Vegans and the morality of meat

[Darth Wong]

You see, since there is so little evidence that pig intelligence is anywhere near dog intelligence, I suspect that this claim has been widely disseminated for political reasons rather than scientific ones, ie- it's been spread by vegetarians who are trying to make people feel bad about eating pork.

Stanley Curtis' study at Penn State found out that pigs are in fact not only smarter than dogs, but in some areas are smarter than chimpanzees:

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/technol ... 02,00.html

I read that article, and nowhere does it state that pigs are smarter than dogs or chimpanzees. It does state that pigs learn how to manipulate a joystick for food faster than expected, but as I said earlier, unless you can teach them complicated things, that doesn't mean a hell of a lot.

There's a reason that the dog is "Man's Best Friend"; for thousands of years, dogs have been at mankind's side, helping us and protecting us in many ways. Modern training techniques did not exist ten thousand years ago; the dogs were obviously very amenable to training even without formalized methods or a modern understanding of the way dogs learn. And the burden of proof is definitely upon anyone who would argue that some other animal is smarter than one which is so goddamned smart that you can train it to lead blind people around town.

Bullshit. Living with human beings and being tamed by them shows a certain level of adaptability, but has fuckall to do with intelligence.

Why not? Because you say so? Social communicative ability is the issue here, and that is a form of intelligence.

Miniature horses have been used to guide the blind.

And a lot of people feel that horses are very intelligent; what is your fucking point?

Speaking of the equids, horses and donkeys have lived with humans for thousands of years, yet zebras and hemionids, members of the same genus, cannot be tamed and are almost uncontrollable once they reach maturity.

Which in turn means that zebras lack a skill that horses have; what part of this do you not grasp?

The dog family is an even better example. Cape hunting dogs, jackals, coyotes, dholes and most wolves range from difficult to impossible to tame or train.

Wow, tell me something I don't know. Tens of thousands of years ago, certain members of the canine family were smart enough to learn that if you're smart, you learn to work with the most dangerous predator around: us. Those canines eventually evolved into a separate species, ie- dogs.

As it turns out, the wilder and more intractible the canine, the smarter it is -as people who have hunted them with packs of domestic dogs have found out for thousands of years. Domestic dogs are descended from the weakest, least intelligent wolves -the ones who had to settle for scraps from humans while their smarter and stronger kin hunted for themselves.

Absolute nonsense; dogs have thrived while wolves are almost extinct; how does this make wolves smarter?

National Geographic had an interesting documentary about how domestic dogs are essentially inbred, retarded wolves. They also pointed out that dogs pick up on human body language better than wolves or chimpanzees, and do better at finding food hidden by humans. Yet nobody in his right mind would say a dog is smarter than either.

I would. A dog is obviously smarter than a wolf, because it can pick up, adapt to, and work with cues from humans. Since when is an inability on the part of wolves evidence of superior intelligence? If you ran into a human who was very good at foraging for food but lacked the ability to communicate or learn man-made rules, would you conclude that this makes him smarter than, say, Albert Einstein, who wasn't as good at foraging food but was vastly superior at communication and complex learned tasks?

I'd like to know where the idea that people have more compassion for "smart" animals than "dumb" ones. People had no compunction about killing whales until they were almost made extinct and (more importantly) other sources of lamp oil were found.

That's because a whale's intelligence is not obvious to the untrained eye.

People only felt guilty about killing dolphins because of Sea World and TV shows like Flipper. Deer are considered dumb animals, yet some people (especially girls) don't want them hunted because they watched Bambi when they were kids and cried when his mother was shot. Being cute and/ or friendly has more to do with whether people want to kill and eat an animal than "intelligence".

Appealing to popular ignorance does nothing whatsoever to disprove the ethical premise in question.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I don't know why he used an article that says this:

The animals' skills show that, at least in some respects, pigs could be as smart as chimpanzees and other nonhuman primates,says Stanley Curtis, a professor of animal sciences at Pennsylvania State University.

To prove this:


Stanley Curtis' study at Penn State found out that pigs are in fact not only smarter than dogs, but in some areas are smarter than chimpanzees:


How do you get could be as smart as (maybe) to mean "smarter than definitly?" The former has nothing to do with the latter in said regards. In fact, the article states they are among the most intelligent farm animals. A primate isn't a farm animal last time I checked.

[Elfdart]

I read that article, and nowhere does it state that pigs are smarter than dogs or chimpanzees. It does state that pigs learn how to manipulate a joystick for food faster than expected, but as I said earlier, unless you can teach them complicated things, that doesn't mean a hell of a lot.

Sorry, I meant this one:

http://amazingthing.blogspot.com/2005/1 ... -dogs.html

Why not? Because you say so? Social communicative ability is the issue here, and that is a form of intelligence.

Your premise is:

Humans are animals. The thing which distinguishes us is our intelligence, so the more intelligent an animal is, the more sympathy we should have for it.

Why? Because you say so?

Miniature horses have been used to guide the blind.

And a lot of people feel that horses are very intelligent; what is your fucking point?

Speaking of the equids, horses and donkeys have lived with humans for thousands of years, yet zebras and hemionids, members of the same genus, cannot be tamed and are almost uncontrollable once they reach maturity.

Which in turn means that zebras lack a skill that horses have; what part of this do you not grasp?

It's not about lacking a skill or intelligence. The difference between domesticated animals and their wild relatives is most likely NOT intelligence. Domesticated animals are simply those who are docile enough to be kept by people. Docility noes not equal intelligence.

The dog family is an even better example. Cape hunting dogs, jackals, coyotes, dholes and most wolves range from difficult to impossible to tame or train.

Wow, tell me something I don't know. Tens of thousands of years ago, certain members of the canine family were smart enough to learn that if you're smart, you learn to work with the most dangerous predator around: us. Those canines eventually evolved into a separate species, ie- dogs.

Riiiiiiight. Cockroaches and houseflies must also be highly intelligent since they "learned" to live among humans, too. Mice, rats, sparrows, lice, and rabbits must also be among the smarter animals by this standard.

As it turns out, the wilder and more intractible the canine, the smarter it is -as people who have hunted them with packs of domestic dogs have found out for thousands of years. Domestic dogs are descended from the weakest, least intelligent wolves -the ones who had to settle for scraps from humans while their smarter and stronger kin hunted for themselves.

Absolute nonsense; dogs have thrived while wolves are almost extinct; how does this make wolves smarter?

See above. Wolves and other wild canids don't need humans to feed them while domesticated dogs do.

You might also keep in mind that all but one species of hominid are extinct, including Neanderthal Man. By your standard, all but one type of hominid are not as smart as dogs.

National Geographic had an interesting documentary about how domestic dogs are essentially inbred, retarded wolves. They also pointed out that dogs pick up on human body language better than wolves or chimpanzees, and do better at finding food hidden by humans. Yet nobody in his right mind would say a dog is smarter than either.

I would. A dog is obviously smarter than a wolf, because it can pick up, adapt to, and work with cues from humans. Since when is an inability on the part of wolves evidence of superior intelligence?

Nice dodge. Do you also think they're smarter than primates? In any event, wolves don't use human body language to find their meals because they don't need to. By your logic, someone with metal leg braces and crutches has stronger legs than someone who doesn't need them.

If you ran into a human who was very good at foraging for food but lacked the ability to communicate or learn man-made rules, would you conclude that this makes him smarter than, say, Albert Einstein, who wasn't as good at foraging food but was vastly superior at communication and complex learned tasks?

Depends on (a) how much better or worse are they in each category and (b) am I in a science class on a campus with a cafeteria, or am I stranded in the woods with nothing to eat?

I'd like to know where the idea that people have more compassion for "smart" animals than "dumb" ones. People had no compunction about killing whales until they were almost made extinct and (more importantly) other sources of lamp oil were found.

That's because a whale's intelligence is not obvious to the untrained eye.

People have always (rightly or wrongly) considered whales and other marine mammals intelligent. But that didn't stop people from killing them in huge numbers.

People only felt guilty about killing dolphins because of Sea World and TV shows like Flipper. Deer are considered dumb animals, yet some people (especially girls) don't want them hunted because they watched Bambi when they were kids and cried when his mother was shot. Being cute and/ or friendly has more to do with whether people want to kill and eat an animal than "intelligence".

Appealing to popular ignorance does nothing whatsoever to disprove the ethical premise in question.

No, you're just trying to pass off a purely subjective cultural norm as some kind of ethical standard -i.e. We should be nicer to the "smarter" animals. I'm pointing out a rather large hole in your thinking, namely that certain animals that are considered highly intelligent are considered food among civilized, ethical people.

For argument's sake, let's assume that dogs are not just more intelligent than pigs, but by a HUGE margin. Does that make people who eat dogs instead of pigs less ethical? Does that make people who prefer beef to chicken less ethical?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Riiiiiiight. Cockroaches and houseflies must also be highly intelligent since they "learned" to live among humans, too. Mice, rats, sparrows, lice, and rabbits must also be among the smarter animals by this standard.

That's comparing apples to oranges. Darth Wong is talking about the animal (dog) having learned to work WITH as an agent of humanity, not as a pest merely etching by at humanity's heels. Rats, mice, and lice are hardly dynamic partners with man due to their intelligence; they are pests we regularly kill. Doesn't seem to intelligent to me to fly around a species that regularly exterminates you.

He is talking about dogs learning to live and worth with humans as partners. Flies don't learn to live and work with humans at all. We kill them as well as rats and mice.

People have always (rightly or wrongly) considered whales and other marine mammals intelligent. But that didn't stop people from killing them in huge numbers.

Intelligences is one reason we treat humans differently from other animals; it's the only real difference between them. From that everything else flows. It therefore makes sense that you would use increasing intelligence toward mankind as a basis for ethical treatment. Usually, the higher the sentience the more suffering potential and loss of preferences.

The fact that people hunted whales for years doesn't mean anything; they were just ignorant.

No, you're just trying to pass off a purely subjective cultural norm as some kind of ethical standard -i.e. We should be nicer to the "smarter" animals. I'm pointing out a rather large hole in your thinking, namely that certain animals that are considered highly intelligent are considered food among civilized, ethical people.

Yes. Some people look at how cute and cuddly something is; that's because they are not rationally analysing its suffering capacity or the loss of preferences via termination of the intelligent being. Do you think highly intelligent beings suffer equally the same as unintelligent one? Suffering is not just physical. A fish, for example, supposedly cannot suffer nearly as much as higher mammals, so it would be worse to kill a primate than it would be to kill a fish. The system of intelligent follows a gradient with some creatures being more intelligent and more rationally autonomous than others; the more this increases, the worse it is to kill unnecessarily, for so Utilitarians approach the problem.

[Elfdart]

That's comparing apples to oranges. Darth Wong is talking about the animal (dog) having learned to work WITH as an agent of humanity, not as a pest merely etching by at humanity's heels. Rats, mice, and lice are hardly dynamic partners with man due to their intelligence; they are pests we regularly kill. Doesn't seem to intelligent to me to fly around a species that regularly exterminates you.

Animals are regarded as pests when they compete for food with humans, spoil food for humans or otherwise make a nuisance of themselves. Guess what? People won't hesitate to kill dogs who do those things, either. Ever heard the expresion "Shot down like a dog in the street"? If dogs aren't killed for this reason in the same numbers/ ratio as rats and mice are, it's because (a) dogs are friendlier, cuter and more useful to humans and (b) they are not as prolific.

Intelligences is one reason we treat humans differently from other animals; it's the only real difference between them. From that everything else flows. It therefore makes sense that you would use increasing intelligence toward mankind as a basis for ethical treatment. Usually, the higher the sentience the more suffering potential and loss of preferences.

Nonsense. Unless you think farmers have an obligation to be nicer to their cattle than their chickens. I don't like unnecessary suffering for any animal. But I see no difference between whacking a cow with a hammer, then slitting its throat and taking a hatchet to a chicken. Slaughter of animals for food or other reasons should be as humane as is practical for that animal.

Yes. Some people look at how cute and cuddly something is; that's because they are not rationally analysing its suffering capacity or the loss of preferences via termination of the intelligent being.

Determining how you treat animals based on their "intelligence" is being irrational. You can kill lambs, poultry and other small animals very quickly with one swing of an axe. Cows, pigs, and horses would require several swings of the axe, so that technique isn't used. Instead the animal is either hit on the head, shot in the head, or its skull skewered with a piston; then its throat cut. I don't think farmers or slaughterhouses need to ensure that the latter three animals die just as quickly as the former group as long as they are killed in a humane way.

Do you think highly intelligent beings suffer equally the same as unintelligent one? Suffering is not just physical. A fish, for example, supposedly cannot suffer nearly as much as higher mammals, so it would be worse to kill a primate than it would be to kill a fish.

That's a leap of logic right over tall buildings in a single bound. Actually, even if fish are dumber (I think so) and don't feel as much as primates, it would depend on why the animal is being killed. Fish may be stupid as a baker's dozen of fundies, but for someone to say, burn them alive for a thrill is worse than a monkey dying in a lab that is working on a cure for AIDS.

The system of intelligent follows a gradient with some creatures being more intelligent and more rationally autonomous than others; the more this increases, the worse it is to kill unnecessarily, for so Utilitarians approach the problem.

A lot of intelligence and being "rationally autonomous" is in the eye of the beholder. Scientists studying humans can't agree on what constitutes human intelligence, as the late Steven Jay Gould showed in The Mismeasure of Man.

Darth Wong thinks dogs are smarter than wolves and other wild canids because dogs allowed themselves to be domesticated by humans and are thus more numerous. The big drawback is that while humans can be quite cruel to wolves, they are much more cruel to dogs. How many wolves are eaten every year? How many are used in medical experiments? How many are made to chase a fake rabbit at the racetrack and are promptly shot when their speeds drop? How many are fed ground glass and thrown into a pit to fight other dogs for the amusement of rednecks? I take it as the ultimate sign of intelligence that wild canids have learned to keep as far away from humans as possible. Maybe they know what's in store their domesticated cousins.

I'd like to add that Jared Diamond compiled a list of the characteristics of domesticated animals, that is to say: what allowed them to be domesticated. These common attributes are:

1) Diet. The lower on the food chain they eat, the less trouble it is to feed them.

2) Rate of growth.

3) Can be bred in captivity and have a flexible breeding cycle.

4) Docility. Dangerous animals do not make for pliable livestock.

5) They have to be dumb enough to accept their predators as members (even leaders) of their group.

6) They have to be dumb enough and/ or docile enough to not run away at first opportunity.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it, though a case could be made that lack of intellect does.

[Darth Wong]

I read that article, and nowhere does it state that pigs are smarter than dogs or chimpanzees. It does state that pigs learn how to manipulate a joystick for food faster than expected, but as I said earlier, unless you can teach them complicated things, that doesn't mean a hell of a lot.

Sorry, I meant this one:

http://amazingthing.blogspot.com/2005/1 ... -dogs.html

Do you have a link to the original researchers or an academic description of their work rather than a vegetarian blog helpfully paraphrasing it for us?

Why not? Because you say so? Social communicative ability is the issue here, and that is a form of intelligence.

Your premise is:

Humans are animals. The thing which distinguishes us is our intelligence, so the more intelligent an animal is, the more sympathy we should have for it.

Why? Because you say so?

If you have a better criteria, say it now.

Miniature horses have been used to guide the blind.

And a lot of people feel that horses are very intelligent; what is your fucking point?

Speaking of the equids, horses and donkeys have lived with humans for thousands of years, yet zebras and hemionids, members of the same genus, cannot be tamed and are almost uncontrollable once they reach maturity.

Which in turn means that zebras lack a skill that horses have; what part of this do you not grasp?

It's not about lacking a skill or intelligence. The difference between domesticated animals and their wild relatives is most likely NOT intelligence. Domesticated animals are simply those who are docile enough to be kept by people. Docility noes not equal intelligence.

Domesticated animals are not necessarily docile; they are, however, trainable. Much like humans. And I've noticed that many "alternate" interpretations of animal intelligence tend to disregard that factor, as if trainability has nothing to do with intelligence. I've even heard cat lovers saying that the difficulty of training cats means they're smarter, as if humans must be idiots by virtue of being so trainable.

The dog family is an even better example. Cape hunting dogs, jackals, coyotes, dholes and most wolves range from difficult to impossible to tame or train.

Wow, tell me something I don't know. Tens of thousands of years ago, certain members of the canine family were smart enough to learn that if you're smart, you learn to work with the most dangerous predator around: us. Those canines eventually evolved into a separate species, ie- dogs.

Riiiiiiight. Cockroaches and houseflies must also be highly intelligent since they "learned" to live among humans, too. Mice, rats, sparrows, lice, and rabbits must also be among the smarter animals by this standard.

None of them actually work with us, moron; they're parasites. They show no co-operative ability or inclination to recognize training and adapt to it. Training, after all, relies upon certain cognitive abilities in the recipient, otherwise it doesn't work. If those abilities are not present, how does that make the animal smarter rather than dumber?

Absolute nonsense; dogs have thrived while wolves are almost extinct; how does this make wolves smarter?

See above. Wolves and other wild canids don't need humans to feed them while domesticated dogs do.

By this logic, modern man is dumber than a wolf, because the average North American would starve to death if left in the middle of a forest with no weapons and no supplies. Dogs get what they want through social co-operation rather than highly developed foraging skills.

You might also keep in mind that all but one species of hominid are extinct, including Neanderthal Man. By your standard, all but one type of hominid are not as smart as dogs.

No, but neanderthal man was dumber than homo sapiens; you're clearly missing the point, and by a considerable distance.

National Geographic had an interesting documentary about how domestic dogs are essentially inbred, retarded wolves. They also pointed out that dogs pick up on human body language better than wolves or chimpanzees, and do better at finding food hidden by humans. Yet nobody in his right mind would say a dog is smarter than either.

I would. A dog is obviously smarter than a wolf, because it can pick up, adapt to, and work with cues from humans. Since when is an inability on the part of wolves evidence of superior intelligence?

Nice dodge. Do you also think they're smarter than primates? In any event, wolves don't use human body language to find their meals because they don't need to. By your logic, someone with metal leg braces and crutches has stronger legs than someone who doesn't need them.

If you can't argue the point without resorting to obvious false analogies, that's your problem. And primates are trainable; what gave you the idea that they aren't?

If you ran into a human who was very good at foraging for food but lacked the ability to communicate or learn man-made rules, would you conclude that this makes him smarter than, say, Albert Einstein, who wasn't as good at foraging food but was vastly superior at communication and complex learned tasks?

Depends on (a) how much better or worse are they in each category and (b) am I in a science class on a campus with a cafeteria, or am I stranded in the woods with nothing to eat?

Are you saying that the definition of intelligence varies depending on your circumstances?

I'd like to know where the idea that people have more compassion for "smart" animals than "dumb" ones. People had no compunction about killing whales until they were almost made extinct and (more importantly) other sources of lamp oil were found.

That's because a whale's intelligence is not obvious to the untrained eye.

People have always (rightly or wrongly) considered whales and other marine mammals intelligent. But that didn't stop people from killing them in huge numbers.

And what does the behaviour of whale-killers have to do with the argument I'm putting forward? If I said that racism was wrong, would you point out that there are lots of racists out there?

People only felt guilty about killing dolphins because of Sea World and TV shows like Flipper. Deer are considered dumb animals, yet some people (especially girls) don't want them hunted because they watched Bambi when they were kids and cried when his mother was shot. Being cute and/ or friendly has more to do with whether people want to kill and eat an animal than "intelligence".

Appealing to popular ignorance does nothing whatsoever to disprove the ethical premise in question.

No, you're just trying to pass off a purely subjective cultural norm as some kind of ethical standard -i.e. We should be nicer to the "smarter" animals.

If you have some better method of deciding which animals deserve better treatment, please describe it. Unless, of course, you feel that cruelty to animals is OK as long as they're not human, using a strict "humans only" approach.

I'm pointing out a rather large hole in your thinking, namely that certain animals that are considered highly intelligent are considered food among civilized, ethical people.

First, I would like to see some real evidence for pigs being smarter than dogs and primates (especially since we are primates). Second, I would point out that you are assuming that everyone regards whale-killers as "civilized, ethical people", which is nonsense.

For argument's sake, let's assume that dogs are not just more intelligent than pigs, but by a HUGE margin. Does that make people who eat dogs instead of pigs less ethical?

Yes.

Does that make people who prefer beef to chicken less ethical?

What do cows and chickens have to do with this? They're both pretty stupid species.

[Lagmonster]

I haven't read the original paper (posted in 1991 in the Penn State Agri Journal), or the more recent 'video game' work done with him and Croney, but I know this: Stanely Curtis is REPEATEDLY quoted out of context by such groups as go-veg and the animal liberation front (no shit, check it out), and the good doctor knows this (I *think* it was mentioned in a 1991 interview with Eston Martz of PSU, but don't quote me on that). We're talking creationist levels of misinterpretation. In other words, anything you got about his research from a non-scientific journal should be held highly suspect.

[Elfdart]

I haven't read the original paper (posted in 1991 in the Penn State Agri Journal), or the more recent 'video game' work done with him and Croney, but I know this: Stanely Curtis is REPEATEDLY quoted out of context by such groups as go-veg and the animal liberation front (no shit, check it out), and the good doctor knows this (I *think* it was mentioned in a 1991 interview with Eston Martz of PSU, but don't quote me on that). We're talking creationist levels of misinterpretation. In other words, anything you got about his research from a non-scientific journal should be held highly suspect.

Point taken.

Humans are animals. The thing which distinguishes us is our intelligence, so the more intelligent an animal is, the more sympathy we should have for it.

Why? Because you say so?

If you have a better criteria, say it now.

Easy, people shouldn't base the way they treat animals on how "intelligent" the animal is alleged to be. They should be humane to all animals when practical. Pain and suffering should be curtailed as much as possible or practical. I think a chicken should be killed with one chop of an axe rather than slowly beheaded with a rusty hacksaw. But I'm not about to give a chicken a few Vicadin pills beforehand. Same goes for other animals.

If I'm driving on the highway and a dog runs out in front of my car and I hit it, mortally wounding the animal, I would try to put the dog out of its misery. Should I be less likely to do that for a dumb animal like a sheep? In either case, I'm not going to risk my life or the lives of other humans by swerving, even if the world's smartest orangutan jumped in front of the car.

Domesticated animals are not necessarily docile;

Yes they are. In order to be domesticated an animal must be docile enough to be kept under control and not be a constant menace to its keeper.

they are, however, trainable. Much like humans. And I've noticed that many "alternate" interpretations of animal intelligence tend to disregard that factor, as if trainability has nothing to do with intelligence.

Probably because it doesn't. Since when in knuckling under to another species a sign of intelligence? We consider it a sign of stupidity among humans, hence the phrase "Being led like sheep."

I've even heard cat lovers saying that the difficulty of training cats means they're smarter, as if humans must be idiots by virtue of being so trainable.

Cats are trainable. They do better at opening doors and boxes (including the famous puzzle box test). They are also trained to use toilets and flush afterwards.

I would. A dog is obviously smarter than a wolf, because it can pick up, adapt to, and work with cues from humans. Since when is an inability on the part of wolves evidence of superior intelligence?

Nice dodge. Do you also think they're smarter than primates? In any event, wolves don't use human body language to find their meals because they don't need to. By your logic, someone with metal leg braces and crutches has stronger legs than someone who doesn't need them.

If you can't argue the point without resorting to obvious false analogies, that's your problem. And primates are trainable; what gave you the idea that they aren't?

Who said primates can't be trained? Some can, some can't. But more people keep dogs as pets than monkeys. I've never seen a seeing eye baboon or a junkyard-watching gorilla. If primates are smarter than dogs, and trainability= intelligence, why aren't they trained for these tasks? [Rhetorical question -I already know the answer].

Speaking of false analogies:

You might also keep in mind that all but one species of hominid are extinct, including Neanderthal Man. By your standard, all but one type of hominid are not as smart as dogs.

No, but neanderthal man was dumber than homo sapiens; you're clearly missing the point, and by a considerable distance.

Any evidence for Neanderthal Man being dumber?

If you ran into a human who was very good at foraging for food but lacked the ability to communicate or learn man-made rules, would you conclude that this makes him smarter than, say, Albert Einstein, who wasn't as good at foraging food but was vastly superior at communication and complex learned tasks?

Depends on (a) how much better or worse are they in each category and (b) am I in a science class on a campus with a cafeteria, or am I stranded in the woods with nothing to eat?

Are you saying that the definition of intelligence varies depending on your circumstances?

Sure it is. Einstein might have relativity down pat, but if stranded in the wild, he probably wouldn't survive. The Forager might be a genius at foraging and survival, but not even be able to spell relativity, let alone understand it.

If you have some better method of deciding which animals deserve better treatment, please describe it.

See above. I'll repeat: Animals in general deserve to be treated as humanely as is practical. Needless pain and suffering of any animal is wrong -not just for those species that are useful, cute, friendly, or in some ways remind us of ourselves. I'll add this: I don't believe in needless cruelty, even for pests and animals that are truly dangerous to man.

Unless, of course, you feel that cruelty to animals is OK as long as they're not human, using a strict "humans only" approach.

That's the weakest strawman I've seen in some time. Nice try.

First, I would like to see some real evidence for pigs being smarter than dogs and primates (especially since we are primates). Second, I would point out that you are assuming that everyone regards whale-killers as "civilized, ethical people", which is nonsense.

I admit that Curtis' work might not have had the results described. Until someone can come up with actual quotes from the study, I consider the jury out on the subject.

For argument's sake, let's assume that dogs are not just more intelligent than pigs, but by a HUGE margin. Does that make people who eat dogs instead of pigs less ethical?

Yes.

So if Stanley Curtis' studies were described accurately, suddenly dog-eaters are more ethical?

Does that make people who prefer beef to chicken less ethical?

What do cows and chickens have to do with this? They're both pretty stupid species.

The fact that both are dumb is a red herring. One animal (in this case, the cow) is more intelligent than the other (the chicken). If eating dogs is worse (in your opinion) than eating pigs because you think the former are smarter than the latter, then by your "ethics" eating a cow is worse than eating a chicken, which is worse than eating... The French might me lacking in morals, but only the dumbest Francophobe would attribute it to horsemeat, which the frogs took a liking to a century ago.

The idea of describing people as less ethical based on the animals they eat is as absurd as measuring human intelligence by the shape of a person's head. Like phrenology, which is just aesthetics masquerading as science, this nonsense is just prejudice and aesthetics masquerading as ethics. As far as I'm concerned, the pig can be one of the five smartest or five dumbest mammals on earth. I'm not going to give up bacon, barbecue or baked ham either way.

[FireNexus]

I would have to say the dog in this case is far smarter than the wolf. The dog found and kept a reliable source of food, while the wolf is constantly risking starvation by not cooperating with the humans. By allowing humans to enter the pack, the dog provides itself with a much better chance of survival and, before the advent of neutering, reproduction.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Probably because it doesn't. Since when in knuckling under to another species a sign of intelligence? We consider it a sign of stupidity among humans, hence the phrase "Being led like sheep."

The fact that the dogs benefit greatly from listening to what we say and living with us and working with us and other animasl get wacked shows they aren't stupid. Cooperation doesn't mean you are sheep.

Any evidence for Neanderthal Man being dumber?

Wait? So you think neaderthal is what? As smart as modern humans?

Nonsense. Unless you think farmers have an obligation to be nicer to their cattle than their chickens. I don't like unnecessary suffering for any animal. But I see no difference between whacking a cow with a hammer, then slitting its throat and taking a hatchet to a chicken. Slaughter of animals for food or other reasons should be as humane as is practical for that animal.

Well, first of all, intelligence isn't the only factor: the base factors are suffering/happiness (Depending on your philosophy). Intelligence level can magnificy or decrease this factor depending on the species.

Tell me: how do you differentiate between Human animals and other animals if intelligence is a "nonsense" criterion in ethics? Is it because you are a human, or do you actually have some valid criterion? Rational properties are usually the criterion in ethics, whether in utility or deontology.

As a matter of fact, you ought to treat animals which have higher faculties than other animals better. That's why we treat humans better: we have higher faculties. Assuming all things else as equal, that is why it is wrose to torture a chimpanzee than it is to torture a fish or pull the wings off flies. Higher factultie come with significant differences in intelligence, and those higher faculties are known for influencing the ability to suffer.

That's a leap of logic right over tall buildings in a single bound. Actually, even if fish are dumber (I think so) and don't feel as much as primates, it would depend on why the animal is being killed. Fish may be stupid as a baker's dozen of fundies, but for someone to say, burn them alive for a thrill is worse than a monkey dying in a lab that is working on a cure for AIDS.

No one would say that, because you have injected content into the question: by killing the monkey, you are likely going to save many more sentient creatures. Kiling the fish IS worse than killing the monkey, since the monkey is dying to help many, many more people. THere is a blance of like interests at stake here: the like interests of survival.

In a utilitarian calculation, you always look at the net total of pleasure/pain/happiness/suffering. Just because you are sentient or "intelligent" doesn't mean nothing can happen to you at all. If your death will save or prevent greater suffering of more, then you still would be sacrificed. That doesn't invalidate the concept of rational attributes being used as a yardstick for the relative value of species in ethics. That's sans content. Unless you mention something specific, you have to assume everything is equal.

I don't really see how you can compare saving a lot of people, but killing one sentient animal, to slaughtering fish for fun. Since fish oft aren't sentient, intelligent creatures, they wouldn't even factor into a preference utilitarian calculus.





I

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The idea of describing people as less ethical based on the animals they eat is as absurd as measuring human intelligence by the shape of a person's head.

So, would it also be silly to describe someone as less ethical than other if he thought humans made tasty vittles?

[Zero]

The idea of describing people as less ethical based on the animals they eat is as absurd as measuring human intelligence by the shape of a person's head.

So, would it also be silly to describe someone as less ethical than other if he thought humans made tasty vittles?

Yes, quite silly. That's just a matter of taste. If the fellow, however, murdered people, then he'd be less ethical.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Yes, quite silly. That's just a matter of taste. If the fellow, however, murdered people, then he'd be less ethical.

Why? If intelligence and rational attributes are irrelevant, there is little important difference between humans and other animals, so "murdering" the human wouldn't be any more unethical than killing and eating a cow.

[Zero]

Yes, quite silly. That's just a matter of taste. If the fellow, however, murdered people, then he'd be less ethical.

Why? If intelligence and rational attributes are irrelevant, there is little important difference between humans and other animals, so "murdering" the human wouldn't be any more unethical than killing and eating a cow.

Ethics are rules and standards governing people. We can't really communicate to a cow what these standards are. We can't communicate with most anything other then humans, so these animals feel no obligation to obey moral and ethical rules, and thus aren't subject to them, either. Animals aren't people. Or at least that'd be my stance.

But I wasn't the fellow who brought up the bit about intelligence not relating to morality, which is what you were responding to. I was just pointing out that taste had little to do with anything. The action of murdering someone is the problem, not the desire for the taste.

[wolveraptor]

Sorry, I meant this one:

http://amazingthing.blogspot.com/2005/1 ... -dogs.html

That's just some random asstastic blog which links to a http://www.goveg.com site. Real credible Elftard. Real credible. It cites a bunch of unproven anecdotes and doesn't show the sources for its scientist's quotes. But hey, its an unbiased source, right? I can trust them.

Mike, I had to disagree with you when you said that dogs are smarter than wolves because wolves are nearly extinct, while dogs flourish. The more intelligent species doesn't automatically become the most successful one. Primates are among the least successful creatures on the planet, barring us, and even then, dumber animals that breed prolifically tend to be more numerous (which is the evolutionary definition of success for a species). Bacteria flourish the most of any set of species on Earth.

The scavenger theory of dog evolution is outlined pretty well here. According to it, wolves that were more willing to hang around human encampments and just scavenge did better than wolves that chose to hunt for their food.
Hunting is not an easy thing to do. It takes coordination among the alpha members (who, in reality are the real driving force behind the hunt; other pack members are superflous: see this PDF*), which requires intelligence. Hunting, arguably, favors mind power over scavenging from human camp remains, which favors docility, and a lack of fear of humans. I'd say that dogs didn't so much learn to cooperate with humans as much as take advantage of an obvious food source. Cooperation with humans only occurred much later in the dogs evolutionary history. Dogs were at first scavengers, then pack hunters.

Of course, more recent trends have been towards dog intelligence, as they tend to make more reactive and enjoyable pets, but these have not had enough time to really take effect. Most of man's best friend's history was spent scavenging for what we dropped on the forest floor.

*To summarize the article: a wolf packs effectiveness in terms of hunting increases with more members up to the number 2. Beyond that, it has no effect. A pair of wolves (the alphas) are able to take down and kill moose, deer, and whatever else they want to eat all by themselves. However, in doing so, they would lose substantial meat to scavenegers. They can't really eat all their meat fast enough to prevent this from happening. The result is that smaller packs of wolves are forced to hunt and kill more to satisfy their needs than larger ones. Extra, non-hunting members of the pack are just there to help finish the meal fast, so that scavengers like ravens can't get to it. It is better for a wolf's genetic relatives to recieve the left over food than another species, right?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Ethics are rules and standards governing people. We can't really communicate to a cow what these standards are. We can't communicate with most anything other then humans, so these animals feel no obligation to obey moral and ethical rules, and thus aren't subject to them, either. Animals aren't people. Or at least that'd be my stance.

Yes. Ethics are rules and standards governing people: it doesn't mean they only involve pepole. It is totally irrelevant whether or not you can communicate to a creature for it to have moral consideration, though. Completely: especially if you deny rational attributes as a morally significant feature.

Of course not all animals are peopole, but all people are animals.

But I wasn't the fellow who brought up the bit about intelligence not relating to morality, which is what you were responding to. I was just pointing out that taste had little to do with anything. The action of murdering someone is the problem, not the desire for the taste.

I didn't care about the taste, but the idea of killing and eating a human because you think it is yummy. Why is that different from killing a cow and eating it because it is tastey if you deny rational attributes, of which one is intelligence? What ethically separates man from other animals other than the specific level of his intelligence? Should not the same measuring stick apply to other species when comparing them?

[Zero]

I didn't care about the taste, but the idea of killing and eating a human because you think it is yummy. Why is that different from killing a cow and eating it because it is tastey if you deny rational attributes, of which one is intelligence? What ethically separates man from other animals other than the specific level of his intelligence? Should not the same measuring stick apply to other species when comparing them?

I already attempted to explain it previously, but it's apparent that I've failed. My idea is that since ethics only apply to actions of people, they only should apply to people. If I'm given moral consideration, I'll give it in return. This is, I suppose, one of my own lil axioms, so you may feel free to ignore it, being as you don't agree with it.

[Gil Hamilton]

Some notes, since I'd be quoting from all over the thread:

-Wolves, as a general rule, are brighter in terms of problem solving than dogs. However, there are lots of varieties of intelligence, including social intelligence. In terms of social intelligence, dogs excel over wolves. That's because dogs have been domesticated for so long that the date when we think they have been domesticated keeps pace with the latest archeological find for the oldest civilized modern man sites. Wolves, of course, can be raised up to so it accepts people as it's pack, but it's a much harder process than raising a dog, because wolves have a lesser of an ability to mesh with non-wolves. Dogs have that abstract social intelligence to identify non-dogs as other social creatures and form relationships very easily, and not just with people. Raise up a dog with cats and the dog will accept them as part of the clan just fine and not as prey. Dogs aren't geniuses about solving problems or using tools (though they can and do figure things out), but they are socially intelligent in ways bests almost all animals on the planet.


-Ease of training. The claim that ability to train is not a sign of intelligence is utterly proposterous. You train a dog by association and positive/negative reinforcement, and you do it over and over until they make the connection between a command or a word or an object with a concept. Like "sit" with "plant your bum on the ground".

Now think a second... how do human beings learn? Association and positive/negative reinforcement. Dogs and humans learn in exactly the same way. Humans are just much better at it and are able to wrap their brains around much more complex ideas, but in the end, it's the same process. Ergo ease of training is a sign of intelligence because it means that dogs can wrap their brains around concepts easily.

[wolveraptor]

My idea is that since ethics only apply to actions of people

It has already been established that what makes a person a person is the ability to share the human experience, i.e. suffering, joy, anger etc.
Do you seriously suggest that chimps, dogs, cats and most other vertebrates don't share these emotions to at least partly the same degree (widely varying from species to species, of course)? Shouldn't they also desrve some consideration, based proportionally off their level of emotional thought?

Moreover the cat does not work off of pure instinct, the cat learns too, but unlike a dog, the cat doesn't take anything for granted, it's intelligent enough to trust it's instincts.

Holy shit, do you really think the cat has the ability to choose to trust its instinct? That's the most retarded thing I've heard in a while. With intellect, one gains the ability of choice. A human can choose not to eat or have sex. A cat or dog can't.

You do not set up a condition where it can be falsified at all... you set the conditions under which it can be proven. You state "If I do 'A' under the exact conditions 'B', the outcome should be 'C'" and then you perform an experiment in which these conditions 'B' are strictly maintained. If your statement earlier is correct then the result of the experiment will be as you predicted, if the result is not as your predicted your statement has been falsified.

That is a condition where it can be falsified, you moron. If the outcome isn't C, you've falsified it. You're just arguing semantics.

[Elfdart]

The idea of describing people as less ethical based on the animals they eat is as absurd as measuring human intelligence by the shape of a person's head.

So, would it also be silly to describe someone as less ethical than other if he thought humans made tasty vittles?

Human beings are not pigs, dogs or chickens, fucktard.

Yes, quite silly. That's just a matter of taste. If the fellow, however, murdered people, then he'd be less ethical.

Why? If intelligence and rational attributes are irrelevant, there is little important difference between humans and other animals, so "murdering" the human wouldn't be any more unethical than killing and eating a cow.

Because we are humans and the idea of being prey for others is somewhate distasteful? People shouldn't eat one another for the same reasons we shouldn't kill one another.

[Darth Wong]

So Elfdart, do you feel that all animals should be treated equally, from bacterium right up to gorillas? If not, and if you disagree with the intelligence criterion, then why not?

[Elfdart]

Sorry, I meant this one:

http://amazingthing.blogspot.com/2005/1 ... -dogs.html

That's just some random asstastic blog which links to a http://www.goveg.com site. Real credible Elftard. Real credible. It cites a bunch of unproven anecdotes and doesn't show the sources for its scientist's quotes. But hey, its an unbiased source, right? I can trust them.

How about this one then:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Science/story ... &page=1%20
Money quote:

Hamlet the pig is a computer wiz. He gets a reward every time he uses a joystick designed for a chimp to move a cursor into a blue area on a computer monitor. A Jack Russell terrier couldn't achieve such a task after a year of trying.

In other words, pigs are smarter than dogs.

"They're very curious, and they'll charge off on their own," said John Webster, a professor at the University of Bristol in England. "They will investigate the world with their noses down and batter through like a small boy."

and this one:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/ap ... .Zo.r.html

Money quote:

A simple answer is
"yes", most experts believe that pigs are smarter than dogs.

[Elfdart]

Probably because it doesn't. Since when in knuckling under to another species a sign of intelligence? We consider it a sign of stupidity among humans, hence the phrase "Being led like sheep."

The fact that the dogs benefit greatly from listening to what we say and living with us and working with us and other animasl get wacked shows they aren't stupid. Cooperation doesn't mean you are sheep.

Given the amount of cruelty man inflicts on his best friend, I have my doubts. For every dog who gets treated by one of the family, there are countless others who are treated as vermin.

Any evidence for Neanderthal Man being dumber?

Wait? So you think neaderthal is what? As smart as modern humans?

I'm asking what evidence he has that they were dumber. He says they were not as smart. He has the burden of proof.

[Elfdart]

So Elfdart, do you feel that all animals should be treated equally, from bacterium right up to gorillas? If not, and if you disagree with the intelligence criterion, then why not?

What part of these two paragraphs were you not able to read and/ or comprehend?

See above. I'll repeat: Animals in general deserve to be treated as humanely as is practical. Needless pain and suffering of any animal is wrong -not just for those species that are useful, cute, friendly, or in some ways remind us of ourselves. I'll add this: I don't believe in needless cruelty, even for pests and animals that are truly dangerous to man.

Easy, people shouldn't base the way they treat animals on how "intelligent" the animal is alleged to be. They should be humane to all animals when practical. Pain and suffering should be curtailed as much as possible or practical. I think a chicken should be killed with one chop of an axe rather than slowly beheaded with a rusty hacksaw. But I'm not about to give a chicken a few Vicadin pills beforehand. Same goes for other animals.

Aside from practicality and personal bias, the only other concern I have would be under what conditions I have to interact with the creature. It's not only not practical to avoid killing bacteria, it's impossible. Every time you swallow, you are sentencing countless microbes to certain death by stomach acid. The only chance I have to even see a gorilla would be at a zoo, so I would have no good reason to kill the ape, would I?

If I see a dog attacking a child, I'll kill it (the dog) if I can. Same goes for "smarter" animals including pigs, dolphins, even a chimpanzee. How smart the species is reputed to be will not make any difference as to how I do it.

Now I have a question for you: Aside from dogs, what other animals will you not eat, and why?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Human beings are not pigs, dogs or chickens, fucktard

Completely irrelevant, dumbass. You have no critertion to ethically distinguish among humans and other animals. You only go by "practicality of treatment." That's not a differentiating criterion.