Are Human's Special and if so, how?

[smh23]

“I matter to me because without me nothing could matter to me.” I think we take this and sentiment and expand it to incorporate our families. From there we may expand it to further our immediate communities, ethnic groups, etc. At some point the sentiment has been applied to a huge piece (or perhaps all) of humanity. At this point it has become diluted and is obviously much weaker than in its original form. Selfishness is powerful and has strong moral, philosophical, and scientific justifications.

I think in the end we think of ourselves as special because a world in which we didn’t would be a terrible place to live.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]smh23 wrote:
“I matter to me because without me nothing could matter to me.” I think we take this and sentiment and expand it to incorporate our families. From there we may expand it to further our immediate communities, ethnic groups, etc. At some point the sentiment has been applied to a huge piece (or perhaps all) of humanity. At this point it has become diluted and is obviously much weaker than in its original form. Selfishness is powerful and has strong moral, philosophical, and scientific justifications.

I think in the end we think of ourselves as special because a world in which we didn’t would be a terrible place to live.[/quote]

Or because G-d freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life.

[Charlie_Horse]

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
This thread is for real data, not philosophical musings, as to why humans are unique and thus deserve special, superior rights as being special above other animals. If you make a claim, you need to post a reference of some kind with it.

[/quote]
I think the only reason we care for the rights of other animals is for self serving reasons. We feel bad that animals have to be tortured for the purpose of finding a cure for deceases, but I would be the last to say we should stop, my niece has diabetes, so we make laws to hopefully make it more humane and the experiments more necessary. I think these laws were made up is so we wouldn’t feel so bad. What would be the purpose of caring more for a species that is not your own?

No one species on the planet is anymore important than the other, other than what effect their extinction would have on the rest of the planet. The only reason why humans are a bigger concern to humans is because it is our own species.[edit here in a hurry lol]

I have no idea how to answer such a silly question, other than to quote Dr.Suess
“I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.”[/quote]

i think animal abuse was frowned upon in early cultures, because those who abused animals were known to eventually abuse humans as well. Abusing animals is bad because the abuser is harmed, and eventually harms society. [/quote]

Abuse? I suppose using animals for research could be seen as abuse and we have been known to experiment on people. Is this the progression of abuse you were talking about?[/quote]

No, I mean willful or knowledgeable animal torture, primarily for its own sake.[/quote]

I would agree that abuse for its own sake is a sign of a deranged person but the animals being used in experiments would probably feel just as abused even if the intention is not abuse. That’s why I mentioned torturing animals in experiments because to the animals it probably is torture, although our intentions are not torture. Is this what you were commenting on originally?

[Charlie_Horse]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
I would also like to ask does anyone else feel like we are starting this argument in the middle? [/quote]Any dialog whatsoever un-prefaced by epistemology is automatically already in the middle.
[/quote]
And what would the epistemology that we are missing for this dialog?[/quote]Actually epistemology prefaces every dialog necessarily whether the participants realize it or not. Everybody has one un"proven" principle that governs how they arrive at every last conclusion in their lives from simple mathematics to “where did I come from and why am I here”. I don’t want to get too far afield of the immediate topic at hand, but your comment reminded me of how every question there is or could be is ultimately meaningless unless we first answer the question of how (and why) do we know ANYTHING at all.
[/quote]

To keep it on topic Do you think I would better understand the question if I understood what Oleena’s (op’s) un"proven" principle is? This would be how she comes up with her answers right?

[mertdawg]

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
This thread is for real data, not philosophical musings, as to why humans are unique and thus deserve special, superior rights as being special above other animals. If you make a claim, you need to post a reference of some kind with it.

[/quote]
I think the only reason we care for the rights of other animals is for self serving reasons. We feel bad that animals have to be tortured for the purpose of finding a cure for deceases, but I would be the last to say we should stop, my niece has diabetes, so we make laws to hopefully make it more humane and the experiments more necessary. I think these laws were made up is so we wouldn’t feel so bad. What would be the purpose of caring more for a species that is not your own?

No one species on the planet is anymore important than the other, other than what effect their extinction would have on the rest of the planet. The only reason why humans are a bigger concern to humans is because it is our own species.[edit here in a hurry lol]

I have no idea how to answer such a silly question, other than to quote Dr.Suess
“I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.”[/quote]

i think animal abuse was frowned upon in early cultures, because those who abused animals were known to eventually abuse humans as well. Abusing animals is bad because the abuser is harmed, and eventually harms society. [/quote]

Abuse? I suppose using animals for research could be seen as abuse and we have been known to experiment on people. Is this the progression of abuse you were talking about?[/quote]

No, I mean willful or knowledgeable animal torture, primarily for its own sake.[/quote]

I would agree that abuse for its own sake is a sign of a deranged person but the animals being used in experiments would probably feel just as abused even if the intention is not abuse. That’s why I mentioned torturing animals in experiments because to the animals it probably is torture, although our intentions are not torture. Is this what you were commenting on originally?[/quote]

I think we have developed a social standard which is to minimize human exposure to the torturing of animals because it desensitizes us. Ie torturing animals is “immoral” because it pollutes us psychologically.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

I think we have developed a social standard which is to minimize human exposure to the torturing of animals because it desensitizes us. Ie torturing animals is “immoral” because it pollutes us psychologically.[/quote]

Perhaps you didn’t see it, but I asked you prior what constitutes “abuse” or “torture” to you. One man’s abuse is another man’s sport.

[smh23]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
“I matter to me because without me nothing could matter to me.” I think we take this and sentiment and expand it to incorporate our families. From there we may expand it to further our immediate communities, ethnic groups, etc. At some point the sentiment has been applied to a huge piece (or perhaps all) of humanity. At this point it has become diluted and is obviously much weaker than in its original form. Selfishness is powerful and has strong moral, philosophical, and scientific justifications.

I think in the end we think of ourselves as special because a world in which we didn’t would be a terrible place to live.[/quote]

Or because G-d freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life.[/quote]

For those who believe in a God interested in human affairs, yes. Many don’t.

[system]

there is something humans do very well, that animals don’t do. They kill and murder for pleasure, while animals kill only to survive.

[Deorum]

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
there is something humans do very well, that animals don’t do. They kill and murder for pleasure, while animals kill only to survive. [/quote]

Oddly enough it is only the “most intelligent” of the animals in the kingdom that display killing for fun. Such examples include dolphins and chimps. It is an odd behavior.

[on_edge]

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
there is something humans do very well, that animals don’t do. They kill and murder for pleasure, while animals kill only to survive. [/quote]

Lots of animals kill for pleasure. Some even torture their victims. Killer Whales for one.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
there is something humans do very well, that animals don’t do. They kill and murder for pleasure, while animals kill only to survive. [/quote]

Lots of animals kill for pleasure. Some even torture their victims. Killer Whales for one.[/quote]

Yeah, watching killer whales casually play a game of toss and torture the seal is quite the spectacle and, very curious to say the least.

[mertdawg]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

I think we have developed a social standard which is to minimize human exposure to the torturing of animals because it desensitizes us. Ie torturing animals is “immoral” because it pollutes us psychologically.[/quote]

Perhaps you didn’t see it, but I asked you prior what constitutes “abuse” or “torture” to you. One man’s abuse is another man’s sport.[/quote]

Torture would be increasing or extending pain.

[Charlie_Horse]

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
This thread is for real data, not philosophical musings, as to why humans are unique and thus deserve special, superior rights as being special above other animals. If you make a claim, you need to post a reference of some kind with it.

[/quote]
I think the only reason we care for the rights of other animals is for self serving reasons. We feel bad that animals have to be tortured for the purpose of finding a cure for deceases, but I would be the last to say we should stop, my niece has diabetes, so we make laws to hopefully make it more humane and the experiments more necessary. I think these laws were made up is so we wouldn’t feel so bad. What would be the purpose of caring more for a species that is not your own?

No one species on the planet is anymore important than the other, other than what effect their extinction would have on the rest of the planet. The only reason why humans are a bigger concern to humans is because it is our own species.[edit here in a hurry lol]

I have no idea how to answer such a silly question, other than to quote Dr.Suess
“I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.”[/quote]

i think animal abuse was frowned upon in early cultures, because those who abused animals were known to eventually abuse humans as well. Abusing animals is bad because the abuser is harmed, and eventually harms society. [/quote]

Abuse? I suppose using animals for research could be seen as abuse and we have been known to experiment on people. Is this the progression of abuse you were talking about?[/quote]

No, I mean willful or knowledgeable animal torture, primarily for its own sake.[/quote]

I would agree that abuse for its own sake is a sign of a deranged person but the animals being used in experiments would probably feel just as abused even if the intention is not abuse. That’s why I mentioned torturing animals in experiments because to the animals it probably is torture, although our intentions are not torture. Is this what you were commenting on originally?[/quote]

I think we have developed a social standard which is to minimize human exposure to the torturing of animals because it desensitizes us. Ie torturing animals is “immoral” because it pollutes us psychologically.[/quote]

I’m not sure being removed or innocent of the violence being done on our behalf (food,science,etc) to animals makes us better people, maybe just naive.

[Charlie_Horse]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
there is something humans do very well, that animals don’t do. They kill and murder for pleasure, while animals kill only to survive. [/quote]

Lots of animals kill for pleasure. Some even torture their victims. Killer Whales for one.[/quote]

Yeah, watching killer whales casually play a game of toss and torture the seal is quite the spectacle and, very curious to say the least. [/quote]

I think the play is apart of hunting practice, which is still apart of survival. I’ve never heard of a non-hunting animal playing like this. Play is also social, which is also a part of survival.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

I think we have developed a social standard which is to minimize human exposure to the torturing of animals because it desensitizes us. Ie torturing animals is “immoral” because it pollutes us psychologically.[/quote]

Perhaps you didn’t see it, but I asked you prior what constitutes “abuse” or “torture” to you. One man’s abuse is another man’s sport.[/quote]

Torture would be increasing or extending pain. [/quote]

So anything short of increasing or extending pain for the sole sake of doing so is not abuse? Because at one end of the spectrum, you’d have those that argue strenuously that any form of hunting for sport is abuse or torture or, “wrong”. Horse drawn carriages - “cruel”. Farm raised animals? Cruel. What is actual abuse in your opinion?

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

I think the play is apart of hunting practice, which is still apart of survival. I’ve never heard of a non-hunting animal playing like this. Play is also social, which is also a part of survival.[/quote]

Scientist “think” it may be a form of practice, but they don’t know. It could also be killer whale’s version of “for shits and giggles” too.

[Tiribulus]

God cares about animals. Jonah 4:11 [quote] 11"Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?"[/quote] However only man is created in His image and has been given dominion over the rest of creation. I believe animals exist to serve man and thereby glorify God which does not include the right to inflict unnecessary suffering upon them. I would not call research that saves human lives conducted in the most humane way the goal of the research will allow unnecessary.

Same with the environment actually. Man’s dominion over the earth does not extend to the right to wreak destruction for the sake of mere greed, laziness or carelessness. I do not also however believe that man will be allowed to destroy this planet. There are fine lines in both of these.

[mertdawg]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

I think we have developed a social standard which is to minimize human exposure to the torturing of animals because it desensitizes us. Ie torturing animals is “immoral” because it pollutes us psychologically.[/quote]

Perhaps you didn’t see it, but I asked you prior what constitutes “abuse” or “torture” to you. One man’s abuse is another man’s sport.[/quote]

Torture would be increasing or extending pain. [/quote]

So anything short of increasing or extending pain for the sole sake of doing so is not abuse? Because at one end of the spectrum, you’d have those that argue strenuously that any form of hunting for sport is abuse or torture or, “wrong”. Horse drawn carriages - “cruel”. Farm raised animals? Cruel. What is actual abuse in your opinion?[/quote]

Torture would be increasing or extending pain for its own sake, or personal pleasure, OR without a good reason-sorry morals are situational.

[orion]

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

I think we have developed a social standard which is to minimize human exposure to the torturing of animals because it desensitizes us. Ie torturing animals is “immoral” because it pollutes us psychologically.[/quote]

Perhaps you didn’t see it, but I asked you prior what constitutes “abuse” or “torture” to you. One man’s abuse is another man’s sport.[/quote]

Torture would be increasing or extending pain. [/quote]

So anything short of increasing or extending pain for the sole sake of doing so is not abuse? Because at one end of the spectrum, you’d have those that argue strenuously that any form of hunting for sport is abuse or torture or, “wrong”. Horse drawn carriages - “cruel”. Farm raised animals? Cruel. What is actual abuse in your opinion?[/quote]

Torture would be increasing or extending pain for its own sake, or personal pleasure, OR without a good reason-sorry morals are situational.[/quote]

So lets say I tormented a mans body to save his eternal soul.

Torture or not?

[Charlie_Horse]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

I think the play is apart of hunting practice, which is still apart of survival. I’ve never heard of a non-hunting animal playing like this. Play is also social, which is also a part of survival.[/quote]

Scientist “think” it may be a form of practice, but they don’t know. It could also be killer whale’s version of “for shits and giggles” too.[/quote]

Okay I will agree that it could be for “shits and giggles” but isn’t it beneficial to do things just for fun? Isn’t fun good for their health too?