What determines an entity's "right to life"

Inbloom.................YA!!!!!!!

My cat sure has emotions.
And I have played with piglets, and they are hilarious.....they are very smart.
When a dog does something bad, tell me he doesn't look totally guilty when you find out?????? I so agree, and I have read some amazing animal stories that would freak people out. Scientific studies have proven that some pets can somehow sense when their owners are on their way home, even when they are still miles away.
people are way to high on humans, give the others some credit too.......
Orcas are wicked smart, probably way more than us.

 

Just last year a researcher proved that fish feel pain......
and when I step on my cats foot.....you know he feels it.
and dogs when they get hurt....yipe yipe yipe
every creature on earth is far more complex and sentient than most speciocentric naked beach apes give them credit for.

There are really good books about animals that do wild things. In one there is a story about Canadian and US Marine Biologists and three resident pods of Orcas that is beyond belief.......if it wasnt reported by totally qualified and pragmatic scientists, everyone would have laughed it off as a joke, but when skeptics report the amazing behaviour, you know they aren't fooling, cuz they would not believe you if you told them you had seen it, and I bet some of them who saw it still don't realize what they saw..........
Birds too, recent studies show they are far more intelligent than thought up till now.
Arrogant humans, pride goeth before a fall.........

 

i see it from a different angle. the right to take life. now who has that? i normally endow myself with the right to take a bugs life, i couldnt see me killing a lizard though. i accidentally killed a snake once and that was very traumatic. i do enjoy fishing, but i think only two have died resulting from me catching them, and thats when i would stop fishing for a while. some people think they have the right to kill people, we put them in jail, unless they have a medical degree. of course to get that degree you have to agree to 'do no harm' but hey' im not gonna go kill these people. someday when i have my farm, i guess im gonna be a chicken killing machine. i think if you get too far into the rhetoric of things, you can justify all types of actions that are just not logical.
if this is a baby killing thread, i guess ive gone off topic. butif you give yourself the right to that life, or hire someone with the right to take that life, then thats on you, im not gonna kill no one for that, i dont have the right. i think when that law was made, the only reason you had to be able to kill a baby, is if that baby was gonna kill you. and the woman who won that decision has been pleading to have it reversed since a couple of months after it was made.
if this is an animal rights thread, then ive gone way off topic. human life is more important than animal life. but a gluttonous comfortable consumer based life is not more important than an animals habitat.

 

well said wayfaring stranger........I agree, except I cannot say that I for sure feel human life is worth any more than say....any other mammal, at least, or even any other animal period.......I ask myself, why is it more important? to whom? to the earth? I doubt it. I feel that since there are over 6 billion of us, that endangered species are more important, we can afford to lose a few bill's, they can't.

Stellars Sea Cow..............1768, we got 'em all.
To me the question about right to life is not meaningful, I cannot say what would determine that, other than rarity maybe............why would a parrot, for example be more important than a slug? To the slug its not.

 

well, sera.. how comes when we lost our second cat for two days... (they are house cats) and the second one we got, got out by accident and got lost.... two days later she was found my a neighbor three blocks away..

my point though is, that our first cat (who hated the first one to begin with).... was walking about the house "meowing" in a sound that sounded like crying and wouldnt sleep and was looking for her constantly. isnt that love?

when we found her, she was "normal" and happy again? i think that was love.

or do you see it as "survival"?

 

well said interval illusion.

you as well, blackguard. thank you for the input.

 

I'm a vegiterrean, and pro-choice, so i think i should be qualified to contribute.

First of all, nothing has a right to life. the only reason we are alive is that mother nature has not destroyed us all yet. "But for the grace of god go we..."

I'm a vegiterean because of two assumptions. 1 animals can feel pain, 2 it is wrong to inflict pain needlessly.

I will eat an animal, if i am starving, if i will die if i don't, then sorry cowie, you're going down. But in my modern society i don't need to eat any animals. I can obtain all my nutrition from plant or bacterial sources.

Plants and bacteria, in my opinion, cannot feel pain in the same way we do.

Y'see pain is really just a survival mechanism, it tells the animal to get pissed off and either kill the thing inflicting pain or get the hell away from it. This would be completly wasted in a plant, seeing as it can neither fight nor get away.

Your pain is no different than the animals pain.

If you stab any animal with a knife, if it doesn't die, it will get really really pissed off. Same thing with a human.
Humans are only just a complex type of animal. (if you believe in the bible we're just gardening animals)

The entire 'dogs can feel love' thing is a bagatelle. Whether or not something can feel love, hatred, empathy, or ennui doesn't reflect whether or not it can suffer.

All suffering is equal.

 

"an animal feels. when you abuse an animal, it feels the abuse. it feels unloved and neglected. if you hit a carrot...nothing. it doesn't wimper or cry in pain. it doesn't even feel it. it's not even "alive" in that sense. it's alive, because it grows, lives, and dies. but it doesn't think, or feel. therefore, it's a suitable choice for food."

How do you know it doesn't feel it? Because it can't cry out? I understand our minds are limited by our own understanding but still!Actually it does cry out if you have the ears to hear. I can hear the trees cry every time they cut down more for "progress". I can hear the cries from the plants, unfortunately. I can hear the plants when they're not in pain....not all that many people take the time to listen to nature but if you do then your understanding is different. Besides if you hit a carrot it's already been picked and is dying anyway because a carrot is underground while it's still sucking nutrients. Saying all this stuff about animals being so much more important than plants is just like how most people say animals aren't as important as humans. You don't feel that much for the plants just like most people don't feel that much for animals. It's just a different degree of the same damn thing. I'm not saying I don't eat veggies but I understand I had to kill to do it. As for eating meat, well a bunch of animals do it, it's part of the circle of life as much as the veggies are. Listen, a cow would eat you if they were programed to do it. I'm not talking bad about those of you who don't eat meat, just don't be in denial...it's not "better" because the plants don't want to die either. NOTHING really wants to die. And the next time anyone wants to start arguing about animals being SO much more important that plants, remember most people think animals aren't that important

 

"Plants and bacteria, in my opinion, cannot feel pain in the same way we do.
Y'see pain is really just a survival mechanism, it tells the animal to get pissed off and either kill the thing inflicting pain or get the hell away from it. This would be completly wasted in a plant, seeing as it can neither fight nor get away."

This is really just a way to feel like you're not causing any suffering. Plants don't want to die, they cry and feel pain....most people don't bother to hear it but it's an ability all humans have. It might not be the same pain, but it's pain. Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it not real. Everybody needs to realize that no matter what, you have to feed on life. It's just the way it is. It's not "better" to only eat plants just because there's ways to justify it that most people will be pacified by. Would you expect a lion to start eating only grass?

 

I see it as survival. Animals in a pack tend to try and stay in that pack for a reason. It is an instinctual survival mechinisim.

I have 2 cats, send one to the vet and the other does just the same as yours. They also fight, they also cuddle together when they sleep (I have some of the cutest pictures of them). Attachment doesn't necessarily mean love.

It doesn't mean that these animals are any less important than humans, or have any less right to life. It just means that I don't think all animals feel emotions on the same range that we do.

Just because I don't humanize animals doesn't mean I treat them badly. I am an animal lover. My dog eats better than I do, I have parrots, cats, I even have a tarantula. I volunteer at animal shelters, and have rescued a fair amount of strays. I take bugs outside my house instrad of squashing them. I enjoy the company of my animals to most people I know. I have protested the terrible treatment of the animals in beef and poultry industries.

It isn't like just because I realize animals, or all life in general, aren't just like us that I think they are somhow lower. Different doesn't mean less important, or less right to life.

 

What people don't seem to get is that if you eat meat, you destroy many more plants than just a vegetarian diet would. Cattle, chickens, pigs, etc., eat plants, so when you eat them you are "eating" all the plants it took to raise them! To grow these plants requires much space, space that other animals need to live. So.....if you care about other animals (including many endangered animals) you should not contribute to their demise by consuming meat. Why is it so hard for people to make this connection?

The argument that Kandahar is trying to make falls quite short too, intelligence=greater right to life. If this was solid, we obviously would be at the top, but we need other life to exist, even the "worthless" bacteria! Our needing them should elevate their importance.
But why intelligence? Why not admire the cheetah's speed, the spider's patience, the salmon's tenacity, the plover's ability to migrate 20,000 miles per year, or the eagle's eyesight? Why would intelligence be the most important, much less only, deciding factor? And what makes someone like Kandahar an authority able to determine what is worthy of life? None of us are, so we should just let things be. Do not purposely take the life of anything if possible. I don't mean worrying about stepping on an ant etc., but just think about your actions and their impact all over the world.

 

You're right, it does elevate their importance. But not because the bacteria have any "right to life"; only because we humans need them to survive.

Glad you asked! While those things you mentioned are all amazing miracles of nature, none of them instill the animal in question with the ability to recognize the fact that it's alive, and therefore I simply don't think that they have any particular right to remain that way. For example, a telescope has even better "eyesight" than an eagle. But I don't think many people would consider a telescope deserving of the right to life.

My philosophy is strongly influenced by advances in artificial intelligence. Psychology shows that our brains are nothing more than interconnected neural circuitry; not much different than computers. The fastest supercomputers today are about as intelligent as mice (and therefore, about as self-aware). I fail to see a distinction, then, in unplugging that supercomputer versus killing that mouse. If you fail to see anything wrong with the former, how can you maintain that the latter has any inherent rights just because it is made of carbon atoms rather than silicon atoms?

I don't claim to be an authority on determining what is worthy of life. There is a lot of gray area...such as dolphins, great apes, human fetuses, and the computers of 2025. However, there are also a great number of entities that fall very short of any objective standards for a "right to life," including most other animals.

Why shouldn't one worry about stepping on an ant, if intelligence and complexity is not an important determinant of the right to life?

 

Well, simply put, animals are alive while computers are not. I do draw the line at living entities. Frankly, the computer example is a great way to refute your argument regarding intelligence. If intelligence were a sound measure of something's right to live, then computers might qualify as worthy as any life, which most people reject readily.

I know you're not claiming that, but I was just making the point that none of us can assert our views as though they are without flaw or weakness. We are not all-knowing. So the solution in my mind is to live and let live.

I wouldn't trample an ant hill, but if I happen to step on an ant I wouldn't kill myself. If one did want to completely eliminate taking any life on earth then suicide would be the only option. I'm not so extreme. I just think that when possible, avoiding ending the life of other things is the most appropriate behavior. I believe I've stated this before, but to reiterate, when it comes to such entities as insects, plants or unicellular organisms/protists, I value them as species, not necessarily individuals.
I know life has to end, but humans do not need to take nearly as much life as we do. Other animals take only what they need, we can (by chioce even!, due to our intelligence) take only what we need as a species too.

 

Why? What makes arrangements of carbon atoms more worthy of continued existence than arrangements of silicon atoms?

Most people reject them as worthy of life because today's $1,000 computers are only the equivalent of a fish brain, and the fastest supercomputers are only the equivalent of a mouse brain. Today's computers are simply NOT intelligent compared to many animals.

In twenty years, when $1,000 computers are as smart as human beings, I'm not so sure you'll find that their right to life is so readily rejected by the majority of people. I would venture to say that by 2030, most people will care more about the rights of computers than they do about the rights of dolphins.

 

"What people don't seem to get is that if you eat meat, you destroy many more plants than just a vegetarian diet would. Cattle, chickens, pigs, etc., eat plants, so when you eat them you are "eating" all the plants it took to raise them! To grow these plants requires much space, space that other animals need to live. So.....if you care about other animals (including many endangered animals) you should not contribute to their demise by consuming meat. Why is it so hard for people to make this connection?"

Well, I don't own an SUV, am I really doing anything about the pollution SUVs cause? No. If you don't eat meat do you think any less animals died? No. The point I was making is you have to understand that you are killing things even if you eat "only" plants. Someday the plants will eat you and I and anyone who gets buried. It's all part of the circle of life. I'm just tired of vegetarians acting all superior when it's just a lifestyle choice. I guess I like plants more, and so knowing I HAVE to eat them makes eating animals seem like normal, even though I like animals. Everything feeds on life..the animals would eat you if you were lower than them on the food chain..this is how nature works

 

Yes, both directly and indirectly. You are not increasing the demand for them and not driving one.

????? Yes....fewer animals die because I don't eat meat. Both domestic (the ones served up) and wild (the ones who's habitat remains intact due to decreased agriculture and grazing). Of course fewer animals die, what kind of silly statement is that?

No kidding....I believe I admitted that. You kill significantly less things though.

OK, don't complain about politicians/corporations/the elite screwing us over then, it's just a lifestyle.... Don't do anything about the war, just a lifestyle....those antiwar people just act soooooo superior don't they. lol.

I think meateaters act superior! They think humans can live in total disregard for other species.

I'm studying "how nature works", I don't need your warped version of it.