4 ms·

So, there is animal rights, and animal welfare. I think one of the main problems for orcas is size. Creating an appropriately sized habitat for them would be a

by scoofy 11y ago

So, there is animal rights, and animal welfare. I think one of the main problems for orcas is size. Creating an appropriately sized habitat for them would be a gargantuan endeavor, however, if we could, i think a lot of us would be less vehemently opposed to keeping them in captivity. For pigs, this is entirely plausible. While i'm also very opposed to our current factory farming practices, since i'm fairly nihilistic about ending meat consumption for high functioning mammals in my lifetime, we could absolutely and trivially easily make their lives pleasant before slaughtering them for their delicious bacon. Yes, it would cause bacon to be more expensive, but it's definitely doable. This is simply impossible for orcas under the current paradigm. Even as someone who supports animal rights and welfare, i could see myself being okay with orcas in captivity, if we're talking about oceanic reservations, say, the size of Connecticut, but at that size, it'd be impossible for us to make them do tricks and crap that people go to sea world for.

asciimo 11y ago
It sounds like you support animal welfare, but not animal rights. I would expect someone who supports animal rights to not be OK with captivity for human gain.
- scoofy 11y ago
  This is why i pointed out that i was generally a nihilist on the subject. If we lived in a world in which the possibility that a ban on captivity for human gain could possibly exist, then it would be worth having that discussion. The fact is that we don't, and we very very probably won't within our lifetimes or our grandchildren's lifetime for that matter. To discuss the subject on those grounds seems counterproductive to me. I try to take a more game-theoretic approach. Support those that are doing more to change the culture of how we treat animals to minimize the harm that exists and will persist. This may even arguably go as far is purchasing potentially objectionable animal products from those that are trying to change the social norms of farming. The animal rights argument is perfectly good to have in the halls of academia, but in the world we live in, those of us who are good consequentialists may vastly differ in our approaches to how we should respond to the marketplace we live in to most effectively reduce the suffering that persists. It's also arguable that a diversity of approaches will be more effective due to the vast open-ended questions of how approaches will be accepted by the greater population. I for one think that convincing people that we should raise our "bacon" humanely will do vastly more for the reduction of suffering in the world than would telling people we should ban it because it's clearly immoral to consume.
noondip 11y ago
How would you feel if the moment you were born someone else had already planned the day of your execution?
- scoofy 11y ago
  This is such a sophomoric approach to ethics it hardly deserves a response. Animals are not humans. They are hardly likely to have the same capacity to suffer. Anthropomorphizing them is not a credible way to talk about the issue. At best they ought to be compared to a severely mentally disabled human. Still deserving of dignity, but hardly treated as equal.
  - noondip 11y ago
    Rather than conjecture, why not educate yourself with free films such as Earthlings (available on YouTube) to learn what the experience of others really is like? Edit: your assumption that animals' capacity to suffer and experience fear, pain and misery is dissimilar to ours is rooted in ignorance. If it's academic proof you're desperately after, a great jumping off point is by reading The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, signed by a prominent international group of cognitive neuroscientists, neuropharmacologists, neurophysiologists, neuroanatomists and computational neuroscientists gathered at The University of Cambridge in 2012. http://www.earthintransition.org/2012/07/scientists-declare-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious/ http://www.earthintransition.org/2012/07/scientists-declare-... http://www.livescience.com/39481-time-to-declare-animal-sentience.html http://www.livescience.com/39481-time-to-declare-animal-sent...
    - scoofy 11y ago
      I don't understand what this means. I'm a stanch advocate of animal welfare and rights. I think factory farms are absurdly ludicrously immoral. I think that the vast majority of ways we currently raise our mammals and birds is absurdly immoral. Why would watching an animal rights advocacy film help. I was simply objecting to your anthropomorphizing of the way our fellow mammals perceive the world. It's a ludicrous position to take in a serious conversation about ethics. Physical capacity to suffer is one thing, and it's not difficult to argue that mammals suffer similar to the way we do physically, but asking "how I would feel," as though their conscious experience with regards to knowledge of mortality would be similar to ours is speaking nonsense. Furthermore, pointing to an advocacy documentary film to assert a position that even our best academic researchers have little if any way of speaking to seems flippant.

by scoofy 11y ago

asciimo 11y ago

It sounds like you support animal welfare, but not animal rights. I would expect someone who supports animal rights to not be OK with captivity for human gain.

scoofy 11y ago
This is why i pointed out that i was generally a nihilist on the subject. If we lived in a world in which the possibility that a ban on captivity for human gain could possibly exist, then it would be worth having that discussion. The fact is that we don't, and we very very probably won't within our lifetimes or our grandchildren's lifetime for that matter. To discuss the subject on those grounds seems counterproductive to me. I try to take a more game-theoretic approach. Support those that are doing more to change the culture of how we treat animals to minimize the harm that exists and will persist. This may even arguably go as far is purchasing potentially objectionable animal products from those that are trying to change the social norms of farming. The animal rights argument is perfectly good to have in the halls of academia, but in the world we live in, those of us who are good consequentialists may vastly differ in our approaches to how we should respond to the marketplace we live in to most effectively reduce the suffering that persists. It's also arguable that a diversity of approaches will be more effective due to the vast open-ended questions of how approaches will be accepted by the greater population. I for one think that convincing people that we should raise our "bacon" humanely will do vastly more for the reduction of suffering in the world than would telling people we should ban it because it's clearly immoral to consume.

noondip 11y ago

How would you feel if the moment you were born someone else had already planned the day of your execution?

scoofy 11y ago
This is such a sophomoric approach to ethics it hardly deserves a response. Animals are not humans. They are hardly likely to have the same capacity to suffer. Anthropomorphizing them is not a credible way to talk about the issue. At best they ought to be compared to a severely mentally disabled human. Still deserving of dignity, but hardly treated as equal.
- noondip 11y ago
  Rather than conjecture, why not educate yourself with free films such as Earthlings (available on YouTube) to learn what the experience of others really is like? Edit: your assumption that animals' capacity to suffer and experience fear, pain and misery is dissimilar to ours is rooted in ignorance. If it's academic proof you're desperately after, a great jumping off point is by reading The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, signed by a prominent international group of cognitive neuroscientists, neuropharmacologists, neurophysiologists, neuroanatomists and computational neuroscientists gathered at The University of Cambridge in 2012. http://www.earthintransition.org/2012/07/scientists-declare-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious/ http://www.earthintransition.org/2012/07/scientists-declare-... http://www.livescience.com/39481-time-to-declare-animal-sentience.html http://www.livescience.com/39481-time-to-declare-animal-sent...
  - scoofy 11y ago
    I don't understand what this means. I'm a stanch advocate of animal welfare and rights. I think factory farms are absurdly ludicrously immoral. I think that the vast majority of ways we currently raise our mammals and birds is absurdly immoral. Why would watching an animal rights advocacy film help. I was simply objecting to your anthropomorphizing of the way our fellow mammals perceive the world. It's a ludicrous position to take in a serious conversation about ethics. Physical capacity to suffer is one thing, and it's not difficult to argue that mammals suffer similar to the way we do physically, but asking "how I would feel," as though their conscious experience with regards to knowledge of mortality would be similar to ours is speaking nonsense. Furthermore, pointing to an advocacy documentary film to assert a position that even our best academic researchers have little if any way of speaking to seems flippant.