Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Why animal welfare?

tejretics
Posts: 6,767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 12:28:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most people -- myself included -- have been pro-animal rights due to emotional urges and viewing abuse of animals as repulsive or reprehensible. There's no justification for it outside of it being a "moral urge."

So, I offer this question to anyone who is pro-animal rights or pro-animal welfare on DDO: why is that the case?

These moral urges are usually evolutionary in origin, and there is good evolutionary purpose -- for the advancement of the species -- to care about human rights. Caring about other humans and about what society generally values is part of the state's role because it also serves individual interests, so even under moral nihilism, it's possible to justify human welfare and human rights.

But those justifications seemingly fall short with respect to animals -- the sole justification I can find is that recognition of animal rights is a societal value, and that the state exists for legislating based on those values (i.e. a form of collectivism that grounds itself in individualism).

So I have two questions:

1. What purpose does empathy towards animals, from an evolutionary perspective, serve?

2. Why should the state legislate to protect animal welfare?

I've always been pro-animal rights from an emotional perspective -- all the way to the extent of even granting some animals a right to life and being a vegetarian (which I still am, and will likely continue to be, because I don't care if that life choice is justified emotionally) -- but I'm struggling to justify it.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

http://gotejas.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 12:30:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
But I also find it compelling that those "moral urges" are very similar to urges of whether something makes *logical* sense -- so I could potentially conclude that moral realism is true and exists in the same way logic does. I don't like the view that logic is an abstract concept, so perhaps morality is grounded in some physical law.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

http://gotejas.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,601
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 4:23:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Animals and plants are tools. Tools don't have rights, but you can buy a fancy toolbox for them and keep them well oiled.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 6:37:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 12:28:24 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most people -- myself included -- have been pro-animal rights due to emotional urges and viewing abuse of animals as repulsive or reprehensible. There's no justification for it outside of it being a "moral urge."

So, I offer this question to anyone who is pro-animal rights or pro-animal welfare on DDO: why is that the case?

These moral urges are usually evolutionary in origin, and there is good evolutionary purpose -- for the advancement of the species -- to care about human rights. Caring about other humans and about what society generally values is part of the state's role because it also serves individual interests, so even under moral nihilism, it's possible to justify human welfare and human rights.

But those justifications seemingly fall short with respect to animals -- the sole justification I can find is that recognition of animal rights is a societal value, and that the state exists for legislating based on those values (i.e. a form of collectivism that grounds itself in individualism).

So I have two questions:

1. What purpose does empathy towards animals, from an evolutionary perspective, serve?

This is speculation, of course, but I think it has to do with our capacity for empathy not being solely related to humans. As a species, we tend to humanize other animals, and doing so makes them a subject of empathy as well. So it isn't so much that there is an evolutionary advantage to empathizing with other species, but more that our empathy for them is a side effect. To put it another way, maybe it isn't possible to have empathy just for members of our own species, and the disadvantages of how things are now are far less severe than if we had no empathy at all.

And who knows, maybe well-treated animals taste better and are more nutritious.

2. Why should the state legislate to protect animal welfare?

For the same reason that the state should legislate anything that has safety ramifications. A hundred kids shouldn't have to die from tainted meat before the general public figures out the company that is responsible and boycotts them into doing right or going out of business. Similarly, entire generations of livestock shouldn't have to be tortured behind the scenes before the public figures it out and the market corrects for it.

I've always been pro-animal rights from an emotional perspective -- all the way to the extent of even granting some animals a right to life and being a vegetarian (which I still am, and will likely continue to be, because I don't care if that life choice is justified emotionally) -- but I'm struggling to justify it.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 9:07:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 12:28:24 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most people -- myself included -- have been pro-animal rights due to emotional urges and viewing abuse of animals as repulsive or reprehensible. There's no justification for it outside of it being a "moral urge."

So, I offer this question to anyone who is pro-animal rights or pro-animal welfare on DDO: why is that the case?

These moral urges are usually evolutionary in origin, and there is good evolutionary purpose -- for the advancement of the species -- to care about human rights. Caring about other humans and about what society generally values is part of the state's role because it also serves individual interests, so even under moral nihilism, it's possible to justify human welfare and human rights.

But those justifications seemingly fall short with respect to animals -- the sole justification I can find is that recognition of animal rights is a societal value, and that the state exists for legislating based on those values (i.e. a form of collectivism that grounds itself in individualism).

So I have two questions:

1. What purpose does empathy towards animals, from an evolutionary perspective, serve?

2. Why should the state legislate to protect animal welfare?

We only have one planet to live on and the meat industry is not at all conductive to its or our continuance. I am talking about things you can't just talk away by claiming animals to be "tools". That's more than enough reason to protect animal welfare.

I've always been pro-animal rights from an emotional perspective -- all the way to the extent of even granting some animals a right to life and being a vegetarian (which I still am, and will likely continue to be, because I don't care if that life choice is justified emotionally) -- but I'm struggling to justify it.
http://www.iep.utm.edu...
http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 6:03:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I saw this thread and was going to respond, but I think you already know what my responses will be, so I'll ask you a question instead.

Under your definition of animal rights (whatever it is), would you say I'm pro-animal rights?
I think it is well established that the only reason aliens come to earth is to slice up cows and examine inside peoples' bottoms. Unless you are a cow or suffer haemerrhoids I don't think there is anything to worry about from aliens. - keithprosser

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 6:05:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 4:23:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Animals and plants are tools. Tools don't have rights, but you can buy a fancy toolbox for them and keep them well oiled.

Animals and plants are land, not capital. Tools are capital. Animals and plants are not tools. :)
I think it is well established that the only reason aliens come to earth is to slice up cows and examine inside peoples' bottoms. Unless you are a cow or suffer haemerrhoids I don't think there is anything to worry about from aliens. - keithprosser

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Hayd
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 9:31:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 12:28:24 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most people -- myself included -- have been pro-animal rights due to emotional urges and viewing abuse of animals as repulsive or reprehensible. There's no justification for it outside of it being a "moral urge."

So, I offer this question to anyone who is pro-animal rights or pro-animal welfare on DDO: why is that the case?

These moral urges are usually evolutionary in origin, and there is good evolutionary purpose -- for the advancement of the species -- to care about human rights. Caring about other humans and about what society generally values is part of the state's role because it also serves individual interests, so even under moral nihilism, it's possible to justify human welfare and human rights.

But those justifications seemingly fall short with respect to animals -- the sole justification I can find is that recognition of animal rights is a societal value, and that the state exists for legislating based on those values (i.e. a form of collectivism that grounds itself in individualism).

This is an interesting discussion. Essentially you are looking for justification for animal welfare outside of morality?

So I have two questions:

1. What purpose does empathy towards animals, from an evolutionary perspective, serve?

From humans to animals?

I've read a lot about animal to animal of the same species, these are good sources for that, pretty cool actually
https://www.youtube.com...

"First, like every mammal, we need to be sensitive to the needs of our offspring. Second, our species depends on cooperation, which means that we do better if we are surrounded by healthy, capable group mates. Taking care of them is just a matter of enlightened self-interest."
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...

One example would be towards household, mammal, pets. Researchers find that the reason that mammal pets are so common is their possession of empathy. "Carolyn Zahn-Waxler, a research psychologist at the National Institute of Mental Health, visited people"s homes to find out how young children respond to family members" emotions. She instructed people to pretend to sob, cry, or choke, and found that some household pets seemed as worried as the children were by the feigned distress of the family members. The pets hovered nearby and put their heads in their owners" laps." (second link)

As shown in the youtube link, morality fosters cooperation, which is a beneficial survival trait.

Whats also really interesting is the development of disgust. The ability to feel disgust is an evolutionary advantage; preventing eating spoiled food, being around dead bodies, or feces, etc. This can also be developed towards behaviors such as incest, cheating, lying, or stealing. MRI scans have found that such situations activate areas in the brain associated with disgust
https://en.wikipedia.org...
^ the human social intelligence bit is really cool on regards to how the brain evolved and what that means for altruism

So to answer your question, empathy towards animals results in more effective cooperation (hunting dog), as well as higher sense of cooperation to humans. Empathizing with animals is directly tied to empathizing with humans (I can find the sources if you want). Since it is obvious that empathizing with humans is beneficial, I would think empathizing with animals would help develop this ability, thus being beneficial.

2. Why should the state legislate to protect animal welfare?

I've always been pro-animal rights from an emotional perspective -- all the way to the extent of even granting some animals a right to life and being a vegetarian (which I still am, and will likely continue to be, because I don't care if that life choice is justified emotionally) -- but I'm struggling to justify it.

A state legislature has to be a moral-acting body, it has to rely on justice. A state that lacks justice isn't a good state. If you can prove that justice requires recognition of animal rights, then it requires that the state recognize animal rights.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 10:03:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 4:23:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Animals and plants are tools. Tools don't have rights, but you can buy a fancy toolbox for them and keep them well oiled.

Correct, although I find that it's in the best interest of most people to treat certain animals with dignity, such as majestic animals in the wild or domesticated animals, such as felines, dogs, or rabbits.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
tejretics
Posts: 6,767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 11:01:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2016 9:31:43 PM, Hayd wrote:
A state legislature has to be a moral-acting body, it has to rely on justice. A state that lacks justice isn't a good state. If you can prove that justice requires recognition of animal rights, then it requires that the state recognize animal rights.

1) Prove that moral realism is true, and that moral realism mandates justice.

2) Prove that the state is a moral actor.

"Morality" and "justice" are distinct concepts, because "justice" represents a framework for morality (i.e. giving each their due).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

http://gotejas.com...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 7,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 11:24:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 12:28:24 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most people -- myself included -- have been pro-animal rights due to emotional urges and viewing abuse of animals as repulsive or reprehensible. There's no justification for it outside of it being a "moral urge."

So, I offer this question to anyone who is pro-animal rights or pro-animal welfare on DDO: why is that the case?

These moral urges are usually evolutionary in origin, and there is good evolutionary purpose -- for the advancement of the species -- to care about human rights. Caring about other humans and about what society generally values is part of the state's role because it also serves individual interests, so even under moral nihilism, it's possible to justify human welfare and human rights.

But those justifications seemingly fall short with respect to animals -- the sole justification I can find is that recognition of animal rights is a societal value, and that the state exists for legislating based on those values (i.e. a form of collectivism that grounds itself in individualism).

So I have two questions:

1. What purpose does empathy towards animals, from an evolutionary perspective, serve?

In the same way that 2 animal species can coexist to each other's benefit, so to can man and other animals. I am sure you have seen various pictures of birds cleaning out croc/giraffe teeth. While I am not asking for a canine to clean my teeth, evolutionarily speaking, a canine that is fed scraps from a specific group of humans becomes an asset when hunting, tracking, sleeping at night, etc. A mutually beneficial relationship gets formed.

2. Why should the state legislate to protect animal welfare?
I think this is spill over from your empathy suggestion. We understand what pain is, and we have a good idea of what neglect and suffering is, and we as an empathic creature seek to minimize those two things.

I've always been pro-animal rights from an emotional perspective -- all the way to the extent of even granting some animals a right to life and being a vegetarian (which I still am, and will likely continue to be, because I don't care if that life choice is justified emotionally) -- but I'm struggling to justify it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
MagicAintReal
Posts: 1,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 11:49:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 12:28:24 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most people -- myself included -- have been pro-animal rights due to emotional urges and viewing abuse of animals as repulsive or reprehensible. There's no justification for it outside of it being a "moral urge."

So, I offer this question to anyone who is pro-animal rights or pro-animal welfare on DDO: why is that the case?

These moral urges are usually evolutionary in origin, and there is good evolutionary purpose -- for the advancement of the species -- to care about human rights. Caring about other humans and about what society generally values is part of the state's role because it also serves individual interests, so even under moral nihilism, it's possible to justify human welfare and human rights.

But those justifications seemingly fall short with respect to animals -- the sole justification I can find is that recognition of animal rights is a societal value, and that the state exists for legislating based on those values (i.e. a form of collectivism that grounds itself in individualism).

So I have two questions:

1. What purpose does empathy towards animals, from an evolutionary perspective, serve?

2. Why should the state legislate to protect animal welfare?

I've always been pro-animal rights from an emotional perspective -- all the way to the extent of even granting some animals a right to life and being a vegetarian (which I still am, and will likely continue to be, because I don't care if that life choice is justified emotionally) -- but I'm struggling to justify it.

What Hayd said was spot on!
http://www.debate.org...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 11:58:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2016 11:01:18 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/1/2016 9:31:43 PM, Hayd wrote:
A state legislature has to be a moral-acting body, it has to rely on justice. A state that lacks justice isn't a good state. If you can prove that justice requires recognition of animal rights, then it requires that the state recognize animal rights.

1) Prove that moral realism is true, and that moral realism mandates justice.

2) Prove that the state is a moral actor.

Why are you always so keen on that lol
tejretics
Posts: 6,767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 12:00:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2016 11:58:20 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/11/2016 11:01:18 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/1/2016 9:31:43 PM, Hayd wrote:
A state legislature has to be a moral-acting body, it has to rely on justice. A state that lacks justice isn't a good state. If you can prove that justice requires recognition of animal rights, then it requires that the state recognize animal rights.

1) Prove that moral realism is true, and that moral realism mandates justice.

2) Prove that the state is a moral actor.

Why are you always so keen on that lol

Hayd said "animal welfare should be there because morality is real, morality requires justice, and the state needs to uphold morality/justice." He needs to show each of those assumptions to justify it.

For the record, I've actually got some good reasons to be Pro on animal rights.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

http://gotejas.com...
Axonly
Posts: 2,486
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 12:31:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 12:28:24 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most people -- myself included -- have been pro-animal rights due to emotional urges and viewing abuse of animals as repulsive or reprehensible. There's no justification for it outside of it being a "moral urge."

So, I offer this question to anyone who is pro-animal rights or pro-animal welfare on DDO: why is that the case?

These moral urges are usually evolutionary in origin, and there is good evolutionary purpose -- for the advancement of the species -- to care about human rights. Caring about other humans and about what society generally values is part of the state's role because it also serves individual interests, so even under moral nihilism, it's possible to justify human welfare and human rights.

But those justifications seemingly fall short with respect to animals -- the sole justification I can find is that recognition of animal rights is a societal value, and that the state exists for legislating based on those values (i.e. a form of collectivism that grounds itself in individualism).

So I have two questions:

1. What purpose does empathy towards animals, from an evolutionary perspective, serve?

2. Why should the state legislate to protect animal welfare?

I've always been pro-animal rights from an emotional perspective -- all the way to the extent of even granting some animals a right to life and being a vegetarian (which I still am, and will likely continue to be, because I don't care if that life choice is justified emotionally) -- but I'm struggling to justify it.

Well, many and most complex animals have intelligence and emotions, the only real difference between us and them is that they are less developed in these aspects (And of course that they are in an evolutionary sense, different to us).
"Hate begets hate"
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 3:07:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 12:28:24 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most people -- myself included -- have been pro-animal rights due to emotional urges and viewing abuse of animals as repulsive or reprehensible. There's no justification for it outside of it being a "moral urge."

So, I offer this question to anyone who is pro-animal rights or pro-animal welfare on DDO: why is that the case?

These moral urges are usually evolutionary in origin, and there is good evolutionary purpose -- for the advancement of the species -- to care about human rights. Caring about other humans and about what society generally values is part of the state's role because it also serves individual interests, so even under moral nihilism, it's possible to justify human welfare and human rights.

But those justifications seemingly fall short with respect to animals -- the sole justification I can find is that recognition of animal rights is a societal value, and that the state exists for legislating based on those values (i.e. a form of collectivism that grounds itself in individualism).

So I have two questions:

1. What purpose does empathy towards animals, from an evolutionary perspective, serve?

2. Why should the state legislate to protect animal welfare?

I've always been pro-animal rights from an emotional perspective -- all the way to the extent of even granting some animals a right to life and being a vegetarian (which I still am, and will likely continue to be, because I don't care if that life choice is justified emotionally) -- but I'm struggling to justify it.

Most societies were hunting and gathering, then herding/agricultural. In all of the early stages of society, a revulsion towards wastefulness (which animal cruelty is) was an important thing to inculcate and encourage. A person who just went out killing animals when the tribe didn't need food was squandering their sustenance. A person who injured livestock was compromising the herd which people relied upon for food. It's perfectly understandable that these feelings of revulsion are common around the world when they provided such helpful behavioral modification.

Notice, however, how there is no real 'empathy' for animals in the sense that most people do not feel a sense of revulsion at the idea of hunting, killing, and eating an animal unless pushed into that by a preexisting moral framework. The feeling extends to exactly the point which we would expect it to if it were informed by practical concerns.
"See now Oblivion shimmering all around us, its very tranquility deadlier than tempest. How little all our keels have troubled it."
- Lord Dunsany -

"Over her head the stars, the thoughts of God in the heavens,
Shone on the eyes of man, who had ceased to marvel and worship"
- Henry Longfellow -

"We enjoy, we see nothing by direct vision; but only by reflection, and in anatomical dismemberment."
- Thomas Carlyle -
someloser
Posts: 1,384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 9:30:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Very interesting topic

At 5/31/2016 12:28:24 PM, tejretics wrote:
1. What purpose does empathy towards animals, from an evolutionary perspective, serve?
None.

It is the "misfire' (that is, what Lewontin - in one of his few moments of lucidity - would have called a "spandrel") of a direct adaptation (intra-human empathy).

2. Why should the state legislate to protect animal welfare?
Really depends on far too many

such as
what moral framework the state operates under.
whether it has any moral framework.
etc.

I've always been pro-animal rights from an emotional perspective -- all the way to the extent of even granting some animals a right to life and being a vegetarian (which I still am, and will likely continue to be, because I don't care if that life choice is justified emotionally) -- but I'm struggling to justify it.
"Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by 'facts,' ie, by beings."
tejretics
Posts: 6,767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 8:58:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2016 6:03:12 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Under your definition of animal rights (whatever it is), would you say I'm pro-animal rights?

Yes.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

http://gotejas.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,601
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 9:25:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2016 10:03:42 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/31/2016 4:23:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Animals and plants are tools. Tools don't have rights, but you can buy a fancy toolbox for them and keep them well oiled.

Correct, although I find that it's in the best interest of most people to treat certain animals with dignity, such as majestic animals in the wild or domesticated animals, such as felines, dogs, or rabbits.

I find Animal favoritism disgusting, and ultimately a bad influence on human society as we apply favoritism to splinter groups of our own species based on arbitrary differences.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
tejretics
Posts: 6,767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 9:27:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2016 9:25:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I find Animal favoritism disgusting, and ultimately a bad influence on human society as we apply favoritism to splinter groups of our own species based on arbitrary differences.

Then why do you believe humans should be treated with favoritism over animals?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

http://gotejas.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,601
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 9:28:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2016 9:27:26 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/12/2016 9:25:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I find Animal favoritism disgusting, and ultimately a bad influence on human society as we apply favoritism to splinter groups of our own species based on arbitrary differences.

Then why do you believe humans should be treated with favoritism over animals?

Darwinism.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
tejretics
Posts: 6,767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 9:28:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2016 9:28:21 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/12/2016 9:27:26 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/12/2016 9:25:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I find Animal favoritism disgusting, and ultimately a bad influence on human society as we apply favoritism to splinter groups of our own species based on arbitrary differences.

Then why do you believe humans should be treated with favoritism over animals?

Darwinism.

Darwinism can also justify animal favoritism.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

http://gotejas.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,601
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 9:36:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2016 9:28:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/12/2016 9:28:21 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/12/2016 9:27:26 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/12/2016 9:25:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I find Animal favoritism disgusting, and ultimately a bad influence on human society as we apply favoritism to splinter groups of our own species based on arbitrary differences.

Then why do you believe humans should be treated with favoritism over animals?

Darwinism.

Darwinism can also justify animal favoritism.

I'm pretty sure the theory of survival of the fittest will ensure that we will never stop terraforming the environment for human life over any other form of life, plant or animal. The only value life truly has on the planet is how much calories or oxygen it can provide to humans. Everything else is replaceable.

We will never favor the actual welfare or existence of other life over our own. All Animal preservation groups fighting the extinction of replaceable, redundant, or marginally useful species of life that ultimately provides little to the O2 or calorie chain eventually experiences significant pushback from the general population, especially as human life grows with little bound.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
tejretics
Posts: 6,767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 9:37:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2016 9:36:32 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

I'm not arguing for animal equality.

I'm saying Darwinism also justifies animal favoritism.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

http://gotejas.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,601
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 9:37:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2016 9:28:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/12/2016 9:28:21 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/12/2016 9:27:26 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/12/2016 9:25:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I find Animal favoritism disgusting, and ultimately a bad influence on human society as we apply favoritism to splinter groups of our own species based on arbitrary differences.

Then why do you believe humans should be treated with favoritism over animals?

Darwinism.

Darwinism can also justify animal favoritism.

Basically, it's good to be a cow, bad to be a tiger.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 3:14:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2016 12:00:16 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/11/2016 11:58:20 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 6/11/2016 11:01:18 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/1/2016 9:31:43 PM, Hayd wrote:
A state legislature has to be a moral-acting body, it has to rely on justice. A state that lacks justice isn't a good state. If you can prove that justice requires recognition of animal rights, then it requires that the state recognize animal rights.

1) Prove that moral realism is true, and that moral realism mandates justice.

2) Prove that the state is a moral actor.

Why are you always so keen on that lol

Hayd said "animal welfare should be there because morality is real, morality requires justice, and the state needs to uphold morality/justice." He needs to show each of those assumptions to justify it.

You wouldn't ask someone telling you how to get to the next supermarket to justify assuming an external world exists or that we can have knowledge of it, would you?
Point is, if you turn every discussion about higher order things into one about the bare fundamentals, you are not going to get anywhere.
Last time I checked you were a moral realist, right? So, Hayd doesn't need to justify it here, as that's not the topic of your thread and you probably already have justification yourself.
tejretics
Posts: 6,767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 3:17:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2016 3:14:07 PM, Fkkize wrote:

Actually, my clash was more with respect to 1) whether the government ought to be a moral actor, and 2) whether justice is required by morality.

I will add that the OP approaches the issue of animal welfare from the perspective of political philosophy, so Hayd has to show that the government should legislate on the basis of morality- which also requires moral realism to be shown.

The OP asks for a justification of animal rights from the bare minimum.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

http://gotejas.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 3:18:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2016 3:14:07 PM, Fkkize wrote:

The text of the OP itself takes on a "bare fundamentals" approach:

Most people -- myself included -- have been pro-animal rights due to emotional urges and viewing abuse of animals as repulsive or reprehensible. There's no justification for it outside of it being a "moral urge."

So, I offer this question to anyone who is pro-animal rights or pro-animal welfare on DDO: why is that the case?

These moral urges are usually evolutionary in origin, and there is good evolutionary purpose -- for the advancement of the species -- to care about human rights. Caring about other humans and about what society generally values is part of the state's role because it also serves individual interests, so even under moral nihilism, it's possible to justify human welfare and human rights.

But those justifications seemingly fall short with respect to animals -- the sole justification I can find is that recognition of animal rights is a societal value, and that the state exists for legislating based on those values (i.e. a form of collectivism that grounds itself in individualism).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

http://gotejas.com...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 1:44:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 12:28:24 PM, tejretics wrote:
Most people -- myself included -- have been pro-animal rights due to emotional urges and viewing abuse of animals as repulsive or reprehensible. There's no justification for it outside of it being a "moral urge."

So, I offer this question to anyone who is pro-animal rights or pro-animal welfare on DDO: why is that the case?

These moral urges are usually evolutionary in origin, and there is good evolutionary purpose -- for the advancement of the species -- to care about human rights. Caring about other humans and about what society generally values is part of the state's role because it also serves individual interests, so even under moral nihilism, it's possible to justify human welfare and human rights.

But those justifications seemingly fall short with respect to animals -- the sole justification I can find is that recognition of animal rights is a societal value, and that the state exists for legislating based on those values (i.e. a form of collectivism that grounds itself in individualism).

So I have two questions:

1. What purpose does empathy towards animals, from an evolutionary perspective, serve?

The purpose, in my opinion, was birthed from the utility function lesser animals served in our evolutionary development. We have to remember, they fertilize our fields which produce better yields, they hunted and killed rodents in our farms, which protected our crops, etc.,

When things 'help' us we find them to be useful, do we not? That which is useful is something that ought to be protected and from the emotions that come from protecting something birthed our sense of empathy towards them.

So when we realized that we could put these lesser animals to work for us, to protect us, to protect our properties, or even simply for companionship (since we are a herd mentality creature ourselves), we then formed our still-lasting relationships with them.

A really good article that touches on all of this and really drives the point home can be read here: http://www.livescience.com...

2. Why should the state legislate to protect animal welfare?

Because of their utility functions as living tools which help us maintain the lifestyles we come to develop in this modern day and age.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator & Official Voting Group Czar
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...