Animal Rights

Just to address this whole "do animals have consciousness?" issue with my limited experience in the natural sciences. It is my understanding that consciousness is not a single process going on in the brain, but rather the result of many different sensory and memory inputs/outputs at the same time (look at a neural circuit diagram... man those things are crazy. I remember learning about an experiment that demonstrated that consciousness does not arise solely in V1(visual cortex) region of the brain). Mammals in general have pretty advanced brains that share many of the features that our brains have. It is therefore very pausible to suggest that animals do indeed have consciousness. I am not offering any moral or value judgments on the exploitation of animals.

I should also add that animal products play essential roles in our diet. In fact, many vegetarians must take supplements to avoid nutrient deficiency. A mixed diet of meat and vegetables does not encounter this problem. Our dietary needs most likely stem from our evolutionary history. With this insight I usually skip "is it right or wrong?" and just say it's in our own benefit to consume animals. Until a race of super-rats eventually outsmarts and outnumbers us, I say dig in!

JCFolsom:

Stephen Forde:

Argumentation requires at the very least posturing and signally a willingness to establish an interpersonal norm. And yes. The snot-licking near-jawless person with about a mostly fluid-filled skull, no eyes and perfect pitch is more capable of reason than a chimpanzee.

Absurd. Mere bigotry. Simplistic religious faith in the categorical difference between human and animal experience. I don't know what else to say on this. If you would hold such a position, our starting points for viewing reality are clearly too different to continue this avenue of argument.

By the way, you must be a pro-lifer, right? Since your argument for the future abilities of a toddler apply to the unborn as well.

 Simplistic religious faith? Is it even possible to give a chimp an IQ test?

As for the abortion thing, the entire issue is a matter for family members to decide. The state should have nothing to do with it.

 Interpersonal ethics (rights) presupposes argumentation and communication. Argumentation and communication both presuppose interpersonal reciprocal norms.

Well, if a human violates someone else's property rights, we punish them. Should we apply the same rules to animals? If a cat eats a bird, should we punish the cat?

Jetblack, if we created a computer that is more complex than the human brain, it would still be a series of chemical reactions. To be honest, the galaxy is more complex than the human brain! Why isn't it conscious?

 edit: The concept of "input" is entirely meaningless if you think about a chemical persepctive. Everything is simply a chain of chemical reactions. "Input" only has meaning if you are talking about a conscious being.

Ego:

Jetblack, if we created a computer that is more complex than the human brain, it would still be a series of chemical reactions. To be honest, the galaxy is more complex than the human brain! Why isn't it conscious?

 edit: The concept of "input" is entirely meaningless if you think about a chemical persepctive. Everything is simply a chain of chemical reactions. "Input" only has meaning if you are talking about a conscious being.

Okay, let me say this, because you've asked and it keeps coming up, and just to be fair to the reader so y'all have a better idea where I'm coming from. The subjective experience of human existence is in no way explainable by mere brain processes. We can understand how a vastly complex set of circuits like our brain might be able to produce human-seeming behavoirs, but no explanation, or even really a scientific explanation, for how our inner experience is produced. Surely, the sight of red is the register of a certain frequency of light, but why does it look red? Why can we summon this idea of redness to our minds? We can explain the red wavelengths of light, the objects and substances it brightens, all conceivable descriptors, and not give even the slightest idea of what it is to experience redness to one who has not seen it. The loveliness of a vista, or a song, a creeping dread, all the poetry in life, has no real meaning or explanation within science.

I believe that we are all of a basic spiritual nature, cycling through various lives rather like the Hindu concept of reincarnation, but rather than reaping the consequences of karma, as we grow in personality and complexity, we require ever greater complexity in our vessels. I believe that all animals, perhaps all self-motivated beings, or at least some at all levels, are the incarnations of spirits like ours. The brain is a receiver and translator of the impulses from the soul to the body, and from the physical world for the perusal of the soul. This is the merest shell of my belief.

jetblackjp:

I should also add that animal products play essential roles in our diet. In fact, many vegetarians must take supplements to avoid nutrient deficiency. A mixed diet of meat and vegetables does not encounter this problem. Our dietary needs most likely stem from our evolutionary history. With this insight I usually skip "is it right or wrong?" and just say it's in our own benefit to consume animals. Until a race of super-rats eventually outsmarts and outnumbers us, I say dig in!

Man doesn't even need vegetables (thankfully, or we'd have never survived the ice ages). There are many aboriginal cultures in existence today that eat nothing but meat and they're among the healthiest people in the world.  Here is an amazing tale of an arctic explorer who got stuck living with eskimoes for a few years, eating nothing but fish, seal and caribou:  http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm

I personally eat a mostly meat diet and am in amazing shape (at age 37).  I consider it to be the natural diet of man, and thus have a difficult time imagining how animals could have rights.  If they have a right to not be eaten, how does man survive?  Vegetarianism is unnatural and fatal to man (vitamin b12 is only available in meat -- if vegetarians don't take supplements they die.  Here's a good link that destroys the health claims of vegetarians: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html).

maxpot46:

jetblackjp:

I should also add that animal products play essential roles in our diet. In fact, many vegetarians must take supplements to avoid nutrient deficiency. A mixed diet of meat and vegetables does not encounter this problem. Our dietary needs most likely stem from our evolutionary history. With this insight I usually skip "is it right or wrong?" and just say it's in our own benefit to consume animals. Until a race of super-rats eventually outsmarts and outnumbers us, I say dig in!

Man doesn't even need vegetables (thankfully, or we'd have never survived the ice ages). There are many aboriginal cultures in existence today that eat nothing but meat and they're among the healthiest people in the world.  Here is an amazing tale of an arctic explorer who got stuck living with eskimoes for a few years, eating nothing but fish, seal and caribou:  http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm

I personally eat a mostly meat diet and am in amazing shape (at age 37).  I consider it to be the natural diet of man, and thus have a difficult time imagining how animals could have rights.  If they have a right to not be eaten, how does man survive?  Vegetarianism is unnatural and fatal to man (vitamin b12 is only available in meat -- if vegetarians don't take supplements they die.  Here's a good link that destroys the health claims of vegetarians: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html).

Take note, I actually never said that we should not eat animals. I'm not a vegetarian. I used to be, and even today I mostly eat fish and occasional poultry and very occasionally red meat. I actually agree that meat is needed for human well-being. If you look at people who've been vegans for years, you'll start to see some really haggard looks (all-herbal "medicine" probably doesn't help that either). Being a rather, well, hefty fellow, probably folks shouldn't look to me for diet tips. All the same, like I said I recognize the need for animal proteins, and further unlike many here (as gone over exhaustively in another thread) I believe that need removes our culpability in taking their lives for our sustenance. Indeed, given the utter dependence of some domesticated animals (such as sheep), we could scarce end our relationship with them without condemning them to extinction. Horses, goats and pigs do alright in the wild, but chickens and domesticated turkeys? I rather think not. However, we ought to do this in a humane fashion. The circumstances in which animals are kept, most especially layer hens, actually, are absolutely horrific. And, if we were to be able to develop vat-grown meat (not so far-fetched) that we established served the same need, I think we'd be pretty well obligated to use that instead.

At best, I could see an obligation of sorts not to inflict unnecessary suffering upon an animal. For something to possess rights it must be rational (I ask that this not be conflated with a high IQ, which for some reason a lot of people do.) If one of the higher animals were to become rational, then it too would have rights.

I would say that the test of consciousness is an ability to think conceptually and abstractly.  Self awareness usually includes the ability to be embarassed.  I think it was Mark Twain who said "Man is the only animal that can blush, or needs to".  You can argue all day long about whether animals are capable of this, as I see you have done.  But the important thing is, is there proof for, or against this argument?  When humans became conscious, for whatever reason, they moved out of caves and developed a society, for only in a society can one have social contracts.  What proof is there that animals are capable of this type of thought?  Have they invented any kind of techology?  Beavers build dams, just as birds build nests, but stacking debris together I think is instinctual, not cognitive.  Language is a technology, humans developed language, a system of abstract symbols for things.  No animal species has developed a language to my knowlege, because in my opinion the test for language is that it be possible for others to learn it.  ie-a dog born to an owner, and raised by that person all its life, never learns to speak with his owner, why is this?  Humans can learn he language of other humans, why can't animals learn the language of humans, or other animals?  I saw something about Hellen Keller earlier, even being blind and deaf, she was able to learn the language, or at least how to communicate.  Why has no animal ever done this?  So as Murray Rothbard put it "we will give animals rights when they petition for them".  As far as children and the mentally handicaped go, I would assert that they are the property of the people who care for them, likely the parents.  And don't come back at me with the argument that, 'well what if the parent molests the child, or someone takes advantage of the handicaped' because that is to confuse law with moraity.  Hopefully even the lowliest of fools knows better than to try to legislate morality.  Even though an animal might be property I would never kick my dog for sport.  Anyway, if you really are interested in this question, you have a lot of reading to do.  Try some philosophy, start with Descartes.  Cogito ergo sum - I think therefor I Add or something to that effect, my latin is a little rusty

Although Hobbes might've linked reason to subtraction and addition, cogito ergo sum means I think therefore I am. The proof is meant to show that all I can be sure of, that is to say absolutely certain of, is my own existence (that is, my soul - not even my own body.)

Jon, sorry my interpretation of Descartes was an attempt at humor.  Yes his phrase was an answer to the sceptics and metaphysicians who claimed that we cannot really be certain of anything, that our lives and everything around us could be all a dream or a fantasy, I guess they didn't see the Matrix.  My invocation of the phrase was an attempt to point out that self awareness is the starting point of rationality and that until animals are capable of this introspection that we must treat them as property.  A great hyothetical of this would be in science fiction, such as Star Trek, where other alien (to our planet - though by definition we would be alien to theirs also) species are treated as equal to humans, not property.  Interestingly, sci-fi is a great tool for philosophy.  As an aside, when reading any philosophy the reader will do well to continually ask himself "What question is he trying to answer?"  Most people make the mistake of instead asking "What is he trying to say?"  For example, Descartes was trying to answer the sceptics question, "what can we really be sure of?"  The sceptics answer was "nothing", while Descartes answer was "I have a mind, and can introspect, so I must exist".  Anyway. I'm done with this topic.  And btw I haven't read Hobbes yet, have you read Leviathan?

robdailey:

Jon, sorry my interpretation of Descartes was an attempt at humor.  Yes his phrase was an answer to the sceptics and metaphysicians who claimed that we cannot really be certain of anything, that our lives and everything around us could be all a dream or a fantasy, I guess they didn't see the Matrix.  My invocation of the phrase was an attempt to point out that self awareness is the starting point of rationality and that until animals are capable of this introspection that we must treat them as property.  A great hyothetical of this would be in science fiction, such as Star Trek, where other alien (to our planet - though by definition we would be alien to theirs also) species are treated as equal to humans, not property.  Interestingly, sci-fi is a great tool for philosophy.  As an aside, when reading any philosophy the reader will do well to continually ask himself "What question is he trying to answer?"  Most people make the mistake of instead asking "What is he trying to say?"  For example, Descartes was trying to answer the sceptics question, "what can we really be sure of?"  The sceptics answer was "nothing", while Descartes answer was "I have a mind, and can introspect, so I must exist".  Anyway. I'm done with this topic.  And btw I haven't read Hobbes yet, have you read Leviathan?

Can you prove that no non-human animals are capable of introspection? Further, can you prove that all people are? Why is introspection the definition of consiousness, and why is consciousness the criterion on which we base what is humane? If a creature can suffer, and acts to avoid its suffering, do we have a right to override its clear wishes. The fact is, most of the time, animals mind their own business, and are no more likely to violate your rights than another human. This is not based on an explicit agreement, but you don't have such an agreement with most people. It is in the interest of most beings to avoid conflict if possible.

JC, if animals have no consciousness, they don't suffer any more than a rock or a computer program.

Also, do you see no difference between assuming all humans have consciousness and assuming all lizards have consciousnes?

robdailey:

As far as children and the mentally handicaped go, I would assert that they are the property of the people who care for them, likely the parents.  And don't come back at me with the argument that, 'well what if the parent molests the child, or someone takes advantage of the handicaped' because that is to confuse law with moraity.  Hopefully even the lowliest of fools knows better than to try to legislate morality.

Like property rights, you mean? We wouldn't want to legislate your morality of property rights, right? All legislation is based on morality. And in case you haven't noticed, a large majority of people tend to think that we should "legislate morality" in regards to child molestation. Some of them, I dare say, may be "the lowliest of fools" but most are not. This is going into a tangent, but a child is a human just as its parent, just one that is dependent. Because it is the action of the parents that caused the dependency, they have gained not a human property but an obligation to a fellow human being to support them until their dependency ends, and they have no more right to abuse that human being than any other.

Congratulations, though. You are the predicted vile dehumanizer who says that, indeed, the law ought allow us to kill and eat children and the mentally handicapped, because you can do whatever you want with your property. Mayhap in your dotardy you shall enjoy the fruits of your philosophy.