(thesnowman... I'm responding to yours later...)

...
I failed to clarify what I meant by that.

If we're to approach it chronologically, and not necessarily from any one organism's "point of view", the origin (and by the same token the "reason") is preservation of the species. Individuals in the species merit that same value. Logically, whatever else is valued, from other animals, to air, to plants, to the sun itself, is valued as a supplement... it helps sustain us. We are that inner circle, and those other entities are aides in our survival.

That is different from encompassing other animals (ot whatever else) in that inner circle. We no longer treat animals as supplements to our survival, but we assign to them that [artificial] merit: they do not deserve to live/thrive in order to sustain us; they've somehow earned, in our minds, that same inate right to live/thrive that we possess (by virtue of our genes and their drive to survive). It is proper, then, to note that, although the origin of morality is the survival drive of humans or the human species (or more precisely, of human genes), we have artificially redrawn the basis, in our minds, as the right to life of certain arbitrary entities (such as animals which aid our own survival). The way in which that's happened is, of course, through contact with animals.

Specifically, the two things which happen to allow us to make that mistake (literally) of empathy are as follow: we become in some way dependent upon them (even if only emotionally in many cases); we recognize in them traits which resemble our own. It is not enough to conclude that, reasonably, an animal's right to live is deduced from the animal's (or "some" animal's) usefulness towards our survival and well being. The necessary ingredient is that we recognize "pain" in them, and that recognition permits us to make the flawed leap to encompass them in our circle of humanity. This is necessary simply because it is conceivable that an animal's "right" to live and not suffer would be championed if there were no threat to our survival and well being should that animal die. We do not value, or empathize with, "cows", we value "a cow". There is a difference. If half the cows in the world were destroyed without affecting humanity's (or an individual's) well being in any way, many humans in the modern world would still decry the destruction. That's the proof that there needs to be an initial irrational leap.

(This answers your next paragraph as well.)
...

It's a null hypothesis, simply because it would have to be shown that no harm to humans would result from that entertainment. It would become a very detailed issue... You'd have to measure the effect of that indifference upon the morality or sensitivities of those humans, unless of course there's a well established ethic among humans that an animal does not resemble us in any emotionally meaningful way. I'd find it hard to argue such a thing. I wonder if there is, or has ever been, a human society in which such an absolute emotional separation from other animals was held in people's minds. Of all animals, perhaps, I think humans are least likely to see it as a chasm, and more like a gradient... we are clearly like other animals in enough ways to make empathy inevitable.

It's just the equating of human and nonhuman life that is morally precarious. It's enough, in the case of torture or slaying, if there is moral purpose behind the act. That is why hunting and scientific research are morally acceptable, even in light of the recognizable suffering in the animals. The "wrong", in any case, since ultimately our morality defined by, or justified by, the preservation of humans... the "wrong" would be in its effect on humans or oh human wellbeing. That is true of the morality of all actions, in fact. Cutting down the rainforest, or torturing other animals, or smogging up the skies, or attacking fellow humans... whatever the act is, its morality is to be judged relative to the

Those good things are achievable by other, more honest means. The present means, if they're used to effect those good things, are dishonest and misleading, and that's the minimum ill effect. At the other end lie graver consequences. And we should not wager the turnout of behavioral practices on chance or the uprightness of individuals... that's a fool's wager.

Another aspect of this is the fact that what differentiates an adult from a child, among other things, is the direction from which morality flows. A child obeys, whether an impulse or a warning. An adult decides. It is one thing to conjure the boogeyman for the purpose of deterring a child from a certain behavior, but the boogeyman turns out to be fictional, and the "real" incentives for proper behavior take form during the child's development. A cow is not fictitious. And emotions are not to be toyed with... we should simply define, clearly, what is bad and what is good, and exactly why in each case. That's the only proper and safe path.

Ok, so sustaining the speices is the core of moraility in your opinion and is illogically extended to other forms of life. Not just a individual focus.
I`ll take that as a yes then? Its just a hypothetical situation and as such needs little realism in order to present it as a question or morality. Either you do believe that animals shouldnt be harmed with zero cause, harm or benifits to humanity or you think it has no moral importance.
From what you`ve said I would have thought you`d think it of no moral importance. The thing is, even with what you`ve said, I still have to wonder why. Even if the effect on humanity was a non issue...if they couldnt aid or hurt humanity in any way, I would believe that animals have a right to life just because they are alive. That just seems logical to me. Destruction and pain without benefit doesnt.
You misunderstand. I made that reply focused on the "And whenever human life is rendered equivalent, morally, to nonhuman life, bad things can and will occur. " alone (as if it was the only thing that could ever happen). I should have deleted the rest I know. My fault.

It is of no moral consequence insofar as the animal, and how we relate to it emotionally, is of no moral consequence. Realism is pertinent. If we do not empathize with any animal but human, despite recognition of pain, sentience, and all the other physical characteristics we share with them... that does speak to our moral sensibility. At the very least, there are probably moral implications if the recognizable suffering of other animals were not to move us...

Ok. I just want to point out that I did not imply there would be no good to come out (I specified examples such as healthier diet, preservation of rainforest)... And ultimately my point was that the good should be achieved without unnecessary manipulation/obfuscation. Particularly when the process involves twisting morality and humans' emotional sensibilities, and effectively equating human life with nonhuman life... the dangers are not worth the wager; and there are more honest, less risky, and morally correct, ways of effecting those good changes.

I forgot to respond to this one...

(First, to note that I find it theoretically implausible to argue that the torture of animals would spell no consequence to human morality.)

In response to the other statements, however... The "right to life" value is wholly arbitrary. It is self-assertive. If we base it on the "moral compass" of the universe, it's no more legitimate than (to paraphrase a previous, unanswered statement I made earlier) an asteroid's "right" to anihilate us.

We, the embodiments of that self-asserted right (which our genes assert, and which has been the hallmark of all life on earth) can lay claim to that impulse as the basis of human morality. Human morality, then, is defined by that original precept: "I, the human person, and by extension those members of my species, have a self-proclaimed right to live."

It is wholly arbitrary. It is not based on anything at all more substantial than a personal assertion. It's a statement, not of fact, but of will.

If that right was asserted by another species would it be ok to ignore it?



Why does this..:
..sound contradictory to this:
? I dont think I understand again lol. :woo:

(From my previous post)
...following from that same logic... all creatures, all living things from plants to microbes, project that same impulse. If we were to assert that they are all equivalent, then let's. Making a special case for animal suffering, on "absolute" grounds, is nonsensical. (And we recognize that those "absolute" grounds are that arbitrary expression of genes, nevertheless.)

By that I was pointing out that, as far as I can tell, it is always of moral consequence...

That is not sufficient, however, for equating human life with nonhuman life (vis a vis the right to live and not suffer). It is not even sufficient for extending the absolute right to life to encompass anything that is not human.

To repeat my response to this notion… when we recognize the arbitrariness of a “moral” system based on life’s impulse to live (or precisely, living genes’ impulse to survive), the only appropriate stance that is not too arbitrary is absolute, and it takes one of two forms.

1) As a human-centered morality, we draw the line at the human species (identifiable by reproduction).

2) As an absolute morality, one which “respects” all such impulse, exhibited by all genetic life forms, we would have to refrain from killing or harming any and all such organisms as assert that basic drive (the one which also defines our own moral base). That would mean if you are to assert the drive of any life form as equivalent in merit to that of the human animal, you would have to preserve all life, and refrain from any destruction or harming of life forms. That includes plants and microbes.

If you claim to take any other “absolute” stance, any morality which asserts that such-and-such has an inherent right to life, you’ll inevitably make too arbitrary a statement. The typical stance is to protect animals in which we identify human characteristics (such as humanlike expression of pain, etc.). The stance will not be absolute, it will be very arbitrary. At very best, the impulse is to minimize pain in the observer, by minimizing recognizable pain in the animal in question. Ignorance is bliss. But the animal rights activist makes a false assertion by faulty logic (by presuming the right to life as some universal moral law), or is hypocritical in her actions by protecting only those creatures with which she identifies personally.

I didnt say humans would assert another species right to live. I was saying what if another species, itself asserted it? Could we ignore the rights of a similar, sentient race of beings as ourselves if they had no real impact on humanity? Wait...I think you`ve answered yes already. Ok..heh.

Erm... yes. Morally, we could and we should (with cause, that is, not just for the hell of it). We could also honor it, but never on moral "absolute" grounds. We first remember that no such absolute exists, and that any pseudo-absolute assertion we make can only encompass human life.

We cannot be animal rights activists on absolutist grounds, in other words. Being so makes us either hypocrites or ignorant of our motives.

(Just to reiterate, though... there is always moral consequence to the slaughter or torture of a recognizable life form. We do what we can consciously get away with, and that should be good enough. The ideal, all things considered, and if meat were somehow no less healthy for us than plants... the ideal would be to respect all life and its impulse, and to take/use what is truly useful to us for sustenance/preservation. That is why killing animals for meat per se, and certainly any scientific research that is aimed at combating disease, should never be morally reprehensible.)

And just to clarify... when I wrote “If you claim to take…” that was to mean “If one claims to take…”

=]

(In case it mattered...)

i didnt read half of what you guys posted...i would be a few years older by the end but i noticed you both slimmed down near the end

i know im taking these final comments out of context, but thats because my arse would hurt reading everything lol

theres good strong research to point to eating meat being unhealthy. theres also the added factor that many of the things climed you can only get in meat you can find an overwhelming amount in cereals and etc.

M
"Erm... yes. Morally, we could and we should (with cause, that is, not just for the hell of it). We could also honor it, but never on moral "absolute" grounds. We first remember that no such absolute exists, and that any pseudo-absolute assertion we make can only encompass human life."

im sorry, is this you saying that any lifeform thats equally, or more powerful than mankind - we should dominate them/rule them?