I think what we've got here is a failure to communicate.

I've stated my philosophical position, arrived at after years of studying the philosophy of animal rights and reading books by people like Peter Singer, and which has led me to believe wholeheartedly that all sentient beings have a right to life, and that it is wrong to exploit them.

The vast, overwhelming majority of people on this planet disagree with this philosophy and, since the majority rules, this is how the world will continue to operate.

I express my anger and frustration with the status quo in these discussions - and nowhere else.  In 'real' life, I'm a funny person who tells jokes, loves classical music, plays piano, enjoys the company of my family, pets rescued cats, and likes to take walks.

To quote Sartre: We are our choices.

Jul 13, 2012 -- 7:54PM, solfeggio wrote:

I think what we've got here is a failure to communicate.

Words pass back and forth, but there is a failure to comprehend the importance of concepts like, culpability when clearly there is needless suffering of animals on this planet, not to mention the political leaders of the planet not being accountable for suffering humanity (why?) because exploitation and bank accounts are more important than coming to agreement of a higher way, a higher planet.  The majority of people on this planet rationalize because they are stuck with dishonest leaders and are prevented from doing what is right because of overwhelming obstacles in the way.  There are really smart people on this planet who have cared enough to lift the covers, see what others miss, and through personal work every waking hour, they eventually bring change for the better.  

Jul 13, 2012 -- 1:15PM, NATAS wrote:

 

Jul 12, 2012 -- 3:20PM, NATAS wrote:

What can't be questioned is that all living beings have an equal right to live and that any murder or other expolitation is a cruel exploitation of any species committed by specists.    

What also can't be questioned is that when other species exploit another species the cannot be called cruel because their morality-ethics is either different or non-existent. 

Ironically, you just laid out the fatal flaw of self-contradiction with the "specists" concept.

What is the fatal flaw of self-contradiction that I laid out?  

Do you agree that human beings are a different species of animals?  

Do you agree that human beings have a different morality than other species?  

Do you agree that other species of animals cannot be judged by the values and morality of the human species?    

Do you agree that different human beings have different moral value?  

The difference between human beings and other beings-species of animals is that they don't have different values or morality within their species.  

For instance all lions have the same morality.  There is no debate or question that eating a waterbufflo alive is "immoral" or that eating a baby gazelle is "murder" or expoltation.  

Human morality is different because humans are different, they have a more complex morality and within the human species there is a question of wether or not killing=murder.  

I don't think that human beings ever "murder" another species.  

They may kill another animal for no reason and I would think it is immoral.   If I kill a python and leave it to rot then I would consider that to be inhumane-immoral because to be human means to use reason.  

However if I kill a python to eat it I am doing it for a reason.  Of course some humans would disagree that it was a good and sufficent reason and some would agree it was a good and sufficent reason.  

I would reason that wether or not I kill a python would depend on the situation. It would be situational based morality.   

I would certainly kill a python in self-defense or if I was hungry.  

I would not kill a python to turn its skin into a pair of boots unless I had a reason.   Wether it is a "good" reason or a "bad" reason depends on what you cosider to be good or bad.   

Jul 13, 2012 -- 1:39PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I think biologically, humans are animals. Intellectually and spiritually, something else entirely. 

I agree that humans are biologically different from other species of animals, but all species of animals are different from each other.  Due to there biology they have different brains, due to their brains they have different intellects. 

Each species has the brain-intellect that is necessary for them to survive.   

As for "spirituality" , I know that humans have something called "spirituality".  

The human species is the only  species of animals that I know of, that has "spirituality-religion."

Jul 13, 2012 -- 1:39PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The contradiction would be, IF one thinks humans are merely an animal species, no better or worse than any other, than one has no grounds upon which to object to humans doing what all animals do. And all animals exploit and/or kill other animals for thier own ends or gain. 

But I do think humans are  "only" a species of animals. 

Jul 13, 2012 -- 1:39PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

However, that does not seem to be the position you take,  and I agree with just about everything else you say here.

No, we don't "murder" animals. "Homocide" means killing one's own kind. {/quote]

Homocide is when humans cause the death of other humans.  

With humans not all homocide is murder.  Not all killing=murder.  

 

We kill animals for various reasons. Some justified, some not. 

Jul 13, 2012 -- 1:39PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I too, object to the killing of a python for commercial profit, just to make a fashion statement

But do you object to the "murder" of  pythons for just for commericial profit or just to make a fashion statement. 

I would not buy the skin of a python, or eat python meat.   

However I do not object to others doing so, unless it endangers the species of pythons.  

So you think it is okay to murder pythons, eat their meat and use their skin because they are a "non-native" species.  

I could see that as being a good reason.

However someone else may see that as just an excuse for cruelty, explotitation  and "pythonicide".   

That is "merely"  a "rationalization"  to commit the murder of pythons for vapid, vain, empty headed fashionistas like the Kardashians who have not read books by Pete Seegar, or even if they did wold not understand them.    

Jul 21, 2012 -- 10:58AM, christine3 wrote:

NATAS: What also can't be questioned is that when other species exploit another species the cannot be called cruel because their morality-ethics is either different or non-existent.

I agree. 

However it could be reasoned-rationlized"  that it doesn't matter because wether different or non-existent all species of animals have an EQUAL RIGHT TO LIFE. 

Jul 21, 2012 -- 10:58AM, christine3 wrote:

 

I don't understand.  You are saying that nobody is accountable.  People are let off the hook because their morality-ethics is different or non-existent? 

I am not saying that there are people that have non-existent ethical-moral codes, or a least very few people.   

What I am saying is the the vast majority of people do have ethical-moral codes. 

That they have different moral-ethical codes with regards to animals.   

Wether they are "let off the hook" depends on the moral-ethical codes.  

I would bet more than a dollor that Solf does not think that anyone is "let off the hook".   

Jul 21, 2012 -- 11:43AM, NATAS wrote:

I am not saying that there are people that have non-existent ethical-moral codes, or a least very few people.  

What I am saying is the the vast majority of people do have ethical-moral codes.

That they have different moral-ethical codes with regards to animals.  

Jul 21, 2012 -- 3:39PM, christine3 wrote:

I get you now.  How about this idea to change peoples' ethical-moral codes with regards to animals.

But what are the new ethical-moral codes going to be?

Who is it going that is going to decide on what those moral-ethical codes are going to be?

Jul 21, 2012 -- 3:39PM, christine3 wrote:

We have come from a very hard time the last 10,000 years.  Now that life has become more predictable and not a struggle to stay alive, perhaps our feelings towards and treatment of animals can be different.

I would agree that life is not as hard as it was in the last 200,000 years, or the last 10,000 years or the last 5,000 years, or even the last 100 years. 

And perhaps our feelings towards animals should be changed.

However the problem remains, what should be the changes and who is going to decide what those changes should be?

Jul 21, 2012 -- 3:39PM, christine3 wrote:

They may not have to suffer so much now?

But they shouldn't suffer at all according to Solf.

if we can keep life, our human species, healthy and going without the amount of trouble and danger there was before?

But CAN we keep life, our human species, healthy and going without the amount of trouble and danger there was before?

And HOW can keep life, our human species, healthy and going without the amount of trouble and danger there was before?

But what are the new ethical-moral codes going to be?

Who is it going that is going to decide on what those moral-ethical codes are going to be?

I would agree that life is not as hard as it was in the last 200,000 years, or the last 10,000 years or the last 5,000 years, or even the last 100 years. 

And perhaps our feelings towards animals should be changed.

However the problem remains, what should be the changes and who is going to decide what those changes should be?

But they shouldn't suffer at all according to Solf.

if we can keep life, our human species, healthy and going without the amount of trouble and danger there was before?