- This topic has 1 reply, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[quote=”VictoriaLST”]Sentient? The advanced definition: “capable of metacognition” And so far, only humans qualify.[/quote]
How do you know that, Victoria? If you cannot communicate verbally with your cat, how you know what he or she is thinking?
that is a pathetic excuse if i ever heard one. i expected nothing less. sheesh. i suggest you go to a slaughterhouse and watch your porkchops being murdered and then get back to us on whether that animal had any feelings or fear or anxiety.
[quote=”VictoriaLST”]Sentient? The advanced definition: “capable of metacognition” And so far, only humans qualify.[/quote]
We are straying far fron the original post but I have to respond to your post…
Try as I might I have been unable to locate an “advanced definition” of sentient.I know what I see when I observe animals and their reaction to loss, fear and pain. These feelings do not involve “metacognition”.
Mara, we aren’t talking about feelings, which are located in the Limbic System (sometimes called the ‘lizard brain’), a very old part of the brain. We are talking about cognitive function. Metacognition is, basically, ‘thinking about thinking’. Pondering your own thoughts, thinking about the process of how you think. Exclusive to homo sapiens.
[quote=”VictoriaLST”]Metacognition is, basically, ‘thinking about thinking’. Pondering your own thoughts, thinking about the process of how you think. Exclusive to homo sapiens.
[/quote]
How, exactly, do you know what other forms of life are thinking? Tell us specifically how you know. Speculation is not enough.
And, with respect to their feelings, what difference does it make anyway? If an animal feels anxiety, fear or pain, then he or she feels those feelings. It matters not whether they think about thinking or whether they think about feeling. If they manifest behavior which we can reasonably interpret to be pain, for example, then we are morally obligated to treat them as if they are in pain until we can prove otherwise.
And just because one form of life (homo sapiens, for example) cannot plumb the depths of another’s thoughts doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. The inability to measure something does not disprove its existence. The Milky Way and maybe a zillion or two other galaxies all existed long before homo sapiens developed telescopes with which they could detect the galaxies’ existence.
Because we are in a position of superior power over another, as in the relationship between a hunter and prey, we have the power to disregard the other’s feelings, as might a rapist vis a vis his victim, but it does not mean that the prey/victim has no feelings.
it’s victoria’s stance that makes it okay for people to kill, hurt, maim, and slaughter animals that they believe to be beneath them. it’s a very low form of evolvement, because there is plenty of data to show that animals feel empathy, grief, sadness, joy, etc. but if we portray them and think of them as something that was put here for us to consume and that they are lesser beings (like Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, or any other race that has been victimized by being portrayed as “lesser”) then they can be slaughtered with impunity. and now they want to make exposing the abuses that go on every day in CAFOs an act of terrorism, when the terrorism is what happens in those disgusting places. Anyone who can defend raising animals in those conditions has no clue whatsoever what they are talking about because i don’t know one single person who has a conscience who would choose to participate by eating an animal who was subjected to such unspeakable cruelty. it really shows how barbaric we really are by continuing these practices.
Perhaps we should utter a prayer for the animal we kill and eat as our distant ancestors did? Or is saying ‘grace’ enough?
Anthropologists attribute an increase in brain size in our distant ancestors to a protein rich diet; a diet of animal flesh. We ‘got smarter’ because we ate meat.
As to our ‘moral obligation’, I would prefer animals that are going to be slaughtered for food not suffer unduly. But I don’t see that as a moral obligation. And off we go into another philosophical discussion as, to me, ‘moral obligations’ extend primarily to other humans. Lets not get that one started.
of course, it’s a MORAL obligation. and everyone i know would take great exception to such a heartless and ruthless statement. i feel sorry for you for having so little compassion. i am sure you could justify all manner of abuses in the name of your moral obligation to humans only.
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]
Because we are in a position of superior power over another, as in the relationship between a hunter and prey, we have the power to disregard the other’s feelings, as might a rapist vis a vis his victim, but it does not mean that the prey/victim has no feelings.
[/quote]Funny how a simple query about the consumption of horesmeat in CR has devolved into metaphysical “discussion” (rants?)
.:lol::lol::lol:
Reminds me of a comment by actress Kathy Bates in the remake of the movie “The Day the Earth Stood Still”: ‘History has lessons to teach us about first encounters between civilizations. As a rule the less advanced civilization is either exterminated or enslaved.’ Just substitute “other animals” for “civilizations” and there you have it.
PEH[quote=”VictoriaLST”]to me, ‘moral obligations’ extend primarily to other humans. [/quote]
You can, obviously, adopt that position, but you must recognize it for what it is . . . purely arbitrary. And it leaves the door open to everyone else’s similar positions. I could adopt the same position, on a more limited scale of course, with regard to non-whites or non-males.
ever seen a bird of PREY??
or a white shark
what about a CAT huntingthe animal world is full of HUNTERS and prey and both species survive at the same RATE
we EXIST because many years ago we hunted animals then we became farmers
the idea of eating an animal has existed for many generations
GO VEGAN is the opposite of eating animal FLESH
Gotta love topic drift.
As to ‘moral’, a lot of people confuse ‘ethics’ with ‘morality’. They aren’t the same.
Protecting the Earth for future generations is an ethical question, not a moral one. Being nice to animals, even the ones we eat, is an ethical choice, not a moral one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
