Animal Rights Are all animals worthy of equal consideration?

[Clueless Git]

If we're going to divide the line between what we can eat and what we can't eat based on sentience ..

Given that:

1. The divide between sentience and non sentience is infinitely more subjective than is the divide between animal and plant kingdoms.

2. The vast majority (omnis) don't give a flying monkeys turd about absolutely 100% clear and obvious, let alone marginal, sentience.

I think that using sentience as a basis for what it is 'moral' to intentionaly harm is incredibly dangerous and because it's incredibly dangerous it's incredibly dumb.

 

[flyingsnail]

What I disagree with is that us giving that section of the animal kingdom equal consideration makes no difference to OUR lives.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, what I've suggested is that if you really gave all animals "equal consideration" that it would make ones live impossible to live. You seem to have in mind some sort of spiritual like benefit of giving all animals equal consideration.

I think that using sentience as a basis for what it is 'moral' to intentionaly harm is incredibly dangerous and because it's incredibly dangerous it's incredibly dumb.

I think its actually "dangerous" to lump together all animals and give them equal consideration, as previously suggested this gives raise to what you're calling "omni logic". That is, if we end up killing 10,000 animals directly/indirect each day (insects, etc) why should you be concerned with adding one mammal and killing 10,001 instead? This reasoning only makes sense when you are weighing the interests of all animals the same, the minute you put cows, pigs, etc into a different category (e.g., sentient animals) the reasoning no longer makes sense.

 

[das_nut]

Given that:

1. The divide between sentience and non sentience is infinitely more subjective than is the divide between animal and plant kingdoms.

2. The vast majority (omnis) don't give a flying monkeys turd about absolutely 100% clear and obvious, let alone marginal, sentience.

I think that using sentience as a basis for what it is 'moral' to intentionaly harm is incredibly dangerous and because it's incredibly dangerous it's incredibly dumb.

The problem with giving all animals equal consideration is that logically, then shooting a deer is more ethical than eating a head of lettuce, since it's only one animal (a deer) versus the many small creatures that are killed via farming.

 

[prioritarian]

What I disagree with is that us giving that section of the animal kingdom equal consideration makes no difference to OUR lives.

Can you provide some concrete examples of how this works? In particular, how does this section of the animal kingdom make more of a difference to our lives than plants of fungi. I've always thought that vegans should not limit ahimsa to animals...that we should strive to minimize our exploitation of all life.

 

[Clueless Git]

I think its actually "dangerous" to lump together all animals and give them equal consideration, as previously suggested this gives raise to what you're calling "omni logic". That is, if we end up killing 10,000 animals directly/indirect each day (insects, etc) why should you be concerned with adding one mammal and killing 10,001 instead? This reasoning only makes sense when you are weighing the interests of all animals the same, the minute you put cows, pigs, etc into a different category (e.g., sentient animals) the reasoning no longer makes sense.

The problem with giving all animals equal consideration is that logically, then shooting a deer is more ethical than eating a head of lettuce, since it's only one animal (a deer) versus the many small creatures that are killed via farming.

OK, I think I see where you guys are coming from now.

You are looking at the 'equal consideration for the entire animal kingdom irrelevant of sentience levels' thang from the angle of "does it make sense to omnis"?

Of course it doesn't.

But then there's only one thing that makes acceptable sense to omnis. That is that if I like to eat it then, ipso-de-facto, it's sentience is insufficient to warrant non-food status.

That makes either stance an uphill battle.

My personal experience is that taking the 'Vegans err on the side of caution' logic is far more easily understood (though totaly unnaceptable) to most omnis.

The minute you go into "a large jelly fish is sentient but a small jelly fish isn't" territory then, by omni perception, you're just another omni with a different preference of foodstuffs.

 

[Clueless Git]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, what I've suggested is that if you really gave all animals "equal consideration" that it would make ones live impossible to live.

If the equal consideration contains "as far as reasonable and practical" then living a life that gives not just animals but everything equal consideration is entirely possible.

You seem to have in mind some sort of spiritual like benefit of giving all animals equal consideration.

An equanamous mind set is highly beneficial, yes.

 

[das_nut]

The minute you go into "a large jelly fish is sentient but a small jelly fish isn't" territory then, by omni perception, you're just another omni with a different preference of foodstuffs.

Is your tap water from lake or river water? If so, do you know how many microscopic animals such as hydras probably died?

Do you verify when traveling if the water is only from deep wells?

 

[Clueless Git]

Is your tap water from lake or river water? If so, do you know how many microscopic animals such as hydras probably died?

Do you verify when traveling if the water is only from deep wells?

I don't use microscopic life-form friendly soap when I wash nor sweep the ground ahead of me when I walk either, Das.

 

[Blobbenstein]

If the equal consideration contains "as far as reasonable and practical" then living a life that gives not just animals but everything equal consideration is entirely possible.

yes, you simply can't avoid killing insects. Even a lorry delivering vegan food to a shop must kill hundreds.