7 ms·

The problem is most people do not have a rational basis for the differences in the behaviors you outlined. The reasoning generally rests completely on logical f

The problem is most people do not have a rational basis for the differences in the behaviors you outlined. The reasoning generally rests completely on logical fallacies.

simmerup 5y ago
It's very rational to want the treatment of humans to be held to a high standard when you yourself are a human.
- jbotz 5y ago
  But I am also a primate, mammal, vertebrate, animal, terran life-form. And going the other direction I am homo sapiens as opposed to neanderthal, caucasian, German, member of my specific family. Why draw a sharp line specifically at "human"..?
  - drew55555 5y ago
    Because humans are made in the image and likeness of God.
    - camjohnson26 5y ago
      It is true that without a foundation for human exceptionalism, like belief that humans were designed for a special purpose by a higher power, it becomes very difficult to answer ethical questions of why humans should be treated differently than other animals. The eugenics movement was strong in American institutions in the early 20th century.
    - tenpoundhammer 5y ago
      If your comment was some kind joke please disregard my comment. Sorry to see you getting down voted into the basement, I too am a devout theist. I don't think the nature of your argument being theistic is the primary reason you are getting down voted though. I think if you built a stronger set of arguments about why this matters and how it relates to humans deserving a better level of treatment than other animals your comment would fair better. A decent example might be something like, "As a Christian, I believe all humans are made in the image and likeness of God. This gives humans a special place in the order of the universe in Gods eyes and God asks us to respect that view in relation to how we treat other human beings. Giving humans a higher level of reverence than other animals. Being made in Gods likeness is also a reflection of the higher order cognitive, spiritual, and social faculties that humans share and other animals often don't display. Although we do see animals having some advanced emotions or social ordering we don't see them simultaneously containing all the high order functions that humanity does at once" I wrote Christian because I'm a Christian, you might be part of any religion or none. Something like the above comment might be more constructive in the future best wishes.
      - camjohnson26 5y ago
        The problem is that you’re approaching the discussion with a completely different philosophical framework than most people have, so they’ll latch on to specific things they disagree with in your example comment and dismiss the rest. For example your statement “I believe all humans are made in the likeness of God” will lead to “well I don’t”, and the discussion is over. I think it’s more effective to find the core issue of disagreement, which here seems to be whether or not ethics can exist without some kind of a moral authority. Christians have a tough time in public discussions these days, unfortunately because of some blunders in the past and poor arguments in the present.
        tenpoundhammer 5y ago
        I agree with all of your comment. However, I think many people presume the purpose of the HN comments section is to have a robust debate that helps the community arrive at some conclusion. I think there is a lot of value in comments that simply share a persons point of view. I would really enjoy hearing others perspectives outside of secular scientific/evolutionary viewpoint and christian viewpoint. Particularly it would be great to hear from people with hindu backgrounds as they often have a lot to say about our relationship with animals.
  - phamilton 5y ago
    > going the other direction Many do go in this other direction.
  - dllthomas 5y ago
    One reason is that we can communicate with (most) other humans to establish the shared boundary in a way we cannot (as reliably?) with other life. I make no particular claim here as to how this reason should be weighed against the various other reasons pulling in the various directions.
    - Falling3 5y ago
      How is that actually relevant though? Do your morals change when it comes to humans you cannot communicate with?
      - mvid 5y ago
        Historically, that seems pretty common
      - dllthomas 5y ago
        One of the things "morals" is is a negotiation with society about what should be construed as blameworthy. Potential participants in that negotiation may have different treatment without, as you said, it "rest[ing] completely on logical fallacies," which is why I brought it up. I am not saying this makes up the entirety of my moral system, and I am explicitly (here) saying that a naive application does not.
  - simmerup 5y ago
    Because humans that extract value from animals outcompete the humans that don't. It's in a humans best interest to believe the narrative that allows them to extract that value without moral uneasiness.
- StavrosK 5y ago
  If octopuses wanted to be treated humanely they would reply to this comment and say so!

The problem is most people do not have a rational basis for the differences in the behaviors you outlined. The reasoning generally rests completely on logical fallacies.

simmerup 5y ago

It's very rational to want the treatment of humans to be held to a high standard when you yourself are a human.

jbotz 5y ago
But I am also a primate, mammal, vertebrate, animal, terran life-form. And going the other direction I am homo sapiens as opposed to neanderthal, caucasian, German, member of my specific family. Why draw a sharp line specifically at "human"..?
- drew55555 5y ago
  Because humans are made in the image and likeness of God.
  - camjohnson26 5y ago
    It is true that without a foundation for human exceptionalism, like belief that humans were designed for a special purpose by a higher power, it becomes very difficult to answer ethical questions of why humans should be treated differently than other animals. The eugenics movement was strong in American institutions in the early 20th century.
  - tenpoundhammer 5y ago
    If your comment was some kind joke please disregard my comment. Sorry to see you getting down voted into the basement, I too am a devout theist. I don't think the nature of your argument being theistic is the primary reason you are getting down voted though. I think if you built a stronger set of arguments about why this matters and how it relates to humans deserving a better level of treatment than other animals your comment would fair better. A decent example might be something like, "As a Christian, I believe all humans are made in the image and likeness of God. This gives humans a special place in the order of the universe in Gods eyes and God asks us to respect that view in relation to how we treat other human beings. Giving humans a higher level of reverence than other animals. Being made in Gods likeness is also a reflection of the higher order cognitive, spiritual, and social faculties that humans share and other animals often don't display. Although we do see animals having some advanced emotions or social ordering we don't see them simultaneously containing all the high order functions that humanity does at once" I wrote Christian because I'm a Christian, you might be part of any religion or none. Something like the above comment might be more constructive in the future best wishes.
    - camjohnson26 5y ago
      The problem is that you’re approaching the discussion with a completely different philosophical framework than most people have, so they’ll latch on to specific things they disagree with in your example comment and dismiss the rest. For example your statement “I believe all humans are made in the likeness of God” will lead to “well I don’t”, and the discussion is over. I think it’s more effective to find the core issue of disagreement, which here seems to be whether or not ethics can exist without some kind of a moral authority. Christians have a tough time in public discussions these days, unfortunately because of some blunders in the past and poor arguments in the present.
      - tenpoundhammer 5y ago
        I agree with all of your comment. However, I think many people presume the purpose of the HN comments section is to have a robust debate that helps the community arrive at some conclusion. I think there is a lot of value in comments that simply share a persons point of view. I would really enjoy hearing others perspectives outside of secular scientific/evolutionary viewpoint and christian viewpoint. Particularly it would be great to hear from people with hindu backgrounds as they often have a lot to say about our relationship with animals.
- phamilton 5y ago
  > going the other direction Many do go in this other direction.
- dllthomas 5y ago
  One reason is that we can communicate with (most) other humans to establish the shared boundary in a way we cannot (as reliably?) with other life. I make no particular claim here as to how this reason should be weighed against the various other reasons pulling in the various directions.
  - Falling3 5y ago
    How is that actually relevant though? Do your morals change when it comes to humans you cannot communicate with?
    - mvid 5y ago
      Historically, that seems pretty common
    - dllthomas 5y ago
      One of the things "morals" is is a negotiation with society about what should be construed as blameworthy. Potential participants in that negotiation may have different treatment without, as you said, it "rest[ing] completely on logical fallacies," which is why I brought it up. I am not saying this makes up the entirety of my moral system, and I am explicitly (here) saying that a naive application does not.
- simmerup 5y ago
  Because humans that extract value from animals outcompete the humans that don't. It's in a humans best interest to believe the narrative that allows them to extract that value without moral uneasiness.
StavrosK 5y ago
If octopuses wanted to be treated humanely they would reply to this comment and say so!