Animal Rights: Humans Special Because...?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'm wondering, is there any system out there that can objectively place humans above other organisms to justify meat eating, pets and experimentation that doesn't rely on gauging the blurry world of intelligence, speciesism or theology?

I just recall debating this point a while ago and struggling to really find an objective reason outside our sapience and fact that my own kind should be preferred over a random animal (the typical scenario of a drowning kid or a drowning cat etc.).

It's probably because it's a Friday and my brain is frazzled, though I still can't think of anything else.

It's nice to have more arguments when confronting the more verbose activists. I have plenty of related arguments for my side on that though.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

What type of people are you debating? In general, it's difficult to find an objective ethical set of criteria that place all humans above all other animals, but for practical purposes, the intelligence/sapience criteria are useful because they have such wide-ranging application that's intuitive. Even if you are a Utilitarian who value consideration based on capacity to suffer, interests, etc (which is good), intelligence can have significant implications for those criteria.

It's difficult to use in-group justifications as the primary or the sole reason and meet the criteria of objective, neutral, and universal standards imposed by ethics. It can be done, but it requires equality of consideration of like interests. Yourself only if they have relatively like interest capacities.


Like your scenario about the drowning kid vs the cat. I would choose the kid, but certainly the cat if I were dealing with something so mentally handicapped it was of less cognizance than the cat. I wouldn't say it's acceptable because of group membership, but due to the actual characteristics of the units compared. A child generally has greater self-awareness, self-concept. It has many different, much more complicated interests than other animals.


Sometimes, people forget that Humans are animals, not special creations. Dawkins goes into this a bit in his support of the Great Ape Project proposed by Doctor Singer. He goes into the notion that people tend to place value on Humans, not based on rational criteria such as intelligence, suffering capacity, but rather group membership or special value, when no such thing is justified. It's not to say you cannot justify superior treatment of humans, though. He does, though, seem strongly to condemn moral judgments of consideration based largely on group membership regardless of the actual characteristics of those in the group,and I would agree in principle. It's not always practical, though.

[Admiral Valdemar]

What type of people are you debating? In general, it's difficult to find an objective ethical set of criteria that place all humans above all other animals, but for practical purposes, the intelligence/sapience criteria are useful because they have such wide-ranging application that's intuitive. Even if you are a Utilitarian who value consideration based on capacity to suffer, interests, etc (which is good), intelligence can have significant implications for those criteria.

General people on the issue, just for future reference since I was reminded this afternoon. The other kind of people I could come into contact with use letter bombs, so I doubt syllogisms will work.

It's difficult to use in-group justifications as the primary or the sole reason and meet the criteria of objective, neutral, and universal standards imposed by ethics. It can be done, but it requires equality of consideration of like interests. Yourself only if they have relatively like interest capacities.

This is why the intelligence/sapience issue is the only one I can see, and even then one can argue for "lesser" animals that have no sapience, but are otherwise smart enough to work with humans.

Like your scenario about the drowning kid vs the cat. I would choose the kid, but certainly the cat if I were dealing with something so mentally handicapped it was of less cognizance than the cat. I wouldn't say it's acceptable because of group membership, but due to the actual characteristics of the units compared. A child generally has greater self-awareness, self-concept. It has many different, much more complicated interests than other animals.

Of course the next step is what differentiates a child with learning difficulties versus a primate etc. I tend to find most people then play the group membership card.

Sometimes, people forget that Humans are animals, not special creations. Dawkins goes into this a bit in his support of the Great Ape Project proposed by Doctor Singer. He goes into the notion that people tend to place value on Humans, not based on rational criteria such as intelligence, suffering capacity, but rather group membership or special value, when no such thing is justified. It's not to say you cannot justify superior treatment of humans, though. He does, though, seem strongly to condemn moral judgments of consideration based largely on group membership regardless of the actual characteristics of those in the group,and I would agree in principle. It's not always practical, though.

That's one aspect I've always considered since Dawkins is naturally good at articulating these ideas. Indeed, The God Delusion has a good chapter on morality and it's subjective nature and illogical conditions for humans at times. Even being utilitarian can't be as cut and dry in every instance.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Of course the next step is what differentiates a child with learning difficulties versus a primate etc. I tend to find most people then play the group membership card.

I dont. In a utilitarian calculus, there are cases where a primate clearly has a higher capacity to suffer than a human child with a learning disability. Group membership IS used, but it is not actually consistent with any ethical theory other than Cultural Ethical Relativism, which is no ethical principle at all.

One can actually guage the relative intelligence of say, a chimp against a typical child of a given age, and then do the same with a mentally challenged child and see who is smarter. Indeed, in cases of a dead heat the chimp would win because it is more independent and thus will need less care than a downs syndrome kid and thus in crease utility


That assumes I am a utilitarian, which I am not. I accept a still-in-progress ecocentric model for ethics which I wont go into unless asked....(as it would hijack the thread)

[Darth Wong]

What's wrong with "gauging the blurry world of intelligence?"

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Of course the next step is what differentiates a child with learning difficulties versus a primate etc. I tend to find most people then play the group membership card.

If we really do know that they are on similar levels, or if one is more self-aware, more intelligent than the other (let's say for the sake of it it's the chimp), there would be no intrinsic difference in the way it should be treated according to the modern iteration of Utilitarainism. For some, this would be a "bite the bullet" issue, because Utiltiarianism can lead to some counterintuitive results. If a human baby were so retarded as to be permanently below the level of a zoo chimp, there wouldn't be much more reason to give it moral consideration for it's own sake.

However, you can take into consideration factors of extrinsic utility, which might make a difference in such a situation.


I tend to lean heavy Utiltiarian, but at times, it's difficult and I try to moderate it with other theories.

[Admiral Valdemar]

What's wrong with "gauging the blurry world of intelligence?"

Nothing. I'm just curious of other methods of reasoning not linked to the two most common, though the intelligence aspect then leads to the question of just where a line is drawn and how that applies to humans of less intelligence than the average for the population.

That's why the handicapped child versus the higher primate scenario gets interesting answers whenever I've seen it put forward.

[Lagmonster]

I'm wondering, is there any system out there that can objectively place humans above other organisms to justify meat eating, pets and experimentation that doesn't rely on gauging the blurry world of intelligence, speciesism or theology?

Meat eating is easy: you're an omnivore. You can objectively demonstrate that humans are designed to eat meat - going back to even semi-intelligent man we can see that we're an instinctively predatory species, and physically humans are designed to process and digest meat. Whether or not you choose to eat meat, and what meat you eat, and how you share it, is something you discuss with your fellow predators or settle for yourself. Seriously, hungry wolfpacks think human free-the-farm vegan movements are swell. Freeing bunnies doesn't change the bunny's fate, just who benefits from it.

As for ownership, that's a concept that animals don't understand, due to, you know, being stupid. It's not even that they don't get the idea - most animals understand the concept of "it's mine, you can't have it, and I'd rather kill you than let you take it", but that's not the relationship we have with our pets - dogs adopt you as their pack, cats are obviously perfectly content with a plush human-as-butler lifestyle, and, well...anyone who argues for Free the Guppies can probably be met with laughter as a rebuttal. They don't know a fish tank from a fish pond.

Experimentation is something more; in cases of experimentation you don't just state it's black and white right or wrong, you examine your options. Your choices are thus: 1) Don't experiment. I know some animal-rights jerks who fall into this category - they're the ones who think a person should suffer while rats roam free. These people we will call assholes. 2) Experiment on people. I don't know anyone who thinks this is okay, although if you didn't have any other choice, you will always find people who are willing to trade one life for millions. Problem is, you have choices. You have millions of choices, often in the form of animals that you'd pay money to an exterminator to slaughter just for going about their natural, in-the-wild behaviour that protesters claim to wish they were free to do.

When faced with imminent suffering, if we showed these jerk-offs a person and a chimp, and told them one of them would have to die to prevent your agony, who the hell would point to the person? I can see some people sticking to their guns and volunteering to die in agony and spare both the person and the chimp, but those people are clearly too stupid to be allowed to make that decision for others. But then, you can't argue with those people. I've met Christians who state that they would unhesitatingly martyr themselves on the spot for Jesus, and those people are not fucking normal.

Like your scenario about the drowning kid vs the cat. I would choose the kid, but certainly the cat if I were dealing with something so mentally handicapped it was of less cognizance than the cat. I wouldn't say it's acceptable because of group membership, but due to the actual characteristics of the units compared. A child generally has greater self-awareness, self-concept. It has many different, much more complicated interests than other animals.

Think of this; what do you think public response would be if it was publicized that you saved a cat over an extraordinarily retarded kid? You'd be lucky if you weren't crucified.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Think of this; what do you think public response would be if it was publicized that you saved a cat over an extraordinarily retarded kid? You'd be lucky if you weren't crucified.
_________________

I don't doubt they would be pissed. That's a cultural problem. Many people think bizarre shit, like those people who thought the people pulling the plug on Schivo were vile murderers. Sadly, you do need to take into consideration what people will do/react. That would be an extrinsic factor to consider.

There were some times where people would probably string you up if you took the side of a black man vs a white too, regardless of the reasons. It's a sad world.

[Nephtys]

I always roll eyes at the 'Chimp = Stupid Baby' argument. A lot more is at work than just the awareness level of the victim.

You need to pick which to eat to survive in some scenario. A chimp or an extremely mentally deficient baby. Of course everyone here is going to pick the chimp. Why? Sure, you can say that the baby is 'equal' in terms of awareness/humanness, but it affects us less. We're hardwired to not eat our own kind, protect our own kind, and most of us protect the young if possible. Imagine that kinds of mental trauma that'd inflict on us to go against that programming? Or others we know? How society would look at such things? More factors than the victim's awareness come into this.

Really, it is a group membership issue in the end. We place more value on our own, because we'd feel a hell of a lot worse if we didn't.

[Darth Wong]

What's wrong with "gauging the blurry world of intelligence?"

Nothing. I'm just curious of other methods of reasoning not linked to the two most common, though the intelligence aspect then leads to the question of just where a line is drawn and how that applies to humans of less intelligence than the average for the population.

That's why the handicapped child versus the higher primate scenario gets interesting answers whenever I've seen it put forward.

It only requires "interesting answers" if one is of the opinion that higher primates should be treated like crap. If one thinks they should be treated with dignity, then there's no problem with this scenario and no need for "interesting answers".

That's a general truism, really: if someone has to perform all manner of rhetorical gymnastics in order to defend his ethics, then maybe there's something wrong with his ethics and he's just too stubborn to recognize that.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Meat eating is easy: you're an omnivore. You can objectively demonstrate that humans are designed to eat meat - going back to even semi-intelligent man we can see that we're an instinctively predatory species, and physically humans are designed to process and digest meat. Whether or not you choose to eat meat, and what meat you eat, and how you share it, is something you discuss with your fellow predators or settle for yourself. Seriously, hungry wolfpacks think human free-the-farm vegan movements are swell. Freeing bunnies doesn't change the bunny's fate, just who benefits from it.

I wish I remembered the page now, because just this week I came across a vegan's blog on MySpace when Googling some stuff that had a long, philosophical (he was a major in philosophy) rambling on, not so much meat eating being wrong, but it not being as justified as us horrible meat-eaters often like to think. I'll see if I can find it again, was a hoot, if annoyingly the only one refuting his points was an illegible moron himself.

As for ownership, that's a concept that animals don't understand, due to, you know, being stupid. It's not even that they don't get the idea - most animals understand the concept of "it's mine, you can't have it, and I'd rather kill you than let you take it", but that's not the relationship we have with our pets - dogs adopt you as their pack, cats are obviously perfectly content with a plush human-as-butler lifestyle, and, well...anyone who argues for Free the Guppies can probably be met with laughter as a rebuttal. They don't know a fish tank from a fish pond.

I've never known anyone really object to pets, though I threw that one in there just in case anyone had debated the concept with someone really against it. It's funny how carnivorous humans and scientists or fur wearers are targeted and not pet lovers. I guess, as with bikers, they're not a group even PETA would go after.

Experimentation is something more; in cases of experimentation you don't just state it's black and white right or wrong, you examine your options. Your choices are thus: 1) Don't experiment. I know some animal-rights jerks who fall into this category - they're the ones who think a person should suffer while rats roam free. These people we will call assholes. 2) Experiment on people. I don't know anyone who thinks this is okay, although if you didn't have any other choice, you will always find people who are willing to trade one life for millions. Problem is, you have choices. You have millions of choices, often in the form of animals that you'd pay money to an exterminator to slaughter just for going about their natural, in-the-wild behaviour that protesters claim to wish they were free to do.

When faced with imminent suffering, if we showed these jerk-offs a person and a chimp, and told them one of them would have to die to prevent your agony, who the hell would point to the person? I can see some people sticking to their guns and volunteering to die in agony and spare both the person and the chimp, but those people are clearly too stupid to be allowed to make that decision for others. But then, you can't argue with those people. I've met Christians who state that they would unhesitatingly martyr themselves on the spot for Jesus, and those people are not fucking normal.

On this issue there's a wealth of information I've digested, though thankfully today it's less a problem since the likes of the ALF fire bombings and Gladys Hammond case have helped people see the light, at least here. I often just find it simpler to use the hypocrisy argument: that being if you've ever used medicine or had a medical procedure and object to animal testing, you're a dick.

Think of this; what do you think public response would be if it was publicized that you saved a cat over an extraordinarily retarded kid? You'd be lucky if you weren't crucified.

Again, the group mentality effect. The objective factor is ruled out by the fact that someone chose another animal over a human, even if, in some instances, a case can be made for the non-human.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It only requires "interesting answers" if one is of the opinion that higher primates should be treated like crap. If one thinks they should be treated with dignity, then there's no problem with this scenario and no need for "interesting answers".

That's a general truism, really: if someone has to perform all manner of rhetorical gymnastics in order to defend his ethics, then maybe there's something wrong with his ethics and he's just too stubborn to recognize that.

You'll find a lot of people are quite stubborn on these issues, much like with religion, because they have society shaping their minds more than their own intuition and logic. The PETA and ALF or SHAC crowd are probably the worst in this respect, because they cannot see ANY compromise on any issue relating to animals. While utilitarianism would favour whatever organism fits the bill in whatever scenario, the extremist animal rights activist will always side with the non-human, even if the non-human is suffering trivially and staving off mass suffering for the actual humans.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What's wrong with "gauging the blurry world of intelligence?"

It's nebulous, they can always challenge your conclusions.

I think Valdemar is approaching this incorrectly. The simple fact is, there is no logically consistent ethical theory I can think of that denies that animals are worthy of moral consideration. Most people on this board are some sort of utilitarian. But if you are arguing with a Kantian or rights ethicist, any utility based argument is going to flounder like the titanic.

you guys can expect a large post from me in a couple of hours...

[Alyrium Denryle]

I always roll eyes at the 'Chimp = Stupid Baby' argument. A lot more is at work than just the awareness level of the victim.

You need to pick which to eat to survive in some scenario. A chimp or an extremely mentally deficient baby. Of course everyone here is going to pick the chimp. Why? Sure, you can say that the baby is 'equal' in terms of awareness/humanness, but it affects us less. We're hardwired to not eat our own kind, protect our own kind, and most of us protect the young if possible. Imagine that kinds of mental trauma that'd inflict on us to go against that programming? Or others we know? How society would look at such things? More factors than the victim's awareness come into this.

Really, it is a group membership issue in the end. We place more value on our own, because we'd feel a hell of a lot worse if we didn't.

Naturalistic fallacy.

[Lagmonster]

Again, the group mentality effect. The objective factor is ruled out by the fact that someone chose another animal over a human, even if, in some instances, a case can be made for the non-human.

The question is, why?

Try this one on: You're walking across a bridge, and you see a blind man being led by his seeing-eye dog. Without warning, a truck swerves off the road and hits the man, sending him flying over the side. The dog, as it's trained to do, jumps in after the man, but it's clear the dog can't fight the current. You happen to have a lift handy capable of safely extracting either the man or the dog. You don't know the extent of the man's injuries - he was hit hard and could have been killed on impact for all you know. Who do you go after? The flailing dog, who is clearly alive and a very valuable animal, or the man who you don't know whether he's even still alive, or going to survive, or anything?

[Nephtys]

Again, the group mentality effect. The objective factor is ruled out by the fact that someone chose another animal over a human, even if, in some instances, a case can be made for the non-human.

The question is, why?

Try this one on: You're walking across a bridge, and you see a blind man being led by his seeing-eye dog. Without warning, a truck swerves off the road and hits the man, sending him flying over the side. The dog, as it's trained to do, jumps in after the man, but it's clear the dog can't fight the current. You happen to have a lift handy capable of safely extracting either the man or the dog. You don't know the extent of the man's injuries - he was hit hard and could have been killed on impact for all you know. Who do you go after? The flailing dog, who is clearly alive and a very valuable animal, or the man who you don't know whether he's even still alive, or going to survive, or anything?

You still go for the man. He has the potential to be a more valuable individual (mentally, or to society, or whatnot) than the dog, even if there's a chance he's dead. This case is a little harder, but I don't really see any problems with it. It's like rushing into a burning building to save a man trapped in it, or a dog next to him. You get the man out while there's any chance of doing it.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The question is, why?

Try this one on: You're walking across a bridge, and you see a blind man being led by his seeing-eye dog. Without warning, a truck swerves off the road and hits the man, sending him flying over the side. The dog, as it's trained to do, jumps in after the man, but it's clear the dog can't fight the current. You happen to have a lift handy capable of safely extracting either the man or the dog. You don't know the extent of the man's injuries - he was hit hard and could have been killed on impact for all you know. Who do you go after? The flailing dog, who is clearly alive and a very valuable animal, or the man who you don't know whether he's even still alive, or going to survive, or anything?

This is rather like the Marc Hauser thought exercises, only with two different organisms and not two different sets of people in various predicaments. As with those moral quandaries, the answer is not as cut and dry or logical as some would think.

The fact is, I know there is no real definitive answer, but what I wanted to see was how others might rationalise their answers to these questions, at least referring to other animals in this case.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Perhaps you could err on the side of caution. You know that the adult has much higher capacity and is of greater moral worth. You don't know if he's still alive. It would be vaguely similar to having someone sacrifice his life to go into a dangerous situation to save someone who might already be dead. It might be bad in the individual circumstances, but not as a general rule of thumb. You can't always pin-point calculate.


Even when dealing with other humans, it's not always straightforeward to use utilitarianism's focus on neutrality or the personhood focus because there are extrinsic considerations. The family in poverty abroad might be equal to my suffering capacity, self-awareness, but yet I wouldn't necessarily be "good" in sacrificing significantly my own family's interests for them, even though all things equal, it might be.

Society would probably collapse if we encouraged that and enough people did it. You could probably argue for some group bias based on the net consequences as a rule of doing it. But it's also based on degree. We need to find how much is too much, while still working to expand the circle of consideration for others outside the group. We have done it in the past beyond what people thought they were capable of. There were times where things outside our cultural or biological predispositions were not acceptable. The limit can be expanded, but probably ends somewhere.

[Lagmonster]

The fact is, I know there is no real definitive answer, but what I wanted to see was how others might rationalise their answers to these questions, at least referring to other animals in this case.

Well, if all else fails, you can bring out the Pure Greed answer: You save the human because they have the potential to pay you back. Seriously. What's the drowning cat going to do for you? But even a dumb person can collect a welfare check and buy you a meal.

Naturally, that's a rancid asshole of a motivation, but as long as we're assigning secondary and tertiary responses, why the hell not?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Well, if all else fails, you can bring out the Pure Greed answer: You save the human because they have the potential to pay you back. Seriously. What's the drowning cat going to do for you? But even a dumb person can collect a welfare check and buy you a meal.

Naturally, that's a rancid asshole of a motivation, but as long as we're assigning secondary and tertiary responses, why the hell not?

That's the third option I forgot: general utility. While one party may not be as smart as the other, you can always see one as having more practical value to society as a whole, as opposed to measuring their worth of being saved by which species they belong to, or what they can do with abstract thought.

[Starglider]

I'm wondering, is there any system out there that can objectively place humans above other organisms to justify meat eating, pets and experimentation that doesn't rely on gauging the blurry world of intelligence, speciesism or theology?

Specisim can be objective; you simply have to acknowledge that if it's moral for you to do it to 'them', it's also moral for 'them' to do it to you. Actually that works for any kind of group you can sharply define. It's horrible, but it's objective in the sense of meeting certain consistency and 'fairness' criterion.

If you mean objective in the sense of 'we can work out from logic and the structure of the universe that certain actions are always and inherently preferable to other actions', then no of course not; there is no 'objective' morality in that sense. There are game-theoretically sound strategies, shared human instincts and behaviours evolution tends to select for in particular circumstances, but that's it.

I just recall debating this point a while ago and struggling to really find an objective reason outside our sapience

Ok, you really have to pin down what you mean by 'objective' for your question to be answerable. Because interpreting it strictly, it's a meaningless question.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Specisim can be objective; you simply have to acknowledge that if it's moral for you to do it to 'them', it's also moral for 'them' to do it to you. Actually that works for any kind of group you can sharply define. It's horrible, but it's objective in the sense of meeting certain consistency and 'fairness' criterion.

If you mean objective in the sense of 'we can work out from logic and the structure of the universe that certain actions are always and inherently preferable to other actions', then no of course not; there is no 'objective' morality in that sense. There are game-theoretically sound strategies, shared human instincts and behaviours evolution tends to select for in particular circumstances, but that's it.

That's typically where you get the big divide again, because while I've used that reasoning in the past, many tend to invoke the idea of us being more benevolent and noble thanks to our power and intelligence, so the "we're only doing what they'd do" line never seems to cut it with those people.

Course, many people hate the whole "universe doesn't give a shit" thing and insist on some greater good existing, be it a deity or us. Social conditioning again, I suppose.

Ok, you really have to pin down what you mean by 'objective' for your question to be answerable. Because interpreting it strictly, it's a meaningless question.

Well, like we've established, there's no definitive code of ethics or morality, so really I'm just asking for peoples' interpretations of what constitutes a sensible and fair system. The OP could be clearer, I admit, Friday evenings are not the best of times for me to post such topics, bleh.

[Starglider]

Specisim can be objective; you simply have to acknowledge that if it's moral for you to do it to 'them', it's also moral for 'them' to do it to you.

That's typically where you get the big divide again, because while I've used that reasoning in the past, many tend to invoke the idea of us being more benevolent and noble thanks to our power and intelligence, so the "we're only doing what they'd do" line never seems to cut it with those people.

It isn't necessary for the other party to want to do it for the ethical system to be consistent. All it says is that it's /moral/ for each species to kill and eat the other. Whether the other species chooses to indulge in this is irrelevant to whether it is moral for you or them to do so. Obviously I don't agree with this system

Course, many people hate the whole "universe doesn't give a shit" thing and insist on some greater good existing, be it a deity or us. Social conditioning again, I suppose.

Yes. Ultimately, the sad fact is that morals come down to whether your arbitary goals/'goods' match other people's or not. An abstract knowledge of ethics allows you to derrive rules and judgements from your basic axioms, it allows you to check for consistency, it can even to a limited extent predict what the social and personal consequences of people having various axioms will be, but it cannot tell you which moral axioms you should hold. Reflection doesn't help either; that just kicks up the arbitrariness from 'what moral principles do I happen to have' to 'what moral principles do I happen to like'.

Well, like we've established, there's no definitive code of ethics or morality, so really I'm just asking for peoples' interpretations of what constitutes a sensible and fair system.

Regrettably I have to go now but I may give my answer to this later.

[Civil War Man]

I'm wondering, is there any system out there that can objectively place humans above other organisms to justify meat eating, pets and experimentation that doesn't rely on gauging the blurry world of intelligence, speciesism or theology?

For eating meat: As Lagmonster pointed out, we're omnivores, and certain nutrients are easier to obtain by eating meat. Supplements are available for those who feel an obligation to avoid eating meat, but of course there are also supplements that contain vitamins found in most vegetables, too.

For pets: Just think of it as adopting a really hairy baby.

For experimentation: A multigenerational genetic experiment involving humans will take decades. A multigenerational genetic experiment involving fruit flies takes a few days. You gain the insight you want in a fraction of the time.