VEGANGELICA

Yes, I think you're right...the lion in Madagascar ended up eating sushi to survive. In the movie, eating fish was not considered an ethical issue, and that isn't fair to fish. I think the movie reflects that many people don't feel concern about fish experiencing pain and stress when they are caught, torn, and suffocating.

How people decide which animals, if any, they feel are okay to kill is a great question I wish more people would consider, and RVCA does that here:

I think what you see as wishy-washyness of vegetarians is actually their thoughtfulness about where we draw the line between whom we do or don't eat.

I feel most meat-eaters are very arbitrary (wishy-washy) in making decisions about whom to eat. Most meat-eaters don't seem to even develop a rational reason for the line they draw. They will concoct some excuse to feel good about eating pigs but bad about eating dogs, even though dogs and pigs have very similar intelligence levels, playfulness, and other attributes (including tastiness).

For example, consider your reason for valuing human lives the most. I have never read any modern science study proving that only humans think about thinking. Also, I'd be very surprised if babies and young children think about thinking. So it isn't even clear that people always think about thinking. And why should the ability to think about thinking be more important than an animal's ability to love, feel friendship, feel playfulness and pleasure?

You wrote that you feel insects, "on a psychologically evolutionary scale," are "on the same playing field as the aforementioned meats" (cows, pigs, chickens), but I don't agree with that at all.

I see humans and other animals as often being on a continuum according to mental abilities, rather than there being sharp divides between species. If an animal appears to have a greater mental capacity to enjoy and appreciate being alive, then I feel a stronger need to avoid killing that animal. A pig has a much more developed emotional life and intellectual interaction with its environment than an invertebrate like an ant does, so I feel more concern about the pig's life than the ant's life.

But I try to give animals the benefit of the doubt. If I know the animal has a brain, I know it is thinking or experiencing *something* and so I try to avoid killing it, even if it is an invertebrate animal whose life I value much less than the life of a pig because the pig is so much more mentally aware and capable. I rarely go out of my way to kill creepy-crawlies. Even as a little child I'd rescue worms from sidewalks so they wouldn't get stepped on.

If, to save time for myself, I vacuum up a spider rather than do catch-and-release, I feel bad about that because I know I'm valuing a minute of my time more than that spider's little life. And yes, the spider's life may be little, and the spider may be only dimly aware of the experience of life, but it is still probably aware so I feel selfish to have killed it.

So, how *do* you decide the value of someone else's life? I feel it is best to try to figure out what the life experience is like for that being, and then make ethical decisions about how to treat that animal from there. Simply saying "only humans matter" isn't a convincing argument to me, because it ignores or trivializes the ability of many other animals to have a wide range or emotions and thoughts.

When I know that animals have strong emotional attachments to their family and friends, and they like to play, and they enjoy basking in the sun...I don't want to end that for an animal.

__________________

skaltezon

Good point. Why should the biggest ego get to eat the lesser egos? Ooo, I can do calculus, so I'll have a steak.

I think I love you.

__________________

VEGANGELICA

Why stop there?

People who can't do calculus are obviously leading worthless, simplistic, shallow lives, so they might as well be food for those of us who can. Since they possess less than optimal levels of those quintessential human traits of voracious curiosity and the ability to want to think beyond the obvious, what value can their simple lives have?? Not much. So...snack time!



I noticed that you, too, have a soft spot for critters ...and not just in the pit of your stomach!

I've always liked earthworms, skaltezon. I think they're cute. I like to crouch and watch how they react, such as when they stretch out their little front ends until they are skinny and pointy, and then squinch up quickly if you touch them.

It turns out that some worms have fairly interesting neuronal systems that scientists feel make them capable of "free will," the ability to make choices. This is yet another example of how the differences between humans and other animals are often not qualitative but quantitative.

And sometimes the differences are simply qualitative. I will never feel the wind rushing through my feathers, for example. A bird will have many experiences and choices that I can never have.

So, when people eat other animals, I often feel as if people are viewing their own abilities and capabliities as more worthwhile than those of their "food" animals. Maybe beings lacking humility ought to be eaten first...starting with the ones who can't do calculus.

Now for exciting info on worm neuron structures, read on to learn about the human-like brain found in a type of worm!

__________________

Dirty

Basically, since we are atop the food chain, we should use that to our advantage. We CAN eat these animals that are tasty and nutritious so why not? I think some people think about animals feelings and thoughts a little too much. Animals in the wild survive strictly off of killing and eating other animals. Sometimes I feel like others view animals almost on a higher level than actual people.

Paedantic Basterd

Where do you draw the line when it comes to taking advantage of our planet though? There is inevitably a point where we can take so much from it that it can no longer function, and following, neither can we.

Dirty

I don't know, every situation is different, but I don't draw the line at eating animals. We are powerful enough and able to eat them.... If animals could somehow round us up and eat us for their own benefit, then they probably would.

Paedantic Basterd

But you're probably not in support of packs of wolves who round up and attack people, hahaha. I'm not trying to nitpick, I just think it's a good alternative example in the line of your logic. Pretty much, if they can attack us, they deserve to.

VEGANGELICA

And if one human can kill and eat another, why not? We humans aren't all created equal, after all. So why have any concern for anyone...especially those weaker than you? Might makes right. (Just playing devil's advocate.)

I don't place non-human animals at the same level as humans in all mental abilities, but in certain abilities they are more capable than we are, and we are more capable in many others.

For example, if you were a dog, you and I probably wouldn't be having this conversation. But also my butt would be a bouquet of delightful scents to you! If we ranked beings according to ability to smell, or see, or take delight in something, we humans might not rank at the top.

I can't help but notice that humans usually value the traits in which they excel compared to many other animals (such as math and language ability). Coincidence? Or mere self-centeredness?

__________________

skaltezon

.. .. .. ..

Good read.

__________________

Dirty

I know you are playing devils advocate but I see way too many arguments using examples of hypothetical situations and just going down the slippery slope of things... Yes, if I were a dog, I'd probably sniff your ass, but I AM NOT A DOG SO WHO CARES. And of course I don't support wolves attacking and killing people. I hope if they attack, someone has a gun and kills them.