AC and anthropocentrism

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
lfd I don't think this is a problem of capitalism as such, it's just that most people besides yourself and other vegans don't have moral qualms about raising and eating/harnessing domestic animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not talking about eating and labor, he's talking about abuse. You know, like dousing a cat with gasoline and setting it on fire. ABUSE.

Personally, this is possibly my biggest problem with AC. In practically every civilized society, the torture of animals is a crime, but I don't see how AC can deal with this.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and quite possibly have no awareness when they are "wronged".

[/ QUOTE ]

can you expand on this point? do you mean that if an animal is in an undesirable psychological state (say I'm a cruel bastard and I poke a dog's eye out with a stick) that it doesn't place any moral judgement on me ("this bastard is poking me with a stick for no reason") and simply responds in an instinctual way to the presence of an undesirable stimulus? therefore I don't have to be morally concerned with how I treat an animal because it doesn't have the cognitive capacity to place a moral judgement on me for having hurt it.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure I would go that far. To say that it's only immoral if your victim can make a moral judgment about being wronged sounds kind of like saying "it's only wrong if you get caught." I do think the fact that animals cannot exercise morality limits the amount of morality we are required to extend to them. Would they do it to us if they could, is a good rule of thumb. A dog would not poke a human's eye out for sport. Whether they would cage humans, race them, have them fight each other, or whatever it is you DO object to, is uncertain as they involve rational purposeful action.

[ QUOTE ]
if so is there a biological line where this changes (okay to rip the tails off shrimp, not okay to light a gorilla on fire)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly. It seems much more likely apes feel pain similarly to us, than it does for shrimp.

[ QUOTE ]
I can think of cases where it would be possible for another human being not to have any concept of the fact that it is being "wronged", simply that it is in pain. Is it morally okay if I cause that human being pain?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but it's probably not as bad as if the person were fully aware.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lfd I don't think this is a problem of capitalism as such, it's just that most people besides yourself and other vegans don't have moral qualms about raising and eating/harnessing domestic animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not talking about eating and labor, he's talking about abuse. You know, like dousing a cat with gasoline and setting it on fire. ABUSE.

Personally, this is possibly my biggest problem with AC. In practically every civilized society, the torture of animals is a crime, but I don't see how AC can deal with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a lot more specific than the OP's "Specifically dealing with animals as ownable commodities in the AC worldview," and it sure seems similar to the hobo-killing argument to me.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It also appears that humans are the only self-aware beings in existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say my cat is most definitely self-aware.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anthropomorhpism. What does your cat do that proves it's self-aware?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Discussing morality as it relates to livestock or nature is irrelevant, as animals and plants cannot return moral judgment, and quite possibly have no awareness when they are "wronged".

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words: "We're not smart enough to communicate with them, so it must be impossible." And if you think animals have no awareness of when they've been "wronged", you've obviously never had a pet cat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say because they can't communicate, I said because they show no evidence of having consideration for or capacity for morality.

I have had pet cats. Avoiding a bad stimulus is not evidence of anything other than instinct. Sorry to sound so Planet of the Apes here. All the evidence (mirror test) shows that only humans and possibly some apes have self-awareness which is required to have other-awareness which is required to make moral judgments.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a similar vein, only humans act purposefully based on reason,

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Frontal lobe.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
In practically every civilized society, the torture of animals is a crime, but I don't see how AC can deal with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that it's not going to get a lot of attention should indicate to you that it's simply not that big of a deal in the first place. First off, very few people actually want to torture animals. You have to be pretty sick. I'm about as anthropocentric as it gets; I'm ok with animals being eaten, enslaved, driven to extinction, heck I'll grant someone his or her own right to light their cat(property) on fire. But I don't actually get any pleasure of torturing an animal, nor do I go out and kill them for enjoyment. The only weirdos that do do this must be few and far between, and chances are that if someone really gets off on this kind of thing, our laws aren't going to stop him anymore than they can stop sodomy in certain southern states where it's illegal.

Just because you legalize something doesn't mean everyone's going to suddenly do it. I've argued on several occasions that parental infanticide should be legal, since the only sick, depraved human beings that may exist for whom the only thing stopping them from murdering the very product of their being is the law really shouldn't be procreating in the first place. If we legalize heroin, is everyone going to become a heroin addict? It didn't happen during the industrial revolution.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, this is possibly my biggest problem with AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

THIS!?!? Occasional, sporadic kitty torture is your biggest beef with AC? Dude, just drink the Kool-Aid already [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It also appears that humans are the only self-aware beings in existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say my cat is most definitely self-aware.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anthropomorhpism. What does your cat do that proves it's self-aware?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that living being that can understand many of our attempts to communicate with it (beyond pain, move) is self aware.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a similar vein, only humans act purposefully based on reason,

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Frontal lobe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Riiiiight. What we know about how brains work is questionable at best.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It also appears that humans are the only self-aware beings in existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say my cat is most definitely self-aware.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anthropomorhpism. What does your cat do that proves it's self-aware?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that living being that can understand many of our attempts to communicate with it (beyond pain, move) is self aware.

[/ QUOTE ] Classical conditioning does not prove self-awareness.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a similar vein, only humans act purposefully based on reason,

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Frontal lobe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Riiiiight. What we know about how brains work is questionable at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this part is that questionable, that cognitive reasoning occurs in our frontal lobe.

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you looking for a deontological explanation or a consequentialist explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

HMK: I think you could make both, but I don't think it has to be deontological (as an aside, do you make deontological arguments for AC or do you think it is the best simply from a consequentialist POV?)

For instance, one could make the argument that, from a utilitarian standpoint, humans have only quite recently gained the capability to alter their environment on a scale that is not sustainable in terms of sustaining human life at its current levels. (ie; 500 years ago you could pretty much do whatever the [censored] you wanted with whatever technology you had to whatever species you wanted and it wouldn't affect the capability of another human being that you didn't even know existed to maintain her biological survival requirements). However, our ability, as humans to understand/predict those results is not in an equal place with our ability to create those changes. (I realize you could make the argument that a human, or the human species in aggregate, can never know/predict the ultimate effects of their actions on their survival/wellbeing, hence the "accidental/random" nature of natural selection and the reasoning behind a market economy in determing what is best for everyone) - therefore the only sane/safe course of action is to realize that any species currently living on earth could be essential for human survival (though our understanding of biology/ecology is certainly at a point where we could say that some species are more likely than others to be essential) therefore, from a utilitarian standpoint, to maximize our chances of survival we should, as humans, do our best not to willfully cause the extinction of another species for economic reasons.

or to put it another way - the market economy can only make use of the information that is priced into it. However it is possible in the case of ecology/sustainability (whether we are talking about the existence of other species, global warming, whatever) that by the time the market has received enough information to price it in at a reasonable level for a market correction to occur we will have already overshot ecological limits to human survival in a large and irreversible way thus ensuring a rather massive die-off of humans and other species.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, one could make the argument that, from a utilitarian standpoint, humans have only quite recently gained the capability to alter their environment on a scale that is not sustainable in terms of sustaining human life at its current levels. (ie; 500 years ago you could pretty much do whatever the [censored] you wanted with whatever technology you had to whatever species you wanted and it wouldn't affect the capability of another human being that you didn't even know existed to maintain her biological survival requirements). However, our ability, as humans to understand/predict those results is not in an equal place with our ability to create those changes. (I realize you could make the argument that a human, or the human species in aggregate, can never know/predict the ultimate effects of their actions on their survival/wellbeing, hence the "accidental/random" nature of natural selection and the reasoning behind a market economy in determing what is best for everyone) - therefore the only sane/safe course of action is to realize that any species currently living on earth could be essential for human survival (though our understanding of biology/ecology is certainly at a point where we could say that some species are more likely than others to be essential) therefore, from a utilitarian standpoint, to maximize our chances of survival we should, as humans, do our best not to willfully cause the extinction of another species for economic reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

But wait! What if we are supposed to get rid of a certain species? What if, as happens often in natural environments, a certain species is detrimental to the well-being of another, and the other seeks to eliminate it, thereby making its own survival more likely. Couldn't prohibiting such attacks actually be more dangerous than allowing them? Quite a dilemma.

I really don't see why we should protect all of these species. Human beings are doing what successful animal species have done for eons: killing other animals according to their needs and wants. Natural history is wrought with new predators suddenly introducing themselves to an ecosystem that wasn't used to it, devouring many pre-existing species (sometimes to extinction), and proliferating; sometimes significantly changing the ecosystem in the process. The radical loss of species on a daily basis to extinction is not some new thing; it's been occurring for hundreds of millions of years.

The world's myriad collection of flora and fauna was not designed to accomodate humans, or any other animal. It's a result of unplanned natural selection. Hell, there are a great number of things in this world that certainly do more harm to humans than good (mosquitos come to mind). When a pest annoys an animal enough to make it want to destroy them, that's part of natural selection. Truth be told, if we can find a way to stabilize the oxygen and climate levels and feed the population with few or no other species, we could concievably have a completely efficient, self-serving environment.

[ QUOTE ]
as an aside, do you make deontological arguments for AC or do you think it is the best simply from a consequentialist POV?

[/ QUOTE ]

Deontology is crap, imho. There are some posters here who favor AC from a moral perspective, but I'm not one of them.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It also appears that humans are the only self-aware beings in existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say my cat is most definitely self-aware.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anthropomorhpism. What does your cat do that proves it's self-aware?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that living being that can understand many of our attempts to communicate with it (beyond pain, move) is self aware.

[/ QUOTE ] Classical conditioning does not prove self-awareness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's enough for reasonable doubt, putting you in the position to prove your position, not me.