Animal Suffering and Human Suffering

[yovargas]

Humans are not superior to other life forms.

Bull.

"Superior" is not an objective fact, it is a subjective value judgement done by beings capable of such judgements. I am such a being capable of such judgements. Watch me judge:

Led Zeppelin is superior to the Rolling Stones.
Tolkien is superior to Robert Jordan.
Calvin & Hobbes is superior to Peanuts.
The Simpsons are superior to South Park.
vison, Voronwë, Sass, Eru, Nin, Anthy and every damn human I've ever known of are superior to every animal I've ever been aware of.

[vison]

yovargas, much as it pains me to disagree with you, I do disagree.

Why are humans "superior"?

Perhaps it's the wrong word?

Humans are unique. But every life form is unique.

Although I am about as far from an animal rights activist as it is possible to get, I still think that animals have "the right" to live.

In my view the trouble started with the biblical assertion that God gave man "dominion" over everything else. If God had told us that we were but one life form among the rest and that they were all sacred to him and we'd better look after them, then history might have been very different.

The earth and everything in it could exist quite nicely without us, after all.

[yovargas]

Why are humans "superior"?

Because we can have this conversation.

[vison]

How do you know I'm not one of those monkeys that sits at a typewriter and will soon produce the Compleat Works of W. Shakespeare?

Seriously, I see no "superiority" in this situation. We're human and can do it. A tiger can't. Nor an owl.

But I can't rend you to bits with my mighty claws and teeth, and I can't fly into the night carrying your squawking body.

All depends on your point of view.

[Erunáme]

...

[Sassafras]

I don't usually agree with vison on this subject .... but ....

yov, you are making a value judgement that verbal language skills are an objective measure of superiority. The vocal chords of animals do not have the same structure and their language is, of necessity, different. But language (communication) they most certainly have. Can you click like a dolphin or sing like a hump-backed whale? Of course not ... and it's a stupid question. You are further making an assumption that other animals are incapable of structured thought .... well, you don't really know that for undisputed fact, do you?

There is more and more research that other forms of life live in complex socities, build complex dwellings (think termites), and are quite capable of deductive reasoning (think elephants/dolphins/whales).

The problem is we see through the prism of our minds ... and our minds are wired differently. I see a unified whole wherein all the diverse forms of life on this planet are equally deserving .... and you (apparantly) see an us and them separation.

[yovargas]

How do you know I'm not one of those monkeys that sits at a typewriter and will soon produce the Compleat Works of W. Shakespeare?

Seriously, I see no "superiority" in this situation. We're human and can do it. A tiger can't. Nor an owl.

But I can't rend you to bits with my mighty claws and teeth, and I can't fly into the night carrying your squawking body.

All depends on your point of view.

Look at the list I wrote up on the top of this page. I'm comparing the value of like things. I, a valuer (ie. a conscious mind), am valuing. I do not value things for their ability to rend with claws and teeth. I may value somewhat the ability to "fly into the night". But I value immensely your ability to enter this discussion. Because of the value of that ability, I judge you superior to the cat and the hawk. There's no contest. Would anyone here judge differently? Why?

[MithLuin]

The Biblical talk of having 'dominion' over the earth came after God personally created everything and called it good. So, if you think that was him giving us permission to do whatever we want with it....

Just sayin'

I know it has been taken that way, but I don't accept that attitude as legitimate (though I do keep Genesis). I also don't think that attitude was overly popular before the Industrial Revolution.

I think humans are different than animals. And yes, if I have to re-invent the Elizabethan Great Chain of Being (as I unwittingly did in 4th grade), it would look like this:

• Rocks (and other inanimate objects)
  
  [The older me inserts single celled organisms in here]
  
  Plants
  
  Animals
  
  Humans
  
  Angels
  
  God

The Elizabethans got a bit more into it, and ended up having to figure out exactly where everything went - what is higher, an oak tree or a rose (or the guy who made the list?)

All I did with it was to say "the reason I don't understand God is because plants don't understand me."

I thought this was a brilliant original insight, and was devastated to find out that someone else had thought of it about 500 years earlier.


So, yes, I will unequivocally say that humans are 'ranked' higher than animals, though of course they are animals (just, not just animals). BUT, I think that means we have an added responsibility towards animals. We have a duty to go save the whales (or whatever), but that responsibility rests in us, and is not dependent of the whales being cute or having 'rights.'

Animals don't have a 'right' to life. I am not wrong if I decide to kill one. But I have a serious responsibility towards those animals. I have best have a reason for my actions, and I will be held accountable.

Hunting and farming and raising pets and all of that can be good and responsible. The bad part comes in if you neglect your pet (don't feed it) or waste your livestock (don't eat it) or cause needless pain for some stupid reason. Then, you are failing in your responsibility towards your charges.

Now, I realize that humans are far from totally good, all the time. People will unwittingly neglect their pets or hurt an animal at times. And yes, some people will even be downright cruel or destructive or wanton. That is WRONG. Humans have moral responsibility where animals do not. It is not wrong for the lion to rend me limb from limb. It would be wrong for me to do that to the lion .

So, I think you can value humans over animals, but still complain (loudly!) about cruelty towards or mistreatment of animals. You don't have to see humans as 'just one among many' to take up for animals.

[Erunáme]

...

[nerdanel]

But I value immensely your ability to enter this discussion. Because of the value of that ability, I judge you superior to the cat and the hawk. There's no contest. Would anyone here judge differently? Why?

Sometimes I would say yes. Our humanity endows us all with a capacity for deliberate, conscious evil that the cat and the hawk do not possess. That they are not even capable of this evil, from one point of view, could mean they are "superior".

Of course, yov, to make a possible counterargument for you...

We are capable of deliberate, conscious good to an extent that the cat and hawk are not. That they are not capable of that good could mean that they are "inferior".

To make another possible counterargument...

The fact that I could outline the two possibilities above, while the cat and the hawk could not, makes me superior to them.

And of course, all three of these assertions are value judgments that only member of the human species here on earth are capable of making. Whether or not that makes us superior is an open question, as far as I'm concerned.

****

My own personal theory regarding souls is that all living things have a soul equivalent in value, but that the extent to which the soul is expressed here on earth depends on the species and circumstances of the body/form into which it's placed. (So, a soul placed within a squirrel cannot manifest to the same extent as a soul placed within a gorilla cannot manifest to the same extent as a soul placed within a human of normal intelligence. Similarly, a soul placed within a severely mentally disabled human might not be capable of expression to the same extent as a soul placed within a human of normal mental capacity.) This theory seems like it could work decently well with reincarnation. Not sure.

Random thought that seemed relevant to this thread.

[yovargas]

Ack! Can we please not get into "rights" here? At least no unless you make it very very clear what you mean by the word! (From my experience in these sorts of discussions, the word "rights" has become virtually meaningless.)


eta:

My own personal theory regarding souls is that all living things have a soul equivalent in value

Of value to who? A value always implies a valuer.

[Sassafras]

Ack! Can we please not get into "rights" here? At least no unless you make it very very clear what you mean by the word! (From my experience in these sorts of discussions, the word "rights" has become virtually meaningless.)

Well, since it's my thread you'll just have to defer to me, won't you?



The topic of animal and/or human "rights' is now open for discussion.



Furthermore, we are all, including you yov, making value judgements here.
There are no objective (that is, outside of the subjective realm) standards with which to make hard and fast absolutes on the subject of souls, the merits of relative worth, or the 'rankings' of one life form over the other.

[nerdanel]

Although I hate to disagree with Teh Bone-Crunching Hug Giver (and do so here only with the utmost of deference), I agree with yov that discussion of "rights" is generally unhelpful.

In our modern parlance, if I say "I have a right to X," it simply means, "I think I should be able to do X."

Check it out:
I have the right to marry a [man, woman, one person of my choice, more than one person.]
I have the right to an abortion.
I have the right to a driver's license.
I have the right to consume alcohol.
I have the right to have children.
I have the right to die.
I have the right to adopt pets.

Without more, if I make these statements, they are mere baldfaced assertions that I think I should be able to do whatever it is I'm saying I have the "right" to do. The "rights" construct gives the assertion artificial force. "Rights" only have meaning within limited, objective contexts, e.g. "The Supreme Court has decided that there is a fundamental right to marriage."

To say, "An animal has the right to life" is saying nothing more than "I think the animal should be allowed to live."

If we get into a discussion of rights, we need to specify exactly what we're talking about (e.g. natural rights). And in my experience, like yov's, it's more likely to be counterproductive than anything.

Halofirian 1: I think that animals have a right to life equivalent to humans.
Halofirian 2: I think that animals do not have that right.

Now what?

****

yov, fair point. I've always thought that to discuss souls, we have to be discussing some spiritual or Divine force that gave rise to the souls. Either "God" - or some other spiritual force bigger than, and outside, this world. When I said "equivalent in value," I intended to imply that the valuer was that spiritual force/God.

Obviously I have no idea whether any of this is the case. I made it up (just as most of this discussion is people making up valuations based on rather emotion-driven ideas). It's just a conception that works for me.

[yovargas]

yov, fair point. I've always thought that to discuss souls, we have to be discussing some spiritual or Divine force that gave rise to the souls. Either "God" - or some other spiritual force bigger than, and outside, this world. When I said "equivalent in value," I intended to imply that the valuer was that spiritual force/God.

Obviously I have no idea whether any of this is the case. I made it up (just as most of this discussion is people making up valuations based on rather emotion-driven ideas). It's just a conception that works for me.

I'm glad you pointed this out because it keys in on one of the reasons why this subject gets me riled up. This is a particular brand of ideology, found heavily in the environmentalist-friendly left, is essentially a religious idea. But since it is a nameless disorganized religion, it can pretend that it's not a religion while it's ideals are used to create laws in our government. So we've got this religious left using the government to try and save endangered animals and telling farmers how to treat their animals, and in the meanwhile, that same religious left gets angry over the religious right's attempt to use the government's powers for its purposes.

[Maria]

My own personal theory regarding souls is that all living things have a soul equivalent in value, but that the extent to which the soul is expressed here on earth depends on the species and circumstances of the body/form into which it's placed. (So, a soul placed within a squirrel cannot manifest to the same extent as a soul placed within a gorilla cannot manifest to the same extent as a soul placed within a human of normal intelligence. Similarly, a soul placed within a severely mentally disabled human might not be capable of expression to the same extent as a soul placed within a human of normal mental capacity.) This theory seems like it could work decently well with reincarnation. Not sure.

It's like the souls are all the same size at heart (or something) but are constrained in their abilities to interact on this plane by the form they take.

Rocks (and other inanimate objects)

[The older me inserts single celled organisms in here]

Plants

Animals

Humans

Angels

God

It's like leveling up in a game. If you are a good player, the next time around you'll get a better character to play. I, personally, don't want to offend my fellow players by being nastier than I have to be to play the game. I imagine the between round conversations can get pretty heated sometimes. "Did you SEE what he did to my cat character?!!!! I am so MAD, I'm going to get you next time, you scumbag! You'll see what that's like!" "Dude, you totally deserved that for the time three lives ago when you ...."

Or some ethereal metaphysical equivalent!

[Sassafras]

Nerdy, Nerdy, Nerdy!



<exasperated sigh>

I was being facetious and attempting to introduce a little levity into a potential emotional mine-field.

Of course your assesment of "rights" is correct. I was merely pointing out to yov that all of our arguments on this particular subject (and a great many others) are subjective and emotion-based. That hasn't stopped us before and I hope it wont stop us now.

I wanted this thread moved to Lasto because I didn't want the constraints imposed by TE.

PS: I rather like your theory of expressed souls.

[Cerin]

Is this conversation just an intellectual exercise? Or do those of you who contend that humans are not a 'superior' form of life (of greater value than animal life) think that animal life should be protected the way human life is protected?

If you think the justification for eating animals is simply predatory, and if humans are not a more superior animal, do you think it would be ok to farm and process human beings for food the way we do cows? Why not? If it is not ok to do with humans, why is it ok to do with cows?

To those who speak of souls, does that go just for mammals? Fish and insects? Are you suggesting that mosquitoes have souls? Mice? Amoeba?

To those of you who believe human life and insect life are of equal value, do you swat mosquitoes? What is the justification? Do you swat your neighbors to death when they annoy you? Why not?

This view (that animal and human life are of equal value) seems to contain alot of potential inconsistency with the way we conduct ourselves in the real world.

I mean, I have no problem with someone saying they believe that, if their actions demonstrate they really do. Otherwise it's just taking a certain perspective in a discussion for the sake of the discussion. Which is fine, too, I'd just like to know which it is.

[vison]

This view (that animal and human life are of equal value) seems to contain alot of potential inconsistency with the way we conduct ourselves in the real world.

A good point. However, having thought it over, I guess I will stick with my original contention: humans are not "superior".

That says, of course, nothing about "value".

I value human life above the other life forms because I'm human and I can. A cat can't care about "the cat race". She can only care about herself and her kittens. But a woman can care about other women's babies. A woman can see that, aside from any motive of love, it is good for us all to care for each other as best we can.

As Red Green would say, "Remember, we're all in this together".

Mind you, he also says, "Keep yer stick on the ice", so I don't know if he should be thought of as a great philosopher.

Humans tend to think that kindness is a good thing. Humans tend to think that it is wrong to be unkind even to animals. I think so, and I think further that cruelty to animals is "unhuman" as well as "inhumane".

Sorry I'm not being very coherent. I'm tired.

[Jnyusa]

I don't like to conceive of this in terms of ranks at all. In the natural world at least, the ranks are transitive. It is no more part of the natural order for me to eat a lion than it is for a lion to eat me. Our bodies will eventually be consumed by the fungi and bacteria and stuff like that. We are readily consumed by viruses and other parasites.

Bluebirds communicate perfectly with one another and I cannot make my least thought known to them. Does this make the bluebird superior to me? I think I said this once before jokingly, but will say it again in all seriousness: my cat knows my name for him, but I do not know his name for me. The fact that humans communicate more readily with one another than with other species simply says that we suffer the same limitation all species suffer. Nor is a some small amount of inter-species communication restricted to us.

Nor is interspecies cooperation restricted to us ... The biologist who did the seminal research on reciprocal altruism (Trivers) presented evidence from twenty-seven species known to 'make deals' with potential predators or prey for long run cooperative relationships. Shrimp are one of them; several species of fish are among them. Entering into responsive, ‘care-giving’ relationships with different species is not unique to humans, not even to mammals, not even to members of our own phylum!

Shrimp negotiate (and some of them cheat). Chimpanzees wage war. All of the higher mammals that are social cooperate on child-rearing within their ‘pack.’ Every species protects its own members first at the expense of others. Packs within a species protect their own group at the expense of others. And every single organism on earth eats something else which lives.

I much prefer to see us as part of a circle, because physically that is exactly what we are. And we cannot point to any behavioral uniqueness that would exempt us from that circle.

So what are we left with? Only this moral dimension, about which it seems that only humans converse. A moral dimension exists in nature only because we exist in nature and that dimension exists in us. We can really only measure ourselves against our own better selves, not against some objective or philosophical rank that nature has imposed on all life forms.

Rather than talk about the difference of having or not having sentience, self-awareness, soul, etc., I would prefer to frame the question in terms of the differences among humans in their mindfulness toward the rest of existence.

Jn

eta:

Yov: and in the meanwhile, that same religious left gets angry over the religious right's attempt to use the government's powers for its purposes

I don't understand your analogy. 'Evironmentalism' is not an organized religion. Why would a politically organized voting block be comparable to a religion? African Americans tend to lobby and vote as a block but being Black is not a religion. Nor being a woman, being a Southerner, etc.

[nerdanel]

Jn,

I read yov's response to me as saying this: he was glad that I pointed out that I made up my notion of expressed souls, and said that I had no way of knowing whether or not it was true. As I understood it, he was suggesting that many within the "environmental left" (to which I do not belong, btw, yov) have similar spiritual/metaphysical/emotion-driven/made-up views on the worth of animals, and that they use their views to further a political agenda in much the same way as the Religious Right, while complaining that the Religious Right is trying to bring their (religious) ideology into the government.

Now, perhaps as a woman, I might be more likely to support Hillary in 2008, even if that's as doomed a cause as the Titanic (today's April 15, btw ). Perhaps as a minority, I might be more likely to support racial minorities or minority-friendly politicians for office. But these are identity-driven notions, not quasi-religious ideological notions. So I'm not sure that I see your analogy.

[great rest of post, btw.]

If I have understood yov's argument correctly, I agree with the hypocrisy that he was pointing out.

yov,

I agree with you, which is why I would not vote, or take any other political action on the basis of a notion that I invented when taking a course called "Death" in college. Or any other similar notion, in fact.

Of course, at some level, every group with political power is trying to use the government to advance its ideology. But I think that there is something particularly insidious about groups whose views are grounded in another realm (e.g. spiritual) trying to do so, although I understand why they might feel they need to do so. OTOH, of course there are plenty of solid, logic-driven reasons for supporting many environmentally friendly policies. Not all environmentalism can be analogized to faith.

Sassy,

I understood that you were mostly being facetious, but several people had already started using "rights" language, so I was saying why I didn't feel that'd be a productive line of discussion down which to continue.

BTW, it occurs to me that if we combined, we would be the perfect woman. Sassy and nerdy.

Cerin,

I would be deeply surprised if this was more than an intellectual exercise for most people in it. AFAIK, most of the people arguing for animal-human equality in whatever sense are not even vegetarian, and yet do not exhibit cannibalistic tendencies.

In terms of my random conjecturing about souls, I believe the idea is yes, lower life-forms would have souls but they would be much more constrained in their expression. Of course, continuing with the intellectual exercise, the question would be whether something has intrinsic value and should not be killed or destroyed because it possesses a soul. And then you can debate that all day.

Thing is, "soul" is used much the same way as "right" in these types of conversations. Many people will argue, "Well, humans are unique because we have souls," intending to imply that soul = "worthy of protection." It's not that simple, of course. The question becomes, "So what?" What about a soul is worthy of protection? Does it come with an automatic right to life card? If animals have a soul, do they get the right to life card too? Do all animals have a soul? What IS a soul? Ad infinitum.