Implication of evolution on animal rights

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
For those who believe in evolution the distinction between humans and animals is blurred. Animals are consumed as food, harmed in scientific research, etc.

It seems to me that when the religious distinction between humans and animals disappears it might be easier to justify consuming humans as food, harming humans in scientific research, etc.

So I wonder if there should be a buffer of the most human-like animal species which are declared off-limits for food and harmful scientific research. Animals that come to mind are apes, dolphins, pigs, sheep, goats, dogs, cats, parrots, frogs (I like frogs LOL).
 

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I'm kind of fond of cows too, but I have no objection to eating alligators or snakes for example. Of course medical research needs animals that share traits with humans, so alligators and snakes might be of limited use for research.
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,720
6,139
Massachusetts
✟586,675.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
so alligators and snakes might be of limited use for research.
Except, if you want to do research on humans who have personalities like those of alligators and snakes, then snakes and alligators might be used for psychological research testing . . . so you can have greater numbers subjects in order to have better statistical reliability in studies.
 
Upvote 0

The happy Objectivist

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2020
909
274
57
Center
✟65,919.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
For those who believe in evolution the distinction between humans and animals is blurred. Animals are consumed as food, harmed in scientific research, etc.

It seems to me that when the religious distinction between humans and animals disappears it might be easier to justify consuming humans as food, harming humans in scientific research, etc.

So I wonder if there should be a buffer of the most human-like animal species which are declared off-limits for food and harmful scientific research. Animals that come to mind are apes, dolphins, pigs, sheep, goats, dogs, cats, parrots, frogs (I like frogs LOL).
For those who believe in evolution the distinction between humans and animals is blurred. Animals are consumed as food, harmed in scientific research, etc.

It seems to me that when the religious distinction between humans and animals disappears it might be easier to justify consuming humans as food, harming humans in scientific research, etc.

So I wonder if there should be a buffer of the most human-like animal species which are declared off-limits for food and harmful scientific research. Animals that come to mind are apes, dolphins, pigs, sheep, goats, dogs, cats, parrots, frogs (I like frogs LOL).

Nope. I believe in evolution and The distinction between Humans and the other animals is not blurred. Man's fundamental characteristic, his distinctive attribute, the one which separates him and elevates his value to me above all other species, is his rational mind. This distinction is metaphysical not Supernatural or mystical. That means it's this-worldly.

Edit: By metaphysical I mean concerning the nature of existence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Nope. I believe in evolution and The distinction between Humans and the other animals is not blurred. Man's fundamental characteristic, his distinctive attribute, the one which separates him and elevates his value to me above all other species, is his rational mind. This distinction is metaphysical not Supernatural or mystical. That means it's this-worldly.

Edit: By metaphysical I mean concerning the nature of existence.
How do you feel about using irrational/substandard people for food or harmful scientific research? There are probably some people who are less rational than some animals due to brain defects or injuries.
 
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
In evolution the fittest get to dictate who gets eaten and experimented on.
In evolution every species is fit for the niche in the ecosystem that it occupies. My cat can run circles around me as a mouse-catcher. :)

I do agree that humans are able to dictate who gets eaten and experimented on, but that only means that we need to form some policies and enforce them. Drawing the line at humans and saying that anything goes for all other species may not make sense for those who believe that humans are animals too. (Of course I understand that there are rules for how animals are treated in laboratories. We limit the number of animals in a cage and so forth, but ultimately many of those animals suffer and die for research purposes.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,720
6,139
Massachusetts
✟586,675.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Edit: By metaphysical I mean concerning the nature of existence.
I suppose that could mean it is a function of atoms and molecules and energy interacting according to scientific principles . . . if there were only material existence.

And your preferring the human and rational level of material existence would be a function of atoms and molecules and energy producing you and their preferring to function at a rational level. Yet, there are bunches, then, of atoms and molecules and energy which have developed to prefer various sorts of Christianity and to invent all which is written in the Bible . . . all starting from the evolving of atoms and molecules and energy which evolved into being able to make up that there is God, and ones of us who actually experience Him to have almighty power of peace to keep us from suffering in unforgiveness, nasty anger, impersonal drives for pleasure instead of loving, bitterness, and worry and fear. Atoms and molecules and energy . . . if there is only material existence . . . have formed themselves into ones who experience God, like this, plus into ones who claim this is creating God as an imaginary friend.

So, if secular evolution is correct, then atoms and molecules and energy have produced . . . by means of scientific interacting principles . . . experiencers of God through Jesus, plus other gangs of molecules claiming we in Jesus are . . . mistaken, to put it how certain ones put it more nicely.

And so, if there is only secular evolution with only material existence . . . atoms and molecules and energy together have the ability to form into such varying human forms. And then forms of one sort object to the forms which are different than what they themselves formed into! They have the ability to form into the different human forms, but then object to each other and have the different forms act as though they don't know what to do with what they themselves have produced.

I don't know why atoms and molecules and energy would turn themselves into such worrying and conflicting forms, when they will still be atoms and molecules and energy, even if all the humans die off and are eaten by bacterial forms of atoms and molecules and energy which will still be here.

If atoms and molecules and energy are all there is in existence, may be atoms and photons have a very high level of intelligence with ability to work with others, so they can form such human forms and our different feelings, including loneliness. May be they want to be in human forms, so they won't be lonely. But now they have produced higher forms, of loneliness, if this is the case.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The happy Objectivist

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2020
909
274
57
Center
✟65,919.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Many people use the term Metaphysical to be synonymous with the supernatural. So I made my edit to clarify that was not the way I was using it. I am not a materialist. I do not think that only matter exists. Concepts exist but they are not physical in the sense that you can hold them in your hand. Consciousness exists but I would not call it material. The fact is that matter exists and so does consciousness. Evolution gave us the ability to reason but it does not give us the content of our reasoning.
 
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Many people use the term Metaphysical to be synonymous with the supernatural. So I made my edit to clarify that was not the way I was using it. I am not a materialist. I do not think that only matter exists. Concepts exist but they are not physical in the sense that you can hold them in your hand. Consciousness exists but I would not call it material. The fact is that matter exists and so does consciousness. Evolution gave us the ability to reason but it does not give us the content of our reasoning.
What do you think distinguishes the thoughts of a human from the thoughts of a chimpanzee? We have invented tools, but chimpanzees have invented tools too. We are better at inventing tools than chimpanzees, but are we so different that we can justify making them suffer and die to advance science? If we can justify doing this to chimpanzees, why can't we justify doing it to brain-damaged humans?
 
Upvote 0

The happy Objectivist

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2020
909
274
57
Center
✟65,919.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How do you feel about using irrational/substandard people for food or harmful scientific research? There are probably some people who are less rational than some animals due to brain defects or injuries.

How do I feel about using people as food or harmful research? I think it's unspeakably evil. Human beings have rights that can not be violated in reason. Their life is not mine to use. The whole concept of moral rights is based on the premise that a person's life is his property, so just because a human being can't reason as good as another does not mean that he or she loses his right to his life. Animals don't have rights. Rights are concepts and animals do not have the conceptual level of consciousness. Moral rights also presuppose volition, which animals do not have.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,422
53
✟250,687.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
For those who believe in evolution the distinction between humans and animals is blurred. Animals are consumed as food, harmed in scientific research, etc.

It seems to me that when the religious distinction between humans and animals disappears it might be easier to justify consuming humans as food, harming humans in scientific research, etc.

So I wonder if there should be a buffer of the most human-like animal species which are declared off-limits for food and harmful scientific research. Animals that come to mind are apes, dolphins, pigs, sheep, goats, dogs, cats, parrots, frogs (I like frogs LOL).
1. Humans are animals (and apes).

2. One doesnt ”believe” in evolution. Evolution is an observed phenomena, the ToE explains how it works.


The rest of your post is crap too.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The happy Objectivist

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2020
909
274
57
Center
✟65,919.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What do you think distinguishes the thoughts of a human from the thoughts of a chimpanzee? We have invented tools, but chimpanzees have invented tools too. We are better at inventing tools than chimpanzees, but are we so different that we can justify making them suffer and die to advance science? If we can justify doing this to chimpanzees, why can't we justify doing it to brain-damaged humans?

I don't think that animals have thoughts. By thinking I mean the conceptual level of consciousness. It may be the case that Chimpanzees are evolving their own conceptual faculty, I don't know. I do know that Humans are objectively vastly more valuable to me than Chimpanzees. A brain damaged Human can possibly heal and improve and again their lives are not mine to do with what I want. That potential, however unlikely, still exists. Now I will say that if there is any way to do research without causing suffering to animals, we should do that instead, but in the end, Humans have rights and animals don't.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
1. Humans are animals (and apes).

2. One doesnt ”belive” in evolution. Evolution is an observed phenomena, the ToE explains how it works.


The rest of your post is crap too.
Are you responding to my post of somebody else's post? I don't see any misspelling of "belive" in my post.
 
Upvote 0

MehGuy

A member of the less neotenous sex..
Site Supporter
Jul 23, 2007
55,917
10,827
Minnesota
✟1,164,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
For those who believe in evolution the distinction between humans and animals is blurred. Animals are consumed as food, harmed in scientific research, etc.

It seems to me that when the religious distinction between humans and animals disappears it might be easier to justify consuming humans as food, harming humans in scientific research, etc.

So I wonder if there should be a buffer of the most human-like animal species which are declared off-limits for food and harmful scientific research. Animals that come to mind are apes, dolphins, pigs, sheep, goats, dogs, cats, parrots, frogs (I like frogs LOL).

It might make some less sympathetic towards human plight when you start to see the similarities between humans and other animals. Although for most, I think it simply makes them more sympathetic towards the plights of other animals not in the expensive of less sympathy for our own kind.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Site Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
1. Humans are animals (and apes).
That is true biologically, but often the word "animals" is used for "non-human animals".

2. One doesnt ”believe” in evolution. Evolution is an observed phenomena, the ToE explains how it works.
I believe in evolution, so there is one LOL. There are observations that inspired the theory of evolution to explain them, but ultimately a person can believe or disbelieve. It is true that Christians often use "believe" to be more like a choice. "Believe" can simply mean "believe".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0