Owning Pets Is Cruel Debate

[TheFifthElement]

I still don't understand you.

Human morality should only apply to humans and human behaviour towards others? What is this?

Perhaps it would help if I gave you another illustration.

Illustration A :

I find an injured child in the street. The child is unfamiliar to me. My priorities are :

1 - the child's safety. This would mean ensuring the child was not in any danger of further injury, and seeking appropriate medical treatment. This may mean that the child needs to go to hospital. If so I would arrange for this to happen.

2 - returning the child to where it belongs. This would involve alerting the authorities. The authorities are able to mediate the return of the child to where it belongs.

Illustration B :

I find an injured hawk in the street. The hawk is unfamiliar to me. My priorities are :

1 - the hawk's safety. This would mean ensuring the hawk was not in any danger of further injury, and seeking appropriate medical treatment. This may mean that the hawk needs vetenary care. If so I would arrange for this to happen.

2 - returning the hawk to where it belongs. This would involve alerting the appropriate authorities, in this case the RSPB. It is likely that they will also supply the medical treatment and so step 2 would be incorporated into step 1. The RSPB are able to mediate the return of the hawk to where it belongs.


In both cases I have applied the same process to my human interaction with humans and my human behaviour towards another species. In both cases whilst I was acting in stewardship over either the child or the bird I would do so with care and compassion.

I think where you may be misunderstanding me Lote is the statement 'human morality applies to humans'. Perhaps the statement would be clearer if I said that human morality applies to human behaviour and human interaction both with other humans and with other species. So :

I apply the exact same morality:
- to myself
- to my behaviour towards humans
- to my behaviour towards animals
and so on.

This should not ignore the fact that human morality should also apply to human interaction with the planet, but then this is assumed as part of the above - we protect the planet to protect ourselves and other species...or we should, in my opinion.

Just as a side issue. Lote, I believe in the value of science but even science has rules and a process. If a scientist carries out research and comes to a conclusion this does not become 'accepted' science until those results have been replicated independently, the results replicated and examined independently, and the conclusions validated. In terms of the research that you mentioned, i.e. that animals have logic, apart from the fact that simply presenting this as a statement does not constitute scientific proof, I do not know whether this is the unvalidated conclusion of one set of scientists, or whether it has been accepted as a scientific 'fact'. If you present the evidence I'll happily consider it.

[Lote-Tree]

Humans have demonstrably failed and shown themselves unworthy and incapable of the kind of stewardship on which Lote-Tree bases his argument.

You are arguing for my point.

In the past we have shown total lack of disregard for nature. But our interactions with animals have managed to extend our compassion to the animal world. We now have Wild life protection laws all over the world.

Yes. Human Cruelty has been far more dangerous and devasting than anything animal world has shown. But we learn from our mistakes. We have in our power to repair the damage. What we need is the Will to do so.

[muhsin]

Lote dear, you are doing great here. Though we Africans and living in Africa don't know much about your topic of discussion here because it has relation with living in luxury and...you can guess the rest, huh?

[Lote-Tree]

Yes, I know tests have been made with animals to see what their abilities were. But what if we had interpreted the results the wrong way?

We have the evidence. You can deny it.

One part of me wants to answer:
You make me laugh real loud here when you compare the way we perceive smells to the way dogs do.

The point I was making we are influenced by smells too. Obviously dogs have very specialised smell perception ie they can detect very minutes amount of smell. But the functionallity is the same. It is just that dogs can detect it better. We have now improved on this with our techonology. We can smell "smell" that even dog can't.

And since I have just said that science is not necessarily a truth, all I can do is stop laughing real loud and just shut up.

Well, it is upto you. If you disregard evidence based truth then it does not matter what your truth is to anyone. You can believe in the Elephant Trees in the Sky where Pink Elephants comes to rust each evening

My problem is that some part of me agrees with science because I have always been into this world ruled by science, but some other part of me wonders about it all. I want to question the world, I don't want to follow things blindly.

Science is anything but Blind. Scientific Method is one of the great achievements of human beings have made.

Yes, but maybe dogs, humans and insects could be classified in a different way if we classified them according to other abilities? Abilities that we might not know about because science cannot measure them?

Lassie. Why do you do this to yourself?

All animals are made of DNA. In fact the most wonderous thing is that all lifeforms that have ever been on this planet have been related to each other because they share common ancestor.

If dogs were not built from DNA then your argument could have been valid.

We? When I told you that you had multiple personalities...

I used We because I am defending Science and humanity.

It's difficult for me to explain my point because I want to be open minded, I just want to be open to the fact that the human interpretations might not be accurate to judge everything on this planet.

Well humans have not been on this planet for very long. In fact humans have been on this planet for very short period of time. Before that the dinosarus came and went. And many millions of species have risen and perished. All these species interpretations of the world have died with them.

Now maybe dogs see in black and white, but maybe they also see other things that we are not able to see.

Obiviously scientific knowledge is accumulative.

Well, I think nobody has the right to interfere in the reproduction of animals for instance, because animals do not interfere in ours.

Pesky Mosquitoes have killed more human beings and other animals than humans themselves.

there is something wrong with human beings.

What a piece of work is man?
How noble in reason?
How infinite in faculty?
In form and moving how express and admirable.
In action how like an angel.
In Apprehension - How like a God!

Well, having a baby is selfish in a way, just like Fifth said.

If humanity had her attitude we would have perished long time ago. Huamnity can't continue with an attidue like this.

But the thing is that the baby, when he grows up, is free to live his own life, which is not the case for dogs.

Because animals never reach human like awareness.

Absolutely not. Her way of thinking is on the contrary very wide, a lot wider than yours.

Not it's not wider. It's reductive. She applies Human thinking of "consent" and "agreement" to animals and the posits the notion that human morality should only apply to humans.

And, I would prefer dying than controlling animals.

You would not have that choice.

I don't want to enclose myself into any theory.

If you choose to live in the caves then there is nothing I can do. But rest of humanity has moved on.

Science is just a theory among others.

You speak like a Creationist! Before Newton came of the "Theory of Gravity", gravity still held this plant around the Sun

Science is nothing supreme. You don't know what the truth is.

Science is the ONLY TRUTH WE CAN AGREE ON. The rest is your wishful thinking.

Perhaps it would help if I gave you another illustration.

Illustration A :

I find an injured child in the street. The child is unfamiliar to me. My priorities are :

1 - the child's safety. This would mean ensuring the child was not in any danger of further injury, and seeking appropriate medical treatment. This may mean that the child needs to go to hospital. If so I would arrange for this to happen.

2 - returning the child to where it belongs. This would involve alerting the authorities. The authorities are able to mediate the return of the child to where it belongs.

And if the child turns out to be abandoned? - and you can't trace it's parent? And in the process the child became attached to you? and you still don't find the parent? Do you throw the child out because it does not belong to you genetically?

Illustration B :

I find an injured hawk in the street. The hawk is unfamiliar to me. My priorities are :

1 - the hawk's safety. This would mean ensuring the hawk was not in any danger of further injury, and seeking appropriate medical treatment. This may mean that the hawk needs vetenary care. If so I would arrange for this to happen.

But why would you do this?

Since you say you don't know Animal Morality?

You choosing to have it cured is that not interfering with their morality?

Perhaps their morality is that if the bird is injured it should be left to die?

Can you see how your argument falls apart?

that animals have logic, apart from the fact that simply presenting this as a statement does not constitute scientific proof, I do not know whether this is the unvalidated conclusion of one set of scientists, or whether it has been accepted as a scientific 'fact'. If you present the evidence I'll happily consider it.

I think you should research it.

Lote dear, you are doing great here. Though we Africans and living in Africa don't know much about your topic of discussion here because it has relation with living in luxury and...you can guess the rest, huh?

Life is sucks even in Luxury chappy - so don't worry.

It is the Human Condition that we are never satisfied with anything it seems

[TheFifthElement]

And if the child turns out to be abandoned? - and you can't trace it's parent? And in the process the child became attached to you? and you still don't find the parent? Do you throw the child out because it does not belong to you genetically?

This is a matter for the authorities. I didn't say that I would trace the parents, I said I would alert the authorities - i.e. the police who would trace the parents. If there were no parents then the child would be placed into the care of social services, in accordance with the law, and they would take the appropriate steps to ensure the care of the child. If I took the child without going through the appropriate authorities, if I kept it, that would be kidnapping, which is a criminal offence.

But why would you do this?

Since you say you don't know Animal Morality?

because I am applying my behaviour consistently in accordance with my moral code. I would behave in the same way towards animals as I do towards humans. This illustrates the point. It is the specificity of the moral code which is important to me. If I can't apply the moral code consistently to my behaviour whether this is towards humans or animals then the code needs adjustment. Again to illustrate, it's like saying:

It is wrong to kill

but this statement isn't clear or specific enough. There are circumstances where I would consider it not to be wrong to kill, for example:

it is not wrong to kill in self-defence
hence
it is not wrong to kill a human in self-defence
it is not wrong to kill an animal in self-defence.

This can be applied consistently, it is therefore, in my opinion, a sound moral code.

I think you should research it.

It is not for me to prove your theory. You say it is so, I say okay if it is so show me. If you're not prepared to show me, then I'm not prepared to believe you

[SleepyWitch]

Because scientific research so far have not been able to demonstrate this.

nope, so far scientific research has been mainly concerned with proving that only humans are capable of moral judgments or disproving that animals are capable of it. if your basic assumption is that they are not capable of it, you will find a lot of evidence in favour of this hypothesis (if you find evidence to the contrary, you can still relegate it to the realm of 'instinct'). if scientists set out to prove that animals are moral beings, their findings might look different.

[Virgil]

nope, so far scientific research has been mainly concerned with proving that only humans are capable of moral judgments or disproving that animals are capable of it. if your basic assumption is that they are not capable of it, you will find a lot of evidence in favour of this hypothesis (if you find evidence to the contrary, you can still relegate it to the realm of 'instinct'). if scientists set out to prove that animals are moral beings, their findings might look different.

How do you know no one's tried, Sleepy? I bet they have. Of course it depends how we define moral behavior, but I have never noticed moral behavior from my dogs.

[Lote-Tree]

This is a matter for the authorities.

Animals have no such authorities of themselves do they?

What you are doing it passing it some other humans arn't you?

And what do they do with them?

If it is a child they place them in care, adoption - the end result just as I said.

And what they do with the bird?

A animal that was attached to humans is released to the wild and gets eaten by a fox.

That animal could have lived and had an excellent relationship with a human. It would have made that human more compassionate towards the rest of the animal world.

because I am applying my behaviour consistently in accordance with my moral code. I would behave in the same way towards animals as I do towards humans.

But this will result in death of the Animal?

It is not for me to prove your theory. You say it is so, I say okay if it is so show me. If you're not prepared to show me, then I'm not prepared to believe you

I thought you would be eager to educate yourself.

if scientists set out to prove that animals are moral beings, their findings might look different.

There is your chance to win the Nobel Prize Sleepy - go for it

If you could find it - you will overturn the foundation of science! That would be something right tell your grand kids

[Sweets America]

We have the evidence. You can deny it.

Yes I can.

Well, it is upto you. If you disregard evidence based truth then it does not matter what your truth is to anyone. You can believe in the Elephant Trees in the Sky where Pink Elephants comes to rust each evening

why not? That makes me think of those people who have what we call hallucinations. When I was studying psychology, we said those people had a mental illness. But, I could't help wondering: what if what they saw was true? What if I was just not able to see it? This is part of why I had real problems with psychology and I quit because I could just not enclose myself in any theory and decide on human being's health according to these theories.
I have corresponded for some time with a schizophrenic girl who had 'hallucinations', she saw dead people and also people burning in front of her and she could even feel the smell of the burning flesh! How horrible it was to her. I couldn't help wondering about these 'hallucinations'.

Science is anything but Blind. Scientific Method is one of the great achievements of human beings have made.

I think that the scientific method is great too, all the work they have done is great. It is just that I refuse to reduce everything to that.

Well humans have not been on this planet for very long. In fact humans have been on this planet for very short period of time. Before that the dinosarus came and went. And many millions of species have risen and perished. All these species interpretations of the world have died with them.

Do you think that science will die when humans die? Or not?

Pesky Mosquitoes have killed more human beings and other animals than humans themselves.

Yes, but what I was saying is that there might be a difference between the reasons why mosquitoes and human kill other species. When my stepfather went hunting, he did not do it to bring food to the house, he only did it for his own pleasure, which I find quite surreal.

What a piece of work is man?
How noble in reason?
How infinite in faculty?
In form and moving how express and admirable.
In action how like an angel.
In Apprehension - How like a God!

I disagree.

If humanity had her attitude we would have perished long time ago. Huamnity can't continue with an attidue like this.

I see what you mean. But it's true that life on this planet is not always a bed of roses. Maybe we would feel better about having babies if we made this planet a more welcoming place? If we stopped considering ourselves as the masters of it?

Not it's not wider. It's reductive. She applies Human thinking of "consent" and "agreement" to animals and the posits the notion that human morality should only apply to humans.

She does not really apply the notions of consent and aggreement to animals. She just says that since she cannot know if these notions can be applied to them, she prefers being careful with what she allwos herself to do with them.

If you choose to live in the caves then there is nothing I can do. But rest of humanity has moved on.

I think humanity as you see it might be the ones living in the cave they have put themselves in. I am on the contrary trying to get away from there.

You speak like a Creationist! Before Newton came of the "Theory of Gravity", gravity still held this plant around the Sun

I don't speak like a Creationnist. If i did so, I would defend creationnist theories. What I am doing here is accepting every theory, even the creationnist one. Scientists who laugh at creationnists are as stupid and close-minded as creationnists who laugh at scientists. No one knows. I will never laugh at a creationnist because as far as I know, he might be right. Scientists might be right as well. But no one knows. Of course scientists can find proofs with their scientific theories, but creationnists will also find ways of explaining theirs. If you told me that the world had been created by a giant tomato, I would consider that option too, because who knows?

Science is the ONLY TRUTH WE CAN AGREE ON. The rest is your wishful thinking.

If you like. I am not trying to convince you, you know. I am just exposing my views. I do not pretend that I know the truth, contrary to you.

[Lote-Tree]

If you like. I am not trying to convince you, you know. I am just exposing my views. I do not pretend that I know the truth, contrary to you.

I think you don't understand what I am saying.

Sciencetific Truths is something we can agree upon. The rest we can't.

Once you grasped this then you will realise your Other Truths is only the Subjective Experience of the Individual.

How do you know no one's tried, Sleepy? I bet they have. Of course it depends how we define moral behavior, but I have never noticed moral behavior from my dogs.

In all my readings I have yet to find Animal displaying Morality.

[Sweets America]

I think you don't understand what I am saying.

Sciencetific Truths is something we can agree upon. The rest we can't.

Once you grasped this then you will realise your Other Truths is only the Subjective Experience of the Individual.

Yes I see what you mean, but it's not because a lot of people agree on a point that I will blindly follow them. Don't you call yourself an independent thinker?

[Lote-Tree]

Yes I see what you mean, but it's not because a lot of people agree on a point that I will blindly follow them. Don't you call yourself an independent thinker?

Do you understand the term Verifiable?

It is nothing to do with agreement of others.

[Sweets America]

Do you understand the term Verifiable?

It is nothing to do with agreement of others.

What do you do with the things that might not be verifiable with the tools of your science? You just throw them away and say they do not exist?

[pussnboots]

don't want to be a party pooper but how much longer is this discussion going to go on ? I think everyone has made their point or at least attempted to.

[Sweets America]

don't want to be a party pooper but how much longer is this discussion going to go on ? I think everyone has made their point or at least attempted to.

No one compells you to read it either if you don't like it.