Philosophy: books and discussion

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Ea

My point was - I think - who's to decide what 'treated humanely' means. Many people tend to anthropophormise* animals that are close to humans and tend to think that what humans like, animals would like.

* I hope this is a word in english...

Nearly Got your morphemes in a bit of a twist - anthropomorphise

[Ea]

Originally Posted by TGS

So for you it's the fact of a thing being a living thing that's important, rather than it's capacity to suffer?

Before I could answer that, I'd like to know what 'capacity to suffer' means exactly. Does it involve having a complex nervous system* for example - but who's to say that an orchid suffers less than a mosquito suffers less than a mouse when either are killed (for example).

*understood in a very broad sense as in being able to respond to stimuli from the outside, which I would say plants are able to

[Ea]

Originally Posted by TGS

Nearly Got your morphemes in a bit of a twist - anthropomorphise

LOL - thanks Think I'll remember it now.

[troymc]

Originally Posted by TGS

This is really interesting -so far two sorts of features seem to warrant embracing things in our moral purview; one feature is that the thing in question should have feelings and the other is that it should have life.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

The opinion of Peter Singer is that the ability to experience pain is tantamount. Hence, in his philosophy, abortions that are performed prior to conscious awareness is no breech of ethics.

I would point "feelings" back to "life" by saying "quality of life". It's not enough to simply have life [eg. caged animal.] Life is the base but not the only value involved. Once you start broadening the question other values and other facets of existing values come into play [eg. is the value of life itself simply a facet of the value of creation vs destruction?]

Definitions of life get fuzzy fast. And, in my belief, is were we start approaching the limits of human knowledge/understanding. I don't think we'll ever truly understand what a plant "feels" - at least not without an (r)evolution of our own. Why is the life of a 300 yr old tree seen as less than a human who may only live to 70? what if it was cut down simply for the firewood to keep someone warm for a week? or for a table?


Troy

[troymc]

Originally Posted by Ea

My point was - I think - who's to decide what 'treated humanely' means.

My initial gut feeling is that would mean to treat it like you would another human in that situation. ie. as a equal. Therefore things like the "golden rule" should kick in.

If you had to kill another human how would you do it? You should follow that same thought when killing an animal. That would be killing it "humanely."


Troy

[Ea]

Originally Posted by troymc

Definitions of life get fuzzy fast. And, in my belief, is were we start approaching the limits of human knowledge/understanding. I don't think we'll ever truly understand what a plant "feels" - at least not without an (r)evolution of our own. Why is the life of a 300 yr old tree seen as less than a human who may only live to 70? what if it was cut down simply for the firewood to keep someone warm for a week? or for a table?

As I see it, humans tend to value life higher, the more alike said 'life' is to human life. Hence animals of the higher orders are seen as more important than animals of the lower order - which in turn are seen as more important than plants. It's a human-centric way of seeing the world.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by troymc

My initial gut feeling is that would mean to treat it like you would another human in that situation. ie. as a equal. Therefore things like the "golden rule" should kick in.

If you had to kill another human how would you do it? You should follow that same thought when killing an animal. That would be killing it "humanely."

Killing is one thing, which is pretty universal, but what about living conditions? I'm not sure a cow would thrive if I treated it as if it was human. I mean, what does 'equal' mean? To a cucumber plant?

[troymc]

Originally Posted by Ea

As I see it, humans tend to value life higher, the more alike said 'life' is to human life. Hence animals of the higher orders are seen as more important than animals of the lower order - which in turn are seen as more important than plants. It's a human-centric way of seeing the world.

I definitely agree with you here. That leads to the next question: Is there a rational argument for that viewpoint?

Originally Posted by Ea

Killing is one thing, which is pretty universal, but what about living conditions? I'm not sure a cow would thrive if I treated it as if it was human. I mean, what does 'equal' mean? To a cucumber plant?

I'm not sure most humans "thrive" the way some of us treat ourselves. Have you seen the modern American lifestyle & diet?

But maybe 'equivalent' is a more appropriate term? I daresay feeding a cow a 22oz New York strip steak, with garlic mashed potatoes & steamed broccoli is not a viable diet.


Troy

[Ea]

Originally Posted by troymc

I definitely agree with you here. That leads to the next question: Is there a rational argument for that viewpoint?

It appears wholly irrational to me.

Originally Posted by troymc

I'm not sure most humans "thrive" the way some of us treat ourselves. Have you seen the modern American lifestyle & diet?

Not in person, but it's not much better elsewhere.

Originally Posted by troymc

But maybe 'equivalent' is a more appropriate term? I daresay feeding a cow a 22oz New York strip steak, with garlic mashed potatoes & steamed broccoli is not a viable diet.

*lol* no, probably not Personally I'd lean towards the natural habitat of the animal. But then again, if you look at humans, as you noted the modern western lifestyle may be problematic, then on the other hand, more people than ever survive serious illnesses - despite our lifestyle *probably* contributing to those illnesses. So the total sum is...? I.e. would more humans survive in a 'natural' habitat - and isn't our modern life lived in our natural habitat?

What if we gave animals the same conditions? A environment that may cause illnesses, but also medical attention to cure/stave off those illnesses? Are we then causing less or more pain that we would have? Since we are already treating our food animals this way, it could be interesting to consider.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Ea

... I see humans as another animal among others...

Originally Posted by Ea

Killing an animal of a higher order is not inherently or essentially worse than killing a plant or animal of the lower orders.

If you see humans as another animal species, and killing an animal of a 'higher order' is no worse than killing something of a 'lower' order - it seems to suggest that killing a human is no worse morally than killing a daisy.

Personally I think Peter Singer's approach that takes suffering into account is quite logical, because suffering is so significant to creatures that can experience it:
"If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering—insofar as rough comparisons can be made—of any other being."

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Ea

Before I could answer that, I'd like to know what 'capacity to suffer' means exactly. Does it involve having a complex nervous system* for example - but who's to say that an orchid suffers less than a mosquito suffers less than a mouse when either are killed (for example).

*understood in a very broad sense as in being able to respond to stimuli from the outside, which I would say plants are able to

I'd go along with the 'complex nervous system' idea - buts it's hard to see why plants would evolve to experience pain, as it wouldn't benefit them - given their inability to avoid the source of suffering.

Also, even if plants were able to experience suffering, and it became practically impossible for us to avoid causing pain to them and go on living ourselves - should we not minimise the amount of suffering we cause?
A lot of meat eaters berate vegetarians with the 'how do you know the carrot doesn't suffer?' argument. But even if that were true, there would still be much less suffering in a nut cutlet than in a steak - which comes from far more plants, as well as the cow.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

If you see humans as another animal species, and killing an animal of a 'higher order' is no worse than killing something of a 'lower' order - it seems to suggest that killing a human is no worse morally than killing a daisy.

Personally I think Peter Singer's approach that takes suffering into account is quite logical, because suffering is so signicant to creatures that can experience it:
"If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering—insofar as rough comparisons can be made—of any other being."

Good point! Okay, I think it's wrong to kill a member of my own species (but why - as in an explanation that makes rational sense - I haven't worked out yet - perhaps I can't).

But what I was trying to address is: why is it, for example, generally considered worse to kill a monkey than a mouse, worse to kill a mouse than a fish, and worse to kill a fish than an apple tree?

Someone (and you, Sparrow) offered up "suffering" - but then I ask, what does it mean? What does "suffering" mean? Who is to determine the level of suffering of other living things? I don't think we can and that makes the term "suffering" meaningless. I don't think it's "logical" to take suffering into account - perhaps it would be better to call it "sensible", but I would still ask, what "sense"?

I also don't 'like' the term "suffering". In my western-european ears, with 1000 years of christian, cultural baggage, it comes with a number of associations and connotations, and I suspect it does to most of you here.

While I've written this, my mind keeps returning to the christian idea of man as care-taker of nature, and an implicit understanding that humans are somehow above all other animals. And I think that idea may lie behind the understanding of "suffering".

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I'd go along with the 'complex nervous system' idea - it's hard to see why plants would evolve to experience pain, as it wouldn't benefit them - given their inability to avoid the source of suffering.

But here again, you have an implicit understanding of "pain" and "suffering" - you seem to think that you can determine what it is and whether a plant can experience it or not. That's what I question.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Also, even if plants were able to experience suffering, and it became practically impossible for us to avoid causing pain to them and go on living ourselves - should we not minimise the amount of suffering we cause?
A lot of meat eaters berate vegetarians with the 'how do you know the carrot doesn't suffer?' argument. But even if that were true, there would still be much less suffering in a nut cutlet than in a steak - which comes from far more plants, as well as the cow.

Actually, why should we minimise suffering? I'm asking in a "devil's advocate" sense, but really, why should we? Because it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling? Is it advantageous for us as a species?

My gut feeling towards both suffering and causing it, is to avoid it if I can, but I really don't see a good explanation for why, and I don't understand why I should feel like this. I happen to do so, but I'm not sure at all whether it's right. It's certainly not rational, and I think that bothers me.

[Ea]

Hmm... what if I suggested that the only real reason behind minimising "suffering" and "being good to anmals" is because it gives us warm fuzzy feelings? And because we (most of us), and the society we live in, can afford those feelings.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Ea

Someone (and you, Sparrow) offered up "suffering" - but then I ask, what does it mean? What does "suffering" mean? Who is to determine the level of suffering of other living things? I don't think we can and that makes the term "suffering" meaningless. I don't think it's "logical" to take suffering into account - perhaps it would be better to call it "sensible", but I would still ask, what "sense"?

I don't have a problem with the term 'suffering' - I think I have experienced it to some extent; and I think I have seen it in others - e.g. witnessing sufferers trying to avoid what makes them suffer (snatching hand out of fire etc.). Although maybe they just acted as if they were suffering, but weren't actually (Descartes view).
'Suffering' is a subjective term, but I don't think it's any more problematic than other subjective words.

Originally Posted by Ea

Hmm... what if I suggested that the only real reason behind minimising "suffering" and "being good to anmals" is because it gives us warm fuzzy feelings? And because we (most of us), and the society we live in, can afford those feelings.

I have a lot of sympathy with that view. I think it is also why we are 'good' to other humans; and don't like seeing them suffer. It's a lot to do with empathy - after all, if you didn't care, you wouldn't care.

P.S. I don't subscribe to the "christian idea of man as care-taker of nature, and an implicit understanding that humans are somehow above all other animals." - so it doesn't influence my attitudes to suffering (I hope).

[TGS]

If I was a Buddhist I might say that suffering was a basic characteristic of conditioned existence and as such is caused by greed (grasping after things), hate (trying to get rid of things), and delusion (not understanding the true nature of conditioned existence). Whilst I can work to change the conditions - give the sheep a bit of grass to run about on, relieve relative poverty in some parts of the world and so on - and indeed I should work to change those conditions - changing the conditions is not going to relieve suffering. Only individuals working at their own liberation from suffering can do that - though in changing the conditions in which beings live I might help get them to a place where they can do that.