The argument we are having about innate morality is not the point at all. The point is whether an animal should have rights. However let me make this point. There are people who are classified as "sociopaths" who often have NO sense of morality. That is an argument against innate morality of humans. You are simply using morality as a way to dismiss animal rights because animals themselves have no morality. What I'm telling you is that the issue of animals having rights is not related to their having morality, but I'm also saying it is quite possible that certain animals have some sense of morality.
Some people are born deaf or without arms; it’s a genetic “malfunction,” it has no relation to innateness of hearing or having arms. Same with morality.
If it is not related to morality, what it is it related to?
In a previous post you said:
"It’s sublimation and fetishism (as Freud might respond), and lots of other psychological associations and aspects."
You seem to worship the things other people say rather than thinking for yourself.
Merely using “fetishism” and “sublimation”—two, at current time, very widely used concepts—as terms of analysis by no means warrants the label “worship of words.”
1. I was not responding to your charge of sentimentality, rather your charge of stupidity.
2. Define sentimentality for me
1. Sentimentality and stupidity are very closely related; sentimentality is a manifestation of stupidity (or at least ignorance).
2. I’m using the word in the sense I think Flaubert used it, as emotion in excess of that which an event or situation calls for. It can obviously mean many things.
You are referring to animals collectively again. This is typical behavior of someone who thinks humans are somehow god's gift to the earth, whereas animals where simply put here to be used for our benefit. Typical creationist view.
I’m not a creationist. I don’t believe in God. Stop using this.
Try looking at some videos of Chimpanzees, Orangutans and Gorillas. I think you'll find that their it is reasonable to call a lot of their behavior 'moral'. But people like you go into the situation with an already biased view of thinking humans are the be all and end all, and ALL animals are just here so we can use them in any way possible.
This self-righteous “people like you” tone sounds fucking ridiculous.
I’m a vegetarian; I don’t “use animals” “in any way possible.”
“Some videos of Chimpanzees, Orangutans and Gorillas” is not evidence for morality. Ants work in community settings—as I’ve said—with a code based in instinct. They do not have morality.
Further, even if an animal shows no evidence of morality, it does not preclude that the animal has rights. If an animal can feel agony, whether we demonstrate this anthropomorphically of not, it deserves to have rights. How can we justify humans having rights if animals do not have them, at least at some level?
We’ve been over this.
You really would not call a person who beat a dog to death immoral?
No.
What about if they did the same to a chimpanzee?
No.
Is the suffering of humans the only instance in which the immorality label can be applied?
Yes (as far as the morality of suffering is concerned).
Your views are typical of creationists who think Humans are god's gift and all other animals are just for our amusement.
(...)
Rights do NOT descend from moral categories. They descend from emotive ability. As I have previously stated, sociopathic humans have little or no sense of morality, nor do the mentally retarded. But we still apply rights to these people.
It’s an absurd statement to say the mentally retarded “have little or no sense of morality”; now YOU’RE talking in generalizations. The mind of a sociopath is not void of morality, either, and obviously a much more complex psychological situation than you would let on.
Rights do not descend from emotive ability.
So punishment would solve nothing for someone causing agony to an animal but WOULD help if they caused agony to a human.
I’m of the view it usually doesn’t (especially in the current prison system); I also view humans as “moral creatures,” so yes they should be in some way held in order. Killing animals, hurting animals, etc. is not something I’d throw someone in prison for.
Once again you are labeling humans as god's gift to the world, and all other animals as tools which humans can use for their own benefit.
(...)
Do you not think evolution is the best explanation we have (at least right now) for the world we see around us?
Yes.
If you do then you should understand that humans are not distinct in any way other than the fact that we are a different species with out own characteristics.
I don’t accept the notion that I am on the same playing field with insects or bacteria or dogs, no. There is a progression based in value—obviously human-created—that can be easily applied.
Are you guys going to continue going back and forth on a point by point rebuttal of each other's arguments forever? It's painfully obvious that both of you have completely closed minds on the subject and neither is interested in anything but proving that he is right. Do you honestly think that after another of your long-winded replies the other party is going to go "Holy crap! I never thought of that! You are completely right and I was wrong". Make your argument and then let it sit in. If you've made a good point some people will recognize that and if not, then they won't, but how about you stop filling up the thread with endless revisions of the same tired arguments and let some other people participate in the discussion?
“let some other people participate”
Fucking participate, I’m not stopping you.
I’m growing rather tired of this thread myself; I don’t think I have a “closed mind” on the subject.
Fourth: stop whining, you're not required to look at the thread and you are not stopped from participating. What are you whining about?
i had one of those. beautiful dogs.
