|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 1, 2019 16:20:05 GMT 5
I know behavioural biologists who highly doubt the far-reaching implications for intelligence some people ascribe to the mirror-test. The thing is, almost all aquatic animals regularly see themselves mirrored in the water surface, as do terrestrial animals when they drink from a watering hole. If those did not recognize the mirror image as their own, they would have to assume it was another animal and behave accordingly. Just because they don’t make a big scene around recognizing themselves, that doesn’t mean they don’t, it just means it’s normal for them (what’s a giraffe bending down for a drink supposed to do when it sees its mirror image, start sticking its hooves in its face to examine it?). Self-recognition in mirrors is likely far more widespread than generally thought, and not indicative of exceptional levels of self-consciousness.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 1, 2019 17:37:16 GMT 5
That's a good point. I'm aware of other critiques according to which it focuses too much on an animal's visual capacities.
The main reason I wrote it was that I originally wanted to write "primates, cetaceans and elephants", but "animals who pass the mirror test" seemed more handy. On the other hand, reading the Wikipedia article reveals that even ants have passed the mirror test even though I certainly did not want to include them, so I can see your point.
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Aug 1, 2019 18:39:09 GMT 5
rock OK, I’ll give you a simple example of what I mean. I think we have established that it is justified and natural to harm plants in order to eat (even though we may not all agree what that implies regarding the meat issue). So if I plant some lettuce in my garden in order to eat it, I’d argue that’s ethically justifiable. But does that mean I can just as well cut down a rainforest to use the space for cattle-farming? Both harm living beings, right? But does that mean it doesn’t matter which one I do? I’ll let you answer that. im not saying it is not morally wrong to eat plants , but if we had to worry about taking a life we would have nothing to eat , because we have to kill plants and animals to live. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 1, 2019 18:58:57 GMT 5
No, you are totally missing the point.
I’m not actually arguing that it is morally wrong to eat plants, because I don’t think it is. Heck, I don’t even think it is morally wrong to eat animals. What I’m trying to tell you is that those are two different pairs of shoes.
Even if you think both are wrong, that’s no justification for morally equating them.
When you eat plants, you harm plants doing that, yes. But when you eat animals, you harm the animal, which is arguably a lot worse because said animal has a brain and thus at least the potential to feel and suffer from what you are doing to it, but also the many plants you need to feed said animal.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 1, 2019 20:54:04 GMT 5
Well, if he has a deontological (law-abiding) moral belief system, it kinda makes sense, since such moral systems are defined by the fact that they don't quantify crimes. Thus, I think rock thinks there is only "It is permissible to kill life" and "It is not permissible to kill life", with nothing in between.
The most well-known such system is the Biblical. To quote James 2:10: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."
This is incidentally the main reason I don't like deontological ethics and why I think very few people seriously believe in them (almost everyone finds some crimes worse than others).
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 1, 2019 21:24:18 GMT 5
Well, that is an absurd and dangerous moral belief system if you ask me. Basically if people really lived according to that system (either not break any law at all, or it doesn’t matter if you break all of them), there would only be two kinds of people: mass murderers and insufferable pedants.
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Aug 2, 2019 2:07:30 GMT 5
Well, that is an absurd and dangerous moral belief system if you ask me. Basically if people really lived according to that system (either not break any law at all, or it doesn’t matter if you break all of them), there would only be two kinds of people: mass murderers and insufferable pedants. to say animal lives matter more than plant lives is a little silly , seeing how they are both living things that can feel pain , im not a plants life activist , but if we had to worry about everything we kill we would have nothing to eat , we would not be able to drink water because that comes from the ocean where the fish live and we would not be able to go outside and step on grass because thats were the grass grows |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 2, 2019 2:50:19 GMT 5
Do people who forget to water their plants make you as angry as those who feed their dogs vegan? If the answer is yes, you are probably lying to yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Aug 2, 2019 3:09:19 GMT 5
That, or rock isn't thinking it through.
rock
Have you looked at all points/facts?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 2, 2019 3:09:49 GMT 5
rock Animals have nervous systems. Plants do not. Animals have pain receptors. Plants do not. Commonly eaten animals have brains (yummy!), plants do not. Many of the animals commonly eaten can definitely feel pain. Whether SOME plants can POSSIBLY feel something somehow equivalent is highly debatable. More than that, it is overwhelmingly clear that industrial-scale livestock-farming causes conditions very likely to cause IMMENSE pain to the animals involved in it, whereas clearly grasses or fruit trees neither mind being planted in close proximity, nor do they need to be castrated without anesthesia or slaughtered improperly. So no, plant lives and animal lives aren’t morally equivalent. That’s just as ridiculous as saying a mosquito life doesn’t matter any less than a human life. I hope you don’t run around murdering people with the rationale that you’ve already swatted lots of mosquitoes, and that hence it isn’t any worse to kill humans as well. Besides, as creature and me already told you repeatedly, you need to kill far more plants in order to produce a given amount of animal biomass than you would for an equivalent amount of plant biomass. There are countless studies that examined this. So basically you are saying that eating animals isn’t morally any different from eating plants, even though by eating the animals you aren’t just killing the animal, as well as killing just as many plants as when eating plants directly, you are also killing roughly 9 times as many plants on top of that. I question the validity of a moral framework in which killing 10 of something isn’t any worse than killing just one, whether that something are plants or animals. Drink water from the ocean? I hope you don’t do that, it will make you barf, then kill you if you continue. Water is an infinitely renewable resource. A drop of water doesn’t become any less available for the fish or other aquatic animals when you drink it; firstly because the amount of water we actually drink is so tiny it is insignificant (quite unlike the water used in agriculture, not exclusively, but especially meat production!), secondly because what goes in must come out, it doesn’t matter to the fish whether the water goes through one more cycle of evaporation and precipitation before it can swim in it again, as long as the system is always balanced. Now I’d totally get it if you were making that argument about processes using large amounts of water where there isn’t enough of it available (e.g. Lake Aral), and I do in fact think that this should be avoided because that would cause lasting environmental damage, including to animals inhabiting such ecosystems, but you didn’t do that, you instead talked about drinking water from the ocean. Stepping on grass doesn’t cause lasting damage to the grass either. Again, I’d get if you were making this argument about widespread deforestation or other lasting damage to vegetation (which again, I AM opposed to, so this would be perfectly in line with my argument and not contradict it), but again in some attempt of a reductio ad absurdum, you’ve actually managed to reduce it down to a level where the crucial points of the argument (that whatever you are doing causes lasting damage to another organism) simply don’t apply anymore. Lives are obviously a very different thing from either of your two examples. Once you kill something, it doesn’t come back, unlike water which simply evaporates and rains back down. One can have varying opinions about the value of life or what justifies taking one, but comparing it to drinking water is ridiculous.
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Aug 2, 2019 21:28:58 GMT 5
Do people who forget to water your plants make you as angry as those who feed their dogs vegan? If the answer is yes, you are probably lying to yourself. no , im not saying that , i am saying that everything has a equal right to live , so if animals have the right to not be killed then so do plants , which debunks the theory of vegeanism |
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Aug 2, 2019 21:29:53 GMT 5
rock Animals have nervous systems. Plants do not. Animals have pain receptors. Plants do not. Commonly eaten animals have brains (yummy!), plants do not. Many of the animals commonly eaten can definitely feel pain. Whether SOME plants can POSSIBLY feel something somehow equivalent is highly debatable. More than that, it is overwhelmingly clear that industrial-scale livestock-farming causes conditions very likely to cause IMMENSE pain to the animals involved in it, whereas clearly grasses or fruit trees neither mind being planted in close proximity, nor do they need to be castrated without anesthesia or slaughtered improperly. So no, plant lives and animal lives aren’t morally equivalent. That’s just as ridiculous as saying a mosquito life doesn’t matter any less than a human life. I hope you don’t run around murdering people with the rationale that you’ve already swatted lots of mosquitoes, and that hence it isn’t any worse to kill humans as well. Besides, as creature and me already told you repeatedly, you need to kill far more plants in order to produce a given amount of animal biomass than you would for an equivalent amount of plant biomass. There are countless studies that examined this. So basically you are saying that eating animals isn’t morally any different from eating plants, even though by eating the animals you aren’t just killing the animal, as well as killing just as many plants as when eating plants directly, you are also killing roughly 9 times as many plants on top of that. I question the validity of a moral framework in which killing 10 of something isn’t any worse than killing just one, whether that something are plants or animals. Drink water from the ocean? I hope you don’t do that, it will make you barf, then kill you if you continue. Water is an infinitely renewable resource. A drop of water doesn’t become any less available for the fish or other aquatic animals when you drink it; firstly because the amount of water we actually drink is so tiny it is insignificant (quite unlike the water used in agriculture, not exclusively, but especially meat production!), secondly because what goes in must come out, it doesn’t matter to the fish whether the water goes through one more cycle of evaporation and precipitation before it can swim in it again, as long as the system is always balanced. Now I’d totally get it if you were making that argument about processes using large amounts of water where there isn’t enough of it available (e.g. Lake Aral), and I do in fact think that this should be avoided because that would cause lasting environmental damage, including to animals inhabiting such ecosystems, but you didn’t do that, you instead talked about drinking water from the ocean. Stepping on grass doesn’t cause lasting damage to the grass either. Again, I’d get if you were making this argument about widespread deforestation or other lasting damage to vegetation (which again, I AM opposed to, so this would be perfectly in line with my argument and not contradict it), but again in some attempt of a reductio ad absurdum, you’ve actually managed to reduce it down to a level where the crucial points of the argument (that whatever you are doing causes lasting damage to another organism) simply don’t apply anymore. Lives are obviously a very different thing from either of your two examples. Once you kill something, it doesn’t come back, unlike water which simply evaporates and rains back down. One can have varying opinions about the value of life or what justifies taking one, but comparing it to drinking water is ridiculous. so basically the logic here is that if it doesnt feel pain , then it is ok to kill it? then lets just put the animals to sleep before we kill them! , great idea! , problem solved , no one has to go vegan ever again! |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 2, 2019 21:33:53 GMT 5
Do people who forget to water your plants make you as angry as those who feed their dogs vegan? If the answer is yes, you are probably lying to yourself. no , im not saying that , i am saying that everything has a equal right to live , so if animals have the right to not be killed then so do plants , which debunks the theory of vegeanism If everything has an equal right to live, does that also mean that everything has an equal right to health (or not to suffer)? If so, what I wrote (forgetting to water a plant is as bad as forcing vegan diets on dogs) logically follows. If not, eating meat does not just cause animal death, but also animal suffering, so there's still a case to be built for veganism. Even if we just focus, on the right to live, I'm not sure what you mean by "everything". I'm pretty sure humans get special treatment, unless you think humans are as much worth as potatoes. so basically the logic here is that if it doesnt feel pain , then it is ok to kill it? then lets just put the animals to sleep before we kill them! , great idea! , problem solved , no one has to go vegan ever again! Bolt shots often fail and even before the slaughter, tremendous animal suffering takes place due to very species-inappropriate farming conditions. Cows are forcibly separated from their calves, chicken live together so closely that their beaks must be trimmed to prevent them from killing each other, etc. |
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Aug 2, 2019 21:44:19 GMT 5
no , im not saying that , i am saying that everything has a equal right to live , so if animals have the right to not be killed then so do plants , which debunks the theory of vegeanism If everything has an equal right to live, does that also mean that everything has an equal right to health (or not to suffer)? If so, what I wrote (forgetting to water a plant is as bad as forcing vegan diets on dogs) logically follows. If not, eating meat does not just cause animal death, but also animal suffering, so there's still a case to be built for veganism. Even if we just focus, on the right to live, I'm not sure what you mean by "everything". I'm pretty sure humans get special treatment, unless you think humans are as much worth as potatoes. so basically the logic here is that if it doesnt feel pain , then it is ok to kill it? then lets just put the animals to sleep before we kill them! , great idea! , problem solved , no one has to go vegan ever again! Bolt shots often fail and even before the slaughter, tremendous animal suffering takes place due to very species-inappropriate farming conditions. Cows are forcibly separated from their calves, chicken live together so closely that their beaks must be trimmed to prevent them from killing each other, etc. again , im not saying eating plants is morally wrong but plants have just as much as right to live as animals do , its the circle of life , animals have to die for us and our pets to eat , i love animals but understand that they need to be killed for me and my dog to have dinner , second of all even if they choose not to eat meat , someone elese will buy it anyway , 99.9% of the human population is omnivorous , so they really arent doing the world a favor as they like to think they are , veganism is a choice people make because they cannot cope with having to eat a dead animal , i dont care , i eat the animal and i can careless how it was killed as long as i have food to eat . |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 2, 2019 21:56:04 GMT 5
again , im not saying eating plants is morally wrong I did not accuse you of saying so. I just question if you truly believe in the following: but plants have just as much as right to live as animals do My strategy is basically a reductio ad absurdum. If animals and plants have the same right to live, why does harm to animals generally cause much more outrage than harm to plants? Also, if animals and plants have the same right to live, why don't humans have the same right to live as animals and plants, too? Whatever differences there are between a cow and a human, they are smaller than the differences between a cow and mustard grass. second of all even if they choose not to eat meat , someone elese will buy it anyway , 99.9% of the human population is omnivorous This figure comes out of absolutely nowhere. In most countries, the number of vegetarians fluctuates between 5 and 10%: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#DemographicsEven so, it does make a difference if you only eat half a chicken breast a month or a steak every day, even if both constitute parts of an omnivorous diet. From a market perspective, two people halving their meat consumption makes as much of a difference as one eschewing it completely. As mentioned before, it's a question of supply and demand. By that, I don't just mean decreasing the demand for animal product, but also the demand for all the alternatives, so that they become more widely available (this seems to be working well). Like that, more people can afford a vegan/vegetarian/flexitarian diet. , so they really arent doing the world a favor as they like to think they are , veganism is a choice people make because they cannot cope with having to eat a dead animal , i dont care , i eat the animal and i can careless how it was killed as long as i have food to eat . Yeah, I guess environmentalists are also just a bunch of wusses who can't deal with the fact that global warming is a fact of life while real men drive their SUVs, right? |
|
