Planetarion Forums - View Single Post

All Systems Go · 3 Aug 2006, 20:31

I was going to start a thread on morals in general but I realised as I was typing that I was starting to ramble and was about to begin generalising to the point of absurdity. So, I've decided to skip all of that and dive straight into the ses-pit that is animal rights.

Firstly, I do not believe in a God or any form of higher power. As a result I believe morals have no greater value than what we place in them. If we do adopt morals as a society then what should these entail? Basically I believe in a 'treat others how you would like to be treated' morality. Seeing as how different people want to be treated in different ways the logical move would be to present the maximum level of freedom and only prohibit actions that would have a negative effect on others i.e. I have the right not to be attacked randomly in the street.

Moving on from this I do not believe in a soul. People are just animals with a more developed brain. this allows us to think but we share a lot of characteristics with animals. the characteristic I am interested in right now is the ability of animals to feel pain.

I believe animals feel pain. As a result I believe that they have the right not to be tortured. Seeing as human beings are not a higher form of life when compared to animals it therefore follows that animals shoud shre some of the same basic rights. For if it is right to kill and eat a pig then surely it is the same to kill and eat a human being. I can see no reason why (apart from potential health risks) why it would be acceptable to eat all other animals except for human beings.

the same goes for animal testing. If it is ok to test on a mouse then why not on a human being? Once the illusionary distinction between humans and animals is removed (which is only there for conveinance) things become far more complex.

I believe in the future that vegetarianism will become the norm (unless scientists can grow meat in a lab, the result of which would be meat with no suffering from an animal) and the only reason I am not one now is because I do not care enough to change my lifestyle.

I am under no illusions and am fully aware that I am being hypocritical but it does not bother me enough for me to change my ways, much in the same way I suppose as con-men and people responsible for dumping shed loads of chemical waste into seas and rivers etc don't stop doing what they do even though they are aware others are negatively affected.

3 Aug 2006, 20:31	#1
All Systems Go Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,347	Animal Rights I was going to start a thread on morals in general but I realised as I was typing that I was starting to ramble and was about to begin generalising to the point of absurdity. So, I've decided to skip all of that and dive straight into the ses-pit that is animal rights. Firstly, I do not believe in a God or any form of higher power. As a result I believe morals have no greater value than what we place in them. If we do adopt morals as a society then what should these entail? Basically I believe in a 'treat others how you would like to be treated' morality. Seeing as how different people want to be treated in different ways the logical move would be to present the maximum level of freedom and only prohibit actions that would have a negative effect on others i.e. I have the right not to be attacked randomly in the street. Moving on from this I do not believe in a soul. People are just animals with a more developed brain. this allows us to think but we share a lot of characteristics with animals. the characteristic I am interested in right now is the ability of animals to feel pain. I believe animals feel pain. As a result I believe that they have the right not to be tortured. Seeing as human beings are not a higher form of life when compared to animals it therefore follows that animals shoud shre some of the same basic rights. For if it is right to kill and eat a pig then surely it is the same to kill and eat a human being. I can see no reason why (apart from potential health risks) why it would be acceptable to eat all other animals except for human beings. the same goes for animal testing. If it is ok to test on a mouse then why not on a human being? Once the illusionary distinction between humans and animals is removed (which is only there for conveinance) things become far more complex. I believe in the future that vegetarianism will become the norm (unless scientists can grow meat in a lab, the result of which would be meat with no suffering from an animal) and the only reason I am not one now is because I do not care enough to change my lifestyle. I am under no illusions and am fully aware that I am being hypocritical but it does not bother me enough for me to change my ways, much in the same way I suppose as con-men and people responsible for dumping shed loads of chemical waste into seas and rivers etc don't stop doing what they do even though they are aware others are negatively affected. __________________ The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.