Philosophy Thread~ Human Vs. Animal

[toaslan]

And another thing!

I think it HELPS the pro-life cause to also care about animal life, always in appropriate degree and way.

The Catholic way is usually both/and, not either/or. In respecting the principle of life in the lower orders, not confusing animal life with human life but recognizing it for the miracle it also is, we can raise the whole discussion. To be moral with respect to animals cannot but help us be moral with respect to humans.

It is wrongheaded to champion unborn humans at the expense of animals. It is not only unnecessary, it is counter-productive. If we resist *for the right reason * the killing of tigers for aphrodisiacs; then we take the high ground, and it’s always better to command the high ground in a fight. Respecting animal life for the right reasons, we can be consistent in the higher sphere of respecting unborn human life.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And another thing!

I think it HELPS the pro-life cause to also care about animal life, always in appropriate degree and way.

The Catholic way is usually both/and, not either/or. In respecting the principle of life in the lower orders, not confusing animal life with human life but recognizing it for the miracle it also is, we can raise the whole discussion. To be moral with respect to animals cannot but help us be moral with respect to humans.

It is wrongheaded to champion unborn humans at the expense of animals. It is not only unnecessary, it is counter-productive. If we resist *for the right reason * the killing of tigers for aphrodisiacs; then we take the high ground, and it’s always better to command the high ground in a fight. Respecting animal life for the right reasons, we can be consistent in the higher sphere of respecting unborn human life.

**
Who** is “championing unborn humans at the expense of animals?”

And how is he doing it?

 

[toaslan]

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

She is philosophically wrong to make no distinction between kind and degree. There is a difference in kind between the boy and all the other items in her list.

However, there is truth in every proposition–so, the boy does have a lot in common with the pig and the rat. They all locomote, take in nourishment, reproduce, grow and decay, have the five senses, have memory, can associate one thing with another, can adapt their behavior. If she makes no distinction in kind between them, however, maybe newkirk thinks it would be immoral to abort the unborn 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.

Now, I actually don’t treat a rat as vermin, if I understand you. I think there are wrong ways to rid oneself of an unwanted rodent, and acceptable ways. For example, one cannot torture a rat to death just because it is lowering one’s standard of life. We don’t have to treat an inconvenient rat the same way we would an inconvenient boy; but we do have to treat the rat with some respect too. The reason we have to treat the rat with some respect is that we do not have absolute power over it–if we did we could create it, as well as destroy it. We will have to answer to its Creator for our treatment of it.

This principle HELPS the pro-life argument. How much more has the mother or the doctor no absolute power over the unborn child? Any such power is by participation in the absolute power which created the eternal being which is the unborn child: to abuse our power is to abuse God at a correspondingly more radical level.

 

[vern_humphrey]

She is philosophically wrong to make no distinction between kind and degree. There is a difference in kind between the boy and all the other items in her list.

However, there is truth in every proposition–so, the boy does have a lot in common with the pig and the rat. They all locomote, take in nourishment, reproduce, grow and decay, have the five senses, have memory, can associate one thing with another, can adapt their behavior. If she makes no distinction in kind between them, however, maybe newkirk thinks it would be immoral to abort the unborn boy…

The point is, the rat is not a boy – and to make the link is, as you say wrong. It doesn’t enoble the rat, it cheapens the boy.

Now, I actually don’t treat a rat as vermin, if I understand you. I think there are wrong ways to rid oneself of an unwanted rodent, and acceptable ways. For example, one cannot torture a rat to death just because it is lowering one’s standard of life. We don’t have to treat an inconvenient rat the same way we would an inconvenient boy; but we do have to treat the rat with some respect too. The reason we have to treat the rat with some respect is that we do not have absolute power over it–if we did we could create it, as well as destroy it. We will have to answer to its Creator for our treatment of it.

I take it you do not work with food storage. We don’t torture them – but we do eradicate them. We kill them with traps, poison, and gas. And if we didn’t, we would be putting human lives at risk.

This principle HELPS the pro-life argument. How much more has the mother or the doctor no absolute power over the unborn child? Any such power is by participation in the absolute power which created the eternal being which is the unborn child: to abuse our power is to abuse God at a correspondingly more radical level.

It does not help the pro-life argument, since it does not enoble the rat, it cheapens the boy.

 

[toaslan]

I take it you do not work with food storage. We don’t torture them – but we do eradicate them. We kill them with traps, poison, and gas. And if we didn’t, we would be putting human lives at risk.

you do what you have to do, exerting no more damage than necessary to achieve the goal. Of course, we need to kill rodents some times; my point is that we should do it such that the animal does not suffer unnecessarily. A good man naturally seeks do no more harm than he has to.

It does not help the pro-life argument, since it does not enoble the rat, it cheapens the boy.

Again, it is not Either/Or. It is Both/And, if done rightly.

To hold all life sacred both “enobles” the rat and protects the boy.

All life comes from God–that is why all life is “sacred.” Sacred here means “Of God,” and “belonging to God.” This is a limited and straightforward notion.

You need to concede that all life is sacred in this sense!

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

I do not agree with the slaughter of animals, and if I ever get the chance, I will BAN it and make it illegal.I think its very unfair, animals should have the same rights as us.Untill recently, I was a vegetarian, but I stopped being one because the meat was going to be there weather I ate it or not, and since the poor thing was already dead, I may as well make sure its remains dont go to waste.I hate the fact that animals are murdered, but since they are already dead and weather I eat their bodies or not will not make a difference, I eat meat.But every time I eat meat I ask God to make sure the animal is happy in animal Heaven.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To hold all life sacred both “enobles” the rat and protects the boy.

It doesn’t, you know.

Look around you – show me people who equate the rat with the boy and respect the unborn boy.

All life comes from God–that is why all life is “sacred.” Sacred here means “Of God,” and “belonging to God.” This is a limited and straightforward notion.

You need to concede that all life is sacred in this sense!

Nobody said all life wasn’t sacred – in fact, I believe I issued a challenge to tell me who it is that is sacrificing animals to save the unborn – and got no response.

But where does that lead us? How does that elevate the unborn child above the rat?

 

[toaslan]

animals should have the same rights as us.

Well, should an animal have the right to go to real heaven?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do not agree with the slaughter of animals, and if I ever get the chance, I will BAN it and make it illegal.I think its very unfair, animals should have the same rights as us.Untill recently, I was a vegetarian, but I stopped being one because the meat was going to be there weather I ate it or not, and since the poor thing was already dead, I may as well make sure its remains dont go to waste.I hate the fact that animals are murdered, but since they are already dead and weather I eat their bodies or not will not make a difference, I eat meat.But every time I eat meat I ask God to make sure the animal is happy in animal Heaven.

I take it you never heard of the Talkeetna Moose Drop?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, should an animal have the right to go to real heaven?

Animals do not have immortal souls and do not go to Heaven.

In Catholic doctrine, Heaven is not a “place.” It is the Beatific Vision, and exists outside of time and space.

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

Well, should an animal have the right to go to real heaven?

As far as I know, you have to know and serve God to go to real Heaven, and animals arent capable of that.But God was the one who didnt give them the ability to do that, so maybe they do go to real heaven.Theres no way of knowing.Maybe they go to a meadow specially for them.

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

I take it you never heard of the Talkeetna Moose Drop?

What is the Talkeetna Moose Drop?

 

[toaslan]

show me people who equate the rat with the boy and respect the unborn boy.

For example, Hindus are pro-life because they believe all life is sacred. Catholics can count on Hindu and Muslim countries to forge alliance with the Vatican at the UN in the constant ongoing attempts by the “developed” countries to force abortion under the guise of reproductive health upon women worldwide. Here at home, there are Christians who hold that ours is a reasoned stewardship over the earth and its animals, rather than an absolute power over them.

How does that elevate the unborn child above the rat?

If
All Life is Sacred, and
The Unborn Boy is Alive,
then
The Unborn Boy is Sacred.

We need the rat for the first premise in this syllogism. It’s true that this doesn’t put the boy above the rat, but if we considered that boy as sacred as the Hindu considers his cow, wouldn’t the boy’s unborn life be spared within this reasoning?

As far as elevating the boy above the rat, that needs other syllogisms.

How bout this:

All Men are Eternal Beings
All Eternal Beings are Other and Higher Than Mortal Beings.
Therefore, *All Men *are Other and Higher Than Mortal Beings.

 

[toaslan]

As far as I know, you have to know and serve God to go to real Heaven, and animals arent capable of that.But God was the one who didnt give them the ability to do that, so maybe they do go to real heaven.Theres no way of knowing.Maybe they go to a meadow specially for them.

I am glad you included your reasoning in your answer: Animals don’t go to real heaven because God did not give them the ability to go to real heaven. That is so true! For this reason, they have no “right” to go there. It is not as though they are being “deprived” of something which is somehow theirs; it does not “belong” to them to go to real heaven.

What I’m getting at, is that what we call rights are really good stuff that belongs by nature. Humans, by our very nature as rational animals, have the right to life–life belongs to us by the fact we are animal by nature (animal–“animate”, to be alive is part of our very definition.)

Further, humans, because we are rational, are ordered to eternity–for through rationality we are connected to what is outside matter and time, to all the objects of knowledge, and most of all culminating in the prime object of knowledge, God.

Irrational animals are not designed with this direct connection to God, the Ultimate Knowable. They are connected to the earth and to the highest part of earthly creation, Mankind. Their “right” to life is not an absolute right; it is conditional on what is good for men. Good men will respect the lives of animals without losing the distinction between the lower animals and the Animal which God designed to know, love and serve Him in this life and be with Him in the next.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What is the Talkeetna Moose Drop?

Talkeetna, Alaska is where you go if you want to climb Mount McKinley. It’s a little village, wtih an old hotel where President Warren Harding had his last meal before dying of food poisioning on the way back to San Francisco. This hotel looks like you would expect, with a stuffed moose in the lobby, guns and showshoes on the walls of the bar and so on.

Talkeetna also has a small town park, and they hold the Talkeetna Moose Drop there for charity.

First, they gather up moose droppings and dry them. Then they shellack them and mark them with numbers. People buy the numbers (and the money goes to charity) On the day of the Moose Drop, a target is laid out in the park, and the droppings are put in a balloon, which goes up over the park and is shot with a rifle. Closest dropping to the center wins.

PETA heard about it and demanded they stop it – it was cruel to moose. The people in Talkeetna wrote back and said it wasn’t cruel to moose.

PETA demanded it stop. Talkeetna said the moose enjoy it.

PETA threatened to sue. Talkeetna said they take every precaution to protect the moose.

PETA sent an even more threatening letter. Talkeetna took the stuffed moose outside, covered it with pillows and cushions, took a picture of it and sent it to PETA.

Finally PETA found out what the Talkeetna Moose Drop was – and threatened to sue Talkeetna for fooling them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

For example, Hindus are pro-life because they believe all life is sacred. Catholics can count on Hindu and Muslim countries to forge alliance with the Vatican at the UN in the constant ongoing attempts by the “developed” countries to force abortion under the guise of reproductive health upon women worldwide. Here at home, there are Christians who hold that ours is a reasoned stewardship over the earth and its animals, rather than an absolute power over them.

In point of fact, baby girls are routinely aborted in India.

Equating children with rats does not elevate their status.

 

[FightingFat]

Great posts toaslan!

Interesting how Vedic philosophy comes into this innit!

 

[Dispector]

I knew a guy in college who was one of those militant Vegetarian. He claimed that if you killed an animal you should be persecuted just the same as if you killed a human.

I pointed out that his shoes were made of leather.

He shut up.

Respectfully,
Mark

 

[vern_humphrey]

I knew a guy in college who was one of those militant Vegetarian. He claimed that if you killed an animal you should be persecuted just the same as if you killed a human.

I pointed out that his shoes were made of leather.

He shut up.

Respectfully,
Mark

It all depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn’t it?

 

[FightingFat]

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

Are they?

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.

I like these proposals. You are looking at the issue from a faith point of view. How do you think we should convince those without a faith to agree?