Animal protection is the most noble cause

Discussions that deal with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: How should one live? What is right (or wrong) to do? What is the best way for humans to live?

Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby kaichen1125 on January 16th, 2019, 1:30 am 

I have got empathy for animals since I was a child. When I was growing up, my faith and values changed several times, but my love and empathy for animals never changed. Now I already know that animal protection is the most noble cause.

Below is a brief summary of my animal protection principles.


We must protect animals.

Like human beings, animals have consciousness and feeling, and can experience suffering and happiness.

No one wants suffering, and neither do animals. This is a sufficient reason to protect animals.

We do not advocate "protecting plants".

Plants do not have brain or nerve, so they never have any consciousness or feeling at all.

Therefore, in terms of morality, it is not necessary to protect plants.

We do not advocate "protecting mosquitoes".

Vertebrate animals, especially mammals and birds, have developed advanced nervous systems, therefore having strong feeling and consciousness.

However, most invertebrates, such as insects, only have a very simple nervous system, which means that their feeling and consciousness are very weak.

We must not kill animals, even though animals keep killing each other.

If a child who is three or four years old killed a man, you cannot condemn the child, because it knows nothing. Similarly, animals should not be condemned for killing others, because animals have low intelligence and cannot understand that their behaviors bring suffering to other individuals. In fact, many animals have the same intelligence level as a child.

However, adult humans' intelligence is high enough for them to know that their behaviors may bring suffering to other individuals. Therefore, for adult humans, doing such behaviors is obviously evil.

We must not follow the law of nature.

The natural law that allows the stronger ones to prey upon the weaker ones runs counter to human morality. If not, there would be no need to protect the disadvantaged groups.

The laws of nature are brutal, but human morality is empathetic. Human beings must fight against the brutality and stop the killing.

We should be more concerned about animals than people.

The suffering and misery faced by animals are far more severe than people's hardship. At least the people are not being murdered or tortured.

Moreover, humans can be good or evil, but animals are all innocent and lovable, just like children.

Rich people and elites have strong power, but always squander the power on luxurious lives and meaningless faiths. I will be the owner of power, and use the power to make the greatest contribution to animal protection.
kaichen1125
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 16 Jan 2019


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby BadgerJelly on January 16th, 2019, 3:13 am 

I’d rather save humans than worry about dogs and cats. Also trees and such are kind of useful; unlike pandas and koalas.

I don’t think it is true to say other animals suffer more hardships tha humans because we suffer stress merely by thinking - other animals generally don’t have this confusion due to living with a limited understandinfg of their own existence.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby doogles on January 16th, 2019, 4:29 pm 

Kaichen1125 -- "We must protect animals."

If such a maxim is taken literally, it would be suicidal for the human race. Unfortunately many species of animals can outbreed human beings with the result that some animal species can become pests to us (and themselves when no more food is available). Historically we have had to deal with plagues of rabbits, mice and rats that will happily eat food crops before harvests.

There are degrees to which such pests can cause damage, but in Australia for example, even camels, brumbies, kangaroos and wallabies etc can become a financial burden on farming. We just have to cull them periodically in the most practical ways possible to avoid uneconomical farming.

In fact, we human beings may have to do something about controlling our own numbers before we reach plague proportions. Few people talk about that.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1179
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby BadgerJelly on January 16th, 2019, 10:04 pm 

Doogles -

Few people talk about that because we’re not going to ever reach “plague proportions”. Other animals don’t tend to use birth control or have much foresight.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby -1- on January 16th, 2019, 10:30 pm 

We must protect both hares and wolves. Wolves eat hares. We protect the hares. Wolves starve and suffer.

We must protect cats. Cats can have 20-30 litters in a cat's lifetime. Cats mature to reproductive age in two years. We must protect them. In 20 years you'd have enough cats that if you put them end-to-end, you'd reach to the moon with them; in thirty years, to the planet Jupiter; in forty years, to Proxima Centauri.

Let's protect... well, chimpanzees. They eat the fruit we grow, they eat the veggies we grow, they eat the chicken we raise, they poop all over the place, and they spread disease. Real prescription for Hollywood drama.

Let's protect... well, the birds. Pigeons, for instance. They are friendly birds; they are tame; they have a soft, bubbly call, pleasant. But they spread up to 17 different deadly diseases in their poop.
User avatar
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 246
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby doogles on January 17th, 2019, 4:18 am 

-1- - you've presented further evidence that there are occasions when we need to kill animals.

I'm sure that if we set our mind's to the task, we could fill a book with examples of occasions when there is a need to kill animals.

As just another example, would you believe that practically none of those nice, quiet dairy cows that provide us with our milk, butter and cheeses, ever die of old age. When their milk production no longer reaches the quantity of younger cows, they are all sent of to slaughter.

The best maxim we could aim at is to attempt to make these killings as quick and humane as possible. I have personally killed tens of thousands of animals and even had research articles published on the humane use of carbon dioxide and oxygen for euthanasia of rats, mice and chickens.

BadgerJelly, do you have evidence of any kind that substantiates your statement that " … we’re not going to ever reach “plague proportions." The statement comes out as somewhat dogmatic. I have presented much evidence over the past few years in this forum suggesting that population growth (of humans) is a developing world problem that should not be ignored by our generation, mainly because of the lag time it will take to slow it down.

I stand by my statement that we should talk more about our potential of becoming a pest to ourselves (Maybe 'plague' was not the best word, but it's still not out of the equation to my mind).

Please provide anything in the way of evidence that might substantiate your dogma. I've only seen evidence to the opposite.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1179
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE
SciameriKen liked this post


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby kaichen1125 on January 17th, 2019, 5:22 am 

base on currently available technology, it is totally possible to control the population of an animal species without killing them. it is just that they feel it is not convenient
kaichen1125
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 16 Jan 2019


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby BadgerJelly on January 17th, 2019, 7:46 am 

Doogles -

I don’t being referred to as a “disese” or “plague”. It was that simple. I don’t see the human population explosion as being an immediate problem (nor a future one).

The pursuit of a more equally balanced global society results in growth. The counter argument is to resort to enslaving bast swathes of teh population and effectively culling them. I’m dead against that as I hope you are.

There are easily enough natural resources to sustain another 4-5 billion and give that there are likely to be agricultural advancements in the future too (one of which actually led to the population explosion in part) I am not massively concerned with the number of people. I’m more concerned with the attitudes and means of communicating - basically education is my almost permanent mantra when it comes to solutions (not that I really know what I mean by “education,” but it keeps me occupied enough not to question my own questions and wonder what little positive pushes I can give here and there).

I may sound dogmatic from time to time and I guess I must given that I’ve been called “cold and logical,” “overly emotional,” and on a few occasions a “religious zealot.” I just stick to the belief that if someone has something horrible to say then that doesn’t mean that all their points are “evil,” stupid or without justification (at least in part of not more than I’d like to admit).

I openly admit I find it perverse when someone suggests that “we should be more concerned about animals than people.” I wonder to what degree such a person hates themselves to even suggest such a thing and to essential insult themselves; albeit in a blind-sighted manner.

That aside, and to consider my thoughts as hyperbolic, I can easily get on board with instinctive empathy toward living creatures being something that extends to other species (but not all).

I put human lives above other animals. I put most human lives above an entire other species - that said I understand perfectly well that no species can last without another.

If it come down to it and you knew that the chance of all live on Earth being wiped put was 99%, but if humans were gone it was a 1% chance, I’d still fight tooth and nail for that 1% possibility of humanity continuing. I think this is something of a natural tendency that’s maybe been instilled to make us want to leave a “legacy” of some kind (almost like a vain attempt at “immortality.” Regardless, it is there and if it wasn’t I doubt I’d live out the rest of today!
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby Serpent on January 17th, 2019, 11:56 am 

Saving and protecting individual animals, like saving and protecting individual persons, is a function of empathy. Some of us can't help feeling compassion and acting on it.

As a species, however, we have already destroyed so many other species, their habitats, their ecosystems and their environments that there is little point in these valiant efforts to save any particular species.
Save it for what? For poachers and trophy-hunters to kill later? For farmers to persecute? For crop-dusters to poison? So they can watch their babies starve? To burn in forest and grass fires? To fill their guts with plastic waste? To die of thirst?

Extinct species are at least no longer suffering. They're all going extinct anyway: there is no room on this planet for anything but humans, and when the humans are numerous enough, hungry and desperate enough, they'll let fly their nuclear weapons and extinguish every vestige of life, bar some fungi and bacteria in deep underground caverns, which will start all over again.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3641
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby PaulN on January 17th, 2019, 1:39 pm 

It doesn't seem realistic to protect all species - and how is protection of a prey species to be defined in any rational framework of their natural place in an ecosystem? A lot of problems happen because we don't protect predator species that keep an ecosystem in balance. In some places in the American West (where I dwell), suburban moms and dads are worried that a wolf or cougar will drag off little Susy, and so they promote and vote policies to drive predators closer to extinction. Doogles is correct - the kindest thing for the planetary ecosystems is to reduce our own human numbers. And switch to a plant-based diet.
PaulN
 


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby BadgerJelly on January 17th, 2019, 3:11 pm 

Maintaining biodiverse habitats makes sense. For many years nations have seen the benefit of this.

The main issue is food production and distribution. It make more sense for developed countries to provide food because they’re better at managing the land (they have the tech. to be more efficient). The issue is then having a monopoly on food ... economics has never been an easy thing to manage.

Being concerned is necessary. Being rigidly pessimistic doesn’t lead to workable solutions.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby Serpent on January 17th, 2019, 4:13 pm 

Land is less and less important to food production every year. (Efficient industrial agriculture, btw, is what has rendered many farm lands incapable of supporting life.) Cities could feed their populations with locally produced, safe, high-quality food right now, with intelligent application of available technologies: hydroponic produce, rooftop and vertical orchards and cultured meat would meet the bulk of nutritional requirement, without all the wasteful packaging, delay, expense and pollution of storage and shipping.
With better building and planning, they could generate their own energy, as well, and maintain a far higher standard of living for all their citizens.

There is no shortage of solutions. If they're not "workable", it's only because of opposition to intelligent application. Even as - very, very slowly - the sensible way to do something becomes profitable, it's opposed by governments and other regressive interests. Eg: the US has just overturned healthier dietary guidelines for school cafeterias https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-relax-school-lunch-rules-2018-1 Eg. Impressionable Canadians have internalized Alberta's propaganda (If they're so broke, how come they can afford this constant barrage of television advertising?) about its pipeline, at a time when China is reducing its oil consumption and the tar sands are an ecological disaster. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/majority-of-canadians-in-all-regions-but-quebec-believe-lack-of-oil-pipelines-is-a-crisis-poll For every hard-fought forward, there is a three-step blow-back.


That has been the case throughout civilization. We passed plague status 200 years ago; we're a pandemic now. My pessimism is not holding up progress: I don't have the power to do that, or anything but observe and tell the truth as I see it.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3641
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby BadgerJelly on January 18th, 2019, 4:25 am 

Serpent -

I am guessing this doesn’t mean you’re in favour of killing humans and saving other animals or have I misunderstood?

At no point in history has human survival been an easy task individually or collectively. Our biggest problem seems to be dealing with both the individual and collective wants and needs at the same time (and sorting out what is “want” and what is “need”).

Do we need to have a lower population in order to preserve habitats and allow species to survive? It seems that if we level out at around 10 or 11 billion then most large animals will be as good as gone (some already are). I am well aware that the vast bulk of animal matter today is basically domestic cattle.

I won’t lie. I SERIOUSLY worried about the amazon and I plan to move to Guyana in the future to see what there is that can be done in that respect. The current leader in Brasil doesn’t fill me confidence, but maybe it’s a passing phase.

What gives me hope is that many of the things people used to talk about happening “in the future” in terms of technological development never actually happened. Yet today it seems like the reverse is true. What sounds like sci-fi is actually already here.

But, yeah : viewtopic.php?nomobile=1&f=23&t=34066
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby -1- on January 18th, 2019, 6:31 am 

PaulN » January 17th, 2019, 1:39 pm wrote:In some places in the American West (where I dwell), suburban moms and dads are worried that a wolf or cougar will drag off little Susy, and so they promote and vote policies to drive predators closer to extinction.

Happened in my family. My oldest brother, at age 23, just out of college, was dragged off from our family farm by a Los Angeles cougar.

He came home completely exhausted two weeks later, with some cash, and severe teeth- and bite marks on his neck and shoulders. Scratch marks on his back.

He smelled like a French cathouse... cougars. They are felines, too.
User avatar
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 246
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby -1- on January 18th, 2019, 6:47 am 

Serpent » January 17th, 2019, 4:13 pm wrote: Cities could feed their populations with locally produced, safe, high-quality food right now, with intelligent application of available technologies: hydroponic produce, rooftop and vertical orchards and cultured meat
Hold on... Hold just one dang second. They hain't got them tractors or combines yet that be liable to climb straight up city walls. I hain't seen any, that's fo sho. (Spits sharp, changes straw he'd been cruddin' on in mouf.)
User avatar
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 246
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby Serpent on January 18th, 2019, 12:06 pm 

BadgerJelly » January 18th, 2019, 3:25 am wrote:Serpent -

I am guessing this doesn’t mean you’re in favour of killing humans and saving other animals or have I misunderstood?

Humans are doing a dandy job of killing one another - one of their favourite pastimes. Tot up the natural resources + man-hours that have gone into people-killing tools throughout history, then transpose that cost to positive endeavours. Imagine where that might have taken us.
Imagine the advances in birth-control without misogynist religions ruling the world for 5000 years.
At no point in history has human survival been an easy task individually or collectively.

Sez the most successful and dangerous mammal the planet has ever seen. Survival was no harder for humans than for any other animal - except insofar as we made created hardship for ourselves.
Do we need to have a lower population in order to preserve habitats and allow species to survive?

Of course we should have!
It seems that if we level out at around 10 or 11 billion then most large animals will be as good as gone (some already are).
No question.
Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/


I SERIOUSLY worried about the amazon and I plan to move to Guyana in the future to see what there is that can be done in that respect.

Nothing.

What gives me hope is that many of the things people used to talk about happening “in the future” in terms of technological development never actually happened.

Fifty years ago, it might have made all the difference.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3641
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby BadgerJelly on January 18th, 2019, 12:20 pm 

And? You’re here to shout that “The End is Nigh” in order to achieve nothing? I don’t buy it, sorry.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby Serpent on January 18th, 2019, 1:04 pm 

BadgerJelly » January 18th, 2019, 11:20 am wrote:And? You’re here to shout that “The End is Nigh” in order to achieve nothing? I don’t buy it, sorry.

Fine. I have nothing to gain or lose, either way. I rarely shout; I do sometimes try to explain.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3641
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby BadgerJelly on January 22nd, 2019, 6:34 am 

Probably the key issue in the OP:

We do not advocate "protecting plants".

Plants do not have brain or nerve, so they never have any consciousness or feeling at all.

Therefore, in terms of morality, it is not necessary to protect plants.


Perhaps protecting plant life woudl actually save animal life. Shit needs somewhere to live right :)

Just because plants don’t scream and animals do doesn’t make them more important. I imagine a means of urban farming would help out a lot. We’ve got about 30 yrs before we hit food shortages, and before we do I can well imagine agriculture sciences are already developing, or have developed, technologies to deal with this issue (sorry, being dishonest because I know they are).
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby hyksos on February 3rd, 2019, 7:00 pm 

(Since this is an ethics section) I am going to play devil's advocate , temporarily. Consider this dog's situation.

coldButLegalDog.jpg

When this photo was released on a popular website, the comments erupted with people asking how they can save the poor dog -- and which Animal Control office should be called to get the dog out of the freezing cold. The word "abuse" appeared a dozen times in the comment section, other colorful language appeared (the "owner should be shot", et cetera).

My point is not to increase combat with others but to illustrate that the topic of "animal suffering" is subjective and therefore our language about animal rights needs to be more ... concrete.

The little house and the covering over the enclosure may be all that is required in that state to keep an animal out in the winter. So the owner is not breaking any laws. Is the dog comfortable? Probably not. Is this "abuse"? Legally speaking -- no it's not "abuse". Is the dog "suffering"? I don't know. Define suffering.

There are some grey ethical areas here. One could study the laws pertaining to say, underground dog fighting. I would expect that the laws differ slightly based on which state in the USA you are investigating.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1649
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
doogles liked this post


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby doogles on February 5th, 2019, 5:37 pm 

hyksos » Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:00 am wrote:(Since this is an ethics section) I am going to play devil's advocate , temporarily. Consider this dog's situation.

coldButLegalDog.jpg

When this photo was released on a popular website, the comments erupted with people asking how they can save the poor dog -- and which Animal Control office should be called to get the dog out of the freezing cold. The word "abuse" appeared a dozen times in the comment section, other colorful language appeared (the "owner should be shot", et cetera).

My point is not to increase combat with others but to illustrate that the topic of "animal suffering" is subjective and therefore our language about animal rights needs to be more ... concrete.

The little house and the covering over the enclosure may be all that is required in that state to keep an animal out in the winter. So the owner is not breaking any laws. Is the dog comfortable? Probably not. Is this "abuse"? Legally speaking -- no it's not "abuse". Is the dog "suffering"? I don't know. Define suffering.

There are some grey ethical areas here. One could study the laws pertaining to say, underground dog fighting. I would expect that the laws differ slightly based on which state in the USA you are investigating.


I liked your post Hyksos and agree about the subjective interpretation of cruelty. In this case, the snow may have been quite temporary, but it may not have worried this dog at all. Huskies of course seem to tolerate freezing temperatures quite well. The slight problem is the isolation of the dog. Dogs are naturally pack animals and like company. I feel sorry for solitary suburban dogs that are left at home all day while their owners work. But it doesn't qualify as cruelty.

I defended a local farmer in Court one time because he'd been charged with cruelty to his dogs. It was a serious charge at the time in the State of Victoria, Australia, because it was regarded as a criminal offense. Apparently for some reason, a Council Officer had gone onto the property and noticed the 'únsanitary' conditions in which the dogs were kept, and laid charges. By human standards, the conditions were shocking. There were carcasses of dead cattle and old car bodies everywhere and about 10 or a dozen dogs each chained to a tree.

Although the owner brought sick dogs to me occasionally, I'd never been on his property. Naturally I visited the place before the Court case.

I observed that each dog was chained (15 metre length) to a large cypress tree (trunk diameters 6 to 8 feet) with large overhangs. The remains of a whole cattle carcass was near each dog, as were the remains of old car bodies. All of the dogs were in good to fat condition and all except one Queensland Healer were overtly friendly. My impression was that it was a dog's paradise. Cypresses provide great shelter from rain and sun and wind, as did the car bodies. Each dog had several others within sight. And an entire skinned cow carcass is just heaven to a dog. The smell and decomposition also suits dogs. They were trained daily to yard cattle and sheep before sale. One of the witnesses in court was another farmer who'd purchased several o these dogs over the years. His statement was that the dogs were too fat when he purchased them and he had to spend some time getting them down to a working condition. The charges were dismissed; the farmer did not receive a criminal conviction, but it cost him time and the costs of a solicitor to preserve his good name because of one person's subjective impression of the untidiness of the conditions under which the dogs were kept.

Another time, an Inspector from the RSPCA charged a farmer with cruelty for transporting a neonate calf to the sale yards in the boot of his car. Once again a conviction would have made the farmer a criminal. The chief witness for the Defence was the local Department of Agriculture Veterinary Officer who went for a 20 km ride in the boot of that car and who testified in Court that he was quite comfortable. The curious part of the judgment was that the magistrate dismissed the case, but added that he would not like this dismissal to be used as a precedent for similar cases. There was an interesting sequel to this case. Local farmers were quite incensed by the judgment, because they were all at risk on the subjective whim of an Inspector of being charged with a criminal offence.

They joined the local RSPCA en masse, voted in their own Office Bearers, thus ousting the One-Day-Officials, and put some balance back into the judgment what is what is not cruelty. Farmers cannot afford to be cruel to their commercial animals. Animals need to be well-fed and happy in order to produce milk or to fatten for profit.

But Hyksos is correct. The judgment of cruelty is subjective. Some incidents are obvious. When numbers of animals are found in very poor condition, covered with external parasites and dying, we need to take steps to correct the situation.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1179
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Animal protection is the most noble cause

Postby charon on February 5th, 2019, 11:13 pm 

kaichen -

I've read your post and I'm afraid I have to disagree and query a thing or two. Hope that's okay. Normally I wouldn't but I suppose that's why we're here :-)

animal protection is the most noble cause.


I wouldn't agree it's the MOST noble cause. It's one of them, certainly, but I wouldn't say the most.

No one wants suffering, and neither do animals. This is a sufficient reason to protect animals.


Absolutely right.

Therefore, in terms of morality, it is not necessary to protect plants.


Not in that sense, no, but it's uncultured to desecrate and destroy plants, trees, and so on. In that sense sensitivity is good.

However, most invertebrates, such as insects, only have a very simple nervous system, which means that their feeling and consciousness are very weak


If they are conscious in any knowing sense at all. However, insects can, and do, bring disease and sometimes death to humans. It's unpleasant to any sensitive person but sometimes it's necessary to dispose of certain insects. Or certainly vigorously protect ourselves against them. Only a fool would not.

animals should not be condemned for killing others, because animals have low intelligence


By 'others' do you mean other animals? But that's the law of nature, it's how they survive and how they're meant to survive. It's natural in the natural world, it has nothing to do with 'low intelligence'. We can't really judge it by human standards.

The natural law that allows the stronger ones to prey upon the weaker ones runs counter to human morality.


In the natural world it's not always the stronger who prey on the weaker, it's often the faster or those with more powerful defence or attack mechanisms, like poison.

But in the human world when the strong exploit the weak that is certainly against human morality.

At least the people are not being murdered or tortured.


Well, actually they are, by other people! We've been doing that since year dot and it's still going on as we speak.

We should be more concerned about animals than people.


No, that's not true, is it? If there were a child and a kitten starving and you had food for only one, which one would you save? I'm afraid if you chose the kitten you would be guilty of murdering the child. I hope you see that.

It doesn't mean we should be cruel to animals, we should absolutely not. Those who wreak cruelty on animals do not understand, they lack refinement of character, or there's something wrong with them. In many cases they've been the recipient of cruelty themselves and the abused has become the abuser in turn.

But to say we should be more concerned about animals than people is wrong. I'm afraid people have more worth than animals. They are capable of great evil but they are also capable of great good, which animals are not.

Animals follow their instincts as nature intended but people are open to reason. Also, it's a perversion of thinking to put a lesser species ahead of one's own. It avoids the 'do as you would be done by' axiom.

The world will be a better place when humans understand the true values of life like mercy, compassion, and so on. When humans start to behave then right relationship with animals will take place automatically. But to start with animals first is a wrong value, not that we shouldn't be concerned with, and kind to, animals.

but animals are all innocent and lovable


No, they're not, are they? That's silly!

When I'd read this post, especially that last quote, I thought perhaps you'd written it to be controversial, to see what people would say. A bit of me still does since that's quite plainly ludicrous. Please don't go into the jungle and try to hug an anaconda. It might decide to hug you back :-)
charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: 02 Mar 2011



Return to Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests