As I have previously stated on this thread, one of the most basic values that infoms many ethical systems is respect for life. Some prefer to limit this respect to humans alone, others find that it is more appropriate to apply it to all forms of life, particularly sentient life.
i assume this means you are anti-abortion, and anti death penalty?
As I have also mentioned in previous posts, animals are in fact sentient.
post evidence
Whether they are capable of self-awareness to the same extent as humans is open to debate, but self-awareness is not necessary to the ability to suffer. As the utilitarian ethicist Jeremy Bentham stated, “The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’”
not if they are chemically programmed meatbots. my roomba cant be said to suffer, even when he cracks his case getting stepped on
and why should suffering be the satndard anyway?
Although I don’t profess to be a utilitarian, I think this is a useful distinction to bear in mind. Laboratory experiments have shown remarkable similarities in the electrical signals and chemical responses occurring in the brains of both humans and other animals. The same structures in the brains of animals respond in the same way as those of humans to certain stimuli. Biochemical changes in the brain accompany emotions of any sort. Dopamine, the ‘feel-good’ hormone, and oxytocin, the ‘bonding’ hormone, are released in both human and animal brains in the same kinds of situations. Both human and other animal brains have a structure called the amygdala, which is closely linked to fear. Fear is one of the most primitive emotions, and it certainly isn’t exclusive to humans. In fact, experiments upon rats have shown the extensive and permanent changes in brain chemistry that can be brought about by prolonged experience of terror. It is possible to die from an excess of fear, as some rats did indeed die after lengthy periods of induced terror. I think it would be hard to argue that such experimental data come from a source that is biased in favour of the animals.
not for me, the things you speak of are just bio-mechanical systems. you assume they have emotions, when all you can really say is these things look similar.
similarity, does not equal any degree of equality
The accusation of anthropomorphism is dismissible - it is as much a sign of inherent bias as any tendency to support animal rights.
yeah except for those few millenia of thought disposing of the practice of anthropomorphism, you know the ancient greeks like plato, aristotle, etc
The accusation itself often comes from biased sources, such as scientists who wish to continue conducting medical research on animals, or those who make a living from intensive farming practices, or just those who are afraid that comparison with animals will compromise their own feelings of superiority.
none of those biases fit me, so maybe i just think its an illogical projection of emotion onto the meatbots.
It comes from a deeply-held desire to maintain some sense of distance between humans and other animals, a distance that is largely artificial when it comes to emotional and behavioural responses.
evidence of this please.
Humans tend to rationalise their emotions and imagine they are more than just a response to chemical changes in the brain. There is no aspect of human behaviour that cannot be linked back to the fundamentals of our animal nature. The differences between us and other animals are of degree, not kind.
really, so when i act outside my programming, completely opposite to it, such as suicide, etc then thats been evolutionarily programmed? funny, but that would be a evolutionary self defeating program. doesnt make much sense does it?
you need some evidence for that kind of blanket statement.
None of the relative sophistication of humans makes any difference when it comes to basic rights, especially when you consider that not all humans exhibit the same level of sophistication. Respect for life is just that - respect for all life. Every sentient creature - every creature with the ability to experience pain, pleasure and fear - is entitled to humane treatment. This means that if either humans or animals are suffering (unless that suffering is absolutely necessary for reasons consistent with a respect for life), it is always right to help them.
no its not, it violates the golden rule.
do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
as you would want the food given to you, instead of the dog, in a starvation situation,
then you should also treat others that way
what your talking about
violates the most basic test of ethics, the golden rule
and you have yet to show that animals are anything more than chemically programmed meatbots. if you cant, then please donate to my new charity for ‘fred roomba’ his error systems are just all lit, up and he really needs your help!
