Animal Rights: Humans Special Because...?

[Rye]

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'm not sure how you'd determine such a thing "objectively" beyond pointing out that morals are about the survival and continued hedonism of our species primarily, and other species as far as our reasonable remit can go.

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.

The thought experiment I use for such arguments is whether you'd consider an evolutionary branch of man that was to us as we are to chimps, say, treating us like we treat chimps. Would that be right? I think eating meat can be justifiable so long as the meat hasn't been unduly tormented before it's killed. Making life for our domesticated prey nicer seems to be a better tradeoff than most animals. If a species predated on us in such a way and bred the stupidest and most compliant humans to a state like we've done with our cattle, I probably wouldn't care that they were being eaten if they didn't care.

[kinnison]

I'd like to throw another point into this discussion - the one of uniqueness and/or rarity.

I won't define what I mean, but do it by example: There are perhaps 400 mountain gorillas, a distinct species, on Earth, and they all live in the same small area. The question is; given a chance to save the lives of an equal number of randomly chosen humans or all the gorillas, which do you save? Personally, I vote for the gorillas, partly because the chance of any of the humans being someone I know is vanishingly small.

The same applies to quite a lot of critically endangered species, by the way. A more general point is; the reason that so many species are endangered is simply that there are too many people and we use too much of the ecosystem's resources. Assuming that you agree with that proposition, what are the acceptable ways of reducing our footprint and hence saving some or all of those species?

And finally, given the gorilla problem above, what if one of the humans is a relative of yours?

[Lagmonster]

There are perhaps 400 mountain gorillas, a distinct species, on Earth, and they all live in the same small area. The question is; given a chance to save the lives of an equal number of randomly chosen humans or all the gorillas, which do you save? Personally, I vote for the gorillas, partly because the chance of any of the humans being someone I know is vanishingly small.

Personally, I vote that it's disgusting to say 400 people can die in place of some random wad of apes just because you don't know the people individually. Or for any reason. Honestly, you don't KNOW the people, so let's save the apes first? I think I speak for everyone when I say, don't go into medicine OR conservation.

A more general point is; the reason that so many species are endangered is simply that there are too many people and we use too much of the ecosystem's resources.

Overpopulation scaremongers are the truly frightening of the environmentalists, because they're the ones who secretly wish you didn't exist.

[Zac Naloen]

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.

With regards to this, when discussing vegetarians and they mention supplements, be sure to ask who they think the supplements were tested on.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

With regards to this, when discussing vegetarians and they mention supplements, be sure to ask who they think the supplements were tested on.

Animals I am guessing. If it's part of a programme that lead to less suffering and death in the long run, it wouldn't necessarily be bad. Any vegan who thinks all animal exploitation and suffering can be eliminated is in dream land.

Lab produced supplements do need trials, like medicines, I would figure.

[Zac Naloen]

With regards to this, when discussing vegetarians and they mention supplements, be sure to ask who they think the supplements were tested on.

Animals I am guessing. If it's part of a programme that lead to less suffering and death in the long run, it wouldn't necessarily be bad. Any vegan who thinks all animal exploitation and suffering can be eliminated is in dream land.

Lab produced supplements do need trials, like medicines, I would figure.

That's my point, that's exactly the opinion of every animal rights activist I've spoken too.

ALL animal testing needs to stop.

All I say to them is good luck living a healthy lifestyle in that world

[Darth Wong]

That's my point, that's exactly the opinion of every animal rights activist I've spoken too.

ALL animal testing needs to stop.

All I say to them is good luck living a healthy lifestyle in that world

I've talked to a few examples of this breed. They actually ask stupid questions like "why can't they use computer simulations instead of lab testing". They clearly do not understand how this works at all.

[Lagmonster]

I've talked to a few examples of this breed. They actually ask stupid questions like "why can't they use computer simulations instead of lab testing". They clearly do not understand how this works at all.

Animal rights morons are, however, among the easiest of the ignorant to fluster, because it is trivially easy to show them their hypocrisy. One doesn't even have to answer their stupid questions, because it's painfully obvious that they don't WANT to live a life disconnected from the benefits that come from exploiting, killing, harming, and displacing other species.

[General Zod]

That's my point, that's exactly the opinion of every animal rights activist I've spoken too.

ALL animal testing needs to stop.

All I say to them is good luck living a healthy lifestyle in that world

Has anyone ever asked them if they'd personally volunteer for the testing in place of the animal? It'd be interesting to watch them flounder if nothing else.

[salm]

That's my point, that's exactly the opinion of every animal rights activist I've spoken too.

ALL animal testing needs to stop.

All I say to them is good luck living a healthy lifestyle in that world

Has anyone ever asked them if they'd personally volunteer for the testing in place of the animal? It'd be interesting to watch them flounder if nothing else.

In general they claim that they don´t use products whose creation process includes animal testing and that only people who actually use such products should be used as testing subjects.

[Lagmonster]

In general they claim that they don´t use products whose creation process includes animal testing and that only people who actually use such products should be used as testing subjects.

You can circle that right back to my comment on hypocrisy. I dare anyone to find someone who receives no benefit from animal testing.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That's my point, that's exactly the opinion of every animal rights activist I've spoken too.

ALL animal testing needs to stop.

All I say to them is good luck living a healthy lifestyle in that world

I've talked to a few examples of this breed. They actually ask stupid questions like "why can't they use computer simulations instead of lab testing". They clearly do not understand how this works at all.

It's funny to think that these people literally see these companies as wanting to use animals and to butcher them for Nutrasweet trials. They always seem to pick up on this horribly trite image much like a Creationist will attack evolution in retardedly simplistic ways

The fact is, if we could model a whole organism as complex as even an insect with a computer (not happening without quantum computing, so not any time soon), we would choose too because it's fucking cheaper than buying and looking after animals. Even the most penny pinching, callous corporate entity would move away from animals simply down to the economics of it all. A computer simulation would pay for itself within months given some of the studies and their prices I've had to oversee.

Until then, we use animals. Yes, it's horrible seeing puppies fed dosed diet, euthanised and then have a necropsy performed. In fact it turns my stomach. But here's the thing: I hate hypocrisy and I also happen to want to help my species, much as I may hate humanity at times.

What the likes of SHAC, the ALF and so on fail to mention on their MySpace pages and darknet websites are the studies which gave us pacemakers, anti-histamines, HAART therapies, insulin, monoclonal antibodies and so on. To them, we kill fluffy animals simply to have a less bitter cup of coffee. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Has anyone ever asked them if they'd personally volunteer for the testing in place of the animal? It'd be interesting to watch them flounder if nothing else.

I have. They tend to stumble and then trail off to mention other volunteers who desperately want to have nasty chemicals tested on themselves (I expect many of these nutters are also "alternative" medicine users and deeply distrusting of Big Pharma). As far as these people are concerned, they don't USE any of the products tested.

They mustn't understand that every single chemical or surgical procedure that comes into contact with the environment and humans, gets tested. This ranges from food additives to toiletries to medicines and herbicides. Unless they live in bubbles or grow all their own food and make all their own chemical compounds, they've benefited from this testing.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I won't define what I mean, but do it by example: There are perhaps 400 mountain gorillas, a distinct species, on Earth, and they all live in the same small area. The question is; given a chance to save the lives of an equal number of randomly chosen humans or all the gorillas, which do you save? Personally, I vote for the gorillas, partly because the chance of any of the humans being someone I know is vanishingly small.

This is a non-question. I am, admittedly an ecocentrist. I think we have direct moral duties to nature as a whole just like we do to people, and I think this is silly. Partially because I dont think moral systems should be tested by the crazy "out of nowhere scenarios that philosophers like to cook up" Testing of ethical systems should be done with things that could actually occur, with hypothetical scenarios used as a control.

(I think this because ethical systems are designed around what is actually true, the conclusions depend on the truth of the premises. It is like testing Utilitarianism, by arbitarily deciding that punishing an innocent person for murder will increase utility and pointing out how unjust that is even though this would never actually happen... it is ridiculous. For any ethical system one can think of a scenario where it produces an undesireable outcome.)

The real question is whether or not one would restrict the growth of a jungle villiage of 400 to save those gorillas. I would answer yes.

The same applies to quite a lot of critically endangered species, by the way. A more general point is; the reason that so many species are endangered is simply that there are too many people and we use too much of the ecosystem's resources. Assuming that you agree with that proposition, what are the acceptable ways of reducing our footprint and hence saving some or all of those species?

A lot of it is to stop being idiots. Example: when we build a new housing development, have a sustainable water supply and use natural landscaping so that the ecosystem can at least be partially extended into residential areas "let your yard grow wild" as it were. I live in AZ and people here insist on having grassy green lawns that are not only devoid of life, but also suck down water like french collaborators sucked nazi cock in WW2. STOP IT. We live in a fucking desert, not enough water for that. Here, have some creosote and a cactus garden, oh and a big rock too. I know, your yard isnt as much fun to roll around in with the kids especially with the harvester ants that now live there. Suck it up. Look, you have a beautiful chuckwalla sunning himself on that rock, and when else do you get to see a gila monster scarfing down baby rabbits? It's nice. I know I know, there is a rattlesnake in your yard, Comes with the lot. She was there before you were, she has kids too. Speaking of which you may want to watch where you put your hands in the toolshed. Zip it! You have been living there for over a year and that is the first time you have seen that snake, and you probably wont see her again for another 2.

Stopping organic farming and fully adopting GE crops is another way. Organic farming uses up more space and water to get the same crop yield. GE crops make this better AND your pesticides are now target specific. Trust me, it's kinda hard for an insect to evolve resistence to its own ecdysone bwahahaha!!!

And this brings me to ranchers. Stop opposing the reintroduction of wolves. I know they kill your cattle. I dont care. It isnt as if you are grazing your cattle on your own heavily fertilized field. You are over-grazing your thousands and thousands of cows on public trust land. That land is not a pasture. It is actual nature. The wolves evolved there, they have more a right to be there than your fucking cows. Maybe you can selectively breed your cows so they defend themselves from wolves. Suck it up. It isnt as if they will kill all your cows. They may take 1 or 2 a month if you hire someone to watch the herd, so what if those two are gay? You have thousands and they breed. Hell, it isnt as if you actually invest a whole lot of money while you overgraze public trust land. You pay a pittance to lease it over the summer months. You get what you pay for.

As for animal testing... from an evolutionary point of view, those animal test subjects are amazingly successful. We are their only nature predator we must keep their populations in check!


In all seriousness, we have no moral duties to them not to experiment on them because they are not a part of an evolved system independent of their being lab animals. If anything, we have a moral duty to keep experimenting on them because that is the niche they fill in their environment. I am still working on this bizzar ethical system of mine in which we have moral duties to evolved systems instead of individuals directly, and so far I really like the results.

[Alyrium Denryle]

wow... that turned into a bit of a rant didnt it?

[Rye]

In general they claim that they don´t use products whose creation process includes animal testing and that only people who actually use such products should be used as testing subjects.

You can circle that right back to my comment on hypocrisy. I dare anyone to find someone who receives no benefit from animal testing.

I'm sure you've benefited in some fashion from slavery, does that make you a hypocrite for not going out of your way to remove that benefit, even though you (presumably) don't agree with slavery?

[Lagmonster]

You can circle that right back to my comment on hypocrisy. I dare anyone to find someone who receives no benefit from animal testing.

I'm sure you've benefited in some fashion from slavery, does that make you a hypocrite for not going out of your way to remove that benefit, even though you (presumably) don't agree with slavery?

I admit I don't know a lot about history, but where animal testing might be the only acceptable moral option for saving lives, I can't think of any benefit to slavery that was unattainable otherwise.

Besides that, what I ought to have said is that it is hypocritical to decry slavery if you had no intention of giving up the benefits you derive from slavery. Which is the case with many animal-rights extremists.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I don't benefit from salvery now nor do I condone it today or ever, therefore the point is moot. These people want animal research stopped and either want drugs developed using magical science they keep rambling on about that has yet to appear (and if it did, we'd be using it already) or they laughably believe drugs have caused mankind more harm than good. Apparently we were much healthier a thousand years ago, before that horribly Big Pharma crap like penicillin or opiate based painkillers.