Animals are innocent
I have heard some arguments for animal rights. However, since an animal cannot advocate for itself, what can a person do to represent an animal? This might sound strange, but how is a person to overtly state that animals are innocent bystanders of our desires for the goods produced from their cultivation?
But, the burden of proof for representing animal rights seem to be only justified by the altruism of the individual interested in them. Therefore, is the whole issue of animal rights moot from the beginning for those concerned with respect to those interested in their goods produced? Why is that so?
There really is no perspective to prefer in terms of point of view on the matter. Therefore aren't we compelled to ask ourselves, why do we need to cultivate animals for their meat? Aren't animals innocent in every regard and the question is how much satisfaction is necessary to continue the ongoing slaughter of animals for their meat? However, if we cannot argue with the consumer of pork or beef, then what are we to do about this issue between interested parties?
But, the burden of proof for representing animal rights seem to be only justified by the altruism of the individual interested in them. Therefore, is the whole issue of animal rights moot from the beginning for those concerned with respect to those interested in their goods produced? Why is that so?
There really is no perspective to prefer in terms of point of view on the matter. Therefore aren't we compelled to ask ourselves, why do we need to cultivate animals for their meat? Aren't animals innocent in every regard and the question is how much satisfaction is necessary to continue the ongoing slaughter of animals for their meat? However, if we cannot argue with the consumer of pork or beef, then what are we to do about this issue between interested parties?
Comments (182)
Personally, I think it is okay to kill and eat animals in the same way that wolves kill and eat animals. However, the way we do it lacks respect, grace, gratitude and a personal relationship with the prey in such a way that we hone their edge (and lose, more often than not) at the same time that they hone our edge (when we don't stack the deck with domestication and long range weaponry). We used to have to work for our food.
Animals are "innocent" vs us in the same way a deer is "innocent" vs a cougar.
In the end, though, we are what we eat. There simply are not enough wild animals to feed 7 billion people and so, we eat fat, stupid, lazy, bawling, shit-smeared, fly-covered animals that stand around, face-to-asshole, breathing filthy air (flatulence), on three feet of their own shit, drinking putrid water and eating rotten corn silage. So there's that. You simply cannot have an upside down food pyramid with apex predators at the top and everything else at the bottom.
An apocalypse.
I was going to mention Stone's essay, but you beat me to it. It's a bit broader issue than @Shawn brought up. It deals with the rights of the environment as a whole rather than domesticated animals. I think the two issues are closely related.
Relevant to that, in the US, the federal government acts as a Natural Resources Trustee representing the interests of the environment. This program runs parallel to other federal and state environmental laws and regulations and sometimes involves requirements for mitigation or repair of environmental damage.
I can't agree more. I saw a documentary about the modern way of fishing and damned captain Iglo, so invitingly asking us to purchase the fish he caught in his small fishing boat, on which children are having a good time. If you know the grim reality behind this white-bearded fellow, you would throw him over his own board at the spot. The real boats are huge floating factories, scraping over the bottoms of the seas, to collect as much fish as possible and killing many non-wanted fish, like about a hundred million sharks. How different from the fishermen on the sea around my small island, in small boats.
In the same documentary (I forgot the name) someone sad, very wisely, that all creatures on Earth are traveling on spaceship Earth and that all forms of life are like natural engineers to keep the planet habitable for one another. So I think it would be good to show respect for nature.
Our increasingly inhumane treatment of animals and indeed virtually every other life on Earth is a direct result of our evergrowing population that has to have its needs met. That's where I would start. The conclusion that 7,9 billion humans is quite enough.
Funny enough, I wanted to ask the question here if there is overpopulation. I just read that 50 000 BC there were only one million people living on Earth. That's 7000 times as much, these days. Quite a lot. I think there is no mammal in nature living in such a quantity. Though it seems we push each other of the planet, there is actually a lot of room! I think nature can provide for all, but there is not much nature left anymore, although this might be a too narrow vision. In the birthyear of the holy savior, a billion people walked the Earth. More or less. I can't see a very big difference with 7 billion. All pee in the year zero could be fed without a too great impact on nature. For every person back then, an area of a quarter squared kilometer could be assigned. That is about 1/30 of a squared kilometer in our time. That is about 3 hectares or 7.5 acres. The problem not lies in the increase of people, but in the disproportional growth of products, which is way out of hand. Nature can provide for all. The modern trend of global development, in the service of the capital, is turning increasingly vicious to the face of nature. It's material development that is to fear, not an increasing population. Nature, including all life in it, is basically innocent. But it can show us a mad face one day.
Dogs are not as innocent as thought. They can act. Fooling us (me) to believe they have a painfull leg. But on second thought, that's pretty innocent.
We have created species that exist just to satisfy our needs, we'll never give them any right that goes against our own human interests.
If you tell me that we can afford feeding people and at the same time decreasing animal suffering, I don't think anyone will disagree as much as you keep our standard of living.
Our current technological means can allow us to do that and we're moving into this direction already.
But let's be honest.. and cynic (sorry), if the with-care-treated meat costs you double than the other one and we have to give up going on holidays because of that... would you do it?
Animals will become more innocent as we get to afford them to be.
Yes, we've been strip mining the oceans for so long, they can't handle it. Sad. In the U.S. we long ago banned commercial exploitation of wildlife on land. I don't understand why ocean fish aren't considered wildlife. We thought the Carrier Pidgeon could never go extinct either. Commercial use of fish for the food of 7 billion just won't cut it. And lots of it ends up in pet food and whatnot. Jeesh!
The idea that things like respect or grace could possibly matter when killing someone seems pretty far-fetched to me.
I know, right? We've separated ourselves so far from the natural order of things that many cannot even fathom the notion. It's like trying to explain sight to one who has never seen. Most even say grace before eating, rather than living in grace with what they eat.
If you are sincerely interested in seeing, then I suggest you take up the hunt. Nothing will help you see better than becoming that which you seek.
(Side bar for those who actually try: The more primitive you can be, and the farther you go from that which separates us from the natural order of things, the better. Also, the longer you can go, the better.)
P.S. For those who don't want to put in the work, an interesting read is "Meditations on Hunting" by Jose Ortega yGasset.
No thank you.
Same way I don't need to become a serial killer or rapist in order to see through those things.
Another sickness brought on by our distance from who we are is the illogical conflation of disparate things, like hunting and serial killers. It's sad to watch the blind stumble around so. They actually think food comes from the grocery store.
Well, have fun with your strawpersons anyway.
There are no straw persons here. Let me try to help you: Would you equate a deer to a serial killer? Personally, I would not. The deer is what you must become when you hunt it. Otherwise, you will not succeed.
Likewise when you are being hunted: you must become the predator to avoid becoming lunch. That is what the deer does. Put yourself in the other.
Having left off of the ability to do this is what creates your blindness. I think it does more to create serial killers than anything else. Preoccupation with us.
This is nonsensical. Deer don't hunt. If you became a deer, you would eat leaves and leave all the other deer alone.
Have you ever watched a deer watch for you? He/she is becoming you. Have you ever watched a cougar hunt a deer? He/she must become the deer.
A very simple example is the head movement. Sometimes it does indeed go into the vegetation for a bite, but other times, many times, it is a feint, trying to catch the cat in an unbalanced mid step. Other times, staring into one distant spot, trying to pick up movement with peripheral vision. This is only successful when, not only thinking like, but becoming that which wants to kill you.
Likewise the cat: stepping ever so carefully, eyes locked just through the prey (for you don't want to look *at* the prey; their sixth sense will give you away), trying to figure if that next placement of the head into the vegetation is for real, or just a feint. Only the cat that becomes the deer will know when to step.
Watch jaws of that deer grind. Watch when they stop grinding and just stare. Eyes don't see as well when jaws move. But those ears, that nose. You must become the moment. Immerse yourself in All.
Then, who knows first when the gig is up? Then the chase is on. The one who better became the other is the one that lives to eat another day.
They love each other. It's sad so many people don't know this love. This lack of knowing this love, this blindness, it makes us sicker. Some even become serial killers.
This doesn't in any way, shape, or form address what I said.
It does. But you don't see it. That's unfortunate. But not unusual.
Okie dokie.
I think rights are primarily about the one who grants those rights rather than the beneficiary. When I say that someone or something has a right, I mean that I have made a commitment to treat them in a certain way. When they said "All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." they meant that they, the signers of the Declaration, made a commitment supported by a pledge of "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." That's what a right is, a declaration of commitment.
Yes, rights are conferred, but they also need to be exercised by a subject in order for the idea to be meaningful.
What brought this up for me was a protest reported on the news some years back, about a proposal to cull great white sharks in Western Australia, following several fatalities. One of the protestors was holding this sign:
I really don't think this is meaningful idea. A case can be made for not culling sharks but I don't think it can be grounded in the idea that a shark has rights.
Not produce pork or beef, nor do anything that would support their production.
Indeed. The focus should be on the behavior of humans, and not on the supposed inherent value and nature of animals, or the rights of animals.
In other words, people should treat animals well because to do otherwise would reflect badly on the people.
:100:
Yes, that's the point of the OP. Although when advocating for an animal (which isn't unusual) people tend to level their intelligence to our own.
Although one may mount the argument that being altruistic isn't a common assumption of humanity.
The problem with these kinds of arguments is that they externalize the justification. Ie. the case is made that some being or object has inherent value because of which people should treat this being or object well. With this, the contrast is also held in place: It's because some being or object does not have inherent value that we do not have to treat them well.
"It's okay to eat fish because they don't have any feelings."
The "black lives matter" is another such an externalizing lines of reasoning that is doomed to ineffectiveness. It's saying "Black people are worthy people, too." Clearly, as history has shown, there has been a lot of disagreement as to the inherent value of people depending on their race, sex, socioeconomic status. Such externalizing lines of reasoning do not have much persuasive power.
In other words, such externalizing lines of reasoning shift the focus of moral justification outside, on the object; they are based on the evaluation of the inherent value or nature. At the same time, this evaluation itself is a matter of debate and far from settled.
I don't see anything wrong with that, do you?
Quoting baker
What kind of debate? I'm not sure I'm following the issue of externalizing the issue to blame or justification in comparison with any framework to operate with, which seems necessary to even begin discussing animal rights...
The reason we don't hear much about cases of animal rights violations in courts, is that animals can't afford lawyers. Mostly their only liquid asset is their pelt or hyde, and that is an unmitigable possession of the animal.
Quoting Wayfarer
There is indeed something more to be said about this point. There's an unsettling thing in saying, in order for animals to be treated with respect they must pass the "have rights" test. Rights, as T Clark said, are a declaration of commitment, but created by humans nonetheless.
Likewise, treating animals with respect because it would reflect badly on us if we don't is also an unsatisfying, to say the least, notion. It bothers me.
We are looking at this issue for the sake of our interest only.
Treat animals with respect like us because they, too, have a will to live. This has been demonstrated by many studies on animals. And you don't even have to turn to researchers to know this. If you live with animals, you'll know this!
A will to live includes trying to escape from entrapment, from a predator, hiding their younglings from predators and other dangers, getting food for sustenance, play games for entertainment, and rest. Why else would they secure these basic needs -- shelter, food, protection? It's all nature, you say? Okay, humans are delusional if they think that the "free will" they believe they have are all created by "civilization". We think our will is different from animal will? No it isn't.
Because this is the only perspective that we can intelligibly have.
That's, basically, the Jain perspective, a recipe for a slow death by starvation.
Please explain. Quoting baker
I just said it is not the only perspective. What you're saying is, that's the only acceptable perspective for you.
I do. It's a dishonorable perspective to take. Dishonorable for the person who takes such a perspective.
The debate around whether X is deserving of respect on account of X's inherent value or the lack thereof.
Well, I think I understand why it would be dishonest to say that pigs aren't intelligent enough to care for their plight. Yet, that's so commonly accepted that they aren't worth concerning oneself over.
Why do you think so many people behave this way?
The Jains, ideally, believing in absolute harmlessness, end up not eating at all, and thus die of starvation.
Humans can only take a human perspective.
Probably because they believe that their lives are worth more than those of animals.
Many people also believe that their lives are worth more than the lives of many other people.
This is the fallacy of false dilemma. Dramatic, yes, but fallacy nonetheless.
I suppose this is true. Unfortunate and sad.
I agree with you. However, it's not an either/or situation. It's a both/and situation.
I've likened it to the U.S. Constitution. It provides that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. Thus, rather than get all wrapped up in BS arguments about whether some Indians "deserve" it or not, or the whataboutism of the stupid people, we should simply honor our treaties with Indians because it is us to do so. It's supposed to be who we are, irrespective of what some individual Indians may have done in derogation of the treaty which they may not have, individually, agreed to.
However, we don't have to be so stupid as to think that is the only way to look at it: as if our perspective is the only perspective we can possibly appreciate or assume to exist, and then proceeding from there. For instance, we stipulate that we don't have a sovereign status over another like, say, the U.S. does with China or Russia, or, better yet, some tiny county we could stomp if we wanted to. We could realize that we are not "all that", and that we are dependent upon, subordinate to nature, and respectful of another. In the instant case, animals and the biodiversity of which they are a part.
Those who think they are better than animals are like whites who think they are better than Indians or blacks. They think whites should do right by nonwhites because that is who whites are: people who do right. But history proves otherwise. That is not who whites are. It's the same with animals. We are not better than them and we should not do right by them simply because we think we are "right-kind-of-people." We should do right by them because they are us and we are all one.
It's also stupid to think anthropomorphically. That ends up with some people imputing one feeling to prey and another feeling to predators. It pulls us back into that "right" vs "wrong" mentality. There is nothing wrong with killing and eating. There is nothing wrong with being killed and eaten. There is nothing wrong with resisting. In fact, a failure to resist does no good for either side. The natural order of things demands mutual improvement through evolutionary processes. But once we leave off of that, the improvement stops. Like the high school football team, up 106 to 0, running it in for 2 instead of kicking for 1. WTF?
Then nature comes along for a reset as part of a process from which we thought we were exempt, just like whites thought they were better than blacks and Indians. Oops!
Picking the "us = good" mentality alone is absent grace, gratitude and humble regard.
To think that mankind can only see through mankind's eyes is to see mankind as alone, isolated, separate from the world. He becomes insecure and afraid, devaluing and marginalizing all that is not him. To see himself as one with All is to see more.
Why would that be a false dilemma?
Are you saying it is possible to live without eating? To eat without causing harm?
No. It is possible to live without eating animals. It is not either we eat or die. No one said you can't eat.
Yes. And does this extend to the argument that we can therefore hunt like animals do?
Why do you argue in false dilemma all the time? Is this the only way you can think?
You're still not getting my point. Human will is the same as animal will. But the way we treat animals disregards this point.
How are you so sure?
*sigh*
Farming plants for food still results in harm to animals. By plowing the soil, by using pesticides or other substances and techniques to minimize the populations of insects and other animals that would destroy the plants or the fruits. Then in the process of harvesting, again, animals are being killed.
And the people producing a vegan diet aren't necessarily vegan themselves either.
In short, no matter where you turn, animals are being killed in the process of producing food for humans, in one way or another, whether they are killed and eaten directly, or end up killed as competitors for human food or as collateral damage in the production of human food.
So? What do you think necessarily follows from this?
People kill eachother as well, or act without regard for the wellbeing of other people, thus disregarding that the will of another human is the same as one's own.
It is not the case that humans would only disregard will when it comes to animals; no, the disregard is far more universal.
Yes. We are animals. Omnivores, so I'm told.
Because we are animals. We just aren't real good at it.
So do we hunt like animals? Or farm and breed animals?
And so we cannot change?
What's your plan?
Reduce consumption overall. It's not an overnight thing. But conscious deliberate mindfulness.
Not even close. In fact, most people I've seen who "hunt" don't hunt anything like an animal.
Quoting Caldwell
Yeah, mostly that.
I think you just described hunting.
Do animals farm and breed animals?
Not really.
Yes, really. If you don't think conscious deliberate mindfulness is hunting then you've never hunted. Maybe you tried doing what most people I've seen do, and called it hunting. :sad:
Quoting Caldwell
Well, some do. Some folks say plants and fungi are farming us, giving us oxygen until we eventually expire and turn into mulch which they can consume. I've also heard of some insects doing something similar to other insects.
But I'm just funnin' you. I know what you mean, and the answer is emphatically no. Animals don't treat other animals with so much disrespect, lack of consideration, lack of mindfulness, lack of conscious deliberation. Rather, they live in the now, and hunt with conscious deliberate mindfulness.
We are different to animals due to language and self-awareness.
Rights come with responsibilities, they're part of the social contract. If a human kills - murders- then his or her rights to freedom of movement are forfeited by imprisonment. I suppose it's true if an animal kills humans then they may be hunted and destroyed, but they are not morally culpable if they kill.
Through observation. And if you're not sure of people's observations, including yours, then consult the animal behaviorists. Animals do not act out of random. There's a point to what they do.
And animal vocalization is not language? Okay. Maybe so. But it is communication, though not articulation.
No, it's definitively not. One of the underlying problems in all of this is that it blurs the distinction between humans and animals. In fact it's highly non PC to suggest that humans and animals are different, it's fiercely contested. I think the reason for that is, 'being' is a burden to humans in a way that it cannot be for animals, because of self awareness. And also because 'nature' is idolized these days as symbolic of purity and innocence.
Except that they've been doing that before humans came into existence. Though I should have qualified my statement of will as that of animals, vertebrate, some invertebrate are also considered here. But let's stay close to vertebrate.
But it is communication.
They've diversified their palate. Probably got bored with the same old healthy stuff.
Quoting Caldwell
Well, as I intimated above, just as the tooth of the wolf chisels the leg of the deer, so too, the leg of the deer chisels the tooth of the wolf. They are farming and breeding each other into what they are. They just have better techniques, producing a better end product. Not some fat, bawling, shit-smeared, lazy piece of meat that is easy to kill and provides no incentive to work for it. (I'm talking about homo sap here. :wink: )
But not symbolic communication and it’s a difference that makes a difference.
Probably not. People usually need someone to make intelligent arguments, from experience, pointing out flaws in order to see those flaws. When those arguments are missing, it's understandable they continue to roll omni.
I dunno... my personal experience ( :wink: ) is that people's psychologies get in the way of this debate. I mean, something they do every day, something they enjoy, something that bonds them to other people is at stake and I find that is a real obstacle to being open-minded and resolving cognitive dissonance.
Same issue that inhibits real conversation with theists.
I think we are 100% in agreement on what you just said. Nevertheless, an absence of argument does a position no good. That cognitive dissonance is the blindness I referenced when I said "Another sickness brought on by our distance from who we are is the illogical conflation of disparate things, like hunting and serial killers. It's sad to watch the blind stumble around so. They actually think food comes from the grocery store."
Maybe... but I lose interest even attempting the debate when I think my interlocutors aren't actually open to seeing the other side.
If you look through the archives here, btw, you'll see that the conversation has been had many many times and many good arguments have been made... but I lost hope when it turned out that people would rather bite the bullet every. single. time. and make claims, like... oh, they'd eat a disabled person, rather than admit they're making mistakes somehow somewhere in their thinking.
If you could maintain interest and look a little deeper, you might find your interlocutors have been on the other side, yet progressed with experience.
Quoting Artemis
No thanks. I want my interlocutors to argue on their own two feet, thus maintaining their status as interlocutor.
Quoting Artemis
Hmmm. I don't think I've ever made that claim. But I confess I don't know what you are talking about, so there's that.
So could you.
Ah, but I am. Let me repeat:
"People usually need someone to make intelligent arguments, from experience, pointing out flaws in order to see those flaws. When those arguments are missing, it's understandable they continue to roll omni."
and
"Nevertheless, an absence of argument does a position no good."
So far, crickets.
It's a nice metaphor. Sorry but not I would call serious talk here.
No, not symbolic as humans have. But communication nonetheless, like wolves have. C'mon Wayfarer.
That's because you completely ignored me when I said:
Quoting James Riley
and then continued to pursue the funnin' with:
Quoting Caldwell
You could have kept it on my serious response to your serious post.
Nah, I already explained why I'm not interested.
But I do cordially invite you to read this thread and previous threads not through your own eyes, but through the eyes of a non-omni.... hey, kinda like you told me to inhabit a deer or cougar or something by hunting! Go ahead! It'll be fun! :snicker:
Because you are not an interlocutor? Someone in the past failed to agree with you?
Quoting Artemis
BTDT. :smile:
What do you mean, c'mon? I'm saying that humans are in a different category to animals - they have symbolic communication, and also rights, responsibilities, and duties. They are responsible agents. (I don't accept the scientistic crap about determinism.) Unlike animals, who do not have any of the above. Animal behaviours can be complex and sophisticated but they're not conscious agents in the sense that humans are, and that also is a difference that makes a difference.
Someone in the past, as I've mentioned and just for example, told me they'd eat disabled people. So yeah, it's tedious.
Quoting James Riley
Didn't you JUST say you don't want to look at the archives and don't know anything about what was said there? So much for BTDT....
Yeah, I don't know where that came from.
Quoting Artemis
You said "But I do cordially invite you to read this thread . . . "
BTDT.
I also told you that " If you could maintain interest and look a little deeper, you might find your interlocutors have been on the other side, yet progressed with experience."
i.e. BTDT
And, since I JUST told you I'm not going search through years of the forum to find whatever unknown thread it might be that you are thinking of (the one where someone would eat the disabled? or disagreed with you in argument?) then I figured you'd be smart enough to know that I was not referring that when I said BTDT. After all, it was only a few minutes ago that you were told.
:100:
I said this thread and others through the eyes of the other side, actually.
But, hey, your whole "you need arguments" spiel is coming on the heels of your whole "I can't give you arguments, you just need to hunt and see it for yourself" yadda yadda yadda.
So excuse me, but I think my asking you to just read some past conversations, which are literally just a few clicks away is a lot less out there and "inconvenient" than some suggestion that I should --quite literally-- get blood on my hands.
And I'll add, yes, I'm being lazy and don't really WANT to rehash what has been hashed out ad nauseam on this forum already...
BUT at least I'm not clouding my stance in some pseudo-mystical fiddlydud about becoming one with the deer, but no actually with the hunter of the deer, which is the same as the deer but somehow like... not the same? And if you don't understand, then you're just blind! blind I say!
Yes, and I addressed all that. I'd restate what I JUST said, but the record can speak for itself.
Quoting Artemis
You were the one alleging flaws in arguments made without showing any flaw. That's on you.
Quoting Artemis
So you didn't read a word I JUST said? I read this thread. I have not seen the flaws you alleged to exist but refuse to point out.
That was distressing to watch. :grimace:
Then let it go.
Quoting Artemis
Even worse, you are not offering any evidence of a flaw, much less any support for your side. In fact, I don't even know what your side is. Would you have the lions lay down with the lamb?
But neither did you. That's the hilarious part of this. You started this whole thing telling me I can't possibly understand or know until I go and hunt and until then I'd be irredeemably blind.
I'm not even pretending to give evidence or arguments. So why you're griping about it ... I really cannot fathom.
But, I will extend this olive branch:
I know my tone here isn't going to be appreciated by anyone who doesn't agree with me and share my experiences in this conversation. That's fine. It was a little insider humor for myself. So, I apologize for ruffling feathers, if I have.
I've seen your posts on other subjects here, and while I think you ARE too inclined toward semi-grandiose statements, I think you have interesting thoughts underneath all the rhetoric and I appreciate your contributions to those conversations.
So yeah, that's my olive branch for today and my exeunt from this thread.
Is that what's this about?
It's awful. It's happened in Australia before - farmers selling livestock to overseas markets where they're sent by ship and then slaughtered overseas. There has been some dreadful footage of sheep in the most appalling conditions penned below decks and literally dying of heat while being too tightly penned to fall. And their treatment in some of the overseas abbatoirs is absolutely dreadful. There's a public hue and cry after the footage is leaked and the politicians all say that the industry will be improved but as these latest exposes are showing, it never is.
Let me refresh your memory. You started this with: "The idea that things like respect or grace could possibly matter when killing someone seems pretty far-fetched to me."
That is not an argument and there is no allegation of flaw. Nothing. I explained how I understood your position, based upon how far man has distanced him self from who he is. I told you how to get back to the animal that we are. You could not contest the wisdom of that recommendation without making some silly analogy to serial killers. That's sounds suspiciously as bad as the ADA cannibal thing you found so off-putting. Really, Aremis, why did you make that illogical leap? I know why. Because you cannot fathom the idea that a killer and eater of meat could possibly have respect for the animal he kills, or that his killing it could be in grace with it. Oakie Dokey.
Quoting Artemis
Precisely because you said "The idea that things like respect or grace could possibly matter when killing someone seems pretty far-fetched to me." If you don't want to engage, and you don't want an interlocutor and you don't want to demonstrate a flaw and if you don't want to state a position, then the answer is simple: Don't.
Quoting Artemis
Adios.
hahaha! :sweat: That's how I ruined something in my life. Good God, James! How the fuck! Sorry for the f-word.
They have a will to live.
I've found a good encyclopedia article on the history of the concept of human rights which I'm in the process of reading. It notes:
and
I know it's a very unfashionable view to take, but I lean towards it. I think the alternative is to deprecate reason.
:100: They taught me what "will to live" means. While I have been depressed at times, I won't pretend to understand deep clinical depression. However, I can't help but think if a suicidal person could witness some of the animal demonstrations of a will to live that I have seen, they would turn away from killing themselves.
I agree with that. Some of those rights are the right to fight, the right to flight and the right to self-defense. It's not simply a human construct. Indeed, much of the common law is steeped in a concept of "natural law", which comes from nature and not simply the mind of man. The fact that man will articulate it for himself is not the flex he thinks it is. Animals don't need the articulation.
Interesting biological angle. Strike the word "willing" and it would be more interesting. The same argument has been made for those humans which would, under natural circumstances, be removed from the gene pool. Whatever their malady, they may possess that one gene that gets us through some as-yet unknown or unforeseen upset. It's a form of intraspecific diversity.
In the end, though, domestic animals have a dependence upon us such that if we ever wipe ourselves out, they probably won't last long in competition with those of the ilk from which they descended. They might make a good meal for them, though.
There could be exceptions, and interbreeding between domestic and wild, but since they have, like us, left off the honing of edges on hard surfaces, the majority won't be worth much to themselves. The jury is still out on us. It's only been a few hundred thousand years. Hardly long enough to have back-slapping party.
The predator-prey relationship is more complex than it seems when viewed under the moral lens. I think Nietzsche had similar thoughts as me in this regard.
That said I don't endorse the view that goes I'm only torturing/killing you for your own good. If anything, it indicates a very disturbing lack of imagination even though the obviously elliptical way nature achieves balance bears the hallmark of creative genius albeit in a twisted, wicked sense. Nature is a psychopath!
Yes, the poor man went crazy after seeing a horse whipped too much. Empathy was very important for him.
[quote=Alice in wonderland]But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked. "Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad." "How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.[/quote]
@schopenhauer1 - we must all be mad "or you [we] wouldn't have come here."
Any lens is only our own. The relationship is amoral, not immoral. And by that assessment, from our perspective, it must be moral.
Quoting TheMadFool
:100: There is no torturing/killing for "your own good." Torturing is training for the torturer and killing is for food for the killer.
Quoting TheMadFool
That's just us, or our impression of nature when we try to divorce ourselves from it. There is no "wicked." Nor is there any psychopathy.
Off to bed. Night.
On the contrary, will is material to conferring rights to an entity. I said several posts earlier that while I am for animal rights, it is really our commitment to these rights that give them the power to stick. That's not cut it for me. Animals, with or without humans conferring them rights, should be allowed to live and let live.
Talk to me then, like you mean it.
I'd be surprised if he wasn't a vegetarian. There is atrocious suffering in this world, all for the claim that something tasted 'good'.
You still need to explain what you believe to be the correct inference from this.
Or was that onset of mental illness due to syphilis?
I know meat eaters who say that humans must kill and eat animals, so as to make it clear who the boss is. That humans must continually assert their supremacy over animals and the natural environment, or else humans will be pushed out by them.
Reduction of human consumption does not change the nature of the relationship between humans and animals, only the mode of it.
As long as the nature of said relationship doesn't change, a change in its mode is a poor consolation, to say the least.
And, of course, a "live and let live" attitude will get you in trouble with other people, who want to live the way they want (which can include killing and eating animals), and not have anyone tell them how to do it.
You are assuming too much uniformity and unanimousness for humans.
Look:
I'm saying that Gentiles are in a different category to Jews - they have symbolic communication, and also rights, responsibilities, and duties. They are responsible agents. (I don't accept the scientistic crap about determinism.) Unlike Jews, who do not have any of the above. Jewish behaviours can be complex and sophisticated but they're not conscious agents in the sense that Gentiles are, and that also is a difference that makes a difference.
Or
I'm saying that men are in a different category to women - they have symbolic communication, and also rights, responsibilities, and duties. They are responsible agents. (I don't accept the scientistic crap about determinism.) Unlike women, who do not have any of the above. Women's behaviours can be complex and sophisticated but they're not conscious agents in the sense that men are, and that also is a difference that makes a difference.
And so on.
The egalitarian idea that all humans are equal in some essential and important way is a humanist pipe dream which very few people actually believe in. For all practical intents and purposes, humans are as discriminating against other humans as they are against animals and plants.
I don't know how to link. I'm going to try it:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/519768#:~:text=This%20has%20probably,with%20the%20deer.
It kind of worked. Anyway, like I said before, you have to see it. Reading about it is one thing, but actually participating in it is another. When a man steels a loaf of bread to feed his starving child, the concept of morality is a luxury for those with leisure. If they want an alternative choice, they have to provide it. For the man, life has been reduced to living. The goal is to live and to get your offspring to live. I honor that and resolve to do it. That deer had no intent to teach me anything. Intent, like morality, is off the table in the now.
Suicide, like morality, is a leisure time activity.
No, it isn't a luxury for those with leisure. (It is morally hazardous to take examples like this and attribute it to false dilemma) Rather, in this situation, the subjective action of an individual -- stealing a loaf of bread -- needs to be examined if it fits in the moral codes of the community of moral agents. This is not anymore different than the action of lying. To moral philosophers, this is called the perturbation of the moral order. It's a modal test -- Can our moral system admit such variations of individual actions and still maintain a stable system?
What do you think? I mean you as a moral agent.
Revisit your moral belief and think which moral system -- universal moral code or pluralism -- works best. And please do not confuse this examination with relativism. Moral relativism is not on par with the above principles. Moral relativism is actually unstable.
Now for the link you provided regarding murder-suicide pact -- we have to start prior to the moral agency. We have think in terms of whether the individuals acted with their moral agency intact at the time or were they under the delusional state of mind, which is not fitting for the definition of moral agency. The analysis you would have to take is the prevention of such actions.
If there is a "need" to examine, then who has that alleged need? Certainly not the guy steeling the bread. That was my point. Only those with a full belly have the luxury of sitting around ruminating their cud on such things. If they think the guy had other options, or made bad choices resulting in his choice, etc. that is still irrelevant to him. If they are really worried about it, they can ask themselves if they, personally, presented him with another option, and if so, why didn't he take it? But that's still irrelevant to the now.
A person is offered a free vaccine. He doesn't take it. He get's sick and starts dying. He runs to the hospital and begs for help. We can sit around with our couldashouldawoulda all day long. That doesn't influence his actions.
Animals live life now.
Maybe we should start a new thread on this as we are hijacking Shawn's animal thread. What do you think? I will respond at the new thread.
I'm thinking that I was sticking to his question here:
Quoting Shawn
Where they *live* in the *now* without all the moral hand-wringing of men, that rings of innocence to me. I was merely trying to bring it home in a way that humans might understand. But if I failed, that's okay. I have to go buck some wood for winter. Peace.
In that case, no isn't against our moral system to treat animals as innocent, and with respect. All moral agents are presumed to have the ability to think about their actions, including the bread thief. Changing our behavior towards the animals does not make our moral system unstable. We could have a more detailed analysis if you'd like. But acknowledging that animals have a will to live, just like us, doesn't go against our moral system.
My chain saw keeps quitting on me. Anyway, yeah, there is no argument on that. In fact, that is what I said: "Any lens is only our own. The relationship [predator/prey] is amoral, not immoral. And by that assessment, from our perspective, it must be moral."
Emphasis added. Same with the guy steeling bread and the guy seeking help when he failed to get vaxxed. Just as there is a place where the law can only operate after the fact, so too morality.
You then created two hypothetical examples which had no bearing on what I said, as if they represented what I said.
Humans are different to animals because they have symbolic communication, can take alternative courses of action, foresee the consequences of what they do, and act from a variety of motives.
Of course animals have a will to live, they suffer if abused, they can be unhappy or happy, they can flourish or be miserable. But that doesn't mean that the concept of 'animal rights' is meaningful.
You missed the first line:
You are assuming too much uniformity and unanimousness for humans.
What you're saying isn't limited to how humans think of animals; it's also how humans think of other (categories) of humans.
I'm in no way disagreeing with the latter. I've been saying that the general human dismissal of animals has the same structure as when (categories of) humans dismiss other (categories of) humans.
And if humans won't even accept other humans as human, and deny them as being holders of rights, what consideration can humans be expected to have for animals?
The notion of animal rights is just as shaky as the notion of human rights.
:)
Quoting James Riley
So this is another individual subjective principle of our moral system. An individual decides not to get vaccinated, and when afflicted with virus, runs to the hospital and begs for help. With the assumption that he is a moral agent, and decides to go against the prevailing scientific belief that vaccination works, we have to think about whether admitting such decision within our system makes the system unstable. Well, does it?
Often we can accommodate such modalities given a small number of occurrence. Often the stability of a system is tied to the size of modalities -- or divergent actions. I believe we have in place a device that could measure it, and once a number of unacceptable divergence is reached, we are also equipped to deal with it. But should we really wait until it rocks the boat?
Humans are not all the same but for the purposes of determining human rights, are treated as equals.
Quoting Caldwell
Your writing is not clear here. What do you mean by 'admitting such decision'?
I have read acounts of doctors and healthcare workers who are caring for COVID patients who had refused vaccination until it was too late. They said they found it exasperating, but endeavoured to do their best for the patient.
I certainly believe that those who refuse vaccination on purportedly conscientious grounds might have their civil freedoms curtailed, i.e. not be allowed into venues or airplanes, but there's already a thread for that debate.
I've just noticed the title of the OP again. 'Animals are innocent' in that they're incapable of moral culpability. It is for that reason that it is meaningless to speak of their 'rights'. But at least I know that is a very controversial idea, and even why it is. I would be very surprised if anyone participating could articulate why that is.
Now I agree that that-there is beyond the scope of this thread. I argued it with Frank.
Quoting Caldwell
It's like the state's different reasons for punishment: it depends on what your goals are. I like to see people be forced to take personal responsibility for their own actions. But I also like third parties to see a magnanimous state, so long as that doesn't encourage bad behavior. And a soft-broke horse is not broken, whereas a hard-broke horse is. Regardless, we should consider those who play by the rules for positive treatment at the front of the line.
Bringing this back to animals: See horse. They should be at the front of the line with positive treatment. Morality didn't factor into their decision-making (Notwithstanding that occasional Molly who holds a grudge. Best not to quick-her whilst giving a pedicure).
But who actually cares about this purported equality? Perhaps the lawmakers, in the abstract. But for practical intents and purposes, nobody does. There is a clear discrepancy between the legal ideal, and the actual reality. So why ignore the obvious?
"admitting such decision" -- should we accept an individual subjective decision - not get vaccinated -- into our system? Maybe not well chosen words by me.
I agree. Like I said, we need to examine our moral system -- the elements of fidelity, of what is rational, and the punishment for divergent behavior. I guess when philosophers speak of pluralism, it means examining a divergent action and see which one of the elements in our moral system is affected. Lying certainly affects trustworthiness, refusing to follow health protocol certainly affects the health of others, and so on.
So, what should be the treatment of such divergent behavior? Banning them from airplanes, venues, etc. And yes, if they're taking up limited resources -- hospital emergency rooms do not exist in infinite amount of units -- then that is the risk they have to take.
This is too simplistic. The fact is that sometimes, people get vaccinated and get sick from the vaccine, or get covid despite being vaccinated.
If the state of facts would be "If you get vaccinated, you're safe from covid and you don't get sick from the vaccine", your line of reasoning would hold. But clearly, it's not the case.
We could morally hold it against people if they don't get vaccinated only if the vaccines would actually be 100% safe and effective. But they're not, so if we want to launch a moral charge against the unvaccinated, it has to be based on some other grounds. Such as, for example, "It is immoral to refuse to take upon oneself the risk and cost of experimental vaccination in the case of a pandemic", or "It is immoral to go against social expectations."
Obviously, this is not exhaustive of all the issues we could talk about vaccination. We are just touching the surface, giving cursory treatment of the subject.
But this is a facetious comment.
I never said that they have rationality, an element of moral system. Does it even occur to us what should be our role as far as the animals are concerned even if we couldn't eat them? As custodians? Guardians?
I feel like I'm teaching the alphabet here.
And I feel like you're continuing to miss the point, which is about rights. You seem to be saying that animal rights can be justified on the basis that they have a will to live. Whereas, I'm arguing that rights pertain to humans, because they are rational agents, and not to animals, because they are not. Can you recognise that distinction?
Is that possible?
How do you figure that animals are not rational agents? By your human fiat?
That's why I went back to the basics -- the will, where everyone has equal shot at getting acknowledgement. Animals can't win when we start talking about rationality.
Nor can children, the disabled, Jews, women, blacks, the poor, or any other category of humans that is disenfranchized in any given context.
IOW, what you're saying about animals is not specific to animals or how humans treat animals; it pertains to categories of humans too.
Right, rights.
Since some of you have been pushing for animal rights, my response is, yes let's give them rights, but that isn't strong enough. I already said before, rights is not the cure-all regarding animal treatment. For example, here you are already saying that rights pertain to humans. So I say, let's go beyond that. Let's examine the will of the animals. Let's give them the natural proclivity to live in their natural habitat.
With the former, you'd then have to decide upon issues such as whether rats and cockroaches deserve the same good treatment as cows or dogs.
The latter is so all-encompassing as to be paralyzing.
And evict humans?
Another facetious remark.
*Sigh*
I still don't think you've grasped the reason why I'm saying that 'animal rights' is a meaningless concept. And I don't agree with the animal rights ideology that says humans and animals are equal, but if the uniqueness of h. sapiens is not obvious, then I don't know what argument could be used to establish it.
Let's start here.
What would it take to have some form of humane treatment for the animals.
You keep forgetting that resources on planet Earth are limited and that life is a struggle for resources. Humans and animals compete for the same resources.
Any argument for animal welfare has to take this into consideration. Animal welfare comes at the cost of human welfare. In order for humans to treat animals better, humans would need to sacrifice their own comfort. And for doing this, they would need to have some very good reasons.
Humans would need to sacrifice some (or much) of their comforts.
Material ones, such as space and natural resources. And psychological ones, such as the feeling of human superiority over animals.
Again - I'm not disputing the importance of animal welfare. I donate to the RSPCA. I'm responding to the first sentence in the OP, about 'animal rights'. I find that a philosophical issue of interest.
Outside of a religious/ideological context, there is no such argument.
Because the human form is said to be the one most suitable for attaining enlightenment.
But, like I said, outside of a religious/ideological context, there is no argument for human uniqueness. Moving the whole discussion into a specific religious/ideological context is a step that requires special justification.
That says something, doesn't it? So now, religious or philosophical conviction is 'special pleading', and the secular view is normative. Is that it?
It depends on whom you want to convince.
Quoting Wayfarer
People in general are reluctant to acknowledge the rights of other people or the wellbeing of other people to begin with. It's ... romantic to expect them to extend such consideration to animals when they won't even do it for humans. Generally, people don't believe in the rights of others, regardless what the laws say, so it's no surprise that they don't think about the nature of rights.
As for the nature of rights: I personally don't believe there exist rights, only privileges, conferred by those with more power onto those with less power, regardless whether those with less power are of the same species as those with more power.
Kant's end-in-itself is reserved for rational beings, meaning humans. So, we can't cite Kant here. To overtly state that animals are innocent bystanders of our desires for the goods produced from their cultivation, just say so. No one can dispute it -- we just don't accept it that it is the way it is. We use the notion of rational human beings to justify our actions.
Quoting baker
No contest.
Quoting Wayfarer
And so if we can't confer rights to animals meaningfully, what's left?
Conviction. That's what's left. Those who advocate for the protection of animals would be the divergent group. We will now be the man who stole a loaf of bread. And so we would be under the scrutiny of Pluralism as a moral system.
Humane treatement, animal welfare, environmentalism. Plenty.
Good read. I like Peter Singer.
A similar argument maybe made for domesticated animals. We, humans, are the ones who have to do the dirty work - torturing, killing animals - but animals, they can pretend to be innocent - oh no! we (animals) are the victims of mankind's inherently wicked nature - and get away wiith it all.
Here we are, all guilt-ridden, that we're, dialing it down a bit, mean to animals but isn't it a possibility that they (animals) are the ones who make us so?
Fruits are so sweet! Meat too is, if you know what I mean. Why? Why?
Maya!
[quote=William Cowper]God moves in mysterious ways.[/quote]
Cavell has an essay in the book Philosophy and Animal Life, in response to a fictionalized speech making a plea for the moral treatment of animals. In response (piggy-backed on Cora Diamond's response to other essays setting out arguments for the proposition), Cavell starts from Wittgenstein's finale in the Philosophical Investigations where Witt looks at our capacity to see an aspect of something (PI, p. 193-208, 3d), to see something in one regard rather than another (the dawning of a re-cognizing of the same thing with no proper case as cause (yet, at other times, constrained, PI, p. 208-9)). " 'To me [some abstract lines] is an animal pierced by an arrow.' That is what I treat it as; this is my attitude to the figure." (PI, p. 205 3rd Ed) Our "attitude" is the vantage we take towards something, how we value it in our standing to it. "My attitude towards him is an attitude towards a soul. I am not of the opinion that he has a soul." (PI, p. 178, iv) An attitude to animals is not intellectual (say, about our biological similarities or dissimilar rights); it is not a matter of learning something (the horror of farming practices), of knowledge of information (facts), thus not in the form of a traditional argument.
The observation is that issues like the treatment of animals are not on the level of a rational conclusion (particularly given it is not even a moral issue like abortion, but a sea-change in our everyday behavior, our vision). Such an expression Cavell calls a passionate utterance in his essay with that name from the book Philosophy the Day after Tomorrow (excerpt attached), drawn along the lines of Austin's performative act (the criteria of which is outlined in the excerpt)--which, like an apology, can be true in that it is done appropriately, though not in the way a statement is true/false. A passionate utterance is done to affect the feelings, thoughts, or actions of another (technically, an Austinian perlocutionary act--@Banno). Plato calls this persuasion (by rhetoric), and he is right in the sense that there is no accepted conventional procedure (as with Austin's examples of other performative acts) like with a promise, or a bet.
However, in this case, I am nevertheless moved by my passion to (appropriately) claim to have the standing to single you out and demand a response ("what I expect from you" PI, p. 205) that you may be moved to offer (or the exchange falls apart at any point--fails to be made "alive" for you, PI, p. 205). Appropriate because we are friends, or I am an institution with a history of involvement, or I accuse you of inhumanity, etc. Witt will say that the alternative concept forces itself on us (PI, p. 204), which I take as the pressure put on you to respond as a function of the appropriateness of my claim, which structurally amounts to, not my argument, but my, say, cry of pain (PI, p. 197)--to which a similar class of response may be only to be "repelled" (PI, p. 205)
I am moved to expose my interests and needs and desires (what is "important to us" PI, p. 205) as they are the means of the production of our self (Marx), that they comprise us (or fail to), and to that extent, that we are what compromises the social contract, thus our lives require an accounting--for our want and waste and false necessity--in the face of our real need and, to put it in place for philosophy, the good (roughly). In this case, what am I, in terms of: at what (whose) expense? That we may know the good but not behave or feel accordingly (be virtuous); we may be incapable of an ideal yet still yearn to attain our better self. I am not morally more competent than you to judge monstrousness, but also you cannot absolve yourself by generalizing guilt rather than providing the intelligibility of a specific response to being singled out by a call to imagine (PI, p. 207) animals, say: as present company; or as sacrifice; etc.
As with Kant's aesthetic judgement and the method of Ordinary Language Philosophy, seeing an aspect is for you to see for yourself " 'I see a likeness between these two faces'—let the man I tell this to be seeing the faces as clearly as I do myself." PI, p. 193.
Section of Philosophical Investigations, 3rd Ed. pp. 193-208, attached.
Cavell essays - Companionable Thinking, and excerpt from Performative and Passionate Utterance, attached
:lol: :up:
It's unusual to see mention of the second part of PI. There's much there to unpack. Well worth further discussion.
@Sam26?
What's wrong with being cruel to animals if we don't think it is because they have a right not to be treated cruelly? What about children who are not of an age to understand the notion of a right? If what you are claiming is that animals don't have rights because in order to have rights they would have to be able to conceive of themselves as having rights, then that is a self-serving tautology.
Animals that are treated cruelly are unhappy just as humans that are treated cruelly are. Animals may not be able to articulate the notion of having rights, but they would avoid being treated cruelly whenever possible. Humans don't have rights because they are able to conceive of themselves as having rights, but because, for the sake of compassion and fair play, we grant ourselves rights, just as we should for animals.
Quoting Wayfarer
The secular view is default because it is the view that grounds ethics in nothing more than arguments that may be derived from empirical and rational consideration of the actual situation on the ground, so to speak, and not on this or that ancient scripture.
Because I am wanting in my ability to parse your post (I don't have the trained academic mind), I did what I have often done with complex statutes that constantly refer/cite to other provisions within themselves, full of caveats, extrapolation and parenthetical explanations, editing out what I perceived as surplusage, and deleting page numbers, etc.. Nevertheless, I found myself getting lost in who said what about what: You, Cavell, Diamond, Wittgenstein, Austin, Banno, Plato, Kant. So I removed the names and tried again to winnow the gist. The end result found me again embarrassingly wanting, and afraid to respond lest I sound even dumber than I am.
So I ask that it be re-written for my lay-eyes; barring that, I will graciously bow out and thank you for an offering, albeit too thick for me to eat. :chin: :smile:
Fair assessment. I couldn't respond myself.
That (with my redactions) is what I got from your original post. I just got lost in who said what, and did not want to misattribute.
Quoting Antony Nickles
That was my suspicion, and a cause of a little consternation. I now feel better knowing that what I took from your post regarding the form of discussion applies to how I think about people as well as animals.
I like that form of discussion. It almost seems to put intuition back on equal footing with cognition.
Thanks for the clarification.
P.S. In addition to my last, I got to thinking also about this:
Quoting Antony Nickles
I happen to agree, somewhat. As I said 8 months ago: "The mode of travel can matter. I used to be jealous of those people who, after my long cognitive slog to a place, I find already there, having arrived on the wings of intuition. But then I remember I have found along my way; the truth is often counterintuitive. While others may wonder what took me so long, I’d rather arrive knowing what I don’t know. We may be in agreement; we may be in the same place. But if I must have company, I choose those who arrive by foot."
So we are in agreement. But some folks (me for instance) need:
Quoting Antony Nickles
in order to initiate the trek in the first place. Too often I have found the educated will wield their knowledge like a sword of intimidation or pride, with a whole lot of form and no substance. I arrive at the end of a journey and find nothing there. Or, as they say out west, "All hat and no cattle."
I am happy to say that with you, such is not the case. You have held my hand and I thank you for it.
In Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein examines why we want the certainty of picturing language as words connected to objects (including a "meaning"). To unearth our desire he looks at example after example of the ordinary complicated ways the world is meaningful to us.
Quoting Caldwell
Literally the point is that my being moved to morally call you out appropriately is a claim upon you that creates a responsibility to respond. You object, you're confused, etc; but, in not making yourself intelligible, you avoid the claim upon you. Though, in all fairness, you don't have to respond; say, being unmoved, uninterested, however, perhaps without any attempt to make yourself known (even to yourself) we can't call it a response (or to have assessed anything, fairly or not). Though having appropriately made the claim, if you do not work to see for yourself, I am unable to move you to, nor argue, nor explain.
In this regard, animals are indeed innocent. And I too can be an animal.
Large tree plantations sprung up in the wake of America’s rape of her natural forests. Most of these are in the south east. All those who have spent time, in both plantation and forest, know deeply that a forest, by definition, is more than just trees (AWF). Some already knew this. Others had to witness the difference. Thus, when a tree falls in a forest, there is never no one there to not hear it. It always makes a sound.
However, there is a qualitative difference between the sound of a tree falling and that of a tree being felled. Some already knew this. Others had to listen to the difference. The ears of the innocent hear a different sound, a better sound. Whereas the words written on pages, made from the pulp of the wood from the trees? They make no sound that an innocent can hear over the din of the felling. Nor should they.
Sometimes even the logger will set down his tool and listen for a better sound. But it takes time; more for some than others. It’s not merely how long the ringing continues in the ear, but how innocent the ear is.
Yes, we must "spend time" to "know deeply", which may be to say: be aware of the context of possibilities; for one example: the world that forces our feeling of inevitability that a home of shelter and comfort, built within the safety of tradition, must be out of lumber, which, by seeming destiny, means, or accounts for, a felled tree. Envisioning a tree as wood then comes to us immediately now, as if "already known". So how do we "witness" a difference? We are not testifying, nor speaking, but listening differently (not being argued by [out from our] logical necessity), accepting, receiving rather than acting, rather than making a certain thing of something.
Quoting James Riley
Our ears must be new born, not filled with the loss of the world through so much noise of language and culture and history; our words and arguments and appetites and entitlements are carved with the blood of consequence, so we must find what is important in this position in order to know ourselves, what we have signed on for, whether we welcome it best.
Quoting James Riley
Very well stated. Thanks.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I think we have to go sit in the woods and listen.
An argument I've made in the past is that, rather that saying grace before we eat, we should try living in grace with what we eat. There is nothing wrong with felling a tree and using it's wood, or killing an animal and eating it's meat. It's the grace involved in how we go about it. It's what is in our hearts when we do it which matters. We should participate, lest we lose sight (or sound) of where our wood and our meat come from. To the extent we have any remaining gratitude left in our souls, we might end up thanking the wrong person or God for what we receive. We might be takers, rather than receivers. We are. And that is the noise.
Spider-tailed viper. Deception on a whole new level!
One swallow in the sky doesn't a summer make.
Awesome!
The question then is, can animals know? Do animals possess knowledge? Does being able to tell food from non-food, predator from kin, etc. mean that animals both can learn & do have knowledge?
Is ethics a different category of knowledge, accessible only to humans?
In its most basic form, as taught to children, ethics is carrot and stick in nature (reward/punishment). Animals understand that language, just as we do, very well as evinced by how dogs, lions, tigers, to name but a few can be trained.
Animals are innocent so long as they haven't been taught ethics. Once they have been, they're no longer innocent. Right?
I now "understand" why God was so pissed at A&E! The opposite of innocent is guilty. Losing one's innocence automatically leads to guilt aka Original Sin!