|
 Post in Forums
Create a Profile
Upload Pictures
|
Keep a Journal
Meet Friends
It's FREE!
|
|
Sign Up!
|
Forum Index > News & Politics > Animal Rights | >> Animals have no moral status | | |
|
buffalobill90
Minister
10824 points
18/M/Whitehaven, United Kingdom
Join Date: Jun 2007 | alexkidd said:
this whole thread is based on a completly invalid argument that we can assume to know the exact workings of another species mind by comaring it to our abilities and definitions. and even that is flawed because your only means of comparison is the mirror test, which i've repeatedly said i don't accept because it is deeply flawed in itself.
....thats alot of flawed logic.
also concience or sentience or whatever,
what eveidence is there that animals that you classify as non-sentient, ie. those that have failed the mirror test. don't suffer pain in the way we do?
i propose they hurt based admittedly on the asthetics of the situation, they can certainly fear pain, and learn through it. what evidence do you have that says they don't?
physlogicly we are animals just like them, we have nerves and feel pain for the same reasons they do.no?
Again and again, you ignore or misinterpret my underlying argument. If an entity is not conscious, it can't suffer. Yes, animals have nerves and yes, they sense damaging stimuli. This does not make them conscious. If they had a large brain in proportion to their body mass, exhibited behaviour which implies consciousness, cried when they experienced emotional pain or extreme happiness, or committed suicide when they couldn't take life any more, I might be inclined to believe they truly suffer. Only humans do all of these things, and only a few non-human animals do any of them. |  | |
|
buffalobill90
Minister
10824 points
18/M/Whitehaven, United Kingdom
Join Date: Jun 2007 | alexkidd said:
then what are the other ways?, and do you agree the mirror test is deeply flawed as a measure and in no way specifies the amount an animal can feel pain?
Of course I don't agree. I really don't see what's so flawed about the mirror test, it makes perfect logical sense. And, assuming that the mirror test is a reliable indicator of consciousness, which it is, you can then determine if an animal is capable of conscious suffering. | | | |
|
alexkidd
Captain Awesome!
Über-Moderator
41898 points
23/M/in a bog, Ireland
Join Date: Sep 2006 | buffalobill90 said:
Again and again, you ignore or misinterpret my underlying argument. If an entity is not conscious, it can't suffer. Yes, animals have nerves and yes, they sense damaging stimuli. This does not make them conscious. If they had a large brain in proportion to their body mass, exhibited behaviour which implies consciousness, cried when they experienced emotional pain or extreme happiness, or committed suicide when they couldn't take life any more, I might be inclined to believe they truly suffer. Only humans do all of these things, and only a few non-human animals do any of them.
I'm sorry but your underlying argument is completely ill defined.
sentient, concious.
i mean by those definitions we're talking about being self aware.
that concept in itself is vague in its nature.
you're just piling hypothesis upon hypothesis.
and it's going nowhere.
and certainly doesn't imply that animals don't suffer when they feel pain, and to jump to that conclusion is in no way the sound science you deem yourself so competant at.
 |  | |
|
sango
General
350 points
23/F/Asheville, North Carolina
Join Date: Sep 2007 | Well, you can see that if the Mirror test is fallible, then it's almost certain that any other hypothesis concerning the matter of animals not being self aware can also be fallible.
Have you ever thought maybe that all animals are self aware to a degree, yet some more so than others? Regardless, I'd like to see more sound proof than the mirror test.
And as I said before, even IF the animals AREN'T self aware, it isn't our choice to use them as we will, and say they have no moral value. Because as it has also been stated and argued already, children and mentally disabled people don't pa** the self awareness test, yet we (generally) treat them with respect, and give them moral value. I don't see the difference between them and animals that MAY not be self aware (I'm not saying they aren't self aware.)
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann W. Von Goethe | | | |
|
buffalobill90
Minister
10824 points
18/M/Whitehaven, United Kingdom
Join Date: Jun 2007 | sango said:
Well, you can see that if the Mirror test is fallible, then it's almost certain that any other hypothesis concerning the matter of animals not being self aware can also be fallible.
Have you ever thought maybe that all animals are self aware to a degree, yet some more so than others? Regardless, I'd like to see more sound proof than the mirror test.
And as I said before, even IF the animals AREN'T self aware, it isn't our choice to use them as we will, and say they have no moral value. Because as it has also been stated and argued already, children and mentally disabled people don't pa** the self awareness test, yet we (generally) treat them with respect, and give them moral value. I don't see the difference between them and animals that MAY not be self aware (I'm not saying they aren't self aware.)
I don't really understand the reasoning of your first point there. Please reiterate.
I agree that awareness is a matter of degree, but if all animals are aware then why not plants and insects? Because they simply do not show any signs of conscious behaviour or have the brain/body ma** ratio to fulfill it, nor do they have any evolutionary reason to be conscious.
Your third point isn't really a valid argument. Maybe we shouldn't give disabled people any moral value, if they truly aren't self-aware, but I have no reason to believe they aren't since, as I have said many, many times, the mirror test is not the only indicator of conscious thought processes. And, of course, disabled people have family and friends who deserve respect and are ultimately responsible for them. If they wished to carry out euthanasia, that would also be perfectly moral. | | | | Edited: October 07, 2007 @ 21:42 |  |
|
|
mattyc
Über-Commander
137 points
23/M/Melbourne, Australia
Join Date: Jan 2008 | lupinstar said:
So, in a way animals do have a moral status, in the same way a child does. Sure it cannot make the most logical moral decisions itself, as both do not have access to total reason, but they should not be excluded when morally calcualting the good/right action.
Bingo.
This is why we have anti-cruelty laws and why in general, animal cruelty is frowned upon. To exempt animals from the sphere of right and wrong based on what we do to them - is ridiculous. I would call it immoral. | | | |
Top
|
Sep 28, 2007 @ 13:36:13
