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

[Half-n-Half]

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.

If I did, it was out of ignorance, not intent. I'm no expert on the subject, and it seems entirely reasonable that we evolved only to care about the immediate group or clan around us.

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.

This is what I meant by society deeming it wrong to commit genocide.

 

[BrianLewis]

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.

Those are all opinions.

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.

That's like saying a band-aid is not for cuts. You have a nice caricature of your opposition. I could claim that all your stances are backwards because your so whacked out on drugs, but I don't jump to conclusions about your social group like you have done to mine.

Humans of different clans/groups have always killed each other for survival and instintively lacked empathy beyond a certain number of people.

History out of context is just fuel for peace movement propaganda.

 

[nahadef]

Why is this thread called "How do non-religious people motivate that humans have a higher "value" than animals?" Why not give it a more accurate title, like, "macrobiotic tells non-religious people that they have no moral ground in eating animals."

I hate threads where the whole point is the opposite of the OPs purported one.

 

[Wardibald]

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.

Yet you talk about empathy all the time, but this sort of statement does not prove you're the sharpest tool in that shed. You may conversely think you have a sort of empathic bond with your hamster, but you don't. You don't really understand the creature, and surely it does not understand you at all.

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.

This is mostly true. However, I hope you are selective in where your B12 supplements come from. Many supplements are simply extracts from the livers of slaughtered animals. The complexity of this molecule makes it almost impossible to build it in a laboratory. It's been done, but only as demonstration of tremendous skill in organic synthesis.

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...

True if not grossly understated. In the case of water consumption, a 1/100 ratio is closer. At least a ratio of 1/10 for the land consumption is more realistic.

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.

You may have a hint of truth here imho, but instead of collapse of the world order and elimination of consumption and competition, I seem to be biased towards alternative ways of consumption. Competition is a strong motivator, and we might need it more instead of less in the future. An intelligent, regulated capitalist system is not as bad as it's cracked up to be. Quite on the contrary. A healthy balance between socialism and unchecked capitalism is my idea for securing an acceptable future. The closer a society gets to one of both extremes, the more trouble will follow.

Also, a willingness to save a hamster over any human being is a prime example of perversion in my opinion. And you might read up a bit more (I'd say several lifetimes) on religion, before deciding to throw them all in the same ditch.

 

[Macrobiotic]

Many completely groundless accusations and opinions in that long reply. I won't respond to them all since most of it is just insults without any motivation or explanation given.

If you had read the first post in this thread you might have noticed I clearly stated I lack empathy for humans.

I will say however that you don't understand hamsters judging from that statement. You probably don't have really good hand with animals at all if you don't think animals can experience feelings of happiness through routine behaviour in relation to humans. The rituals a hamster creates in their daily life provides safety and happiness. Hearing the voice of the person who feeds them, keeps them company and provides this stability creates a sense of happiness in the animal even though it will never develop a pack mentality like monkeys or humans.
Animals dream when they sleep. Sometimes dogs and cats dream that they chase something and make growling sounds while small animals who are prey will probably dream they are chased and make squeeling high pitched sounds. On rare occasions this happens to my hamster and every time I will speak to him. He hears me subconsciously and immediately stops squeeking. My voice is a source of security. This sort of relation is not built on cooperation but on mutually taking advantage of each other, nonetheless it is a bond since we affect each others moods and sense of happiness. Nothing to say this bond isn't as real as between humans or monkeys. Any person who cares for, trains or seriously breeds animals would probably agree.

I've also had several cats and I never trained them but they followed me like kids follow their parents if I went for a walk. Three cats in a row. Sceptics would say "they just thought they might get food" or something but this was genuine loyalty. People told me my cats are more like humans than cats and wondered whatever I do to them. The only thing I did was to talk to them constantly and treat them as if they were human babies.
Even with a hamster, a similar pattern is possible to develop with the right care and attention. The problem is people don't generally treat animals as if they were human but if you do, they will become somehow more human. In the case of cats to the degree where they might develop behaviour which even overrides instinct in certain situations. All animals are individuals. They have their own unique personalities. They should have the same status as humans.

I am not opposed to religion in general. I'm not even atheist. I dislike the abrahamitic religions. They are garbage. You made so many false accusations in your reply, as if you haven't even read what I've written in this thread.

 

[Wardibald]

Amazing how you can opt for "non-violent removal" of sociopaths, based on brain scans in one thread, and readily admit to rather sociopathic views in this one.

Twice in one post you claim I make "many" false accusations, and then you attack one thing only, which I haven't actually posted. I will admit to having been scarce in details in that piece of my "long reply".

I have a very good bond with the two cats that share my home, sometimes to the point where it momentarily brushes empathy. One particular cat of ours is a difficult customer in that department, being extremely timid and intolerant. Just born that way. She differs night and day from our other cat; in fact, I have never seen two cats that are really the same. No one understands this creature as I do, and I am the only one, human or otherwise, who she trusts to some extent.
But she's a cat. I may be very knowledgable by now about cat behavior, I can easily predict how she will react to a wide range of situations, but I cannot understand her empathically, because I cannot perfectly simulate being a cat. We don't really know what goes on in their heads, and they're not about to tell me anytime soon. You write about treating cats as humans, but that's the wrong approach imho. They have so many aspects you can never cover if you don't treat them like actual cats.

There is just no way I could have remotely the same bond with a cat, never mind a hamster, than with the people I call friend, brother, parent, girlfriend or complete stranger. These bonds, and nothing else in this life, truly matter to me. This world has many things of beauty to see, but if you can't share them, you're a very poor person imho. If you excuse me the cliché.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

We don't really know what goes on in their heads, and they're not about to tell me anytime soon.

The flip side is that it can be pretty hard to tell what is going on inside a human head as well, if not harder. With cats I think its fair to say you have fewer variables to work with. With humans, for example, if someone is giving you a hard time, is it because they are having trouble in their life, is it because you offended them, because you are in error, because of a misunderstanding, or are they just the type of person who gets a sick pleasure out of giving you a hard time? Just because they speak your language does not mean you will get the truth.

I appreciate your view that cats are cats and should be treated as cats, but I don't think you need to be a cat to have just as much empathy for a cat as a human. There are plenty of humans I cannot empathize with, and part of it is because they seem more alien to me than a typical cat. Some people I do not understand their motives or desires at all. In fact, some people I just plain despise.

 

[Macrobiotic]

I wonder how to "treat a cat like a cat"? I respect my animals needs but I am social with them, talking to them like human parents talk to their small babies. This is not instead of treating them as cats, but in addition to. They become more social as a result.
A happy hamster will have an energetic body language and lively eyes and in some ways act like a human 3-year old playing and having fun. Both hamsters and cats stretch their backs and wash themselves to indicate they feel safe and happy with life. If I sit on the floor my hamster climbs up my lap and sits there grooming himself, indicating it's a safe place to him and that he's happy. Hamsters don't become this way unless you talk to them and socialize with them. They will usually be shy and act like xenophobic loners if left to themselves only.

A sad hamster will have a stressed look and will seem rigid, extremely monotonous and stiff in its movements, repeating the same movement patterns over and over but without stopping to groom themselves and without displaying any curiosity or playfulness.

I argue that people who cannot sense the emotional shifts in for example a hamster are empathy lacking and insensitive. Just because they don't have human mimicry and speech doesn't mean they aren't possible to easily read if you're used to it.

Sociopaths would have no empathy with animals either.

Animals are individuals and have feelings as well as personalities. I'm glad you can acknowledge this to some point at least.
To me, there is absolutely no difference between a pig going to slaughter and a human other than that the pig has a more innocent and pure spirit, no intellectual pretentions tainting its character.

 

[Hezam]

I dislike the abrahamitic religions. They are garbage.

Did your parents raise you in a cage ?

 

[Macrobiotic]

Did your parents raise you in a cage ?

The hamster is only in the cage when he's sleeping. He runs around and enters/exits the cage as he please when he's awake. I know what times he's up and I will be there and let him out. He's never just locked up.
People who want to get a hamster should consider this, you don't get a hamster if you're just going to have it run in a wheel in a cage while you do other things. You need to spend time with it and let it be out of the cage as much as it wants.

I'm not opposed to domestication of animals if proper care is given I'm just against the killing and abuse of animals.

 

[BrianLewis]

It's interesting that we are talking about cats and hamsters here. I have not seen them on the menu of many restaurants lately. I have never met a chicken that I could empathize with. You are transposing your pet experiences onto livestock here.

 

[Macrobiotic]

It's interesting that we are talking about cats and hamsters here. I have not seen them on the menu of many restaurants lately. I have never met a chicken that I could empathize with. You are transposing your pet experiences onto livestock here.

That's a silly comment. How many people who are not farmers have goats as pets? Regardless, there's no distinction between livestock and pets when it comes to their individuality and right to exist.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Wow, I find the OP's philosophy really bizarre.

First, I'm mostly an atheist, though sometimes I feel more agnostic. I value humans much more highly than animals because they are my brother humans. They think and feel, hunger and thirst, as I do. We all feel love for our spouses and families, and have the same needs and desires. I find religion to be irrelevant to my values and morals and ability to empathize.

I do feel empathy for animals, but to a much lesser degree. They aren't aware of themselves or others as separate individuals (non-sentient), don't feel love, pain, or empathy as we do. I don't believe animals should be tortured or killed for no reason. Their deaths should fulfill some need of mine or another human being.

I show the highest respect for the animals I eat or take furs from by killing and butchering/skinning them myself. I make their death as humane and quick as possible. I gut them out and butcher the meat. My hands are red with their blood when I'm done. I eat all the meat and share it with family and friends, just as humans have done for a million years.

It's a ritual killing that honors the animal, and people who have their killing done by others at slaughterhouses -- thereby hiding from any sense that the animal has given its life to feed them -- can't appreciate it.

I'm most disturbed that Macrobiotic shows no respect for the food, traditions, and religions of others. He says he wants to ban these things that he disagrees with. An egotistic, totalitarian philosophy.

And btw, Mac -- you never answered the other poster's question of why you don't kill yourself, if you think 90 percent of humans should be wiped out. Or do you plan on being one of the ten percent left, the enlightened, who will show the surviving humans the way?

---------- Post added at 00:22 ---------- Previous post was at 00:19 ----------

"If you had read the first post in this thread you might have noticed I clearly stated I lack empathy for humans."

There's a term for such people: SOCIOPATHS.

 

[Mike Cash]

Too bad when he was borrowing from Buddhism he borrowed the non-existent prohibition against eating meat and totally skipped right over the admonition to avoid extremism and attachment. Saying any part of what he proposes is inspired by or borrowed from Buddhism is just a hippy-dippy way of sounding exotically kewl while in fact not having the first clue what he's talking about.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

That's a silly comment. How many people who are not farmers have goats as pets? Regardless, there's no distinction between livestock and pets when it comes to their individuality and right to exist.

I think there is - for a start - were it not for humans killing and eating animals - cows and chickens would probably be extinct by now.

Not to mention that children and adults would be getting killed left right and center by predators - who would eventually run out of food - and thus also become extinct.

you seem to focus a lot on the nature of animals - what of the nature of the animal that is man - we are predators. we eat meat

 

[Macrobiotic]

Too bad when he was borrowing from Buddhism he borrowed the non-existent prohibition against eating meat and totally skipped right over the admonition to avoid extremism and attachment. Saying any part of what he proposes is inspired by or borrowed from Buddhism is just a hippy-dippy way of sounding exotically kewl while in fact not having the first clue what he's talking about.

You mean like you in the case of the japanese language? If you didn't spend most days frequenting this forum just to fill some narcissistic need by making empty, rhetorical points in english in almost every thread you might actually not be making mistakes revealing that you after 20 years in Japan still have a critical lack of understanding even for some of the basic parts of the language.
You called someone else pathetic in another thread but you seem to be by far the most fitting person of being called "pathetic" on these forums.
Do you have any real ability in anything other than giving wrong answers to questions asked by people who, unlike you, make serious attempts at learning japanese? From a learning perspective you actually lower the quality on these forums with your misleading, pretentious rubbish, Mr Marco Polo cultural ambassador.

Btw, I borrowed buddhist cooking principles for my own purpose, not a buddhist purpose. I have never claimed to be a buddhist follower. I also mentioned macrobiotics, do you know what that is since it originated in Japan and you, probably because you really never succeeded in anything and need to overcompensate, are a self proclaimed expert on Japan? Then maybe you know that macrobiotics has no laws against meat eating, it excludes it for other reasons which are non moral.

Again, look up Sideshow Bob when he's teaching italians italian, that's you. The sad part is he's a satiric charicature and you are the kind of real-life misfit his personality borrows from. I feel sorry for your children but can only hope they don't fail in life to the degree of becoming addicted to internet forums and posing as an educated man while posting false information to students.

---------- Post added at 20:54 ---------- Previous post was at 20:22 ----------

you seem to focus a lot on the nature of animals - what of the nature of the animal that is man - we are predators. we eat meat

But we also have the ability to choose, unlike other animals. Why is this moral born from the ability to make conscious choices limited to humans?

 

[Mike Cash]

Aren't you the guy who spends three hours a day studying Japanese and obsessively-compulsively cataloging everything you encounter? Yet you end up asking some rather basic and obvious questions yourself.

I'd be interested in knowing how you peg my time in Japan at 20 years.

My children do fine despite the handicap of being saddled with me as a father, thanks very much. I have never claimed to be an educated man.

Would you refresh my memory about where it was I called somebody "pathetic", please? It slips my mind at the moment.

 

[Macrobiotic]

I show the highest respect for the animals I eat or take furs from by killing and butchering/skinning them myself.

I wish every meat eater could hunt or butcher their own meat. Then they would just be cruel, not hypocrite. For this reason I withdrew from the Taiji-thread because those fishermen actually do the killing themselves.

As for sociopathy. Sociopaths lack empathy for animals too as well as a moral compass. I have both empathy for animals and a moral compass in human relations. I would never steal or rape for example.

---------- Post added at 21:04 ---------- Previous post was at 21:00 ----------

Aren't you the guy who spends three hours a day studying Japanese and obsessively-compulsively cataloging everything you encounter?

Yes why? Although I have no upper time limit or deadline for anything I still don't want my japanese ability to be like an inflated swiss cheese in 20 years time. I get the impression your japanese have possibly declined after some point, possibly the introduction of the internet, rather than improved, even though you lived half your life in Japan. Maybe because you are a bit too arrogant and spend a lot of time thinking up elaborate punchlines in english.

I am almost certain you used the term pathetic when describing the behaviour of masaegu. Don't tell me you went and edited it away just now?

I might have misinterpreted but you are 47 right? And you came to Japan as a 19-year old, or sometime in the 1980's at least? So you're nearing 30 years in Japan I'm guessing.


*Edited addition as a reply to your own question added as a late edit*
Yes I do indeed ask basic questions (rather than giving false information about basic things), simply for the purpose of filling the holes of completely unguided self study rather than ignoring and covering them up for decades. I would never try to do what many "proficient" people do, something you are an extreme example of, namely trying to cover my lack of knowledge. This isn't a matter of pride, it's a matter of common sense and proves you are the projectionist assuming I am learning with a sense of arrogance. On the contrary, no question is too stupid if you really have opened your mind to learning.

 

[Mike Cash]

Nice display of projection and ignoring questions.

Have you ever been examined by a mental health professional?

 

[BrianLewis]

On a positive note, when this thread is closed, he can review all the posts he missed the first time.

 

[thomas]

On a positive note, when this thread is closed, he can review all the posts he missed the first time.

Brian, it seems you can read my mind, I was close to pulling the trigger.

Gentlemen, the ad hominem attacks have to stop immediately, otherwise I will close this thread without further notice!

We haven't used the infraction system in ages, except for spammers. I will however not hesitate to reactivate it. Thanks.

 

[Macrobiotic]

And btw, Mac -- you never answered the other poster's question of why you don't kill yourself, if you think 90 percent of humans should be wiped out. Or do you plan on being one of the ten percent left, the enlightened, who will show the surviving humans the way?

Me killing myself won't make any difference. I doubt it would make others follow me into death.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I think there is - for a start - were it not for humans killing and eating animals - cows and chickens would probably be extinct by now.

I seriously doubt they care much about the future of their species. If they could talk I doubt they would say "Hey, I know you make me wallow in my own $#!T in a cramped pen, and I know you will kill and eat me while I am young and tender, but hey, at least you artificially inseminate me and force me to give birth and take my babies away, ensuring our species continues!"

Not to mention that children and adults would be getting killed left right and center by predators - who would eventually run out of food - and thus also become extinct.

That is waaaaaay out there...like Pluto. I don't know if anything was said about killing in self-defense being wrong, but even if so, we humans have these things called fences. They work.

you seem to focus a lot on the nature of animals - what of the nature of the animal that is man - we are predators. we eat meat

Eating meat does not make you a predator. It makes you a carnivore or an omnivore. Just because you can eat meat does not necessarily mean you should.

---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:52 ----------

This is mostly true. However, I hope you are selective in where your B12 supplements come from. Many supplements are simply extracts from the livers of slaughtered animals.

Yes, but B12 can be obtained from blood, milk, honey, eggs, fish and shellfish. It can also be obtained from feces. I would say that anyone who cannot fit at least one of those in due to some moral grounds is not quite right in the head. I am sure that one well treated cow could supply enough B12 for a community of 100 people in milk alone, and 100 people could provide a pretty good life for that cow if they chose to.

And who cares about shellfish? Oh, yes! The superstitious!

Honey? Some beekeepers leave plenty for the bees themselves.


It is claimed that apes don't actually require B12 in their actual diet because 1) it is recycled for years on end and 2) because they are so dirty they get it from their own hands.

All told, the B12 argument is not a very compelling one against vegetarianism, as most will still eat something from the list above. The B12 argument is also certainly not a very good argument for every day meat eating. One steak would provide you with enough B12 to last for years, literally.

But as an argument against vegans? Well, vegans just over-think everything. They have good reasons against poor practices, but they usually confuse the poor practices with the practice itself. Anyone against beekeeping on principle is not playing with a full deck.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

But we also have the ability to choose, unlike other animals. Why is this moral born from the ability to make conscious choices limited to humans?

But why is the choice to kill animals necessarily a bad one?

Things die - all animals will die eventually anyway - so why does it make a difference?

@zorro - how are you gonner build them fences when you are being attacked by wolves and bears?

and you misunderstood.

omnivore - carnivore...not the issue.

Man = Predator

you only need to look at our eyes for it to be apparent

 

[Mark of Zorro]

@zorro - how are you gonner build them fences when you are being attacked by wolves and bears?

I personally have no problem with killing in the name of direct self-defense (as opposed to pre-emptive).

But wolves and bears are not quite that populous anyway, and they run from packs of humans making noise, such as the noise of building fences.

and you misunderstood.

omnivore - carnivore...not the issue.

Man = Predator

You said that humans are predators because we eat meat. The statement was illogical.

Carrion eaters also eat meat but are not predators for doing so.

Deer have been documented eating dead fish. That does not make them predators.

you only need to look at our eyes for it to be apparent

No, it takes more than that. Without front set eyes, a monkey could not swing from branch to branch, if that is what you are referring to. There are more possible reasons for so many things in the world, but you always seem completely focused on precious few.