The Irony of Being Vegetarian For "Moral" Reasons and Dogs

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say there's another intelligent form of life out there on some other planet somewhere far away. Let's say one day they (call them Cookers) come into contact with humanity. Let's say they share your general view of morality, from their own point of view, and unfortunately for us, they are technologically superior. They enslave humanity, and torture us with impunity - as far as they are concerned, the slightest "benefit" to them is worth any amount of torture to humans.

How do you think you would feel about their "morality", if you were subjected to it yourself? How do you think another intelligent being, not a Human or a Cooker, ought to view it objectively? Can you reconcile an answer with your view towards torturing animals? Objectively?


[/ QUOTE ]

I have a fairly elaborate hypo that I use when discussing this issue that involve all powerful aliens. You are on the right track here though. I will try to give my full version when I have time later this weekend.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
I see your point, but my point is that there is no right and wrong outside of a human construction unless there is a God (as I believe Sklansky has already argued here several times), and I don't believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting into very debatable territory here, not with the God stuff but with your notion of rights theory.

Regardless:

[ QUOTE ]
If we give animals rights, then we should hold them to the same standards we are held to in order that we have those rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Francione (and others) pretty much demolish all variations on this claim. [See Chapter 5 of the book I commended above (PM me and I will send you a copy for free).] But in short, there are many humans (e.g., small children and the mentally or otherwise infirm) who are incapable of, and in fact, are not held to moral standards and yet are still accorded (correctly) the benefit of moral rights. Animals are no different. If we accord a baby newborn (let's assume a parentless one to avoid other objections) the basic right to life (which we do) even though it is unable (and may never be able) to reciprocate morally then we should accord the same basic right to a cat or other animal (I use cats because, well, I like them a lot) which also is likely unable to reciprocate.

[Cooker]

The point is that rights are given by humanity, and we are free to chose to what they are given. I have seen no reason to extend them to animals. You may say that you believe there is a reason to extend rights to animals, but I am sure that at the end of the day it will come down to "it just feels like the right thing to do." I don't like seeing animals harmed or uncomfortable any more than the next person, but I can try to detach myself from my own emotions and try to discover what is important about this feeling and what is not. I feel that the important part is not the cruelty to animals, but the abnormality of the human committing the act. However, if the act serves humanity (and I know this is fairly subjective and I don't want to get into that right now) then we should set aside our feelings and let it proceed realizing that the person committing the act in this case is not deviant, but doing what they are told.

[David Sklansky]

"The point is that rights are given by humanity, and we are free to chose to what they are given. I have seen no reason to extend them to animals. You may say that you believe there is a reason to extend rights to animals, but I am sure that at the end of the day it will come down to "it just feels like the right thing to do." I don't like seeing animals harmed or uncomfortable any more than the next person, but I can try to detach myself from my own emotions and try to discover what is important about this feeling and what is not. I feel that the important part is not the cruelty to animals, but the abnormality of the human committing the act. However, if the act serves humanity (and I know this is fairly subjective and I don't want to get into that right now) then we should set aside our feelings and let it proceed realizing that the person committing the act in this case is not deviant, but doing what they are told."

Can you extend that to torturing a homelss person with no relatives, and no talents that you can use, as long as you gain something and won't get caught? Just playing devil's advocate here.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

Can you extend that to torturing a homelss person with no relatives, and no talents that you can use, as long as you gain something and won't get caught? Just playing devil's advocate here.

[/ QUOTE ]

A better example, mentioned by Cooker, made clear that we should treat criminals that can't be rehabillitated as nothing more than societal resources. Torture them for information, kill them for science, do what you want because the benefits outweigh the cost. So, in answer to your question, yes; at least in my opinion.