Philosophy Thread~ Human Vs. Animal

[FightingFat]

Right then; the abortion thread is moving along in a good direction and before this issue comes up and derails it, I thought I’d start a new one to discuss the issue head on!

At what point does “life” begin? Is it at the point that the brain has developed and can sustain consciousness, or is it at the point when the egg is fertilized and can sustain life? Is abortion objectionable purely because of the human mode of consciousness relative to animals? Is there really such a *vast *separation between the consciousness of humans and that of our food animals that we see no problem in their industrialised slaughter, yet balk at the prospect of stem cell research? Animals form societies, attachments, and there’s even evidence that some species other than us make “moral judgments” - so why do we treat them with such disregard?

Many argue against abortion, stating that it is appalling that people can terminate a developing foetus for the sake of convenience. Yet, we treat animals equally dreadfully, in medical experiments, factory farms, hunting - yet no-one asks the same question.

If “life” is as sacred as we profess - why are animals fair game?

The question is raised to hopefully establish some consistent definition of what makes “life” important and whether we should differentiate quite so dramatically between “human” life and “animal” life…Or whether all life is important and we should be moving to a consciousness (a philosophy if you like) that encompasses that understanding?

As this is a PHILOSOPHY thread, can posters argue their point using REASON and not by quoting scripture???

 

[rpp]

Right then; the abortion thread is moving along in a good direction and before this issue comes up and derails it, I thought I’d start a new one to discuss the issue head on!

At what point does “life” begin? Is it at the point that the brain has developed and can sustain consciousness, or is it at the point when the egg is fertilized and can sustain life? Is abortion objectionable purely because of the human mode of consciousness relative to animals? Is there really such a *vast *separation between the consciousness of humans and that of our food animals that we see no problem in their industrialised slaughter, yet balk at the prospect of stem cell research? Animals form societies, attachments, and there’s even evidence that some species other than us make “moral judgments” - so why do we treat them with such disregard?

Many argue against abortion, stating that it is appalling that people can terminate a developing foetus for the sake of convenience. Yet, we treat animals equally dreadfully, in medical experiments, factory farms, hunting - yet no-one asks the same question.

If “life” is as sacred as we profess - why are animals fair game?

The question is raised to hopefully establish some consistent definition of what makes “life” important and whether we should differentiate quite so dramatically between “human” life and “animal” life…Or whether all life is important and we should be moving to a consciousness (a philosophy if you like) that encompasses that understanding?

As this is a PHILOSOPHY thread, can posters argue their point using REASON and not by quoting scripture???

Your restriction on not quoting scripture is unreasonable. It is scripture that gives us guidance. To force us to ignore the revealed Truth God gave us reduces humans to mere animals. I am not a mere animal any more than you are. Furthermore, there is great philosophical insight provided by the Scriptures. What you are saying is that we can quote anyone except God. How convenient for those who disagree with God.

God has given mankind dominion of all the Earth. That includes animals.

Fundamentally, animals have no souls just as angels have no material presence. Humans are a combination of these two types of living things.

Our immortal soul is given to us by God at the moment of conception. This does not happen to any animal anywhere ever at all.

Therefore, every human life is of inestimable value. Animal life, because they lack a soul, immortal or otherwise, do not, therefore, have as great a value.

 

[FightingFat]

Yeah but if you have faith it’s easy!! LOL!!

If we’re going to have a fun discussion and learn something we have to subject ourselves to some discipline!

I think this is an interesting argument because from a faith perspective, it seems to me the ideal situation is one were all life is revered, where we demonstrate compassion for all living beings as the Kundun teaches. The Bible adumbrates the return to natural and ideal conditions of life in some future age. We need only recall Isaiah’s prophecy that “the wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion shall eat straw like the ox . . . they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain” (65:25, cf. 11: 6-9) ; and St. Paul’s prophecy in the Epistle to the Romans that all Creation will eventually be liberated from its "bondage to decay " and its “groaning” and “travail” and share in the "glorious liberty of the children of God " (8:19-23).

There are similar prognostications in the classical poets, of which the best known is Vergil’s rapturous Fourth Eclogue on the return of Justice and the Golden Age at the birth of a certain child.

I think that killing involves a certain ownership (or it should). Insanity comes from an ability to develop a detachment from that responsibility. In today’s society we get meat from the butchers shop and that sanitises it. Removes us personally from the bloody process. As things are in our society, man is conditioned by the uncriticised belief that it is necessary for him to kill and eat animals in order to live. Being firm in this belief, he (or she) can look unmoved on the ghastly display of mangled limbs and bleeding carcasses in a butcher’s shop. And he (or she) can see nothing but fun in the massacres that are perpetrated in the name of “sport.”

Could we say then that from this it is not much of a step to accepting the dismembernient and massacre of one’s fellow-men in war as part of the necessary order of things, something which only fanatics and eccentrics would dream of abolishing. Even the bitter experience of war and its atrocities does not as a rule shake this attitude of blind acceptance. And while such an attitude prevails, there can be no hope of banishing war.

Is our best hope for the future, then, to attack the deeper level of man’s psyche and recondition him in his attitude to the animals? If we can convince him of the essential outrageousness of killing or injuring an animal, will he be far less disposed to kill or injure a fellow-man? It certainly seems preferable to me that we would hold life as sacred in animal guise as well as human.

My question is whether our morality is established through a consistent reasoned process, or an arbitrary and emotive method that simply favours our personal preferences.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yeah but if you have faith it’s easy!! LOL!!

If we’re going to have a fun discussion and learn something we have to subject ourselves to some discipline!
.

Then being Catholic, let us subject ourselves to the discipline of the Catholic Church – which has definitively spoken on this issue. Let us not in our hubris feel we can come up with a better answer.

 

[davidv]

If “life” is as sacred as we profess - why are animals fair game?

I believe this statement is crux of the problem. What do we really mean when we say it? Is “life” any life? What do we mean by “sacred”? We are taught that all living things have souls. Animal souls distinguished from plant souls by being sensate. Human souls distinguished from animal souls by being rational.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I believe this statement is crux of the problem. What do we really mean when we say it? Is “life” any life? What do we mean by “sacred”? We are taught that all living things have souls. Animal souls distinguished from plant souls by being sensate. Human souls distinguished from animal souls by being rational.

I’d be willing to bet the Holy Father, himself has been known to swat a fly, spray the aphids in his garden, or eat the occasional steak.

 

[rpp]

Yeah but if you have faith it’s easy!! LOL!!

If we’re going to have a fun discussion and learn something we have to subject ourselves to some discipline!

I think this is an interesting argument because from a faith perspective, it seems to me the ideal situation is one were all life is revered, where we demonstrate compassion for all living beings as the Kundun teaches. The Bible adumbrates the return to natural and ideal conditions of life in some future age. We need only recall Isaiah’s prophecy that “the wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion shall eat straw like the ox . . . they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain” (65:25, cf. 11: 6-9) ; and St. Paul’s prophecy in the Epistle to the Romans that all Creation will eventually be liberated from its "bondage to decay " and its “groaning” and “travail” and share in the "glorious liberty of the children of God " (8:19-23).

There are similar prognostications in the classical poets, of which the best known is Vergil’s rapturous Fourth Eclogue on the return of Justice and the Golden Age at the birth of a certain child.

I think that killing involves a certain ownership (or it should). Insanity comes from an ability to develop a detachment from that responsibility. In today’s society we get meat from the butchers shop and that sanitises it. Removes us personally from the bloody process. As things are in our society, man is conditioned by the uncriticised belief that it is necessary for him to kill and eat animals in order to live. Being firm in this belief, he (or she) can look unmoved on the ghastly display of mangled limbs and bleeding carcasses in a butcher’s shop. And he (or she) can see nothing but fun in the massacres that are perpetrated in the name of “sport.”

Could we say then that from this it is not much of a step to accepting the dismembernient and massacre of one’s fellow-men in war as part of the necessary order of things, something which only fanatics and eccentrics would dream of abolishing. Even the bitter experience of war and its atrocities does not as a rule shake this attitude of blind acceptance. And while such an attitude prevails, there can be no hope of banishing war.

Is our best hope for the future, then, to attack the deeper level of man’s psyche and recondition him in his attitude to the animals? If we can convince him of the essential outrageousness of killing or injuring an animal, will he be far less disposed to kill or injure a fellow-man? It certainly seems preferable to me that we would hold life as sacred in animal guise as well as human.

My question is whether our morality is established through a consistent reasoned process, or an arbitrary and emotive method that simply favours our personal preferences.

This is such a silly line of reasoning.

Why not treat plant life with the same respect? Using your logic, we would not be able to eat. Why make an aritrary distinction between organisms with cell walls and those without?

Can’t you hear the lettuce screaming when it is picked?

And what about all those other animals who feed on other animals. Why do they get to eat other animals and we do not.

This discussion is just not worth having. I have to forget too much common-sense and wisdom to discuss it.

 

[FightingFat]

Then being Catholic, let us subject ourselves to the discipline of the Catholic Church – which has definitively spoken on this issue. Let us not in our hubris feel we can come up with a better answer.

You do what ever you like Vern (preferably on another thread though eh?)

 

[FightingFat]

This is such a silly line of reasoning.

Why?

Why not treat plant life with the same respect? Using your logic, we would not be able to eat. Why make an aritrary distinction between organisms with cell walls and those without?

What differentiates plant life from animal life?

And what about all those other animals who feed on other animals. Why do they get to eat other animals and we do not.

Good question, this is about the consistency of our *own *definition of moral/ethical behaviour. If there is a sliding scale of morality based on “potential” (that’s the Catholic philosophical position)- does that justify the death sentence through ruined potential? Or euthanasia from the end of potential? What of those beings then that are relatively close to us in terms of consciousness? It is relatively easy to dismiss flies and trees, but what about apes, dolphins, dogs and pigs (the latter of which have demonstrably *higher *levels of IQ than dogs, but unfortunately for them taste better). We bond with dogs, love them as members of our families even - so can we also kill them indiscriminately? Do you think it would be an easy thing to exterminate your own dog - that it would not be dismayed by your actions?

This discussion is just not worth having. I have to forget too much common-sense and wisdom to discuss it.

Well, you’re perfectly at liberty to not have the discussion sir!

 

[FightingFat]

I believe this statement is crux of the problem. What do we really mean when we say it? Is “life” any life? What do we mean by “sacred”? We are taught that all living things have souls. Animal souls distinguished from plant souls by being sensate. Human souls distinguished from animal souls by being rational.

Any answers???

 

[vern_humphrey]

You do what ever you like Vern (preferably on another thread though eh?)

My, aren’t we being priggish today.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is such a silly line of reasoning.

Why not treat plant life with the same respect? Using your logic, we would not be able to eat. Why make an aritrary distinction between organisms with cell walls and those without?

Can’t you hear the lettuce screaming when it is picked?

And what about all those other animals who feed on other animals. Why do they get to eat other animals and we do not.

This discussion is just not worth having. I have to forget too much common-sense and wisdom to discuss it.

I keep imagining some of these people being diagonsed with amoebic disentery or tape worms. I wonder how they’d handle that?

 

[JimO]

If “life” is as sacred as we profess - why are animals fair game?

All life is sacred in the sense that it is created by God and not to be abused. However, we clearly must destroy life (plant or animal) in order to survive, thus, the destruction of life can be done to that end without violating the sacredness of life. However, human life is very different and it is sacred indeed. What makes us unique, and what is created in the image and likeness of God, is the soul. The soul has self awareness, a will, and is eternal. The body is the soul’s only means by which to interact in this life and have relationships with other persons. Thus, to violate that ability through the destruction of a person’s body is a grave matter.

For reasons certainly beyond my comprehension, God has chosen human intimacy and love to be the means by which He brings created souls into being. It is God’s will to create human souls in the context of the exclusive love of two persons. At the moment of fertilization, the soul is created and infused into a microscopic body and out of the microscopic world comes the wonder of the human person.

If one believes in God and the creation of a unique soul that comprises each person, there is no other logical point of time at which the soul would be created and infused into the body other than at conception. Why? Because that is the contextual moment of love shared by the parents. It represents their union and their participation in God’s creative love for persons. Any other moment during the development of the embryo would be based strictly on biological processes that are irrelevent to the soul’s existence. The soul’s existence is not dependent on brain function or other physical parameters related to the body. The soul animates the body and the body could not function without it. Thus, the soul must be present from the moment of conception.

 

[Dispector]

Why Must We Value Human Life Above All Else?
Human life is to be valued above all other life because as a human we have an obligation, in order to continue the well-being and development of the species, to participate in activities and actions conducive to the protection, safety, and health of our species. As a social creature our own well-being depends on the well-being of others in our group. Therefore, if other members of our group (or our species) thrive it is understood that we will thrive as well. (If you notice the Bible’s teachings all urge the kindness and behavior leading to the overall health of humanity as a whole… along with the personal spiritual health that leads from a life of faith)

When Does Human Life Begin?
Human life begins at the point of conception when sperm fertilizes the egg. Why? Because at that point of fertilization the very foundation and blueprint for that life has been created.

Furthermore, we must not simply look at what its current physical state is but look at what it will develop into as well. Just because the human may not survive in an environment outside the womb when it is a zygote does not make it any less of a human. It is in a fragile state and is in an environment necessary for its growth and development. If we were take a man or woman, strip them nude, and dump them on the South Pole they would not survive long. This is because they were not in an environment necessary for their physical survival.

Why Should We Care About A Fetus?
This seems blatantly obvious, but I figured I’d respond… you never know. Babies continue the species. They are also free of sin (besides original sin) and therefore innocent. It is morally and ethically abhorrible to destroy that which will continue life (and in a logical sense that which will continue our species). In addition, it is detestable to destroy a human which is completely weak and defenseless.

I was going to write more, but then I got tired of typing. I will try to have as logical of a conversation as possible within the constraints you have set forth.

Respectfully,
Mark

 

[FightingFat]

If you object to abortion because you consider life itself (i.e: that an organism is animate) to be sacred, then that should extend to all life, pigs, chickens, babies etc. or else your belief that life is sacred isn’t consistent. This will also impact issues like capital punishment, military license to kill, euthanasia, turning off life support etc. (this is closer to my opinion) Alternatively, if you feel that it is the element of sentience/consciousness that is pivotal, then that allows for the developmental argument, that if the foetus is not sentient then it is okay to terminate.

Whatever ruling we achieve with abortion - animal rights aren’t even on the radar,nor will they ever be, because we like the taste of bacon. Therefore, my observation is that, the value of life supported by a society is relative to the desires of the majority - and does not refer to a universal constant. Which makes it very hard to argue the case for “morals”.

The fact that there is such a discrepancy between how we treat animals and humans - i.e: we forbid stem cell research, but we’re alright with places like KFC, Burger King, products like foix gras says to me that there is no moral basis behind the injunction against taking human life. Why don’t we eat dog? Because we like them, we have a sentimental regard for them - but pigs are of greater intelligence. My point is that animals are not so far from us as our treatment of them implies.

In practice, I think the public’s perception of sex, of food, of murder and of war is sanitised so much that we do not treat these issues with due respect and are able to divorce ourselves from the impact of our actions. I think it is arguable whether specific legislation against abortion would achieve much, especially in conjunction with the media representation of sex - in fact it could be a disaster!

I think that while we must allow people to be responsible for themselves, people should also *take *greater responsibility for themselves - rather than waiting for the rest of society to make their minds up for them. So society as a *whole *needs to change, to change our attitudes towards sex, food, war, money, energy etc - so that ultimately the abortion rates drop naturally as a result, rather than because someone has made it a crime and imposed their will everyone. I think a society that placed greater value on contentment as opposed to gratification might be an interesting venture.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We condemn abortion because human life is sacred. To extend that to pigs and chickens cheapens human life.

The old Society needs to change argument is simply bogus – because it justifies us doing nothing and accepting evil under the rubric that there’s nothing we can do about it. We can’t change society – what buttons would we push, what levers would we throw?

We need to regard human life as sacred and work on this problem until we solve it.

 

[FightingFat]

We condemn abortion because human life is sacred. To extend that to pigs and chickens cheapens human life.

Why? Doesn’t it raise the importance of human life? If we treat all life as sacred?

The old Society needs to change argument is simply bogus – because it justifies us doing nothing and accepting evil under the rubric that there’s nothing we can do about it. We can’t change society – what buttons would we push, what levers would we throw?

We need to regard human life as sacred and work on this problem until we solve it.

What do you propose?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why? Doesn’t it raise the importance of human life? If we treat all life as sacred?

No, it doesn’t. Buddists do that, and they are as willing to kill as anyone.

What do you propose?

• That we forthrightly condemn abortion for what it is – premeditated wholesale murder.
• That we set up and run crisis pregnancy centers for women who might be considering abortion or need help.
• That each church in each community agree to “adopt” a girl who needs help – to provide her with the support, both moral and material, that she needs.
• That we pass laws allowing underage girls who are forced to have abortions to sue after attaining majority.
• That we require 4D sonograms as a matter of informed consent before any abortion.
• That we steadfastly refuse to vote for any “pro-choice” politician and work to instal a pro-life judiciary.

 

[toaslan]

I submit that the useful distinction is that of “kind” vs “degree” when discussing the difference between man and all other animals. If we differ from our pet pig only by “degree” and not by “kind” then either it’s OK to eat Grandpa in additional to the pig, or it’s wrong to eat any animal.

Man differs from dog by kind: we are not just a smarter kind of dog (or pig or ape…) This is not to say that this or that dog/pig/dolphin/gorilla is not “smart.” What constitutes the rational vs irrational soul is a different subject…

Man has an eternal soul ordered to eternity–to God directly (or staying inside of philosophy, then man is ordered to the Prime Mover.)

Fido has a mortal soul ordered to man. So man can use Fido.

What can be used can also be abused. Man abuses Fido when he violates Fidos’ nature.

When I see the cows stacked in the holding pens on top of their manure, I see sentient beings being treated like inanimate objects. When I see chickens literally stacked in trays on top of each other to live out their short lives that way, I see a clear violation of whatever is chicken-nature. A chicken is the sort of creature that obviously should have its feet on the ground, and be able to scratch and walk around. If these animals are treated such that their natures are recognized and respected while they live; if they are killed quickly and kindly; then that is a different story. This would be right use; rather than abuse, in my view.

All life is from God, and in that sense it is holy. Plants and irrational animals have each their own natures making them specifically and individually unique. As long as we treat them according to these natures, we are moral in our action upon them. Nature tells us how animals ought to be treated. And, yes, it is a far cry from what we actually do.

I believe Joseph Ratzinger is on record that men are treating their food animals immorally. I believe he also got in some kind of trouble, or drew notice, by feeding the stray cats from his apartment around the corner from the Vatican before he became Our Gentle German Shepherd…

Just on the natural level, to abort an unborn human being is to violate nature in so many ways that the perversion is overwhelmingly egregious. That we do it by the millions over decades makes us the most perverted people ever.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To quote Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of PETA, “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”

When we adopt that philosophy, it doesn’t enoble rats in our eyes, it lowers boys. A rat is vermin, and we treat it as vermin. And we treat unborn boys (and girls) as vermin, too.