:: Perhaps it is an innate understanding of my position in the food chain.: No scientific absis for this. Humans are largely primary consumers (herbivorous), to some extent secondary consumers (sheep, cows, some fish), rarely tertiary consumers (other fish), etc. There are many animals higher than us in the food chain. Do you think that makes mosquitos better than us?
My comment suggests that man is or can be dominant - nothing more.
:: Anyay, the whole notion of a hierarchy of animals, with any species at teh top, is scientifically discredited a long time ago. Life is a tree, not a ladder.
So stick to the point and quit going off on tangents.
:: Oh please, please, please! Let's not have this turn into another name-calling like the one in the Capitalism room. the kind of 'I have reason but you have mere emotion" type of attack. It's not substantive, nor is it conducive to debate.
Excuse me. Raw emotion does obscure rational discourse whether you
like it or not. The animal rights movement is loaded with emotion as
any half awake person can see.
:: We really can't be certain of the mental capacity of other species, chimpanzees, dolphins, etc. Anyway, the sisue of where rights comes from is by no means settled. Some would argue that inherent in the capacity to feel pain is the right not to be subjected to pain unneccessarily. This at least is consistent, plant's can't feel pain so eating them is OK.
So the zebra has his rights violated by the lion? No, because it is
necessary for the lion to eat meat according to your reasoning. But man
has the capacity to decide and the physiology to thrive on a meatless
diet so it is therefore immoral for man to eat meat. You say man's
capacity to think creates his moral code. I say man's capacity to think
perfects barbeque recipes and your pain feeling argument is
tripe.
:: No, no one is saying chimpanzees need the right to vote, only that they have the right to live peacefully and to enjoy tehir natural environment. Please know what you criticize.
Did I suggest the animal rights movement seeks sufferage rights for
animals? That was off the wall.
:: Ask a Hindu or Buddhist, he'll tell you that a 'higher power" has decreed that harm towards any sentient life is wrong.
Am I arguing with a Buddist or Hindu? If you hold either one of these
faiths maybe we can discuss the merits of that but to use a snipet of
Buddism to support your argument while casting away the rest certainly
violates the Eightfold Noble Path and leads away from Nirvana.
Similarly, you don't appear to practicing the four yogas either so
you're attempting to subjugate these religions for your purposes. I
know I asked for the ecclesiastical standard that supports rights for
animals. Do you see the intellectual dilemma in offering them if you do
not subscibe to any of the rest of it? My position is consistent with
my belief in the Bible. Animals are resources created for man by God.
:: Sorry to inform you, but humanity has a good dela of carnage and cruelty as well. Should pygmy chimpanzees think that they're superior to us because we repress homosexuals? Should mole rats think they';re superior because tehy live for teh collective good rather than being selfish? Does the fact that our predominant economic system reduces the necessities of life and human beings themselves to monetary value mean that humans are a pimitive species, undeserving of rights? To compare the "carnage" in nature to the abuses of human society is comparing two totally different things.
Not at all. I mention the carnage to suggest that nature doesn't bestow
the rights to a pain free existence to animals. This is manifested in
the way they treat each other. You side-step this fact and obfuscate
the point by bringing the deparvity of man into it. Stick to the point.
Does nature bestow the zebra with rights that preempt the lion's
dinner? Of course not! Therefore, any rights we are discussing are
within man's purview to delegate.
:: Any argument in favor of animal rights must acknowledge that
: : man is the arbiter of those rights unless the protagonist wishes to
: : assume that those rights stem from an even higher source of
: : cognitive reasoning.
: No. This may be my personal view, but it is not a necessary implication. If agnostics can postulate teh existence of the law of gravitation, etc. without the need to postulate a source for tesoe laws, then they can do teh same with respect to natural, inalienable rights. Human rights were determined on exactly such a basis, people didn't get together and draw up a contract saying "OK< we all ahve a right to life". throughout history, human rights have been proclaimed by people on the basis of being natural and immutable.
Again, state whatever natural law you refer to and say why the zebra
isn't covered by it. You can't because those inalienable rights
you refer to are granted by God - not nature. Nature gives us death sir
- not life, liberty, or any other right.
: : There is a dilemma, therefore, for those who see a world without
: : God. If man and only man is responsible for the creation, maintenance,
: : and delegation of rights,
: No, you can believe in natural rights without believing in God.
(Zebra ghosts rattle their chains of oppression.)
: : there can be no convincing moral component to
: : an argument in favor of animal rights when this argument is juxtaposed
: : to the historical cultural record of man.
: ???
Man's entire written history and current record has him as an omnivore.
You can't make a case to say that his dietary habits are immoral late
in the 20th century.
:: I believe in God, I also believe man is an animal. How can one not believe this, given the known fact that evolution has occurred and the known fact that we have so many similarities to other animals. saying man is not an animals is like saying a carrot is not a plant.
Which God? The one that breathed a soul into man and set him apart from
the rest of creation in doing so. I think not. I think you worship some
other god. I differentiate man from animals by his immortal soul. I
will try not to denigrate your belief but I want it to be clear which
God I worship.
: :If man is an animal, he is not subject to
: : any morality contrived by a small minority of idealists when history,
: : as seen by any objective atheist, proves that man is only acting true
: : to his animalistic, carnivorous instincts with such behavior approved
: : by all majorities of historical and contemporaneous mankind.
: 1)man is not carnivorous, and never has been, where do you get this?
Pardon me. I thought the context might allow the license to get away
with such imprecison. Man is an omnivore. Don't argue this or I'll just
laugh and go on to some other thread. As an omnivore he is both an
herbivore and a carnivore. So to be precise, man, if an animal, is only
acting to the carnivorous side of his omnivoristic(?) self when he eats
meat.
: 2)tehre is no evidence that if people followed natural instincts they would be more cruel, etc. then they are now. Societies in "a state of nature" are generally teh msot peaceful.
Rubbish! State examples so I can counter with the numerous indiginous,
peace loving, natural american indian tribes who regularly killed each
other over dwindling winter food supplies.
: 3)a strong argument can be made that it is society and/or property relations and/or social conditioning that makes man the cruel, violent creature he is. in other words taht evil stems from society, not from human nature. See Marx, Confucius, Colin Turnbull, etc.
Humanism is dead Nikhil. You want to blame property for the condition
of man? What nonsense! Who thought up the concept of property? If God
didn't it must have been man. If property is evil and the concept of
property is spawned in the mind of man, blame man - not property. Blame
the individual for his own actions instead of the elusive society.
Blaming society for individual failure is the essence of humanism,
claiming that man has no inherent flaw and is capble of progressing to
a higher state of being. Look around Nikhil. Marx, Confucius, and Colin
Turnbull have contributed absolutely nothing to this self realization
you pine away for. Nothing!
: :Morality
: : abides meat eating if morality is man-made.
: Not necessarily. You can oppose meat-eating on religious, humanitarian, altruistic, environmental, or health reasons. One coudl oppose emat-eating as immoral simply because it is so wasteful of resources.
: How can you eat that steak when teh grain for taht cow could have fed so many starving Sudanese, etc.
Sudanese aren't starving because I eat meat. This tactic stinks. You
know, if there is any immorality around here it is the attempt to
shovel guilt down the throats of those who have prospered because of
the simple luck of having been born into an economic system, a morality
code, and a work ethic which leads to abundance. One might be so bold
as to credit God Himself with the receipt of such blessings. I don't
think a handful of very left leaning activists are the arbiters of
morality. I think the world-wide, historical acceptance of meat eating
speaks for itself.
::There are good arguemnts against animal rights (the Darwiniain struggle for existence, etc.), but you haven't given any of them.
Your opinion. Let the reader decide.
Stuart Gort
