After our last discussion, I reduced the amount of meat that I consume.
I'm really really happy to hear that. Every meal counts so thank you on behalf of those that didn't have to die for you.We cannot simply repeat slogans like "We must respect life!" We must ask difficult theoretical questions like "What is life?"
We're going of track and it feels like we're forgetting the point of the original post. To re-iterate, this thread is about exploring selective discrimination. This means taking into consideration the point of view of the victims we kill. If you did that and if you put yourself in the hoofs of an animal who's in the slaughter line, "We must respect life!" would not be a slogan for you. It sounds like a slogan to you because you're distanced from the victims. Are some forms of life more deserving of respect than others?"
I already answered this thoroughly before but here's a second or third attempt. For as long as you see nature structured in a pyramid of value you'll always discriminate against those "below" you. And I'm not just referring to animal rights. Not that long ago, in that same human made pyramid of value you're insisting on referring to there were slave owners, racists, sexists, Nazis, and every other type of discrimination of Humanity. If whales think this, then whales also have the correct anthropocentric view that the human species is the most powerful and important species on the planet. Human behaviour can determine if whales go extinct, the reverse is not true.
The whale example was to illustrate how we can't trust our own evaluation of greatness because we're obviously biased. But for the sake of a mental exercise let's entertain for a minute, that Humans are in fact the greatest, most powerful species on top of the the Universal pyramid of everything. Does that give us the right of subjugating everything "under" us? Or should we use our power responsibly to look after everything and everyone "under" us? The first way of thinking is how humans have been behaving so far and look at the world we've created. Plenty of animals are violently killed by other animals (even when not necessary for survival),
Can you give me any examples? I'm particularly interested in examples of this happening in the billions of victims.
but you recognize that only humans are capable of making thoughtful, ethical choices.|
Weather we choose to respecting all life or subjugate and kill everything for personal pleasure, how we treat those weaker than us is the greatest measurement of our character.
Okay, let's start over. This is from the top of the post: If you advocate against harming all animals, I become confused. Many of the phyla in the animal kingdom contain animals that are microscopic. Many of them have primitive or no nervous systems. If I destroy a stapler, I am not hurting anything. I think it is okay to "selectively discriminate" against my own stapler. I think it is okay to destroy microbes; I don't believe I am doing harm. Life is special, and I don't support destroying any form of life for no reason, but I have no problem with destroying something that does not suffer when the species is not threatened. Your idea about imagining ourselves in the place of an animal is a good one. It takes some imagination, but it does help me recognize that a cat or dog or pig is capable of suffering. I don't want to be a part of that suffering, which is why I have reduced the amount of meat that I consume. I can't imagine what it is like to be a worm any more than I can imagine being a stapler. A worm wiggles around if you poke it, but I doubt that it experiences suffering. We could investigate based on our understanding of consciousness and pain and look for evidence like nerve endings and cortisol levels. We might be uncertain, and like most things in life we will have to make decisions despite our uncertainty. For my part, I am comfortable eating a scallop, knowing that it does not have a brain. I am not sure at what point an animal becomes complex enough that I should worry about harming it. In particular, I am concerned about male chicks that are destroyed so their sisters can become egg-laying hens. I would like to know if selectively discriminating against these chicks is more like destroying a microbe or like harming a cow. When I ask you your opinion, you refuse to speak of anything except elephants. British house cats kill 275 million animals a year. A typical house cat kills between 30 and 40 animals yearly. The ten countries with the most pet cats have over 200 million cats. In those countries cats kill over six billion animals each year. The researchers who performed the study counted only dead animals "brought home" by domestic cats. Wildlife advocates are considerably interested in this issue.it feels like we're forgetting the point of the original post. To re-iterate, this thread is about exploring selective discrimination.
Why is it fine to advocate against harming some animals but not all?
Plenty of animals are violently killed by other animals (even when not necessary for survival)
Can you give me any examples? I'm particularly interested in examples of this happening in the billions of victims.
I noticed that elsewhere you made it pretty clear how you feel about the chicks, thanks. I admit I was exaggerating when I first mentioned "plenty" of animals that are killed by other animals without needing to for survival. Then when I researched the house cats I was surprised at how destructive they are. I see your animal welfare campaign as an effort to get Hubski users to behave in a morally superior way to pet cats. I don't enjoy seeing the fighting, but it's an important subject and you're the only one I see bringing regular attention to it. Like most everyone else, I have been talking about you and your language and not responding to your main point. But in this case, I think we are in pretty close agreement, though I do not live as consistently with the ideal as you do.I would like to know if selectively discriminating against these chicks is more like destroying a microbe or like harming a cow. When I ask you your opinion, you refuse to speak of anything except elephants.