Why do animals suffer?

[Bill_Cherry]

Many researchers also recognize that we must be anthropomorphic (attribute human traits to animals) when we discuss animal emotions but that if we do it carefully and biocentrically (from the animals’ point of view), we can still give due consideration to the animals’ position.

from the same link #3

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Are you kidding? “We exist, so God exists?” What’s your chain of logic here?

we are contingent beings, therefore we require a necessary being to account for our existence.

It is a more valid conclusion than yours, and is supported by observation.

thats anthropomorphization and projective pareidolia, hardly a basis for rationally valid arguments, so id say that its not valid at all.

Wow, really? Why?

the Holy Name is sacred.

books.google.com/books?id=x1bbhp_f9pQC&dq=emotion+animals+date:2006-2008&lr=&as_brr=0&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/40/6/883

adapo-maf.com/ANIMAL%20EMOTION/animalemotion.html

more anthropomorphization and projective pareidolia. we can program machines to give the same “emotive responses” that these “scientists” (i use that term very loosely here) project onto animals. yet no rational person would say that a machine actually has emotions, so this isnt evidence, its irrational anthropomorphization and projective pareidolia. do you have any actual evidence? id be hugely surprised if you had any, no one ever has before.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Aren’t we supposed to be talking about animals here?

We exist, therefore unicorns exist.

if unicorns exist, how then are they contingent on our existence? or are you trying to disprove an argument without actually attacking the premise?

 

[liquidpele]

more anthropomorphization and projective pareidolia. we can program machines to give the same “emotive responses” that these “scientists” (i use that term very loosely here) project onto animals. yet no rational person would say that a machine actually has emotions, so this isnt evidence, its irrational anthropomorphization and projective pareidolia. do you have any actual evidence? id be hugely surprised if you had any, no one ever has before.

How funny! I’ll be sure to let the scientists that have devoted their careers to such studies know that a guy raised on a farm in Kansas says they’re wrong. I’m not trying to insult you or claim that scientists can’t be wrong or become biased in their work, but your nonchalant rejection of the provided links tells me you’re more interested in confirming your own opinions than considering other viewpoints.

 

[liquidpele]

if unicorns exist, how then are they contingent on our existence? or are you trying to disprove an argument without actually attacking the premise?

The contingent argument just says something had to create us. It says nothing about it having to be intelligent, or anything else. Thus, you can replace “God” with “unicorn” or anything else in that argument. It also presupposes that we understand enough about the universe to consider its creation at all. Current theories of the big bang are based almost entirely on red-shifts from galaxies, not really very solid, but it’s all we’ve got to go on so far. We don’t even understand gravity, which we feel the effects of daily, and you want to apply logic to the creation of the cosmos.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How funny! I’ll be sure to let the scientists that have devoted their careers to such studies know that a guy raised on a farm in Kansas says they’re wrong. I’m not trying to insult you or claim that scientists can’t be wrong or become biased in their work, but your nonchalant rejection of the provided links tells me you’re more interested in confirming your own opinions than considering other viewpoints.

its hardly nonchalant, though if you havent read the thread, i can undertand why it may seem that way. this is actually an argument going all the way back to the greeks, ive spent hundreds of posts discussing it. here and elsewhere, i know the arguments well.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The contingent argument just says something had to create us. It says nothing about it having to be intelligent, or anything else.

your asking how we get to G-d from the necessary being here. a random necessary being couldnt result in free will, (yes, i am willing to defend free will) the necessary being must also be the maximal state of being, actus purus, implying maximal qualities, omniscience, omnipotence and so forth.

Thus, you can replace “God” with “unicorn” or anything else in that argument.

actually it must be a necessary being, you can call it a unicorn, but then that doesnt fit the qualities that the necessary being must have, in order to be the necessary being.

It also presupposes that we understand enough about the universe to consider its creation at all. Current theories of the big bang are based almost entirely on red-shifts from galaxies, not really very solid, but it’s all we’ve got to go on so far. We don’t even understand gravity, which we feel the effects of daily, and you want to apply logic to the creation of the cosmos.

science doesnt have anything to do with it. it doesnt matter if the universe is an ICR or not, id even be willing to simply assume it is, for the sake of argument, because i can show that even an ICR universe requires a transcendental first cause to justify its existence.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

The universe IS God. and God is the universe. Which would seem a bit heretical. But even Paul says in Acts 17:28 “…since it is in him that we live, and move, and exist,…”

 

[redhen]

this is actually an argument going all the way back to the greeks, ive spent hundreds of posts discussing it. here and elsewhere, i know the arguments well.

This is your personal opinion. It’s a relief for me to know that it goes against orthodox Roman Catholic teaching, as pointed out by the poster Xuan.

“In imparting to the brute creation a sentient nature capable of suffering – a nature which the animal shares in common with ourselves – God placed on our dominion over them a restriction which does not exist with regard to our dominion over the non-sentient world.”

newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm

carry on…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The universe IS God. and God is the universe. Which would seem a bit heretical. But even Paul says in Acts 17:28 “…since it is in him that we live, and move, and exist,…”

not the universe, the universe is contingent and then cannot be G-d. these are the Thomistic principles that the church accepted long ago.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This is your personal opinion. It’s a relief for me to know that it goes against orthodox Roman Catholic teaching, as pointed out by the poster Xuan.

“In imparting to the brute creation a sentient nature capable of suffering – a nature which the animal shares in common with ourselves – God placed on our dominion over them a restriction which does not exist with regard to our dominion over the non-sentient world.”

newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm

carry on…

ummmm…this is what happens when you dont do your own research, xuan is not qouting infallible Catholic doctrine, he is qouting the Catholic encyclopedia, whose author, is offering his own opinion.

its also a qoute out of the greater context of the article

welfare of man.

But while these animals are, in contradistinction to persons, classed as things, it is none the less true that between them and the non-sentient world there exists a profound difference of nature which we are bound to consider in our treatment of them. The very essence of the moral law is that we respect and obey the order established by the Creator. Now, the animal is a nobler manifestation of His power and goodness than the lower forms of material existence. In imparting to the brute creation a sentient nature capable of suffering – a nature which the animal shares in common with ourselves – God placed on our dominion over them a restriction which does not exist with regard to our dominion over the non-sentient world. We are bound to act towards them in a manner conformable to their nature. **We may lawfully use them for our reasonable wants and welfare, even though such employment of them necessarily inflicts pain upon them. **But the wanton infliction of pain is not the satisfaction of any reasonable need, and, being an outrage against the Divinely established order, is therefore sinful. This principle, by which, at least in the abstract, we may solve the problem of the lawfulness of vivisection and other cognate questions, is tersely put by Zigliara:

The service of man is the end appointed by the Creator for brute animals. When, therefore, man, with no reasonable purpose, treats the brute cruelly he does wrong, not because he violates the right of the brute, but because his action conflicts with the order and the design of the Creator (Philosophia Moralis, 9th ed., Rome, p. 136).

With more feeling, but with no less exactness, the late Cardinal Manning expressed the same doctrine:

It is perfectly true that obligations and duties are between moral persons, and therefore the lower animals are not susceptible of the moral obligations which we owe to one another; but we owe a seven-fold obligation to the Creator of those animals. Our obligation and moral duty is to Him who made them and if we wish to know the limit and the broad outline of our obligation, I say at once it is His nature and His perfections, and among these perfections one is, most profoundly, that of Eternal Mercy. And therefore, although a poor mule or a poor horse is not, indeed, a moral person, yet the Lord and Maker of the mule is the highest Lawgiver, and His nature is a law unto Himself. And in giving a dominion over His creatures to man, He gave it subject to the condition that it should be used in conformity to His perfections which is His own law, and therefore our law (The Zoophilist, London, 1 April, 1887).

further, animal behavior science not being a matter of Faith and Morals, there is no infallible teaching on the ability of animals to have emotions, this is a scientific idea, a matter the Church studiously avoids since the Galileo affair. xuans qoutes are the authors opinions cherry picked from discussion on animal cruelty.

therefore it is not my personal opinion as anthropomorphism has been condemned since the greeks, nor it against the teachings of the RCC.

your “relief” is unwarranted because your argument is still invalid. you really should do your own research. i think you just want to abandon a losing argument.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

not the universe, the universe is contingent and then cannot be G-d. these are the Thomistic principles that the church accepted long ago.

It’s way off topic so I am not gonna go there…
But, please continue…

 

[redhen]

your “relief” is unwarranted because your argument is still invalid. you really should do your own research. i think you just want to abandon a losing argument.

Ok, fair enough, I’ve done some reasearch. Here’s what I’ve found in the CCC.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm#II

"2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.196 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals. "

"2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. "

You will no doubt protest that I “took these quotes out of context”. But my argument does not concern the use of animals for food or medical experimentation. My concern is that there are those who believe animals cannot suffer since they are mere automatons (robots with meat).

If the CCC states they we should avoid causing animals to suffer needlessly, then necessarily, animals must be capable of suffering.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

My concern is that there are those who believe animals cannot suffer since they are mere automatons (robots with meat).

If the CCC states they we should avoid causing animals to suffer needlessly, then necessarily, animals must be capable of suffering.

so if i state that machines must not be made to suffer and die needlessly, then necessarily machines are capable of suffering? hardly. but that is the logic you just used, its a logical fallacy called appeal to authority.

your premise

the CCC states they we should avoid causing animals to suffer needlessly

your conclusion

then necessarily, animals must be capable of suffering

as you can see the premise doesnt follow from the conclusion.

there is no teaching there, you simply used a logical fallacy to construct one.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

so if i state that machines must not be made to suffer and die needlessly, then necessarily machines are capable of suffering? hardly. but that is the logic you just used, its a logical fallacy called appeal to authority.

your premise

the CCC states they we should avoid causing animals to suffer needlessly

your conclusion

then necessarily, animals must be capable of suffering

as you can see the premise doesnt follow from the conclusion.

there is no teaching there, you simply used a logical fallacy to construct one.

opcorn:So, are you saying that the Catholic Church is wrong to say that animals are capable of suffering?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

opcorn:So, are you saying that the Catholic Church is wrong to say that animals are capable of suffering?

they arent teaching that, and if they did it wouldnt be infallible because the ability to suffer is a scientific question, not one of faith and morals.

 

[redhen]

so if i state that machines must not be made to suffer and die needlessly, then necessarily machines are capable of suffering? hardly. but that is the logic you just used, its a logical fallacy called appeal to authority.

your premise

the CCC states they we should avoid causing animals to suffer needlessly

your conclusion

then necessarily, animals must be capable of suffering

as you can see the premise doesnt follow from the conclusion.

there is no teaching there, you simply used a logical fallacy to construct one.

This syllogism is valid (if you accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church).
Yes, I agree, it is an appeal to authority. But it’s your authority, not mine.

 

[buffalo]

This syllogism is valid (if you accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church).
Yes, I agree, it is an appeal to authority. But it’s your authority, not mine.

The truth is everyone’s authority whether you like it or not.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

they arent teaching that, and if they did it wouldnt be infallible because the ability to suffer is a scientific question, not one of faith and morals.

Then why would they say it is wrong to make animals suffer, if they don’t suffer? As you assert.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This syllogism is valid (if you accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church).
Yes, I agree, it is an appeal to authority. But it’s your authority, not mine.

1. the Church is not an authority on science, thats the whole point of the doctrine of infallibility only applyinng to matters of faith and morals, not science.
2. the syllogism is invalid regardless of who the authority is that is appealed to, its still fallacious reasoning.
3. if you qoute an authority you are taking the position that they are correct, so yes, it is your authority too.
4. this chain of fallacious reasoning began with cherry picking a statement that wasnt a teaching, but rather the opinion of the author.
5. you admit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

you may really want to believe that animals have emotions, that they can suffer, but you lack any evidence that such a thing is true. now you are trying to force me to agree with you based on a faulty understanding an authority you dont accept yourself.