4 ms·

Rubbish. By this logic, we can just say that we shouldn't upset the "balance" of the slave owners -- they were able to to "maintain the balance needed to mainta

by yboris 5y ago

Rubbish. By this logic, we can just say that we shouldn't upset the "balance" of the slave owners -- they were able to to "maintain the balance needed to maintain the ecosystem that it is a part of".

m12k 5y ago
Um, no. Humans do have morality, and can and should apply it to one another - and can expect and even demand the same in return from others. We can't do that with nature, and nature does not need or want that in return from us. Humans are both animals, that need to fit into an ecosystem, and social creatures, that need to fit into a society. Both domains require rules for how we interact with and fit into them, but those rules are not the same.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  So are you saying humans are super-natural?
  - m12k 5y ago
    What on earth makes you think that? No, I don't think humans are super-natural. But in addition to being creatures sprung from nature, we are also something else (indeed, the very definition of something being anything other than natural, i.e. cultural or artificial, is that humans have had a hand in its creation).
    - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
      > in addition to being creatures sprung from nature, we are also something else Super-natural: More than natural. You are literally saying humans are supernatural (using the Latin prefix 'super-' meaning "in addition to" [1]). [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/super#Latin https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/super#Latin
- troyvit 5y ago
  I think the only flaw there is that our morality came from nature and therefore is one of the things we use to fit into our ecosystem. There's nothing to say we shouldn't apply it to other members of the system. If nature didn't "want" that we wouldn't be capable of doing it. Given how far up the food chain we are it could be argued that our morality exists precisely for this purpose.
tenebrisalietum 5y ago
Attention: Downvoting me? You should respond instead or at least additionally. I don't care if my points go to 0. Don't turn this place into a Reddit hivemind. This appears to be your logic: It's OK if we destroy our planet with global warming and create conditions where a good percentage of humanity could be harmed because portions of humanity have previously created harm and exploited others throughout history. This seems like "two wrongs make a right". The end result won't be a right.
cheese_goddess 5y ago
Slaves were (are!) humans. Slavery has nothing to do with killing or not killing non-human animals, because it doesn't affect non-human animals, it affects other humans. There is just no sensible comparison that can be drawn between what we do to other animals and what we do to other humans and once more I'm struck by the surrealism of the positions taken in this kind of conversation. It's as if the obvious has to be stated at every turn: non-human animals are not human. Humans are human. We live in a civilisation built by humans, for humans, that only makes any sense (in asmuch as it does) to humans, not to other animals and it makes no sense to try and treat non-human animals as humans, any more than it makes sense to try and treat humans as non-human animals.
- yboris 5y ago
  You are perhaps misunderstanding what animal welfare advocates are up to. No one wants to give animals the right to vote. We don't want to treat animals as humans in every respect. We just don't want, for example, for animals to be considered property (meaning anyone can abuse the shit out of an animal with no repercussions). Reflect on this yourself, do you think it should be permissible, in our modern society, to buy a dog in a store, lock it up in the basement, and beat it to death over the course of several weeks?
  - cheese_goddess 5y ago
    Wow, that escalated quickly: from buying a dog to locking him or her in a basement and beating him or her to death over weeks... Can I think that one of those things is permissible, but not the others, or do they necessarily come in a package? And I don't understand what you mean that if animals are considered property "anyone can abuse the shit out of an animal with no repercussions". There are laws against this in many places around the world -animal cruelty laws. In most jurisdictions where there are laws against animal cruelty, laws also consider animals as property, so it's clear that both can work together. > You are perhaps misunderstanding what animal welfare advocates are up to. I don't. It's the animal rights advocates that are confused about what is meant by "rights". Animals have no concept of rights, theirs or others, so it's only humans that can choose what animal rights laws should exist. But those are not really animal rights, they're human rights: rights that humans have, or don't have, to behave towards animals in certain ways. For example, I have no right to abuse an animal (and that's as it should be) but that is not a right that an animal has, it's a right that I don't (as I shouldn't). Rights only make sense as laws of human socieities, but how are animals part of human societies? How can they participate in human societies, if they can't own property, vote, work to support themselves, etc? The absurdity that is obvious in granting animals such rights, that they can't even understand, let alone benefit from, makes it clear why the entire idea of "animal rights" is absurd. Legislation to protect animals is welcome and much more of its kind is needed, but "rights"? That's "nonsense on stilts".

by yboris 5y ago

Rubbish. By this logic, we can just say that we shouldn't upset the "balance" of the slave owners -- they were able to to "maintain the balance needed to maintain the ecosystem that it is a part of".

m12k 5y ago

Um, no. Humans do have morality, and can and should apply it to one another - and can expect and even demand the same in return from others. We can't do that with nature, and nature does not need or want that in return from us. Humans are both animals, that need to fit into an ecosystem, and social creatures, that need to fit into a society. Both domains require rules for how we interact with and fit into them, but those rules are not the same.

hypertele-Xii 5y ago
So are you saying humans are super-natural?
- m12k 5y ago
  What on earth makes you think that? No, I don't think humans are super-natural. But in addition to being creatures sprung from nature, we are also something else (indeed, the very definition of something being anything other than natural, i.e. cultural or artificial, is that humans have had a hand in its creation).
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    > in addition to being creatures sprung from nature, we are also something else Super-natural: More than natural. You are literally saying humans are supernatural (using the Latin prefix 'super-' meaning "in addition to" [1]). [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/super#Latin https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/super#Latin
troyvit 5y ago
I think the only flaw there is that our morality came from nature and therefore is one of the things we use to fit into our ecosystem. There's nothing to say we shouldn't apply it to other members of the system. If nature didn't "want" that we wouldn't be capable of doing it. Given how far up the food chain we are it could be argued that our morality exists precisely for this purpose.

tenebrisalietum 5y ago

Attention: Downvoting me? You should respond instead or at least additionally. I don't care if my points go to 0. Don't turn this place into a Reddit hivemind. This appears to be your logic: It's OK if we destroy our planet with global warming and create conditions where a good percentage of humanity could be harmed because portions of humanity have previously created harm and exploited others throughout history. This seems like "two wrongs make a right". The end result won't be a right.

cheese_goddess 5y ago

Slaves were (are!) humans. Slavery has nothing to do with killing or not killing non-human animals, because it doesn't affect non-human animals, it affects other humans. There is just no sensible comparison that can be drawn between what we do to other animals and what we do to other humans and once more I'm struck by the surrealism of the positions taken in this kind of conversation. It's as if the obvious has to be stated at every turn: non-human animals are not human. Humans are human. We live in a civilisation built by humans, for humans, that only makes any sense (in asmuch as it does) to humans, not to other animals and it makes no sense to try and treat non-human animals as humans, any more than it makes sense to try and treat humans as non-human animals.

yboris 5y ago
You are perhaps misunderstanding what animal welfare advocates are up to. No one wants to give animals the right to vote. We don't want to treat animals as humans in every respect. We just don't want, for example, for animals to be considered property (meaning anyone can abuse the shit out of an animal with no repercussions). Reflect on this yourself, do you think it should be permissible, in our modern society, to buy a dog in a store, lock it up in the basement, and beat it to death over the course of several weeks?
- cheese_goddess 5y ago
  Wow, that escalated quickly: from buying a dog to locking him or her in a basement and beating him or her to death over weeks... Can I think that one of those things is permissible, but not the others, or do they necessarily come in a package? And I don't understand what you mean that if animals are considered property "anyone can abuse the shit out of an animal with no repercussions". There are laws against this in many places around the world -animal cruelty laws. In most jurisdictions where there are laws against animal cruelty, laws also consider animals as property, so it's clear that both can work together. > You are perhaps misunderstanding what animal welfare advocates are up to. I don't. It's the animal rights advocates that are confused about what is meant by "rights". Animals have no concept of rights, theirs or others, so it's only humans that can choose what animal rights laws should exist. But those are not really animal rights, they're human rights: rights that humans have, or don't have, to behave towards animals in certain ways. For example, I have no right to abuse an animal (and that's as it should be) but that is not a right that an animal has, it's a right that I don't (as I shouldn't). Rights only make sense as laws of human socieities, but how are animals part of human societies? How can they participate in human societies, if they can't own property, vote, work to support themselves, etc? The absurdity that is obvious in granting animals such rights, that they can't even understand, let alone benefit from, makes it clear why the entire idea of "animal rights" is absurd. Legislation to protect animals is welcome and much more of its kind is needed, but "rights"? That's "nonsense on stilts".