How do non-religious people motivate that humans have a higher "value" than animals?

[Mike Cash]

You are muslim Hezam, so you don't count in this discussion. Religious people already justify their uncivilized standpoint well enough. This was aimed at atheists and humanists.

The development of religion is one of the distinguishing characteristics between a simple brutish existence and being civilized. One can not be both religious and uncivilized. Although I realize that is not what you meant, of course; you were merely being gratuitously insulting to religious people.

 

[BrianLewis]

If humans were meat eaters evolutionary we would naturally have teeth the shape of Jaws from James Bond. Like a shark or cat or something.

Like K9s? Human teeth are remarkably similar to those of our two most popular pets. However, they cannot survive without a high protein diet. I mean, if you take evolution into consideration, wouldn't it make far more sense that we would have more medical problems denying our past? The human race can not evolve to that degree in one generation.

 

[Macrobiotic]

The development of religion is one of the distinguishing characteristics between a simple brutish existence and being civilized. One can not be both religious and uncivilized. Although I realize that is not what you meant, of course; you were merely being gratuitously insulting to religious people.

What is usually refered to as the three monotheistic, sometimes abrahamitic, religions are completely unnecessary and need not exist. I was refering to these religions in particular since they claim the "one God" created man to be above all other creatures. They have a solid argument for animal abuse, and they sure do like animal abuse what with all the kosher and halal.

There's absolutely no need to respect practicing muslims, jews or christians. And yes, in this day and age one can indeed be both religious and uncivilized since the standard of a civilization must be seen in relation to the current age. This is where belief systems based around "the one God", political and dogmatic religions as opposed to only ritualistic religions, lose their place and right to exist.
The most civilized thing today would be to ban these three religions. In countries such as Sweden and South Korea, around half of the population have no official religion but these countries still counts as part of civilization and their citizens as civilized. Therefore, religion is not necessary in order for civilization to exist. It might have been the driving force of civilization once, but today Christianity, Judaism and Islam are garbage and should be burned.

 

[Hezam]

What is usually refered to as the three monotheistic, sometimes abrahamitic, religions are completely unnecessary and need not exist. I was refering to these religions in particular since they claim the "one God" created man to be above all other creatures. They have a solid argument for animal abuse, and they sure do like animal abuse what with all the kosher and halal.

There's absolutely no need to respect practicing muslims, jews or christians. And yes, in this day and age one can be both religious and uncivilized since the standard of a civilization must be in relation the current age. This is where belief systems based around "the one God", political religions as opposed to only ritualistic religions, lose their place and right to exist.

Did you post this thread to discuss animals or to insult humans, Hamster ?

 

[Mike Cash]

There's absolutely no need to respect practicing muslims, jews or christians.....The most civilized thing today would be to ban these three religions.

You have a self-serving and warped idea of what "civilized" means. The intolerant members of the modern whacko fringe environmentalist pseudo-religion are in my opinion far more scary than any bunch of people who take comfort in the notion of a Supreme Being. I can see that rational discussion on this isn't going to be possible....you have too big a hate on.

 

[Macrobiotic]

I don't oppose the possibility of a supreme being, just the idea that this being created man to be above other animals. I also don't believe that this God appeared before a bunch of wife beating paedophiles in the middle east over the millennia and gave them detailed instructions on how humans should conduct their lives and how animals should be tortured.

 

[BrianLewis]

Fascinating how Macrobiotic insisted talking about this in a non-religious manner, yet brings it up himself for the sole purpose of bashing. Another thread that has nothing to do with learning, and is all about creating discord. Somehow, the one mention of Buddhism has been twisted to attack western religion again. Nice try, but you should keep your own thread on topic, unless that was your intention to begin with...

 

[Macrobiotic]

I wanted to hear the reasonings of atheists who can't hide behind religion to elevate humans above animals. Then the thread was hijacked by religious people even though they have nothing to add to this discussion. Hezam is of course free to post anything he likes but I got the feeling he just did so because of me criticizing arabs and muslims in other threads.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

You have to give Muslims credit though. They are much more reverent about eating meat. They will often get a live animal, and pray before slaughtering it, among other halal rules about treating animals with respect.

One might object to the method of slaughter, but I think all told, its a hell of lot better than typical systems in the west of absolutely horrendous factory farms and equally horrible slaughterhouses.

But as usual, most westerners just want to beat up Islam and are deaf to anything good a Muslim might do.

 

[Zlarp]

I'm non-religious (as far as this discussion goes. I also am religious, but nobody but me would actually call it that), so I guess I can try and give you a bit of insight into my way of thinking as far as this question is concerned.

How do I justify that humans have a higher value than animals?

- I don't. And no, I'm not one of those ecologist freaks who say we're all of the same value or that animals are worth more or anything like that. I simply believe the concept of "value" in general to be absolutely useless, and I am trying as far as possible not to base my actual world view on it. I don't believe in any such thing as objective "value" unless it's absolutely neccessary, and I simply ignore the whole concept most of the time.

I could answer the question about whether or not there is a god in pretty much the same exact way: Why do you ask such a weird question? I would never have thought of that kind of thing on my own and I have absolutely no opinion on it one way or the other. That is not to say I don't care, because that would still imply that I spend time thinking about it.

 

[Macrobiotic]

You have to give Muslims credit though. They are much more reverent about eating meat. They will often get a live animal, and pray before slaughtering it, among other halal rules about treating animals with respect.

One might object to the method of slaughter, but I think all told, its a hell of lot better than typical systems in the west of absolutely horrendous factory farms and equally horrible slaughterhouses.

But as usual, most westerners just want to beat up Islam and are deaf to anything good a Muslim might do.

The markets in middle eastern countries where animals are kept in tiny cages in loud, stressful places just to become food aren't exactly what I call treating animals with respect.
And of course the muslim world has industrial slaughterhouses. There are disturbing movies from turkish slaughterhouses where the animal is rotated and turned in a large metal barrel or such to have its throat slit by a guilloutine sort of thing which doesn't cut all the way through, just stops halfway.

I despise Islam, but i despise Christianity and Judaism too. I don't think it's "the christian world VS Islam".

 

[alecgraham]

You have to give Muslims credit though
....
But as usual, most westerners just want to beat up Islam and are deaf to anything good a Muslim might do.

I don't want to beat up on Islam, nor can I give them any credit for those halal codes. They were borrowed wholesale from Judaism, which is hundreds or thousands (I forget) of years older.

 

[Macrobiotic]

Islam is "western" by the way.

 

[Hezam]

Islam is not your topic ! unless you stick to slaughting way then TRY to keep your hatred aside.

 

[Wardibald]

The development of religion is one of the distinguishing characteristics between a simple brutish existence and being civilized. One can not be both religious and uncivilized. Although I realize that is not what you meant, of course; you were merely being gratuitously insulting to religious people.

Truly I wish this held truth, but aren't there examples to the contrary enough? We have quite a few threads in this forum just about that, countless atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. I'm sure you know this, so could you elaborate your point of view?
I'm definitely not saying religious thoughts are worthless, my opinion is quite to the contrary, but one can in my opinion definitely be both religious and uncivilised.


As to eating meat: humans have evolved on a varied, omnivorous diet. I have seen it postulated that the start of humanoid meat consumption made metabolic room for brain development, because it allowed the digestive system to become shorter and simpler. The same or an even richer (partly) carnivorous energy consumption, compared to herbivorous counterparts, allowed maintaining larger brains, the most intensive energy consumer of our bodies.
We have the teeth and digestive system that is neither completely herbivorous nor carnivorous, but a mix of both.

However, in modern times, the need for evolutionary advantage is definitely disputable, especially when it becomes increasingly unethical. At the very least, I feel I need to be aware that creatures need to die in order to sustain my meat consumption. That might sound rather trivial, but many people are appalled here if you actively confront them with it.
In the longer run, with exponentially rising world populations craving meat, production as it is now will not be sustainable. It is a heavily subsidised branch of economy already.

I guess at the moment I find meat to be too good to resist. Not the most ethical statement, but there you go.

In my opinion, humans are more valuable than animals though. Or better perhaps: humans are the most valuable animals. Progress, knowledge, exploration, culture; without humanity it would all be lost. Earth would be one of the billons of billions of planets drifting in an overly vast, nearly empty space.
To the thread starter: given the choice; kill a horse or kill your girlfriend/mother/sister. Would you really think about it for half a second?

 

[Macrobiotic]

To the thread starter: given the choice; kill a horse or kill your girlfriend/mother/sister. Would you really think about it for half a second?

It's impossible for me to make that choice if I had to kill with my own hands. I would rather die myself. However in a situation where I had to choose between saving my mother or saving the cage with my hamster from a sinking car, I would probably go for the hamster.

 

[Grandpa Frank]

Hear's a strange thought...............

View attachment 12041 ......I think there are several types of plants that are meat eaters. Wonder why they came about ?

Uncle Frank

 

[Mark of Zorro]

The markets in middle eastern countries where animals are kept in tiny cages in loud, stressful places just to become food aren't exactly what I call treating animals with respect.

Everyone PLEASE do not make arguments that make it sound like I said every single Muslim person or country on the planet treated animals with respect. That I did not do! What I did was relate how Muslims have a code, many if not most follow it, and it beats the pants off factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses.

Halal rules can be improved and they can also be more universally employed. Nothing I said precluded that.

---------- Post added at 12:44 ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 ----------

I don't want to beat up on Islam, nor can I give them any credit for those halal codes. They were borrowed wholesale from Judaism, which is hundreds or thousands (I forget) of years older.

Good point, but, there are more Muslims in the world following the code than Jews, and I note that Christians have dispensed with it altogether and are the ones who invented those disgusting factory farms and horrible practices.

---------- Post added at 13:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 ----------

......I think there are several types of plants that are meat eaters. Wonder why they came about ?

Uncle Frank

I think its a bit of a liberal use of the word "meat" to include insects.

 

[Macrobiotic]

Since when do plants make conscious decisions?

 

[Hezam]

Since when do plants make conscious decisions?

They do !

 

[BrianLewis]

If there were no slaughter houses and every human had to hunt it's own meat from the wild would you be against it? How is that any different from what wild life has always done? If we are, in your estimation, on the same level as animals, then why do you hold humans to a standard that is against their nature? You don't blame animals for eating meat.

The recent blatant disregard for human life that come from people these days is disturbing. To say that it would be a good thing if the human race was devastated by disease so that we could consume less meat is so backward and wrong. To suppose that one would rather run over a child than a stray dog, given the choice, is also extremely disturbing. It makes me wonder how backwards a society can get before it simply self destructs.

 

[Hezam]

Plus, Humans care about animals and we increased the amount of some animals that without us they would be gone forever.

 

[Macrobiotic]

If there were no slaughter houses and every human had to hunt it's own meat from the wild would you be against it? How is that any different from what wild life has always done? If we are, in your estimation, on the same level as animals, then why do you hold humans to a standard that is against their nature? You don't blame animals for eating meat.

Once again, animals are not able to reflect upon meat eating. They follow their instinct alone. Humans have the ability to reflect upon their own actions and principles. In a technologically advanced world way beyond the hunter gatherer society, there's no need to kill animals for meat. You can sustain yourself perfectly well by growing grains, beans and vegetables.

Did you know that growing grains to use as food for the enormous number of animals born and raised and slaughtered within the meat industry takes up a lot more land, around 3 times as much, for growing crops than if this food had been used for human consumption instead? Then we aren't even taking into account the possibility of urban gardens, skyscraper greenhouses etc...

Meat does not belong on the table in a civilized society where the meaning of the word "civilization" is in direct proportion to the current state of science, culture and well being. Defending meat eating today is no different than doctors suggesting bloodletting to treat cancer. Eating meat makes people uncivilized by definition.

As for the state of the world and people turning misantrophic and empathy-lacking, it is a natural result of the current society and world order and no superstitious religious morals will be able to heal this spiritual wound. "Compassionate conservatism" which on one hand defends meat eating, the current distribution of resources etc and on the other hand preaches morals and kindness is today equal to putting make-up on a corpse and pretending its alive. It could almost be described as a perversion.
People have to become aware either by collapse of the world order or by some responsible future utopian transition where consumption and competition is no longer the focus of daily life.
This is why civilization must do away with meat eating and abominable teachings such as the abrahamitic religions.

---------- Post added at 18:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:34 ----------

You have a self-serving and warped idea of what "civilized" means. The intolerant members of the modern whacko fringe environmentalist pseudo-religion are in my opinion far more scary than any bunch of people who take comfort in the notion of a Supreme Being. I can see that rational discussion on this isn't going to be possible....you have too big a hate on.

If we assume religion is a prerequisite for civilization in the sense that it binds people together to achieve common goals for a higher cause, it should be a good idea to adapt this energy of faith and direct it at the problems the world is facing today, not the problems Europe and the middle east faced centuries and millenia ago.
What you call a "pseudo-religion" is simply a conviction born from the current reality rather than age old static superstition and locally colored patriarchism of the antique world. It is then by definition civilized. I am happily 抹香臭い for the sake of the environment and animals since today, the needs of humans have shifted from direct survival to hedonism. It is only right to fanatically defend the planet rather than these excessively selfish and decadent human desires which hollows out the empathy of entire generations in favor of an undead anti-civilization.

---------- Post added at 18:28 ---------- Previous post was at 18:26 ----------

"Survival of the fittest" does not mean that the "strongest" of a species get to kill off the weaklings en masse. Survival of the fittest refers to a species being able to adapt well to their environment so that they can survive and reproduce. It's usually the species that is best able to adapt that survives and passes on its genes, which is what is meant by "fittest".
I don't have a problem eating meat, but I do have a problem with cruel treatment of those animals we do eat.

So morals apply to humans here? It's wrong to wipe out an entire population of humans? Why is that wrong and why is it okay to breed animals just to slaughter them?

 

[Half-n-Half]

So morals apply to humans here? It's wrong to wipe out an entire population of humans? Why is that wrong and why is it okay to breed animals just to slaughter them?

It depends on how you want to define wrong (or right). In terms of society, yes it is wrong to wipe out an entire population of humans since society has deemed it so. In terms of our evolutionary background, yes it is wrong since we evolved emotionally to reject harm done to members of our own group. From a survival point of view it is beneficial for us to not kill each other off, hence the strong sense of "wrong" whenever we see injustice or suffering. As far as an absolute wrong to murdering an entire population of humans, there is none that I know of.

Not just slaughter, but slaughter and use to nourish. There's a difference. I understand your point, but you should call things what they are and not embellish or omit points in order to strengthen your position.

 

[Macrobiotic]

In terms of our evolutionary background, yes it is wrong since we evolved emotionally to reject harm done to members of our own group.

Not just slaughter, but slaughter and use to nourish. There's a difference. I understand your point, but you should call things what they are and not embellish or omit points in order to strengthen your position.

You just omitted something yourself to strenghten your position. With "group", what humans are evolutionary adapted to empathize with are small clan-like societies, not "human kind as a species" the way you probably tried to imply to get around the moral issue. Humans of different clans/groups have always killed each other for survival and instintively lacked empathy beyond a certain number of people.

Respecting human kind as a whole, rather than just the group of 20-50 people or so, is a conscious moral, not evolutionary question. This is why it cannot rationally be separated from the moral obligation towards animals.