everything accept for humans is for the sake of humans. To be an advocator of such animal-sympathetic behavior and policies becomes a byproduct of your own denial. While some of us take animals for what they are and only exploit them as a means of nourishment, and survival accesories, you on the other hand would rather preserve and protect them and neglect the implications of nature. So, are you enhancing nature here or merely destroying it?
On the contrary. If animals were capable of speaking up – which, for the most part I don’t believe they are – we might listen. And, since they aren’t, maybe it’s not that important. For example, how important is it to give the cow a choice not to be butchered when it doesn’t even know this is what it’s being prepared for? So long as the cows immediate needs are met, and it’s not being made to suffer unecessarily, who cares?
The only rights that exist are produced and maintained by an ongoing negotiation between citizens and governments, or in this case the chimp and the authority figure guarding the chimp.
TO neutralize the exploitation of animals and give them rights marks society’s decadence and degeneration. We must be be seduced by the petty drone-like words of animal rights activists and dolphine-lovers or spandex-wearers. Such implications are impractical, and to impose preservation on a certain animal will result in a disruption in the ecosystem and foodchain leaving mankind tangled in a snare that was set by himself.
One way to try and answer this question is to explore why it is that we feel it is ok to do the things we do to animals. Answering those kinds of ‘why’ questions often leads to a better understanding of any consistencies or inconsistencies in such thinking.
obw - Morality, generally, is conceived of in terms of concentric circles. Ask most people - perhaps not Christian Fundamentalists, because they will generally lie about this, or confuse their theory with their practise - and they will tell you that they rank family first, then friends, then “community”, then country, and so on. This ranking may be discovered more or less effectively depending on which question you ask. A good one would be “Rank these groups in terms of the amount of guilt you are likely to feel at a moral transgression on your part against them, or the anger you feel if wronged by them.”
Morality has everything to do with “otherness” and the more “other” one regards a person or group as, the less morality is in play. Another way to put this is in terms of compassion or empathy (which are not equivalent terms). Animals, for many, are just “too” other.
There is a different kind of ranking that many people use, that also affects these judgements. Many people feel they owe no moral duty to those who feel no duty to them. Bad people are treated differently than good people. Absolutists of all kinds will generally fall into line here - rationalists and theists, notably. The rationalists are the more extreme practitioners of what I consider muddled thinking.
Personally, I think we owe animals a better lot than they often get, but not on what would be generally considered moral grounds. They are moral grounds, but my morality is entirely based upon what I believe to be good for me - a tricky paradigm for those who seek an objective moral truth. Call it something akin to Nietzsche’s concept of nobility. I eat meat and wear leather, and hope finally to go hunting deer this fall, for the record.
Yes I would not disagree that it is the case, however it ought not to be - I am yet to find a good argument, other than specific forms of social contractarianism, that provides adequate justification for lending such moral weight to the conspicuousness of a situation.
