by frog
I’m totally distracted at the moment, so please, talk amongst yourselves!
Published in THE GAME by frog on Wed, April 15th, 2009
Tags: general debate
General Debate, April 15th
Published: April 15, 2009
Comment via Facebook
72 Comments
Hide comments with a score of
or less
Hide comments with a score of or less
Leave a Reply
Please use 
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Surely the talk of the day must be the change in Kyoto deficit/surplus.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10566735
An interesting quote from Nick Smith:
“We are just fortunate that more than 600,000 hectares of new forests were planted in the 1990s that are growing strongly and offsetting our continued growth in energy and transport emissions.”
I wonder if he’s mentioned this to Steven Joyce and his road buddies?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wha’appen Frog? Spot a Biiig Blowie dirfting accross the pond perhaps……….?
Watch out Toad doesn’t beatya.
Well for my penny. it’s more NZ troops for Afghanistan – the proposal being that we send our elite SAS forces.
Of course they have to be with-held in defence of te motherland.
But we round up all the Dole Bludgers – get a list from Big Bro; keep them safe, then send all the rest….they grow lots of poppies there Frog – I’ll go, but only if I don’t have to carry a gun or act like a western a**hole
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Would any Greens support a call for the death penalty for the low life scum bag who stole that lovely old dog to use as bait for a pittbull fight?
Oh how I would love to get my hands on them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Death penalty BB? Uh, not likely. I am sure there are plenty of Greens who would like to get their
hands on the idiot(s) too, but not in order to behave just a badly as they did!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
How about letting me and one or two of your more passionate animal rights people dish out a does of our own “restorative” justice?
I was so wild I could not speak when I watched that item on last nights news, I fail to see why you or anybody else would think that the scum who do things like this deserve to share the earth with the rest of us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was upset, to be sure, but not to the point of wishing to remove someone from the face of the earth. Given the absolutely low value we place on human life on this planet, rightly or wrongly, perhaps I have just been numbed to the threat, however callous, to one of man’s best friends.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog……
Do you realise that you and I share at least ONE common belief???
Kinda scary aye
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
…terrifying alliances Bunky!
Vote Green Bro – you’re getting closer all the time; go on – you love us…
Unfortunately we concoct these people from amongst ourselves – we would do well to discover the recipe for such a psyche.
Prevention, even redemption….but only such a one will define the path.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>who stole that lovely old dog
They should be facing the same punishment as if it were a child.
Lock ‘em up, misplace the key.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
They should face the same punishment as one would meet out to a rabid dog.
The other victims in this are the pitt bulls, the poor bloody things will more than likely end up being destroyed through no fault of their own.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I know, BB, I know.
If it were up to you and I, we would agree completely on the punishment. I’m not going to write down what I think the punishment should be.
Wonder what is possible in terms of sentencing given we supposedly live in a just society with due process? I do not want to see a fine. I want them behind bars.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB said: Would any Greens support a call for the death penalty for the low life scum bag who stole that lovely old dog to use as bait for a pittbull fight?
I don’t think any Green would support the death penalty for any crime BB. Because it is a violent response to violence, which is counterproductive to espousing non-violence. And because there is no going back if the court gets it wrong and soemone is wrongly convicted but executed before evidence that confirms the unsoundness of the conviction comes to hand.
That said, I think the courts are excessively lenient to people who commit violent offences against animals, and I would like to see much more severe sentences imposed for such offences than I have seen recently.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
As you know mate I am far from a fan of the legal profession however I also believe that if you are happy to put the boot in when they do wrong you should also praise them when the do the right thing.
I am not sure if you picked up on the news last week that five of the countries top QC’s are now going to prosecute cases for the SPCA for free as apparently this (cost) has been the major stumbling block the SPCA have had in brining prosecutions.
I applaud the actions of these lawyers, as I also applaud the actions of the two anonymous businessmen who have pledged a total of $20,000 for information that leads to the arrest and prosecution of the scum who committed this horrendous crime.
I wish there was a way of finding out who theses businessmen were as I would go out of my way to buy something from them or use their professional services.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB
I agree that a lot of low life scum deserve to die, but I am against the death penalty, not because nobody is bad enough to die, but because nobody is good enough to kill. I tend to agree with that great yet underrated philosopher Gandalf the Grey when it comes to the death penalty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Very well put.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Cape Kidnappers in Hawke’s Bay is home to one of New Zealand’s largest private conservation reserves.
But this one is different to your average conservation spot.
It’s providing a predator free environment, alongside a functioning farm and international golf course.
With 2,400 hectares of land to cover it’s a tough task, but has proved to be successful.
Thirteen three month old Kiwis call the Cape Kidnappers Wildlife Reserve home.
“The growth rates that these guys are doing, which are about 8grams a day, are the highest we’ve ever recorded anywhere, the place is crawling with Kiwi food,” says John McLennan, Ecological Advisor.
But what it’s not crawling with, is predators.”
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/private-wildlife-reserve-proving-successful-2639509
It occurs to me that in our increasingly crowded (sold across the water) and polluted world the rich could protect their privileged circumstances with wildlife. Kiwis in kiwis out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Would that we afford Humans the same rights we do Animals…..might just have a better society all round; certainly I’ve seen many instances of people being abused in a way that would put their Attacker in Jail – if only that Victim were a Dog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually animal abusers are let off very lightly. Judges very seldom give custodial sentences for animal abuse. This has been highlighted in a quite rigorous legal analysis published in a book on animal law and edited by Peter Sankoff, senior lecturer in law at Auckland university.
A more accurate statement would be..
“Would that we afford animals the same rights we do humans…..might just have a better society all round; certainly I’ve seen many instances of animals being abused in a way that would put their Attacker in Jail – if only that Victim were a human”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
With respect to the change in Kyoto deficit/surplus:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10566735
‘Dr Smith said New Zealand still faced a major challenge to reduce its gross greenhouse gas emissions and the Government would continue to advance “pragmatic policies”.’
I am just wondering what these “pragmatic policies” are – apart from waiting it out.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is frog redundant? It seems we have more heated discussion talking among ourselves than in response to a posting
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I think the courts are excessively lenient to people who commit violent offences against animals”
Personally I think the courts are very lenient to people who commit offences, violent or not, against people!
If a dog or cat were to be spray-paint tagged, there would be screams of dismay and calls for imprisonment on these pages. However, when the same thing is done to a person’s home, the calls are for understanding, counselling and restorative justice. At some point the value rankings have gone a little astray. Perhaps they need to be formalised within Green Party policy?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>If a dog or cat were to be spray-paint tagged, there would be screams of dismay and calls for imprisonment on these pages. However, when the same thing is done to a person’s home, the calls are for understanding, counselling and restorative justice.
hmm.. the old ‘property/sentient being confusion’ eh? Whereas there are many valid reasons why a dog et cetera should enjoy some personal rights, it is rather more difficult to extend that reasoning to even personal property. Sure, some human ‘owner’ may well be disadvantaged, but in quite a different (usually monetary, although sometimes nostalgic) respect. Or should impact on humans invariably outweigh any impacts on non-humans? Extreme species chauvanism!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see where Sue K is praising an increase in bottled water purchases in some schools. And I thought that bottled water was potentially more harmful to the environment than plastic bags. What’s wrong with (NZ) tap water anyway?
)
I guess it’s an example of cognitive dissonance (To paraphase BP
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kjuv
my point is not that the tagging of the animal is not wrong, it is that BOTH are wrong and the punishment and dismay at their occurrence should be identical.
-_-
Incidentally, what test are you using for sentience that you include cats and dogs in the genre?
-~-
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kjuv Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 8:58 am
> I see where Sue K is praising an increase in bottled water purchases in some schools.
Where does she say that? I’ve criticised her for saying things like that before, but I thouht she had stopped.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kahikatea:
In her ‘media release’ today: viz: “Ms Kedgley welcomed improvements in some areas – with 65% of schools now offering bottled water and 70% selling fruit.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Incidentally, what test are you using for sentience that you include cats and dogs in the genre?
The fairly innocuous(?) ‘living’, ”animate’ synonyms. Although I , and presumably BB, would suggest that ‘having awareness’ or ‘consciousness’ leading up to being a Kantian ‘end in itself’ – like persons – should be seriously considered.
And surely, in that case, the punishment for tagging an animal should be more like that used for harming a small child rather that a vandalising a fence?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OOPs noticed error: Should be ‘rather than for vandalising…’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have a problem with ‘living’, as that would apply to all forms of flora and fauna so the word would be redundant.
I also have a problem with ‘animate’ as that would, de facto, include Mickey Mouse and all the other ‘animated’ constructs of human intelligence. So how about we go to the Oxford English Dictionary and see what it has to say, vis:
sentience
/sensh’nse/
• Noun – able to interpret perceived or felt things and communicate intelligently and comprehensively about them
— DERIVATIVES sentient adjective sentiently adverb.
Seems pretty clear to me (and all the Science Fiction writers that absorbed and prodded my imagination as a child.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On the other point in the post. Are you postulating, with your “the old ‘property/sentient being confusion’ eh?” statement, that a dog cannot be ‘owned’ and therefor the ‘property’ of a human?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>I have a problem with ‘living’, as that would apply to all forms of flora and fauna so the word would be redundant.
Not necessarily redundant: The moral extensionist school of thought has been known to include all living things as candidates for having at least some rights that we should respect. That aside, any creature that clearly can experience pain (and other sensations) is a prime candidate for us to entertain certain moral obligations toward: Such as not to inflict any gratuitous harm. This is not because harming the creature may upset various humans, but rather because it has feelings in its own right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Geothermal anywhere in (US) a couple of kilometers down
http://rasertech.com/media/movies/html/cnn_full_steam_ahead.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kjuv,
But from where do these moral obligations come from? Is not the extension of rights to non-sapient beings but a silly romanticism? If we can overpower them, if we can exploit them, then why do we have any obligation to them? humans and non-human animals included.
One cannot have rights without a comprehension of the concept and the sacrifices thus necessitated. A being not sapient can posess no such comprehension and as such can hold no such rights.
We have no inate obligation to treat a non-sapient being in any manner other than how we desire to treat it, we have no inate obligation to not beat a dog half to death, to not mutilate a poodle, to not castrate a bi*ch. I am not condoning animal violence here, mearly pointing out that no such obligation exists inate. In our society we do of course have certain obligations to our pets, held because of covenents with the governement agreed to apon aquiring a pet. It is beneficial to society to decrease levels of animal violence past that which there presently is, I do not debate this, and as such it is part of the duty of government to do so; but we do not posess any inate obligations to humans or non-human animals, nor do they posess any rights.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have no problem with that position kjuv, it is the attribution of sentience that gave me cause for concern. Gratuitous harm of anything capable of feeling pain (and I don’t know what that is ‘living’ can’t, as there are no ways to sense pain in a tree!) is WRONG.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient:
You have me a little confused- although that is easy to do! Are you implying that we have no moral obligations to anything albeit an animal or a human? Are you propounding an amoral theory? Or are you stating that only sapient (conscious/thinking?) beings can have an attributed sense of morality? Of course, even though there is the inevitable debate as to whether animals have a degree of consciousness, few would deny that mammals at least can suffer.
It may be argued that we have no obligations to these creatures because there is no reciprocity (The creatures don’t seem to have any moral obligations to us). But isn’t that also true of infants and imbeciles? Indeed, it also applies to future generations! So, do you accept that it is a ‘silly romanticism’ to feel that we have any duty to generations not yet born?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dig Kiore – the original IS the right way round – log some time up in Life College – you’ll soon learn that plenty predatory animals get around on their hind legs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kjuv,
Just the discussion I was hoping to get into, lol.
Morals are a derived set of heuristics which function to guide members of society to act in a manner which benefits, or atleast does not overtly harm, the functioning of society in its present form. Since moral obligations are an extension and application of moral reasoning, given that morals are not inate, moral obligations cannot be inate. Because of this we do not have any inate moral obligation to treat non-human animals well, to seek the abolition of slavery, or to campeign for womens sufferage.
This connects with our discussions on rights. We do not have, and cannot have, inate rights or moral obligations. Indeed, we only aquire rights because by ceeding certain freedoms we recognse that our survivability and quality of life increases; likewise is it with moral obligations.
Babies and imbeciles cannot comprehend surrendering freedoms in exhange for rights and as such do not have rights by virtue of the social contract but because society recognises as a whole that by extending certain rights to them society is advantaged. Likewise is it with animals. This applies to future generations in an identical fashion, though of all the groups thus far mentioned this groups is probally the one which the least obligations are dirrected towards, both overall and relative to its importance to society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for that. Of coiurse many would beg to differ. Your utilitarian basis is certainly a well respected theory of morality. But deontological (rule based) and virtue ethics are also worthy contenders. With your much discussed denial of intrinsic properties it is not surprising that you would favour a utilitarian theory of morality. Perhaps you are right – and I guess Occam’s razor supports you.
How is the ‘importance to society’ determined? Isn’t there a danger of circularity here? Especially if the answer is an unqualified: ‘because it is good for society’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wow – an interesting diversion.
What then is society? Or should that be ‘what then is A society’?
The problem with the discussion is that these concepts (moral, right, wrong, rights) have evolved over millennia, not been derived by individual thought. The problem with our general society is that defeat of the environment has led to the evolutionary imperatives being cast aside through conscious thought, resulting in differing perspectives on the validity of generally accepted morality, definitions of right and wrong, and support of inalienable rights.
These results are not new. They have happened often through human history and will continue to happen as long as man exists. However, we seem to take longer to ‘recover’, and lose a major part of human knowledge and ability, each time it happens. Look at the poverty abundant in Egypt and compare it to the almost Utopian past it has had. Look at the life-style of the Roman Empire, and look at the dearth of drive and endeavour in today’s Italy. There are many examples, look to history for yourself and you will find them.
IF we could find the common cause of failure of these ‘societies’, perhaps (that’s like, a BIG maybe,) we could avoid them in today’s ‘western’ society – which is almost ubiquitous on earth today.
That ubiquitousness is likely to be the downfall of mankind though. In the past, there have always been many ‘societies’ in different states of evolution to that which collapsed. Today’s ‘globalisation’ of white Anglo Saxon hedonistic behaviours could mean that there is no group left big enough to pick up humanity’s evolution and take the concepts of morality, right, wrong and rights forward to the next level of maturity.
This worries me far more than any possible threat to mankind from atmospheric change. With a belief in equity we can progress, with a belief in equality we stall, if not destroy, progress.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Disproportionate Costs of Resort Developments
A new report out of Oregon suggests that the fiscal costs of successful resort developments significantly outweigh their benefits — and taxpayers are burdened with the tab. Erik Kancler of Central Oregon LandWatch explains.
All development comes at a cost. Even the smartest infill development requires dedicated infrastructure capacity and public services. Low density urban sprawl is, of course, more expensive to serve than high density infill, and by extension exurban residential sprawl – especially when located well outside of established urban areas – is even more costly.
How much more costly has always been a matter of debate.
And while a new report on the fiscal impacts of destination resorts in Oregon (pdf), commissioned by the nonprofit land use group Central Oregon LandWatch and performed by Fodor & Associates, won’t end that debate, it lends real credibility to the argument that these large exurban subdivision-oriented developments are not the fiscal boon that their proponents have claimed and that they, in fact, leave local taxpayers with significant costs.
http://www.planetizen.com/node/38348
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And your point jh is . . . . . ?
I am always impressed by peoples’ ability to use the cut and paste tools on a computer, but usually like some explanation as to why they think the pasted data should be of interest to others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>That ubiquitousness is likely to be the downfall of mankind though. In the past, there have always been many ’societies’ in different states of evolution to that which collapsed
That’ certainly has been used recently as one of the most threatening impacts on mankind’s future. The environmentalist’s sister argument for biodiversity also springs to mind. Could we call it the need for ‘homodiversity’? Perhaps we are not too dissimilar to the rest of the environment as we are inclined to think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kjuv
you got it!
We have a major problem or two to deal with based on our communications and travel technologies that may just bring the homo-sapiens experiment to an end!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Open software
the problem with open software is that there are too many different types of peripherals and so the manufacturers don’t provide robust software (small market share). Windows is easy as you can easily install/uninstall a program.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“..Mark Says:
April 15th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Would that we afford Humans the same rights we do Animals..”
eat them..do you..?
..mark..?
..animals..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
so what actually are these rights that we accord to animals, but not to humans?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>So what actually are these rights that we accord to animals, but not to humans?
I don’t think it is that we accord rights exclusively to (non-human) animals it is rather that many would argue that we should accord some rights to animals. There is a strong case to accord rights to animals in circumstances where an animal is known to exhibit similar behavioural patterns to humans – for example display of pain, hunger and stress. Hence, just as most accept that we should not purposely hurt or starve a human, it is argued that we should not gratuitously hurt or starve an animal.
Needless to say this line of reasoning provides a strong argument for both vegetarianism (at least) as well as the banning of laboratory experiments on animals. However meat eaters may wish to argue that animals can be farmed and slaughtered humanely for the benefit of mankind. Similarly, animal experimenters can argue that their work is essential for the betterment of mankind. Both parties can still claim to treat the animals with a sense of moral respect insofar as they do not do any gratuitous harm to the animals.
The anthropocentric amongst us will deny that the animals cannot have rights because they are not in a position to reciprocate – we can’t really expect a lion to not hurt us just because it is proclaimed that we should not kill or hurt lions. They believe that the way we treat animals is determined by how humans relate to the creatures. Hence we should not kill a farmer’s sheep because we should respect the famer’s property (ownership) rights. Similarly we shoudn’t hunt lions to extinction because there are many humans who want a fair number of lions to remain at large.
My problem with the reciprocity argument is, that if it is taken to its logical conclusion, we would have no obligation to future generations as future, currently non-existent, humans do not/cannot have any moral obligations toward us. Do we any obligations to King Henry VIII, for example?
It also seems to render meaningless the famous line: ‘We do not inherit the world from our fathers, we borrow it from our children’. This may lead many to feel that the reciprocity argument is deeply flawed. Of course, even if we take this as a conclusive rebuttal of the reciprocity argument against animal rights, it does not follow that animals should be accorded rights per se.
Sorry.. one can rant on this topic for, well, ever.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Apologies if this appears twice. It did not seem to go through the first time I clicked “post”
“However meat eaters may wish to argue that animals can be farmed and slaughtered humanely for the benefit of mankind. Similarly, animal experimenters can argue that their work is essential for the betterment of mankind. Both parties can still claim to treat the animals with a sense of moral respect insofar as they do not do any gratuitous harm to the animals.”
Only very ignorant flesh eaters, or those with their heads in the sand would continue to insist that animals are being reared or slaughtered “humanely”,, given what we now know about the treatment of layer hens, broilers, pigs in stalls, slaughterhouse methods, long distance transport of animals, live sheep shipments, mulesing, castration, dehorning, tail docking, mastitis, etc, etc.
Similarly it is problematic to claim the least that livestock are being farmed for the “betterment of mankind”, given what we now know about the link between livestock farming and global warming, eutrophication, ocean poisoning, world hunger, rain forest destruction, extinctions, bird flu, diabetes, colon cancer, lower life expectancy, etc, etc.
Similarly with vivisection. Firstly most vivisection in New Zealand is not medical in application, it is agricultural. In other words extracting even more flesh, milk or other bits from already overstressed farm animals for a world already sated with animal protein. There is also no shortage of evidence in peer reviewed medical journals that vivisection is useless as a predictive tool for human disaeases or drug reactions because of the differences between the complex physiological systems of human and nonhuman animals.
If all the money that has gone into vivisection was instead channeled into preventative health and education, we would be a much healthier society, and certainly a more humane one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kiore1:
Powerful points there. I am sure that, as with most points, each could be disputed. However, when taken as a whole, most of the evidence does support at least a shift away from meat eating and vivisection (thanks, I just couldn’t think of that term last night!).
Again, with its wildly enthusiastic support for a global increase in the consumption of meat and dairy products, good old New Zealand seems to be paddling against the flow. If there must be more humans on this planet it would surely be in humanity’s best interest if less, rather than more, meat was consumed.
Interestingly enough I suspect that the pro-vivisectionist belief within our society is even stronger than the carniverous addiction. Claims for the improvement in humanity’s health or longevity tend to be unquestionably revered in our modern society in much the same way as spiritual visitations were in days of yore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kjuv,
I think you apply anthropocentric in an entirly incorrect manner in that post. Since rights are an entirly human concept and exist not in non-sapient beings then the extension of such a concept to other clades is infact anthropocentric, atleast much more so than the denial of such rights.
Take for example the common feminist opposition to female circumcision; this is based on the cultural beliefs of those feminists that such acts are wrong or undesirable, their attempts to make this practice illegal in parts of africa where it is part of their culture is an ethnocentric action because it is in their culture that it is perceived as negative, not the african culture (also, anyone whom had studied the practice would know that it is actually a rite that acts to advantage females, so the elimination would actually be detrimental to the feminist cause; like most things thus promoted).
I thought I had discused this previously. We do not hold any obligations to the next generation, nor them to us. What we hold is the desire to acheive our goals and the social obligation to do what is best for the joint goals of society, the congomeration of individuals and their interactions. The sole purpose of the human form is the replication and proliferation of our genetic material, as such it is in both the individual and collective interest to ensure that that replication and proliferation happens. If an action taken would act to cause detrinment to that goal it is ultimatly undesirable, and if it would act to further that goal it would be desirable. Therefore, even though we dont have any obligation to the next generation, nor them to us, it is in our best interests that we ensure the world is in a state best able to support such future replication and proliferation.
And yes, we shouldint hunt lions to extinction because the value of retaining them surpasses the extremly small value to be had by eliminating them. Likewise, we should not kill anothers sheep as that would be theft and if sufficently proliferated the basic rules of society fail and we burn like rome. On a similar matter, we should not allow people to beat hteir children as this damages the next generations ability to proliferate our genes and we should not allow animal abuse as it proliferates sociopathy which, along with anomie, in masse can also turn society into a pile of dry wood.
Also, you really shouldint encourage kiore, you know as well as I do that none of those points provide any arguement against the points you presented previously; they only argue on matters of degree. I shall refrain from arguning with the naive anti-vivisectionsists for the moment; theres no point until the current philosophical matter is concluded.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kjuv states: “I am sure that, as with most points, each could be disputed. However, when taken as a whole, most of the evidence does support at least a shift away from meat eating and vivisection ”
Yes anything can be disputed, even the shape of the Earth (see http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/). But most of those disputing the harm animal agriculture does to the animals, the planet and human health have a vested intersest in the status quo, either as producers or consumers of the product. The bulk of the scientific literature is on my side.
“Interestingly enough I suspect that the pro-vivisectionist belief within our society is even stronger than the carniverous addiction.”
Yes that is interesting because it wasn’t always so. In Victorian England there was a mass anti-vivisection movement and most of the members ate animal flesh. The view was that eating animals was okay because it was natural, but vivisection was somehow an abomination against nature. Now there is much more awareness that we don’t need animal flesh to be healthy, but vivisection is still considered useful.
Sapient says “Also, you really shouldint encourage kiore”
Too late, I am already encouraged!
But getting back to the indirect duties argument for not abusing animals, Kant and Aquinas argued similarly that we should not abuse animals because it leads to pyschopathy. But that just begs the question, why does abusing animals desensitise us to human suffering. Nobody claims for example that vicously smashing up old buildings or crushing cars leads to psychopathic tendencies, so it has nothing to do with the physical action of crushing things. The reason can only be because animals are sentient beings and the act of abusing them is wrong in itself and those who do so get used to the feeling of power in inflicting pain on another being.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kiore,
I would suggest that the reason animal abuse can lead to sociopathic or psychopathic tendancies is because the individual learns that in inflicting pain and suffering on another they can releive some of their pain, confusion, or frustration or that it gives them a sense of power when they otherwise feel powerless. All of these have perfectly logical evolutionary purposes, which were actually designed to be targeted within ones species in the first place. By moving that infliction onto humans the power one feels, and the releif received, is increased due to the increased responses, the increased strength and intellect, and possibly the similarity to an agitator. So yes, for the most part it has to do with the perceived ability of animals to suffer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
My point exactly! Now, using Inference to the Best Explanation, the best explanation for the perception that animals suffer is that animals suffer.
So if we have indirect duties not to abuse animals because of the effect is has on our morals, that entails direct duties not to abuse animals because they suffer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>The sole purpose of the human form is the replication and proliferation of our genetic material, as such it is in both the individual and collective interest to ensure that that replication and proliferation happens.
Let us grant the above ‘sole purpose’ statement. But let us also recognise it as a metaphysical position, admittedly based on Darwinian Evolutionary theory, rather than a statement of fact. I mean, couldn’t there be other purposes? For example, to please our Creator does spring to mind. But, yes, your ‘sole purpose’ idea does seem very compatible with a physicalist view of the world. However, no ‘purpose’ with a tendency toward chaos seems just as feasible.
So, in granting your sole purpose for humans, don’t you think that something rather similar could be applicable to non-humans, that is ‘the replication and prolification of their genetic material’? I do not think that it can be argued that this only applies to humans as we are the only (known) self-conscious beings. For although our conscious awareness can be very useful in enhancing our proliferation, it by no means dictates our ‘need’ to prolificate.
Therefore, in so far as we share this proliferation purpose with at least some non-humans, does it not behove us to also respect and enhance these creatures’ proliferation purpose – at least where it does not detract from our own?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kiore,
I don’t really see how that makes sense; an indirect obligation cannot give birth to a direct obligation, only visa versa. If we have an obligation to not partake in or condone actions which lead to a degradation of the moral fibre of society so long as said degradation exceeds the degradation that would be caused by not condoning those actions then as an extention of that we have an obligation to not condone animal abuse so long as that abuse does not benefit society. That obligation is not towards the animal but towards ourself and our society. It is still no argument for animal rights, though it is for animal welfare.
Kjuv,
Yes, it is a meta-physical position. I hate using the word purpose in this application but English lacks a word that better suits the concept.
I think the purpose can be said to apply to all life, after all it is essentially the definition of life. That does not give us any obligation to assist in their proliferation unless that proliferation also assists us, and considering that there are limited resources in this universe, if it doesn’t assist us it hurts us (sounds incredibly bushian, but it may be said to be true ultimately). Considering that the vast majority of human genetics is shared by other primates one may say that we have an obligation to ourselves to protect their proliferation so long as that action does not ultimately hurt ours; this may be extended to a weakening extent to all Gaian life of our ontogenesis, viruses however, being from a different ontogenesis do not benefit us but do harm us so if anything we have an obligation to ourselves to hamper their proliferation to the extent where the costs and benefits balance out. by this logic, we also have an obligation to genetically engineer new organisms if their existence enhances the proliferation of our genes more than it harms that proliferation.
But, again, no arguement for animal rights, only for general rules of animal welfare. If anything, its an arguement for vivisection, not against it, as it is a very real benefit to humanity with next to no cost to society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>The sole purpose of the human form is the replication and proliferation of our genetic material, as such it is in both the individual and collective interest to ensure that that replication and proliferation happens.
The idea that this is somehow a purpose we should aspire to is based on a misunderstanding. I think it comes from the fact that many famous creation myths were written to convey an idea of what we ‘should’ do. People deduce from that, that because we came into existence through drawinian evolution, following the principles of darwinian evolution is somehow a moral imperative. It is not – there is no reason at all why the history of how we came to be should be seen as defining a ‘purpose’ for us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The idea is quite simple
1. It is wrong to abuse animals because it leads to abuse of humans
2. It is wrong to abuse humans because
3. It is wrong to abuse sentient beings AND
4. humans are sentient
5. Abuse of animals leads to abuse of humans because animals appear sentient
6. The best explanation for the fact that animals appear sentient is that animals are sentient
there fore It is wrong to abuse animals (see 3).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yow, I missed this.
WTF? I feel a definite obligation to my kids and yours to keep from making their lives harder just so I can be a hedonist by consuming everything they need to have a decent life.
I don’t get the difference. Seems like much the same thing.
I take it you don’t use condoms then. The sole purpose of our genes is to build a human form so that their replication can occur. Having intelligence enough to understand this means we are able to define other purposes for ourselves. And we do.
Look I know we’ve had this conversation before, so can I just ask if you’ve read this sort of stuff somewhere or came up with it yourself? I have been an amateur student of evolutionary biology for some 25 years and have never come across such a philosophy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kahikatea,
I have posted about this so many times that I thought I could take a short-cut and just say ‘purpose’ rather than write out a dissertion on the matter. Indeed it is not the purpose for which we were created, I personally do believe there is no purpose as I believe in only the forces of nature as creator, but one must take account of what has made us what we are. I shall attempt to summarise a vast amount of information, reasoning, etc without excessive typing…
We exist as we do today because certain traits have have allowed certain forms to proliferate more readily than other forms, some of those more proliferate forms developing new traits which allow them to excel in replication over others of the former form. We humans exist as we do today because the many many variations have resulted in this form being more able to replicate than others, one of the implications of this is that all our desires, all our drives, are aimed towards that one purpose; the proliferation of our genes. Now I am not saying that it is noble to pursue proliferation of ones genes but that the purpose of society is to advance the desires and goals of the individuals of which it comprises, if it did not the individuals would not form together and society would not exist, since the vast majority of goals relate to the proliferation of common genes it becomes the purpose of society to strive for that proliferation. Proliferation isn’t just about having children; If one does not have children but instead spends all their time teaching them they too are helping in the proliferation of genes, the vast majority of which they share. Likewise, the green campaigning for clean water or access to food. In some cases not having children or committing suicide (anomie based suicide likely has evolutionary motivations) may even help to proliferate ones genes more than the opposite. The more knowledge we gain the more our goals change, but all towards one common thing; what we perceive to be best for the proliferation of our genes.
Kiore,
That is incredibly unsound and has so many unmentioned premise’. The mention of sentience is entirly unneeded, and wrong is not justified.
Try this;
1)Things which result in undesirable consequences are wrong.
2)Degradation of the social contract has undesirable consequences.
3)The abuse of humans results in degradation of the social contract.
Therefore
4)The abuse of humans is wrong where the undesirable consequences of the abuse are greater than the undesirable consequences of the absence of abuse.
5)Greater abuse of animals leads to greater abuse of humans
Therefore
6)The abuse of animals is wrong where the undesirable consequences of the abuse of humans is greater than the undesirable consequences of the absence of the abuse of animals or humans.
Which is what I have been arguing.
Valis,
.
You feel an obligation but you do not have any such obligation innate and in the absence of that obligation being created in the social contract. That obligation would only be created in the social contract because it is perceived to better achieve the goals of society, it just happens that in our society this is held socially desirable and as such we have laws which make such an obligation; but still there is no obligation innate. We are talking philosophy here
Well the joint goals of society may be prosperity for all or some such so that they proliferate best but the goals of ones-self may be to proliferate as much as possible ones own individual set of genes or just to have as much pleasure as possible, but if one steels or rapes to achieve their goals they are in opposition to the goals of society. So the two are entirely separate, communism fails because it treats them as the same.
I am not a fan of condoms but yes my partner and I do use contraception; by not having children now and leaving it until we have greater financial stability we increase our ability to support such offspring and as such the proliferation of our genes is better ensured. One of the problems of the welfare state is that people can breed like rabbits and not have the offspring perish. Re the purpose, see the first paragraph.
I derive all my philosophy from my understanding of the world, my philosophy evolves as I learn. I have never once found another’s philosophy satisfying in the whole and as such, at most, I scavenge and then latter discard when I learn more. I have completed several papers in evolution and am presently doing one in evolutionary psychology which compliments my cognitive psychology direction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis,
second paragraph*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yup, I thought it might be your own unique perspective. Good luck and keep doing those papers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil U U….eating ‘umans far tastier mon – and they thank you for it later!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil – the truth is actually better; my last four years of eating meat ended in 1994.
I lived in outback Australia and ate rabbit and snake.
Everything I killed I ate.
My City Friends were Horrified.
One day I just stopped.
Life is more than flesh and bones Phil – I’m sure you know.
Everything since has been a journey upward.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>The more knowledge we gain the more our goals change, but all towards one common thing; what we perceive to be best for the proliferation of our genes.
Maybe so. But just because something is the case does not mean it ought to be the case. Hume’s: ‘An “ought” cannot be deduced from an “is”‘ or, more contemporarily ‘the naturalistic fallacy’. For example: ‘As we are “naturally” greedy creatures it follows that we ought to be greedy’.
Of course, just because a great philosopher says so or because we have given it a convenient name does not prove its veracity. Afterall, the environmentalists oft-quoted aphorism ‘Mankind should not upset the natural balance’ is, apart from leading to a possible viscious circle, can be classed as guilty of committing this so-called ‘fallacy’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kjuv,
Indeed, but since our goals share this commonality and the purpose of society IS to acheive the shared goals of those of which it consists then the proliferation of the genes may be seen, by extention, to be the purpose of society and what society ought pursue. Assuming that one ought do what best acheives their goals, and that the goals are best acheived in a healthy society then one ought pursue the path that benefits society whilst not compromising ones own goals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gee S; just as I wiz writin it – you’re a little bit psychic i think – could be time for the chinese parliament to convene!..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>one ought pursue the path that benefits society whilst not compromising ones own goals.
But there is always the other probem that most metaphysical (as opposed to scientific) theories from Leibniz’s ‘monads’ to Kant’s ‘Categorical Imperative’ have to contend with: namely explaining TOO MUCH. As Karl Popper would famously ask: ‘What (hypothetical — but possible) state of affairs would falsify your theory?
Fortunately, metaphysics is not (and I don’t believe, should be) constrained by the same criteria as scientific theories are. It is akin to ‘artistic’ or ‘philosophical’ licence. It is a useful device to assist us in trying to understand the complexities of the Cosmos with perhaps logic as its only limitation. Indeed even logic comes under attack – for example, dropping the ‘Law of the Excluded Middle’ in order to get ‘many valued logics’ (rather than the classical two valued: True/False dichotomy.
So… what am I saying? Well, thank you for sharing the theory with us, as it may well yet prove to help us understand the Cosmos and our place in it just that little bit more
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A ‘true/false dichotomy’ is a natural lock on the flow of logic and reason.
Kjuvi ; – can I suggest a larger world?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The religionists demand that we own homage and sacrifice to that which is the creator – a being extrapolated from observation that things we (mankind) did not create exist.
From the perspective of an animal, if it were sentient, we are the gods. We create them, through forced mating and artificial sperm delivery mechanisms. We provide their food, home, relief (milking) and all other available resources. IN return they worship (just look at cats, dogs and indeed all husbanded animals,) are are ready to sacrifice themselves for us. So. We eat their sacrifice!
BTW. Anyone see the article in today’s Dom that has a 100+ male, a new immigrant to NZ who was recently married, attribute his health and longevity to ‘animal fat, butter, wine and . . . . ‘ other things we are told are bad for us?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>can I suggest a larger world?
Never fear, Mark. I don’t intend to be boring you with with any more claptrap in the future. Different strokes for different folks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“1)Things which result in undesirable consequences are wrong.
2)Degradation of the social contract has undesirable consequences.
3)The abuse of humans results in degradation of the social contract.
Therefore
4)The abuse of humans is wrong where the undesirable consequences of the abuse are greater than the undesirable consequences of the absence of abuse.
5)Greater abuse of animals leads to greater abuse of humans
Therefore
6)The abuse of animals is wrong where the undesirable consequences of the abuse of humans is greater than the undesirable consequences of the absence of the abuse of animals or humans. ”
The above argument also has unstated premised, such as no definition of “undesirable consequences” or why the abuse of humans is “undesirable”. To those profiting from the abuse of humans or animals, the consequences will be very desirable, pleasure, wealth or power. I suggest that the reason most people consider that the consequences are “undesirable” is because humans have moral worth, and the reasons they have moral worth is because they are conscious.
We seem to agree that abuse of animals leads to abuse of humans, and is wrong for this reason. But th question as to why abuse of humans leads to abuse of animals is not stated. I put it that it is because the animal abuser gains a sense of pleasure from feelings of power and dominance. But this would only make sense if the animal was a conscious being. It would make no sense at all to have power over a being that is not conscious.
But if it is wrong to abuse humans because they are conscious, and animals are conscious then it is also wrong to abuse animals because they are conscious, not simply because to do so leads to human abuse.
The only instance where I think the indirect duties reasoning alone is valid is where the entities being abused are not conscious, but the “abuser” has a willing suspension of disbelief and projects consciousness on them. So it is quite possible that violent video games where the “abuser” guns down innocent virtual humans, could lead to the same power trip and therefore abuse of real humans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kiore,
That is a mearly a rationalisation of why animal abuse should not be tolerated in some circumstances.
It does state clearly why abuse of humans is undesirable and thus ‘wrong’ (number 3), The arguement only applies to individuals whom gain more through societies benefit than through socieities suffering, which in the long term is almost everyone.
It is almost the most logical arguement that can be made for opposition to animal abuse. No logcal arguement, based in fact, can be levied against all, or even most, animal experimentation.
The arguement does have unstated premises, i removed them to keep the arguement simple and uncluttered.
Why the abuse of animals leads to the abuse fo humans is irrelivant for this arguement, all that is important is that it does. However, It is likely, based on the psych liturature, that it is due to the perception of suffering in the creature. This is not to say that the creature is sentient but that it is perceived to be. But even given the admision of sentience, atempt to provide a near sound arguement as to why animal abuse is bad. Call it a challenge.
It is not ‘wrong’ to abuse humans, infact in many cases it is a desirable thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)