XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.sci.sociology, alt.stupidity   
      
   On 11 Jan 2007 15:05:58 -0800, "Rupert"  wrote:   
      
   >Dutch wrote:   
   >> "Rupert"  wrote in message   
   >> news:1168511258.986591.231980@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...   
   >> >   
   >> > Dutch wrote:   
   >> >> "Rupert"  wrote   
   >> >>   
   >> >> >     They do it on animals to avoid doing it to humans, because most of   
   >> >> > us   
   >> >> > hold human interests above those of animals.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> Yes, and the point at issue is what is the justification for that? We   
   >> >> used to hold the interests of white people above those of black people.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> The justification is self-interest. The same reason that we farm with   
   >> >> massive machines and chemicals, because it makes our lives easier. We   
   >> >> don't   
   >> >> believe that the analogy of animals vs humans and whites vs blacks or men   
   >> >> vs   
   >> >> women holds water. That was political liberation, animals are apolitical   
   >> >> creatures.   
   >> >   
   >> > Well, in what sense are they apolitical creatures?   
   >>   
   >> In the sense that they are fundamentally incapable of it.   
   >>   
   >> They can't   
   >> > participate in political systems, but neither can lots of humans whose   
   >> > interests we champion as political causes.   
   >>   
   >> Not due to their essential nature.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Yes, due to their essential nature. The distinction you are trying to   
   >make is imaginary.   
   >   
   >>  They are affected by   
   >> > political decisions. This argument smacks of "might makes right".   
   >>   
   >> Every living creature operates by the principle of self-interest, we're no   
   >> different.   
   >   
   >Our self-interest is tempered by moral considerations.   
      
       Consideration is what it's all about. We *should* consider the lives   
   and deaths of everything, but we sure don't. Some people will insist   
   we shouldn't consider the lives of *any* animals. Others will allow   
   consideration of wildlife, but not of domestic animals...or of pets   
   but not livestock or experimental animals... Many don't even consider   
   it at all directly. So we see that people in general don't care about   
   the lives of the animals, while at the same time humans are having   
   greater and greater influence on them. Some people promote the   
   lives of wildlife directly and try to prevent extinctions, but even   
   that isn't out of consideration for the animals. Even so the lives   
   that come into being are the most significant thing for the animals   
   involved, so if we're going to consider the ethics of human influence   
   on animals it should be obvious that we need to give some thought   
   to the most significant aspect to *them*. We have more ability to   
   provide decent quality lives and humane deaths for domestic animals   
   than for wildlife. We're also having greater influence over which   
   wildlife live where. It's all getting to be pretty much the same thing.   
      
       From a personal interest position we need to be the ones who   
   decide what survives where, or something else will decide. Some   
   diseases are like that. Wolves would eventually have a great deal   
   to do with it if we just let things go. Other things would destroy   
   crops and livestock. "ar" would wreck civilization as we know it,   
   causing a great deal of starvation largely because of rodents and   
   birds, accompanied by disease.   
      
   > (That is true to some extent in some nonhuman animals as well).   
      
       What did you have in mind, if anything?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)