4 ms·

Every time I advocate for animal rights on this forum, it's met with downvotes and people huffing and puffing about the benefit to humanity and science. Your a

Every time I advocate for animal rights on this forum, it's met with downvotes and people huffing and puffing about the benefit to humanity and science. Your argument is sound...flies are animals. They have exoskeletons, six legs, and compound eyes but they are animals nonetheless. However, our cultural "worth" of flies is much lower than that of dogs, so even people who supposedly value logic above all else would rather scoff and silently disagree than challenge their own shaky belief system. Granted, if a few dead caterpillars can cure our accumulating trash problem, that's a tradeoff I am ok with.

alwaysdoit 10y ago
Does the animal's lifespan matter? Intuitively it seems like killing something that will only live for a few days or weeks at most matters less. So I'm not sure it's all due to "cultural worth" (though I don't disagree that's part of it).
- orthecreedence 10y ago
  Yeah, I've thought about that too, actually. And certainly, I feel better about killing any animal that I perceived to have had a "full life" (dogs included). I tend to think that lifetimes are measured in lifetimes (relative scale) by various animals. So where a fly might live four of our weeks, to that fly, perhaps it was perceived as a good 60 years time if it was on our scale. So to me, lifespan doesn't factor into it too much, although perhaps you're right that that is another piece of data used by people to measure an animal's "worth."
killin_dan 10y ago
Hey whatup cl-async guy! I'd liked to add that there are aspects of mutualism underlying how much we value dogs. We used to hunt alongside dogs, there exists a special bond between man and dog that does not exist between any other species, to my knowledge. They know our emotions, our smells, our noises, our physiological needs, they are even aware of fragility of our bodies compared to other animals. Dogs are pretty amazing
- orthecreedence 10y ago
  I agree, I love dogs. You wouldn't know it from my comments, but I actually like them more than flies ;). I think you're right, dogs' historical utility along with their near human-like qualities have brought them much further along on the scale of "things that are not ok to kill" (towards humans). So perhaps there's a point when an animal becomes similar enough to us that we start viewing it as "one of us." This isn't just cultural, as you point out, but a sort of shared viewpoint of the world. I'm also curious if size in general has something to do with it. Small animals have less value because we're perceiving killing "less of" something. Most people wouldn't think twice about killing a fly (myself included if it's a deer/horse fly) but would feel bad if they killed a bear that was attacking them, or even stepped on a lizard by accident. So maybe dogs are a bad example (granted, I inherited the argument from a post up the tree from me), but I still think there's a cultural worth put on various animals. Funny enough, I was in a catholic school when I was in third grade (9 years old?). I'm not catholic, and wasn't then, so I was always a bit suspicious. One of the teachers was talking about how there's a hierarchy to life. Rocks are at the bottom, then come plants, then animals, then humans, and angels/god on top. I remember, even then, thinking "without rocks, none of this would exist. without plants, no animals/humans could live, and without animals humans would die out." In other words, although we put ourselves at the top of the pyramid (of physical beings), the rest of the world would be just fine if humans disappeared tomorrow. Our existence has no meaning beyond our ability to evolve into better life forms. The point being, we have these odd social ratings for the value of other animals' lives, yet in many respects, our lives are almost worthless with respect the rest of the life on the planet. Our lives have value to us, but in essence we live in a bit of a bubble of self-importance.
ajross 10y ago
Going further: if a few dead dogs were the price of some significant increase in human welfare (something more than bag recycling, I guess), I think most people would be OK with that. This is exactly the trade we make in the pharmaceutical industry every day (not with so many dogs per se, but with organisms at least as complex, cute and fuzzy). I don't see much evidence for a "shaky belief system". Or maybe you're making a specific point about dogs, given that they were bred specifically to "feel like people" to us? Meh. I'm a cat guy.
- Falling3 10y ago
  Humans are not rational. It takes a lot of thought and discipline to attempt to come up with a coherent belief system and align your actions with it.
greenshackle2 10y ago
Do you have a fully-coherent, logical system for deciding which lives to care about, and how much? I'd be interested to hear. 'Animals' is not a natural kind. There's no logical reason to care about all animals just because they are animals. I care about dogs, pigs, other people, etc. not because they're 'animals', but because I think they are plausibly conscious (to varying degrees) and they can experience joy and suffering. Insects, not so much. I'm unwilling to care any nonzero amount about insects. Here is why. There are something like a billion billion insects in the world. Given their short lifetimes, it means dozens of billions of billions are born and die each year. Wild insect lives are mostly short and brutal. If you care at all about an insect's life, that tiny amount multiplied by dozens of billion billions means your moral concern for insects should pretty much swamp out any other concern. You'd have to select how much you care about each insect life with suspicious precision for the sum total to be significantly different from zero, but less than how much you care about human and dog lives. So to be coherent, you have to either not care at all about insects, or your first priority in life should be to help insects. I, uh, choose not to care. (Some people seriously care though. See: http://reducing-suffering.org/the-importance-of-insect-suffering http://reducing-suffering.org/the-importance-of-insect-suffe...)
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  The utilitarian in me chooses to attach value to insects according to how I perceive their value in the ecosystem. Bees, bumblebees, spiders etc. are useful, so I don't kill those. Houseflies, gnats, ticks, mosquitoes on the other hand, I have zero problems killing when they annoy me.
  - Zancarius 10y ago
    Same here. I avoid killing certain invertebrates on a pragmatic basis rather than one of morality. I'll happily ignore or relocate certain species of spiders simply because they'll keep the things I don't like in check while killing others that present a danger to myself or pets around the house (black widows). On the other hand, if you live in an area that's bordered by vast swaths of forest, it quickly becomes impractical to avoid having the occasional creepy-crawly get inside somewhere, and you soon learn that it's best to live and let live. That's how I was taught, at any rate. Now, humorously, having had "pet" mantids before is a great way to eliminate nuisance insects around the house somewhat autonomously. Although it doesn't always quite work the way you may intend (they'll self-relocate or sometimes lose interest in prey items). ;)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

alwaysdoit 10y ago

Does the animal's lifespan matter? Intuitively it seems like killing something that will only live for a few days or weeks at most matters less. So I'm not sure it's all due to "cultural worth" (though I don't disagree that's part of it).

orthecreedence 10y ago
Yeah, I've thought about that too, actually. And certainly, I feel better about killing any animal that I perceived to have had a "full life" (dogs included). I tend to think that lifetimes are measured in lifetimes (relative scale) by various animals. So where a fly might live four of our weeks, to that fly, perhaps it was perceived as a good 60 years time if it was on our scale. So to me, lifespan doesn't factor into it too much, although perhaps you're right that that is another piece of data used by people to measure an animal's "worth."

killin_dan 10y ago

Hey whatup cl-async guy! I'd liked to add that there are aspects of mutualism underlying how much we value dogs. We used to hunt alongside dogs, there exists a special bond between man and dog that does not exist between any other species, to my knowledge. They know our emotions, our smells, our noises, our physiological needs, they are even aware of fragility of our bodies compared to other animals. Dogs are pretty amazing

orthecreedence 10y ago
I agree, I love dogs. You wouldn't know it from my comments, but I actually like them more than flies ;). I think you're right, dogs' historical utility along with their near human-like qualities have brought them much further along on the scale of "things that are not ok to kill" (towards humans). So perhaps there's a point when an animal becomes similar enough to us that we start viewing it as "one of us." This isn't just cultural, as you point out, but a sort of shared viewpoint of the world. I'm also curious if size in general has something to do with it. Small animals have less value because we're perceiving killing "less of" something. Most people wouldn't think twice about killing a fly (myself included if it's a deer/horse fly) but would feel bad if they killed a bear that was attacking them, or even stepped on a lizard by accident. So maybe dogs are a bad example (granted, I inherited the argument from a post up the tree from me), but I still think there's a cultural worth put on various animals. Funny enough, I was in a catholic school when I was in third grade (9 years old?). I'm not catholic, and wasn't then, so I was always a bit suspicious. One of the teachers was talking about how there's a hierarchy to life. Rocks are at the bottom, then come plants, then animals, then humans, and angels/god on top. I remember, even then, thinking "without rocks, none of this would exist. without plants, no animals/humans could live, and without animals humans would die out." In other words, although we put ourselves at the top of the pyramid (of physical beings), the rest of the world would be just fine if humans disappeared tomorrow. Our existence has no meaning beyond our ability to evolve into better life forms. The point being, we have these odd social ratings for the value of other animals' lives, yet in many respects, our lives are almost worthless with respect the rest of the life on the planet. Our lives have value to us, but in essence we live in a bit of a bubble of self-importance.

ajross 10y ago

Going further: if a few dead dogs were the price of some significant increase in human welfare (something more than bag recycling, I guess), I think most people would be OK with that. This is exactly the trade we make in the pharmaceutical industry every day (not with so many dogs per se, but with organisms at least as complex, cute and fuzzy). I don't see much evidence for a "shaky belief system". Or maybe you're making a specific point about dogs, given that they were bred specifically to "feel like people" to us? Meh. I'm a cat guy.

Falling3 10y ago
Humans are not rational. It takes a lot of thought and discipline to attempt to come up with a coherent belief system and align your actions with it.

greenshackle2 10y ago

Do you have a fully-coherent, logical system for deciding which lives to care about, and how much? I'd be interested to hear. 'Animals' is not a natural kind. There's no logical reason to care about all animals just because they are animals. I care about dogs, pigs, other people, etc. not because they're 'animals', but because I think they are plausibly conscious (to varying degrees) and they can experience joy and suffering. Insects, not so much. I'm unwilling to care any nonzero amount about insects. Here is why. There are something like a billion billion insects in the world. Given their short lifetimes, it means dozens of billions of billions are born and die each year. Wild insect lives are mostly short and brutal. If you care at all about an insect's life, that tiny amount multiplied by dozens of billion billions means your moral concern for insects should pretty much swamp out any other concern. You'd have to select how much you care about each insect life with suspicious precision for the sum total to be significantly different from zero, but less than how much you care about human and dog lives. So to be coherent, you have to either not care at all about insects, or your first priority in life should be to help insects. I, uh, choose not to care. (Some people seriously care though. See: http://reducing-suffering.org/the-importance-of-insect-suffering http://reducing-suffering.org/the-importance-of-insect-suffe...)

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
The utilitarian in me chooses to attach value to insects according to how I perceive their value in the ecosystem. Bees, bumblebees, spiders etc. are useful, so I don't kill those. Houseflies, gnats, ticks, mosquitoes on the other hand, I have zero problems killing when they annoy me.
- Zancarius 10y ago
  Same here. I avoid killing certain invertebrates on a pragmatic basis rather than one of morality. I'll happily ignore or relocate certain species of spiders simply because they'll keep the things I don't like in check while killing others that present a danger to myself or pets around the house (black widows). On the other hand, if you live in an area that's bordered by vast swaths of forest, it quickly becomes impractical to avoid having the occasional creepy-crawly get inside somewhere, and you soon learn that it's best to live and let live. That's how I was taught, at any rate. Now, humorously, having had "pet" mantids before is a great way to eliminate nuisance insects around the house somewhat autonomously. Although it doesn't always quite work the way you may intend (they'll self-relocate or sometimes lose interest in prey items). ;)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]