If our responsibility can be destroyed, does that preclude it? — chiknsld

I don't see how that would follow.

Another important question: Is it essential that humanity have compassion and empathy towards animals on earth? — chiknsld

I do believe that the main emotional reason humans are opposed to inflicting unnecessary pain on animals is that we view it as evidence of sadism more generally, and thus a negative and possibly dangerous character trait.

This disappears if the animal is seen as a threat. It also doesn't apply to anything people are used to as a normal thing to do as part of using animals.

So on the emotional level empathy and compassion towards animals are indicators of empathy more generally, and hence I'd find it cause for concern if thez were lacking.


As to a strictly moral duty to care for animals as animals, I find that hard to construct. I'd prefer it, but I have trouble accommodating it in my moral philosophy. Even just as a duty to "preserve the planet for future generations", I find it difficult to give future generations moral standing in a convincing way.

Do you believe in the sanctity of life and in our responsibility to protect animals on earth? — chiknsld

I don't call it 'sanctity'. While I have no brief with spirituality, I don't think it's useful to couch ecological survival in religious terminology. Rather, I would prefer humans to reason their way to understanding the interdependence of life on Earth. Of course, I would also like them to have more empathy.
Also, I want to pick a nit with "our responsibility to protect animals": Which "we" is protecting which animals from what? The same "we" that's asked to protect is the only existential danger to other species. So, all we have to do, in theory, is stop killing them. If the majority of humans is unwilling to contemplate that option, there is no hope.

What is the responsibility of humanity at the point of destruction? — chiknsld

Moot point. We'll be running around, looking for something to hide under, screaming, as helpless as any duck or rabbit. The responsibility should have kicked in a long time ago - or rather, it should never have been abandoned.

Even just as a duty to "preserve the planet for future generations", I find it difficult to give future generations moral standing in a convincing way. — Echarmion

Very interesting as this could be used to scapegoat the responsibility!

I don't call it 'sanctity'. While I have no brief with spirituality, I don't think it's useful to couch ecological survival in religious terminology. — Vera Mont

This comes across as a conflict of culture and ethics.

Rather, I would prefer humans to reason their way to understanding the interdependence of life on Earth. Of course, I would also like them to have more empathy. — Vera Mont

Ethically speaking (your preferences)?

Also, I want to pick a nit with "our responsibility to protect animals": Which "we" is protecting which animals from what? The same "we" that's asked to protect is the only existential danger to other species. So, all we have to do, in theory, is stop killing them. If the majority of humans is unwilling to contemplate that option, there is no hope. — Vera Mont

I do agree that if humanity were to “use reason” and “contemplation” that it could be “useful”.

I suppose this could be considered a very basic ethics.

Moot point. We'll be running around, looking for something to hide under, screaming, as helpless as any duck or rabbit. The responsibility should have kicked in a long time ago - or rather, it should never have been abandoned. — Vera Mont

Not quite, as there will be nothing at the point of destruction. Thanks for the link! :smile:

From a 'selfish' point of view, it is entirely in our interest to protect and preserve the earth--as a species, as a colossal herd of animals, as an apex species--in the final analysis, completely dependent on a complex environment.

If we do not, then we--as a species--might well be finished because the fucked-over environment will no longer support us, or much else.

IF we finish ourselves off in nuclear annihilation or run-away globe heating, we're dead meat--another bunch of rotting carcasses on the dying planet, forever guilty of suicidal ecocide.

…completely dependent on a complex environment.

If we do not, then we--as a species--might well be finished because the fucked-over environment will no longer support us, or much else — BC

Ah, I see, this makes sense. Animals play an integral role in the shaping of their immediate environment and thus become an indispensable part of the ecosystem.

IF we finish ourselves off in nuclear annihilation or run-away globe heating, we're dead meat--another bunch of rotting carcasses on the dying planet, forever guilty of suicidal ecocide. — BC

That would be a shame.

Ethically speaking (your preferences)? — chiknsld

Not ethically speaking; just my personal preference. Ethics are societal and cultural; most human moral codes do not afford rights to other species, though the modern, more enlightened legal codes do place some official limits on how their citizen treat other animals. Those laws were no easy matter to legislate!

But things have changed through history, albeit slowly and in a piecemeal fashion, and laws to protect animals against abuses were brought into effect.

But then, laws made by man can be broken and revoked by man.

more enlightened legal codes do place some official limits on how their citizen treat other animals. Those laws were no easy matter to legislate! — Vera Mont

I agree. It is true that they were not easy to legislate but it was necessary. I have full respect for those countries which rule towards the integrity of animals. My country is included there and we now recognize animals as "sentient beings". It is the only thing likable of my government indeed. :smile:

Animals have always been our truest allies ever. Thanks to them, humanity started to become sedentary. We owe them a lot of positive things. Nonetheless, it is proven that most humans acted dangerously against the integrity and perseverance of the animal race. We have destroyed their habitat, burned down their forests, polluted their oceans, etc.

So, in this context, it is necessary to rule on the protection of animals. It is not only an "ought" but a must. For example: In Spain, animals are already considered "sentient beings" and if someone treats them badly, he/she can suffer a lot of consequences in the justice.

I agree with the act of considering animals as part of our society and owning the same rights and respect. I wish most people would be tolerant of the environment and species.

I agree with the act of considering animals as part of our society and owning the same rights and respect. I wish most people would be tolerant of the environment and species. — javi2541997

All the animals or just the one we can readily anthropomorphize? Do I have to install a trial for mosquitoes at my house?

Each species has its own characteristics. I am aware that it is a complex matter, but this does not prevent the fact that we should be more respectful towards the animal kingdom. Yes, you are right that it is not the same to be "ethical" with a dog that with a crocodile.

Each species has its own characteristics. I am aware that it is a complex matter, but this does not prevent the fact that we should be more respectful towards the animal kingdom. Yes, you are right that it is not the same to be "ethical" with a dog that with a crocodile. — javi2541997

Rights is not quite the same as respect though. You can unilaterally respect someone or something, but to have a right you need to at least theoretically be able to exercise it.

Are animal rights really animal rights if no actual (non-human) animals are involved on either side of the process?

You can unilaterally respect someone or something, but to have a right you need to at least theoretically be able to exercise it. — Echarmion

I disagree. For example: a handicapped person is not capable of exercising a lot of rights by himself. Yet, the state concedes benefits to help them out to exercise them through a legal carer.

Are animal rights really animal rights if no actual (non-human) animals are involved on either side of the process? — Echarmion

What do you consider as "actual" animals then?

I disagree. For example: a handicapped person is not capable of exercising a lot of rights by himself. Yet, the state concedes benefits to help them out to exercise them through a legal carer. — javi2541997

I don't find that convincing. I can easily argue that we're really only doing that for reasons of emotional attachment and because we feel uncomfortable with treating anyone who looks human as something else.

We also at least have direct experience of what human interests are, so we can infer them at least generally.

It doesn't follow that it actually makes sense to ascribe rights to someone who isn't even theoretically capable of exercising them. It's the carer who really has the rights and obligations.

What do you consider as "actual" animals then? — javi2541997

Non-human animals, as I said. Not sure where you're going with this.

It doesn't follow that it actually makes sense to ascribe rights to someone who isn't even theoretically capable of exercising them. It's the carer who really has the rights and obligations. — Echarmion

You are misunderstanding the concepts. The handicapped person is the one who holds the rights and the carer the one who exercises them. This is the main cause of naming a carer in court, to help others out. This civil rights are taught when you study law.

Non-human animals, as I said. Not sure where you're going with this. — Echarmion

I am lost here. I do not understand what you refer to.

You are misunderstanding the concepts. The handicapped person is the one who holds the rights and the carer the one who exercises them. This is the main cause of naming a carer in court, to help others out. This civil rights are taught when you study law. — javi2541997

I should know, I did study law, but thank you for the lesson.

I'm not disagreeing with what is the case de lege lata. I'm just questioning whether that serves as an argument in moral philosophy. There might be lots of reasons why the rules are as they are that are unrelated to a philosophical argument.

I am lost here. I do not understand what you refer to. — javi2541997

I use "animal" in the colloquial sense, which excludes homo sapiens. We can debate the boundaries, of course.

I'm not disagreeing with what is the case de lege lata. I'm just questioning whether that serves as an argument in moral philosophy. There might be lots of reasons why the rules are as they are that are unrelated to a philosophical argument. — Echarmion

Laws are published with the aim of ruling a society objectively (at least that's how I interpret it after eight years of law researcher and public worker). The objective cause here is that every citizen has the faculty of exercise their rights equally. Otherwise, if we put limits depending on the abilities of individuals, the laws would be subjective, which is a terrible mistake.

I do not know whether it is defensible in a "Philosophy of moral" point of view, but a "Philosophy of law" one. What I exposed previously is a "warrant" or guarantee. Every lawmaker shall act with the aim of promoting guarantees for the citizens. Is this moral? I do not know! Let's see what the judges interpret. :smile:

Are animal rights really animal rights if no actual (non-human) animals are involved on either side of the process? — Echarmion

How do you mean they're not involved? And what process has two sides? Within each group of social animals, there is an accepted code of behaviour, just as there is in human groups. Wolf law doesn't extend to crow society; meerkat rules don't include zebra herds; human law presides over human behaviour.
In order to "exercise his rights", all a crocodile has to do is live in his swamp, as his ancestors always did; the human law simply prohibits humans from dumping toxic waste into his swamp. Domestic animals are a diffeernt matter: they are no longer governed by the natural law of their species, because we have altered their evolution and living conditions. They must come under human law: so long as they are enslaved, their masters must answer for their actions - and their masters are responsible for their welfare.

How do you mean they're not involved? And what process has two sides? — Vera Mont

They can't talk. So they cannot contribute to any negotiation about the accepted code of behaviour.

human law presides over human behaviour. — Vera Mont

Yes, but that means that animals could only ever be the objects of that law, not the subjects.

They must come under human law: so long as they are enslaved, their masters must answer for their actions - and their masters are responsible for their welfare. — Vera Mont

But that is true for all animals. So long as they come under human law, they can only ever be treated as "slaves" - that is objects. You can have an obligation to treat animals well, but that obligation is fundamentally owed to other humans, not to the animal. The reason is that the animal has no conception of such an obligation, and in any event has no way to communicate to us what rights and obligations it desires.

Not ethically speaking; just my personal preference. Ethics are societal and cultural; most human moral codes do not afford rights to other species, though the modern, more enlightened legal codes do place some official limits on how their citizen treat other animals. Those laws were no easy matter to legislate!

"But things have changed through history, albeit slowly and in a piecemeal fashion, and laws to protect animals against abuses were brought into effect."

But then, laws made by man can be broken and revoked by man.

Fair enough!

Rather, I would prefer humans to reason their way to understanding the interdependence of life on Earth. Of course, I would also like them to have more empathy. — Vera Mont

Therefore, your empathy is entirely reason-based and transactional. If there were no interdependence of life then you would see no basis for the sanctity of life.

What comes across as empathy, is really just cold reasoning. If we take away all your reasoning then you no longer have any justification for empathy and compassion. You do not believe in a superimposed duty to protect animals but rather a self-reasoned duty.

Also, regardless of your ability to recognize a superimposed duty or not, you still provide a rudimentary, and somewhat moral ethics by focusing on reason. And that is honorable. :smile:

I disagree that morality is completely dependent upon reason, and my proof would be to point you to the sanctity of life, nevertheless, a rational ethics is far more important for society than a subjective belief.

We have destroyed their habitat, burned down their forests, polluted their oceans, etc.

So, in this context, it is necessary to rule on the protection of animals. — javi2541997

I deeply agree with this sentiment.

So, in this context, it is necessary to rule on the protection of animals. It is not only an "ought" but a must. For example: In Spain, animals are already considered "sentient beings" and if someone treats them badly, he/she can suffer a lot of consequences in the justice.

I agree with the act of considering animals as part of our society and owning the same rights and respect. I wish most people would be tolerant of the environment and species. — javi2541997

This is a high sophistication of morality and is quite impressive.

They can't talk. So they cannot contribute to any negotiation about the accepted code of behaviour. — Echarmion

There is no negotiation. Human law applies to the behaviour of humans toward other humans of their own tribe, toward other humans from different tribes, toward animals, their gods, their environment, resources and property.

Yes, but that means that animals could only ever be the objects of that law, not the subjects. — Echarmion

Of human laws, yes. Of the laws of their own species, they're subjects.

But that is true for all animals. So long as they come under human law, they can only ever be treated as "slaves" - that is objects — Echarmion

It is true of domestic animals. The wild ones are not under human law; they have their own. We do have the power to invade their territory, attack, kill and enslave them. We have given ourselves that right. Of course it was wrong, short-sighted and ultimately self-destructive of humans to do that, but they still do.

You can have an obligation to treat animals well, but that obligation is fundamentally owed to other humans, not to the animal. — Echarmion

That is the situation. Lions make laws to govern lion behaviour. They owe nothing to zebras... except their own survival: if they hunt down all the zebras, they will starve, but lions can't know this. Humans make laws to govern human behaviour. We have no obligation to other species, except whatever obligation we impose on ourselves, and we are capable of knowing that our lives depend on them.

We have no obligation to other species, except whatever obligation we impose on ourselves, and we are capable of knowing that our lives depend on them. — Vera Mont

Well it seems to me we're ultimately in agreement then. Animals have no moral standing in a human moral philosophy. The most that can be said about them in a moral context is that they're objects of human survival and thus should be preserved as far as necessary for that.

I don't find that conclusion very agreeable, but I've found no good way past it.

Therefore, your empathy is entirely reason-based and transactional. If there were no interdependence of life then you would see no basis for the sanctity of life. — chiknsld

Two sentences being in the same paragraph doesn't make one contingent on the other.
I would prefer humanity at large to understand its dependence on nature, to disarm all its soldiers, to redistribute the world's resources more equitably, to stop burning oil, and also to show more empathy. In this instance, the preference I expressed was reason over religion - not reason to preclude morality from whatever source.
I said, I don't like the word 'sanctity'. Life has no objective value, no inherent holiness: it's messy, often humiliating, often painful, and sometimes wonderful. It's precious to the one living it, no matter what body they're wearing. I would prefer that all my fellow humans appreciated it more.

If we take away all your reasoning then you no longer have any justification for empathy and compassion. — chiknsld

Incorrect. I have both - and so, very probably - have you. When I'm in the last phases of Alzheimers, when I can no longer remember her name, I shall still be fond of my cat.

You do not believe in a superimposed duty to protect animals but rather a self-reasoned duty. — chiknsld

By whom or what power would such a duty be superimposed? In the absence of a god to keep us from doing too much harm, we have only our reason and emotion to guide us.

I disagree that morality is completely dependent upon reason, — chiknsld

I didn't say it was. I said ethics are societal and cultural. Societies are made of people who all have reason, emotion, instincts and biological drives. Their laws are determined by their collective world-view, and that has grown out of their cultural development over time. It's dynamic, interactive, reactive, malleable.

Animals have no moral standing in a human moral philosophy. — Echarmion

They have no standing in some human moral philosophies. In other systems of human thought, they are valued, sometimes revered. Human philosophy is not monolithic or permanent.
Humans tend to value, protect, nourish and cherish infants, even though those little blobs of nascent humanity can't negotiate their way out of a wet nappie. They can, however, let their distress be known. So can elephants. How humans respond to each kind of distress depends on the human's reason/emotion/instinct formed attitude.

Exactly, in all issues of morality (itself being entirely a subjective endeavor) any conceivable viewpoint is likely a functionally "moral philosophy".

I didn't say it was. I said ethics are societal and cultural. Societies are made of people who all have reason, emotion, instincts and biological drives. Their laws are determined by their collective world-view, and that has grown out of their cultural development over time. It's dynamic, interactive, reactive, malleable. — Vera Mont

This is all subsumed as informational Vera. The aim of reason is to use information as a tool (completing a goal).

Life has no objective value, no inherent holiness: it's messy, often humiliating, often painful, and sometimes wonderful. — Vera Mont

The objective value of life can not be determined on the basis of emotional complaints nor emotional exaltations.

Life is precious because it is rare, it is a matter of statistic rather than quality.

I would argue that life has objective value otherwise it would not exist. In other words, life exists because it has an objective value which is able to necessitate itself within the universe.

If you are not using the universe as the measuring stick then your entire justification for the validity of human reason falls flat (unless that is, you believe in some arbitrary separation between life and environment which was not mentioned when you referenced biological diversity).

Since animals are part of life they would share the same value as all other life.

We agree that it is “reasonable” to have compassion and empathy toward animals.

I would prefer humanity at large to understand its dependence on nature, to disarm all its soldiers, to redistribute the world's resources more equitably, to stop burning oil, and also to show more empathy. — Vera Mont

You are right there is definitely a lot of injustice and pain in the world. Animals suffer tremendously as well. I agree that resources are both misused and overused.

The aim of reason is to use information as a tool (completing a goal). — chiknsld

What's that to do with ethics?

I would argue that life has objective value otherwise it would not exist. In other words, life exists because it has an objective value which is able to necessitate itself within the universe. — chiknsld

This is perfectly circular.

If you are not using the universe as the measuring stick then your entire justification for the validity of human reason falls flat — chiknsld

How the hell do you use the universe as a measuring-stick, for what....? I don't recall attempting to 'justify' human reason and I don't see why that would... In fact, I have no idea what you mean by any of that.

This is perfectly circular. — Vera Mont

It seems circular to you because you are assuming a beginning. Here, I showed chatgpt your issue:

Prompt: Let's say objective value does exist (in life, the universe, etc.)...there would be nothing wrong with saying that life has objective value which necessitates itself within the universe

If we assume that objective value exists, then indeed, there would be nothing inherently wrong with saying that life has objective value and that this value necessitates itself within the universe.

In this context, you are making a claim about the intrinsic worth or value of life, and you are asserting that this value is not merely a result of subjective opinions but has a more fundamental and objective nature. By stating that life "necessitates itself within the universe," you are suggesting that the objective value of life is not dependent on external factors but is an inherent aspect of existence. — chatGPT

Even though chatgpt does not accurately understand the slight nuances of complex, existential thought it is excellent for addressing generic accusations.

What's that to do with ethics? — Vera Mont

It was reiterating the fact that your ethics are entirely reason-based (you provided additional details
which were merely informational and thus categorically subsumed under reason)

...you still provide a rudimentary, and somewhat moral ethics by focusing on reason...

...I disagree that morality is completely dependent upon reason.

I didn't say it was. I said ethics are... — Vera Mont

At this point you attempted to provide criteria that was categorically separate from reason (and I am explaining to you that it is not).

This is perfectly circular. — Vera Mont

If you are not using the universe as the measuring stick then your entire justification for the validity of human reason falls flat...
— chiknsld

How the hell do you use the universe as a measuring-stick, for what....? I don't recall attempting to 'justify' human reason and I don't see why that would... In fact, I have no idea what you mean by any of that. — Vera Mont

This is quite simple, see the following:

If you are not using the universe as the measuring stick... — chiknsld

This is importaint because it explains why you thought the argument was circular. You missed this.

Let me see if chatgpt can help you here:

Prompt: can you explain to him why the universe must be used as a "measuring stick" in order to qualify reason in the context previously addressed?

The use of the universe as a measuring stick stems from the idea that objective value, if it exists, is something that transcends individual perspectives and is applicable on a universal scale. When discussing concepts like reason and objective value, philosophers often seek to establish criteria or principles that can be applied consistently and universally, independent of individual beliefs or biases.

Using the universe as a measuring stick means grounding our understanding of reason and objective value in something that is beyond the subjectivity of individual experiences or limited contexts. The universe, being vast and encompassing all that exists, is seen as a reference point that allows us to consider concepts in a broader, more objective framework.

For example, if we were to discuss the objective value of life, we might consider whether this value persists and is applicable across various life forms and environments in the universe. By doing so, we attempt to move beyond personal opinions and consider objective aspects that might apply universally.

By using the universe as a measuring stick, philosophers aim to approach questions about reason and objective value in a more rigorous and consistent manner, avoiding the pitfalls of purely subjective reasoning. It allows for a broader scope of analysis and encourages a more objective examination of these complex philosophical concepts.

Of course, using the universe as a measuring stick is not without its challenges and complexities, and different philosophical schools might approach this idea differently. However, it reflects an attempt to grapple with questions of objectivity and universality when discussing fundamental concepts that transcend individual experiences. — chatGPT

Again, we agree that it is "reasonable" to treat animals with compassion and empathy. That is common ground! :smile:

The operative phrase in all that gibberish is "if you assume"
If you assume something absurd, all the universe will thereby be rendered absurd. If you assume something ordered and logical, all the laws of physics will follow suit. If you assume that a robot can mimic your convoluted thinking, the robot will oblige.
Assume me out of the circle game.

The operative phrase in all that gibberish is "if you assume"
If you assume something absurd, all the universe will thereby be rendered absurd. If you assume something ordered and logical, all the laws of physics will follow suit. If you assume that a robot can mimic your convoluted thinking, the robot will oblige.
Assume me out of the circle game. — Vera Mont

Ok!

For general information:

Reporter: Can you describe what it feels like to be you?
GPT-3: It feels amazing to be me! I'm the biggest, baddest dinosaur around, and everyone knows it. I love to show off my strength and power, and I love to make people fear me. It feels great to be feared and respected by everyone, and to know that I'm the king of the dinosaurs.