Our treatment of other species?

**bassybill** · #1 08-21-2009, 12:35 AM

This was prompted by other recent threads. It's just based on genuine curiosity and it's not intended as a soapbox for any particular point of view.

By and large, when considering our species globally, how would you describe our treatment of other animals?

A) Generally ethical
B) Generally unethical
C) I don't care whether it's ethical or not

Consider C) as the carrots option.

bassteban · #2 08-21-2009, 12:38 AM

Define *ethical*
NOT saying I can, mind you- but by my def, I'd have to vote B.

**bassybill** · #3 08-21-2009, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bassteban

Define *ethical*

Shan't.

I'm just interested in people's gut feelings here.

Maybe we can try and define that later.

Hawaii Islander · #4 08-21-2009, 12:47 AM

Generally, we try to treat other species ethically, and we are improving more and more. But that darned survival instinct keeps messing things up! Must eat hamburger now!

(That's what I had for supper

)

bongomania · #5 08-21-2009, 12:59 AM

Yeah, we've got people who don't care, and then we've got people who do care but who still do lots of damage out of ignorance or convenience. Good intentions do not equal good ethics necessarily.

WookieeForLife · #6 08-21-2009, 01:24 AM

My pooch is pampered, my relatives pooch is pampered. The birds enjoy the nasty bread we feed them, and the squirels have a nice habitat in our back yard. I'd say ethical.

JimmyM · #7 08-21-2009, 01:33 AM

Ya, unfortunately, we're genetically predisposed to eating meat for one reason...vitamin B-12. We need it to survive, and the only place to get it is either from meat or supplements derived from meat products, usually fish oils. Vegans have to take B-12 supplements to survive. By the mere fact that you have to kill animals to eat them, we treat a lot of animals unethically. Not much can be done about that.

But there are a ton of people in the world who thiink nothing of abusing animals for their own amusement, and that sucks. From cockfighting to stuffing geese full of seed to make pate to cutting off monkey heads to eat the live brains like they do in China, man has shown there's not a lot of regard for animals. While I'm a firm believer in "man rules," we don't need to be cruel about it.

hbarcat · #8 08-21-2009, 02:00 AM

D. None of the above.

Some people treat animals unethically and abuse the crap out of them as if they were disposable. Others regard animals with an undeserved reverence and consider them to be somehow fundamentally more special than humans. I do my best to treat other animals with the same respect I expect them to give me - however much that is!

hbarcat · #9 08-21-2009, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyM

Ya, unfortunately, we're genetically predisposed to eating meat for one reason...vitamin B-12. We need it to survive, and the only place to get it is either from meat or supplements derived from meat products, usually fish oils.

The sediment from beer yeast is very rich in vitamin B-12. Homebrewers who drink only one 12oz unfiltered beer per day get far more than the recommended amount of B-12

Fun fact !

Rudreax · #10 08-21-2009, 02:14 AM

I'd say yeah, if you only talk about eating. We're on top of the food chain, so we have the right to eat them. Other then than, probably not.

MakiSupaStar · #11 08-21-2009, 02:24 AM

I say give the prawns enough cat food to fill their ship and let them go home.

12bass · #12 08-21-2009, 02:37 AM

B

For the most part humans are speciesist.

Sartori · #13 08-21-2009, 02:41 AM

I don't have a problem with killing animals for food (provided they're not in danger of getting driven to extinction).

What I have a problem with is how they're often treated during life. Everything dies, but that doesn't mean that we should inflict unnecessary and pointless pain and suffering.

MakiSupaStar · #14 08-21-2009, 06:25 AM

Between us and the species we might be talking about, we're the only ones with ethics.

CrispyDelicious · #15 08-21-2009, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bassteban

Define *ethical*
NOT saying I can, mind you- but by my def, I'd have to vote B.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bassybill

Shan't.

I'm just interested in people's gut feelings here.

Maybe we can try and define that later.

More like "can't"!

There's an entire field of philosophy - metaethics - that tries to define the terms 'good', 'right', 'ethical', etc. As a student of ethical philosophy myself, the only way you can get close to a definition of any of those terms is by examining specific cases and determining if they meet YOUR standards of 'ethical', and then try to reconcile your view with that of another person. Then do it again, and then a hundred more times, and you may get close to a definition.

Of course, that's all fine and good for pragmatic purposes. But you could simply argue relativism, or nihilism, and throw any discussion out the window

WookieeForLife · #16 08-21-2009, 09:44 AM

Ask the hungry Grizzly bear you stumble across if it is ethical to rip you apart and eat u little piece by little piece.

CapnSev · #17 08-21-2009, 09:48 AM

I think if you grab the average joe off the street and ask him/her if they care about the way animals are treated by humans, they will say yes, and sincerely mean it.

Yeah, we eat them, but I think we take pretty good care of the overall animal world.

**bassybill** · #18 08-21-2009, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrispyDelicious

More like "can't"!

There's an entire field of philosophy - metaethics - that tries to define the terms 'good', 'right', 'ethical', etc. As a student of ethical philosophy myself, the only way you can get close to a definition of any of those terms is by examining specific cases and determining if they meet YOUR standards of 'ethical', and then try to reconcile your view with that of another person. Then do it again, and then a hundred more times, and you may get close to a definition.

Of course, that's all fine and good for pragmatic purposes. But you could simply argue relativism, or nihilism, and throw any discussion out the window

Interesting comment - thanks. As you're a student of ethics, I'd be interested to hear what you think of the views of people like philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris, who believes it will one day perhaps be possible to develop "a science of morality" or a "science of ethics", based on a much deeper understanding of how our brain works when dealing with such concepts. Has this been mentioned at all in your studies? If so, how is it presented?

I personally think it's a fascinating idea. After all, it's not that long ago that we didn't have a science of biology worthy of the name, or of electricity, or astronomy. The development of our understanding in these fields would have been completely unimaginable by someone alive a few hundred years ago. Maybe in the future we'll have a similar understanding of concepts that seem almost entirely abstract or subjective to us at present with our limited knowledge.

CrispyDelicious · #19 08-21-2009, 10:06 AM

I would say, each distinct philosophical belief is, in a sense, a fledgeling science that has yet to be confirmed as fact. All branches of philosphy aim to rationalize an area of inquiry. For example, ethics, in my case, Bioethics, aims to solidify what is essentially a formula for determining what a course of action should be when presented with a specific set of circumstances regarding the field of medicine. You have one spare heart and two people that need it - who gets it? The aim of bioethics is to flesh out a method for answering each unique problem presented to you. While it is not called a "scientifc" method, it follows the same principles.

People in general look down at philosophy and call it "armchair science" because it is all speculation, without actual research. This is false for many aspects of philosophy. My professor of Bioethics had previously sat on the ethics board (yes they exist) for one of Toronto's major hospitals, determining the proper course of action in cases just like the one I mentioned above. On a daily basis, people are addressing the issues presented in the field of medical practice and medical research and are constantly refining what it is to be "eithical", "moral", "right", etc.

While I'm not sure how Sam Harris proposes such a method can be derived from neuroscientific studies, I can see that it would have potential. As I see it, philosophy is an attempt to rationalize that which cannot be studied by direct scientific method, which is what makes it so incredibly difficult to come to any conclusions and claim them to be fact. If he thinks the potential exists for this to be accomplished, I'd like to see him try! As for me... Having studied ethics for four years, I can honestly say anyone who claims to have the final answer is either very confident, very stupid, or more likely, both.

coreyfyfe · #20 08-21-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyM

Ya, unfortunately, we're genetically predisposed to eating meat

Taking this into consideration, I say that on the whole we treat them ethically. We have little to no interaction with the majority of animal species, and the ones that we do interact with in any major way (ie cows, chickens, pigs, etc) have been breed and domesticated solely for the purpose of human consumption. I don't feel bad about eating a cow because that cow's purpose in life was to be eaten. If it weren't for my hungry stomach, that cow wouldn't exist. Now, some people may think that it would be better off not having existed, but really what kind of existence is non-existence?