Animals have no moral status

@buffalobill90 Said
Your point about unconscious suffering didn't really make sense to me. Are you saying that we experience conscious pain, while unconscious? I apologise if my definition of suffering has not been very clear. I'll reiterate:

Pain itself, whether emotional or physical, may not cause someone to suffer. Someone can benefit from pain; for example, they may be entertained by a movie that is very sad or has disgusting imagery - they may feel upset or uncomfortable when watching it, but they enjoy it nonetheless. They have not suffered. However, if someone experiences pain which has no benefit to them, and it is simply an indicator of real damage, they have suffered. Someone can not experience pain when they are not conscious, that's how a general anaesthetic works. So if something is not conscious, it can not suffer and therefore does not need respect. Since only humans and a small number of other animals appear to be conscious, they are the only organisms which deserve respect.

I am also aware that the mirror test is not the only indication of conscious awareness. There are other indicators in baheviour, and I will list a few: creativity; altruism; technology; language; art; empathy etc. These traits are all possessed by humans, and are not possible without the capability of conscious thought. Some other species also display one or more of these traits, and therefore are alos likely to be conscious. However, the vast majority of organisms do not.

You are mistaken in thinking that humans have "developed far more than any other animals". We have been evolving for exactly the same amount of time as every other species on Earth. Evolution is not a progressive, heirarchical process (although it does follow certain patterns). It is aimless and largely unpredictable.

Your last point is confusing. Why does the ability to seek out resources and mates require conscious thought? And why is a brain in itself enough to sustain consciousness? Do you think, then, that insects are conscious, since they possess central nervous systems? If so, do you approve of the use of pesticides, which are essential for providing sufficient food for billions of humans? Animals also act 'automatically', like plants and microbes. However, they are more complex and unpredictable. This does not mean we should assign them consciousness in order to explain their relatively simple behaviour.

@vaboom Said
Its useless to try to debate with you.
All you do is keep saying the same thing over and over...

@alexkidd Said
i basically just disagree.
for one, the mirror test in't 'sound science'
in the case of a hell of alot of animals they don't use the same primary senses as us, so it doesn't even apply to dogs who have poor vision in relation to their scent.

there's other reasons why its not sound, like the fact that alot of animals associate eye conact with agression so can't really do the test accuratly.

so basically you're judging the level of conciousnes of an animal....based on a test that only applies to human standards and their stero typical abilities.
which animals differ from greatly, and differ greatly from animal to animal.

children fail the mirror test untill they're about 2,
whats your opinion on them?

so thats complete bulls*** anyway.

i also draw a line at comparing an animal feeding to an immoral act by a person, its in no way comparable, with completly different motives.

as for animals having feelings, its clear to see they have basic feelings, they can grow attatched to somebody and miss them when they're gone, they can suffer mentally after traumatic experiences, thats surely an emotional response. they can get excited, angry, happy is an odd one since we don't clearly define it ourselves and so can't apply it.

animals of course are not the same as us, we have removed ourselves from the natural order. which puts us in a position of huge responsibility and consequence, our actions as a whole have more impact that any other creature in history.