Morals and animals

[lilakuh]

Does it make sense to discuss morals with regards to animals? Do humans have any moral obligation towards animals at all?

 

[Paulos23]

What is moral for a human may not be moral for an animal. Animals are more focused on survival then humans, so anything that helps them survive is moral to that animal (as far as humans can understand). So it doesn't make sense to apply human morals to animals.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Does it make sense to discuss morals with regards to animals? Do humans have any moral obligation towards animals at all?

That depends on what species we're talking about. Some animals (such as the other primates) have been shown to possess a sense of self-awareness and consciousness that comes pretty close to our own. In these cases, I'd consider it only consistent to apply the same universal rights that we grant to human beings, and for pretty much the same reasons.
But even less cerebral species (farm animals, for example) ought to be treated as living, feeling entities capable of suffering, and not as inanimate objects in an industrialized process. That doesn't mean that we may not eat meat or use other agricultural products, but it means that we ought to keep these animals under conditions that allow them an existence within the normal parameters of their species.
Killing other species for food is not immoral, but tormenting them for years just to raise the profit margin strikes me as utterly unethical. And it won't exactly improve the quality of the end product, either. Quite the contrary.

 

[lilakuh]

What is moral for a human may not be moral for an animal. Animals are more focused on survival then humans, so anything that helps them survive is moral to that animal (as far as humans can understand). So it doesn't make sense to apply human morals to animals.

I should have been more clear in my question. I wasn't talking about whether animals are acting morally or not. What I was referring to is whether humans can/should act morally towards animals. For example, is it immoral to keep chickens caged in tiny enclosures, just as it would be immoral to lock up humans in such an environment?

If you draw a distinction that we ought to behave morally towards certain kinds of animals, but not others, what would that distinction be?

 

[lilakuh]

That depends on what species we're talking about. Some animals (such as the other primates) have been shown to possess a sense of self-awareness and consciousness that comes pretty close to our own. In these cases, I'd consider it only consistent to apply the same universal rights that we grant to human beings, and for pretty much the same reasons.

So you make a distinction between species based on whether they have self-awareness and consciousness? Would you then consider the people of, say, Central and Western Africa, who do consume apes and other primates, to be guilty of murder?

Not trying to play devil's advocate here, I'm just trying to gauge people's (your) opinions.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

So you make a distinction between species based on whether they have self-awareness and consciousness? Would you then consider the people of, say, Central and Western Africa, who do consume apes and other primates, to be guilty of murder?

Not trying to play devil's advocate here, I'm just trying to gauge people's (your) opinions.

No, I'd say that "murder" is confined strictly to killing within our own species. Killing other species for food is not much of a moral issue to me (except for instances where species are hunted to the point of extinction). Sticking electrodes into an ape's brain and slowly electrocuting him for the sake of scientific experiments, however, is a different business.

 

[God-free]

Does it make sense to discuss morals with regards to animals?

Yes and no. It would depend on the context of the discussion. For example, I don't think non-human animals should be held to human standards of ethics and morality. However, I do think humans should treat all sentient beings humanely.

Do humans have any moral obligation towards animals at all?

Yes, I think we do.

~Barbara

 

[lilakuh]

No, I'd say that "murder" is confined strictly to killing within our own species. Killing other species for food is not much of a moral issue to me (except for instances where species are hunted to the point of extinction). Sticking electrodes into an ape's brain and slowly electrocuting him for the sake of scientific experiments, however, is a different business.

But you did say that you would pretty much extend the universal human right to primates who possess consciousness? How is this not a moral issue if you kill a primate for food then?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

But you did say that you would pretty much extend the universal human right to primates who possess consciousness? How is this not a moral issue if you kill a primate for food then?

Because the relationship between different species is never exactly the same as within a species - especially if one of them is a source of food for the other. I wouldn't advise these African people to hunt great apes - but neither would I call them "murderers" if they depended on this food source.
That said, all great apes apart from Man are endangered species, not only due to hunting, but first and foremost because their natural habitats are systematically destroyed - and I'd definitely advocate putting a stop to any practices that endanger their survival, which would include the business revolving around "bush meat". The hunting you refer to is not for food, first and foremost, and even less about survival - it's about making a profit.

 

[God-free]

Here's some good news I read about a few months ago.

Spanish parliament to extend rights to apes.

~Barbara

 

[keith99]

That depends on what species we're talking about. Some animals (such as the other primates) have been shown to possess a sense of self-awareness and consciousness that comes pretty close to our own. In these cases, I'd consider it only consistent to apply the same universal rights that we grant to human beings, and for pretty much the same reasons.
But even less cerebral species (farm animals, for example) ought to be treated as living, feeling entities capable of suffering, and not as inanimate objects in an industrialized process. That doesn't mean that we may not eat meat or use other agricultural products, but it means that we ought to keep these animals under conditions that allow them an existence within the normal parameters of their species.
Killing other species for food is not immoral, but tormenting them for years just to raise the profit margin strikes me as utterly unethical. And it won't exactly improve the quality of the end product, either. Quite the contrary.

Well said, and balanced (something too rare).

C.S. Lewis gave treason (the real thing) as a example of a pretty universal moral idea. No one likes or trusts a traitor, even those who profit by his actions. One could generalize this just a little to returning evil for good is immoral as would be turning on those who trust you.

I think that applies to animals, only in the way humans should treat them for the lower species, both ways for the higher. My 2 dogs are quite high enough for this to be a two way street. Oh and they both can feel guilt, and both are theives. And much of the time I only catch them because they are showing guilt and perhaps remourse when I return home. and unlike humans they only steal as much as they can eat.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

My 2 dogs are quite high enough for this to be a two way street. Oh and they both can feel guilt, and both are theives. And much of the time I only catch them because they are showing guilt and perhaps remourse when I return home. and unlike humans they only steal as much as they can eat.

Oh, that reminds me very much of the dogs I grew up with: our first family dog was not only a thief, but also a kidnapper demanding ransom for the toys he had stolen. If he wasn't "paid" with some tasty morsels, he'd chew his booty into smithereens. No guilty conscience for him, no sir! A true rascal if ever there was one.
Our second dog, on the other hand, was a paragon of virtue: once, when he couldn't resist the temptation of a sausage left on the kitchen table, he actually hid from us when we returned home, rather than giving us the usual enthusiastic welcome - and when he eventually showed up, he virtually crawled towards us with a look of utter guilt and remorse on his face.

That only goes to show that dogs are indeed social animals pretty much like ourselves. I'd never expect the same behaviour from solitary creatures, such as cats. They may be intelligent, but they do not possess the same understanding of social structures as dogs.

 

[lilakuh]

Oh, that reminds me very much of the dogs I grew up with: our first family dog was not only a thief, but also a kidnapper demanding ransom for the toys he had stolen. If he wasn't "paid" with some tasty morsels, he'd chew his booty into smithereens. No guilty conscience for him, no sir! A true rascal if ever there was one.
Our second dog, on the other hand, was a paragon of virtue: once, when he couldn't resist the temptation of a sausage left on the kitchen table, he actually hid from us when we returned home, rather than giving us the usual enthusiastic welcome - and when he eventually showed up, he virtually crawled towards us with a look of utter guilt and remorse on his face.

That only goes to show that dogs are indeed social animals pretty much like ourselves. I'd never expect the same behaviour from solitary creatures, such as cats. They may be intelligent, but they do not possess the same understanding of social structures as dogs.

rofl

Maybe cats do understand social structures, but are just too cool to care. We'll never know - but I'd pay good money to understand what my cat thinks at times.

Anyways, if there are any cat people out there you might enjoy this. It's funny 'cause it's true: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ffwDYo00Q