The morality of the carrot.

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

I had a really whack bio-ethics seminar the other day. We were discussing environmental ethics - sort of, I thought it would be fun to raise some of the issues brought up there, here...

Ok, when looking at reasons to protect animals, one of the lines of arguments offered is that primates and some other animals are hypothetically capable of being moral agents. Thus, we should not distinguish animals so drastically from ourselves when determining their rights.

It is assumed that intelligence gives them the potential for making moral judgements. This is debateable though as although intelligence is NECESSARY for morality, it is not SUFFICIENT for it - ie, you can be intelligent without being moral.

But, my query is whether, when deciding to bring animals in to the realm of who or what we give rights to, is the real issue whether they are capable of being moral agents?

I don't think it is. If something has to be capable of being a moral agent before we can protect its rights, then we have to admit children (young) do not meet this requirement, as they are not sufficiently capable of moral reasoning - neither for that matter are many seriously impaired adults.

SO, some would say that the line should be drawn at whether or not the thing we are protecting is capable of suffering... children suffer, so do animals.

This is dangerous too, however, as hypothetically plants can suffer (we haven't found a nervous system in plants, but that dosn't mean they don't have one, or that hypothetically plants are capable of morality ... we just don't know. Stupid argument, but one that needs acknowledgement). Thus, if we draw the line at suffering, we could potentially end up crying everytime we have to eat dinner - OH no! Fifty million corn cobs died tragically to make my cereal! etc (Anyone see that episode of the youngones where Neil feels so guilty about plants suffering he discovers that he can now no longer eat animals or plants??).... a tad rediculous if we look at the 'natural order' of things. A hungry animal would shed no tears over eating a human if it had too - and why should it, we eat to survive. Unfortunately, killing something to eat it does usually involves some suffering for whatever dinner is.

My question is whether we actually need these jusitifications. Are animals/plants intrinsically valuable, and thus worthy of some degree of respect? Or do you think the only warrant protection because of what they can potentially provide us humans (food, companionship, medicine..)

[Escape Artist]

Everything has value.

How you act on that is your choice.

[SatansLeftHand]

to paraphrase what someone else said in another forum: if it can't tell me not to eat it, i'll damn well eat it if i want to. non-english speakers are in danger around me.

that said, can the rainforest plants they derive nutrasweet and other nifties from tell us not to do it? more importantly, do they care? and even if they do, can they make any use of the things they have that we need? answer to all of those questions (except possibly the second one): NO! the way i figure it, if there's a god, and he didn't want us to utilize our environment to the fullest, he'd not have put it there. if there's not a god, then i say utilize it anyway! if there is some benifit to be taken from the existence of something, and nothing prevents your taking that benefit, it's yours.
i do, however, see the moral issue as something that might bother some people. for instance, vegetarians. to all the vegans and other dumbasses who think we shouldn't eat meat: LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR!!! OPEN YOUR MOUTH!! LOOK AT THEM FRONT TEETH!!! THOSE ARE NOT THE TEETH OF AN HERBIVORE!!! THOSE TEETH WOULD BE COMPLETELY AT HOME ON A PURE CARNIVORE!!

ahh, fuck it.
i wandered off a tangent, i notice.
let it stand.
it may induce other lines of thought.
and we (meaning I) like to watch threads mutate.

[Mudflap]

My question is whether we actually need these jusitifications. Are animals/plants intrinsically valuable, and thus worthy of some degree of respect? Or do you think the only warrant protection because of what they can potentially provide us humans (food, companionship, medicine..)

I'd say that plants and animals have intrinsic value and are therefore worthy of our respect. The fact that some of them have added value to humans is a function of our ability to take advantage of their utility.

Betcha thought I was gonna go on an anti-animal rights tangent, didn't ya? :p

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

Originally posted by Mudflap



Betcha thought I was gonna go on an anti-animal rights tangent, didn't ya? :p
Not at all - I know you *love* animals. :p

[Mudflap]

In a totally non-beastial way, of course.

[Dog Breath]

Humans are the only Rational animal or life form.

We are vastly smarter than any other life form known. Chimps and Dolphins having the intelligence of a 5 year old hunman is simply hogwash. I am sure a full grown dolphin and a young human match brain pans at some point but my guess is it is closer to a one year old child. If a one year old human never got smarter I am sure you could train them to squeek and put bombs on the hulls of ships and eat herring as reward.

If you base life on measurable intelligence (most people do without knowing it) A dolphin is better than a chimp, a chimp is better than an ape, an ape is better than an elephant, etc... to the smallest mammal, insect, arachnid, then plants, germs, molds, fungus, and finally viruses.

As that works out when dealing with fully developed specimines a human is about 800 times better than a dolphin, 1000 times better than a chimp ...... and several billion times better than a virus.

Our emotional attachment goes further. I would trade a homeless Alcoholic for a couple dozen Dolphins, but I wouldn't trade my wife for all the dolphins in tuna cans.

Given a couple years and a fat government grant I could put all the animals in the propper pecking order with a point ranking based on value compared to humans. We will call the unit doGb's.

A human = 1.0 doGb
A dolphin = 8.0 centidoGb
A chimp = 1.0 millidoGb
A virus =< 1.0 nanodoGb

It would take some time to fill in the gaps. :D

[3MTA3]

Plants dont have any sort of nervous system...although there are some processes which occur on the cellular level in plants(and animals) that we do not fully understand yet, it is not a hint of a nervous system...and plants arent capable of morality because they have no cognitive skills...they only react to environmental stimuli(ie. hot, cold, light, dark), they do not have any choice in how they will react and therin lies one of the key differences between plant and animal...

While higher life may be capable of being a moral agent they are not as capable of it as humans...this is why monkies dont dictate etiqitte...the true value of animals lies in their utility to us...as does our value to them(think domestication)...now, this utility for us aware humans is such a broad scope that it does provide reasons for animal rights...such as their right to be protected if needed, their right to not suffer cruel and unusual abuse at the hand of a human, etc. then theres the whole ecosystem thing and how it probably isnt a good idea to rip vast chunks of it out at once...etc. and bla-bla...

I think you think too fucking much sometimes Muffy.

[SimpleSimon]

It has been asserted in this thread that man is the only rational animal, or that man is the only animal that displays the capability to make moral judgements.

First, I challenge you: Define each of these three concepts, in non-anthropocentric terms:

Intelligence

Rationality

Moral judgement

Next, look at the following link:

http://www.dolphinsociety.org/4.index.htm

Read the article. Do some research, Then tell me man is the only rational, moral, intelligent species on this planet.


(...snip)

Many domestic Asian Elephants seem to have a continuously variable level of motivation. They seem to be constantly making judgements such as "How hungry am I now? How hard do I want to work for that bunch of bananas?" An observation often made by mahouts of domestic Asian elephants is that they are like children, that they lack initiative and altruism. They don't usually perform trained behaviors without the direction of a mahout and they almost never rescue a mahout from danger.

But are these characteristics much different from those of humans that have been enslaved? *

Wild elephants show great initiative, altruism and cooperation in rescue and in many other areas of behavior. Orphaned elephants that have been raised by humans with kindness, sometimes show great friendship, initiative and altruism toward humans.

(* - emphasis added)

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

Originally posted by SimpleSimon
First, I challenge you: Define each of these three concepts, in non-anthropocentric terms:

Intelligence

Rationality

Moral judgement


A winner is you!

Now, out of curiosity - how would you define them in non-anthropocentric terms???

Edit: And do you think anthropocentricism is self defeating?

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

Originally posted by 3MTA3
I think you think too fucking much sometimes Muffy.

Yeah, but I get paid for it. So thats kind of like saying IT's spend too much time in front of computers...
And I also think it is pointless to think of plants as having morality and a nervous system. Like I said, it's an argument that needs acknowledgment - non-cognitivism also needs acknowledgement, but I *think* that is a load of shite too.

[SimpleSimon]

Originally posted by MuffyTheVampyreLayer

A winner is you!

Now, out of curiosity - how would you define them in non-anthropocentric terms???

I would that I were able.

Unfortunately, I am not. Language as used by man (by no means the only form of language - watch bees some time) is intrinsically anthropocentric in conceptualization and verbalization. Evidence from the elephant listening project in the Nepali national park suggests that elephants are able to communicate verbally over long distances utilizing infrasound as well as audible "words". Over 800 discrete, repeated "words" are identifiable, and it appears there is a sort of 'sentence' struucture as well.

To date, there has been virtually no success in translation. It appears that elephants can learn our language to a remarkable degree, but we cannot learn theirs. WHO are the 'intelligent' ones?

Edit: And do you think anthropocentricism is self defeating?

Self-defeating? I would not use that term. Self-limiting, most definitely.

[Mudflap]

You brainiacs STFU !

Animals: good to eat. cuddly-wuddly. fetch beer from fridge. play with ball of yarn. bite obnoxious kids. etc.

Plants: good to eat. good to build with. pretty flowers. etc.

Humans: Masters of all plants and animals.

Mudflap: The Game

Pianomahnn: Molest0r of rocks.

That pretty much sums it up.

[SimpleSimon]

Originally posted by Mudflap
You brainiacs STFU !

Animals: good to eat. cuddly-wuddly. fetch beer from fridge. play with ball of yarn. bite obnoxious kids. etc.

Plants: good to eat. good to build with. pretty flowers. etc.

Humans: Masters of all plants and animals.

Mudflap: The Game

Pianomahnn: Molest0r of rocks.

That pretty much sums it up.

Were you looking in the mirror just now?

Humans = Predators of all plants and animals (including man)

Oh, and by the way:

<marquee=left>SimpleSimon = MASTER of the game.</marquee>

[Cruise Director]

Moderation.

Let me explain.

Every living thing on this planet has a purpose and deserves to be treated with respect and allowed to continue. In moderation. Whether or not they are moral, intelligent or rational should not be the question. Take, for example, mosquitos. In moderation, they are a valuable food source for some reptiles, birds and animals. If they are allowed to overproduce, they become a menace that upsets the balance of nature. We can apply this model to every plant and animal on the planet.

My favorite example is the elephant. A co-worker of mine has been hired a few times to travel to Africa to kill elephants. Elephants are not only considered to be intelligent animals, but they fit in to the "cute" category that tends to be the favorites of humans to protect and fight to keep alive. The same animals we see that are endangered on most continents have been protected in certain areas of Africa to a point where they have become feral and menacing. The populations have grown beyond reasonable levels and have upset the balance of nature in those areas. Culling elephants has become customary in these areas. ( that's the shit they don't show on Animal Planet or National Geographic channels. )

Unfortunately, when the balance of nature becomes upset and "unbalanced," you can generally find man at the root of the problem. Over harvesting, over building, over protecting; we have a tendancy as humans to "over" just about everything we touch.

Perhaps we should look at the balance of man and start culling.

[Dog Breath]

Simon, that article had no information to support rational behavior of animals. Communication does not equate to rational behavior or intelligence, ants and bees do it.
You seem more convinced about the rationality of animals than the author, bad example. Do you have more links? How about one that is in a peer revued scientific journal not on some activist site?

Here is an example of activist fallacies:



http://www.junkscience.com/news/whales.html

[MuffyTheVampyreLayer]

I don't know if Simons link was supposed to provide proof of animal rationality, maybe... but I thought from the rest of his post that it was more for questioning our tendendy to take an anthropocentric approach when evaluating animal behaviour.

The article illustrated (well, at least the quote did) that perhaps animals aren't so vastly different from ourselves (unlike the anthropocentricist would have us believe)...and that the dichotomy presented by the dual natures of animal and man is probably grossly exaggerated...

/me shrugs... thats just how I interpreted it anyway.