Stephanie,
You
wrote: “Why are you holding other species to human-invented standards, as if we
are "better" than they are?”
I believe
‘“all breathing, existing, living, sentient creatures should not be slain, nor
treated with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor driven away.” is a
universal moral principle, not a ‘human-invented standard’. ‘Human-invented
standard’ sounds like postmodernism (i.e. morals are relative, not absolute),
and I know you don’t adhere to this.
But if we
believe in an absolute moral, why would we think that this moral would follow
arbitrary taxonomic concepts?
Why would
we think that that a universal moral principle wouldn’t apply on some species
that evolved to become carnivores? If humans would evolve to become carnivores,
then suddenly the universal moral principle would be invalid just because of a
change in DNA? Why would it??
You
wrote: “That's one of the causes of domestication, trying to make other species
into what we would have them be.”
The cause
of domestication is violence – using violence to exploit and enslave other sentient
beings. I am not advocating universal moral principles using violence. The
cause of domestication is the use of violence, instead of love, compassion and
nonviolence. I am not using violence towards anyone to act according to the
above belief of nonviolence.The end doesn’t justify the means.
“and
start doing things YOUR WAY.”
I argue
what I believe is a universal principle of not inflicting harm upon others. I
believe we are all consciousness. I think that claiming that the non-human
animals don’t have any ethical standard to keep is underestimating who they
are, their purpose, and that is focusing on their body and DNA instead of their
spiritual consciousness.
[Part 1
of 2]
Cannibalism
among the primates is a social behavior, as is eating other animal products.
Gorillas and many vegan humans are leading the way – showing how to eat in an
ethical way.
One quote: "The one historical constant in my field is that each time a claim of human uniqueness bites the dust, other claims quickly take its place. Meanwhile, science keeps chipping away at the wall that separates us from the other animals. We have moved from viewing animals as instinct-driven stimulus-response machines to seeing them as sophisticated decision makers. "
Another quote:
"Dale Peterson, one of the world’s leading chimpanzee researchers, once mentioned to me that he believes chimps given the opportunity to satisfy their hunger with plant sources may very well ponder the morality of eating other animals. Could they be evolving ethically, just as we humans are?"
From an interesting article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323869604578370574285382756.html
Another quote: ”Primatologist Jane Goodall became the first to describe such behavior when she witnesses a mother-daughter duo of chimpanzees kill and eat three chimpanzee infants in 1976 and since, it has been described by a number of other researchers. There are a number of possible explanations for such behavior. Due to human encroachment, food is becoming scarcer and more chimpanzees are being cramped into a smaller and smaller area which is a recipe for disaster. As this happens, different groups of primates will be forced into conflict with one another and are fighting territorial debates. Interestingly enough, a study of one group of chimpanzees found that only the aggressive females were involved in the cannibalism of chimpanzee infants. Male chimps were even spotted trying to separate the females from the infants, males that researchers believed to have fathered the infants in question which suggests that chimpanzees have more highly developed social and familial ties than once believed.”
[Related to this article: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Female-Chimps-Practice-Heavily-Infanticide-and-Cannibalism-54687.shtml ]
Who is doing the right thing??: The chimpanzee trying to save the baby, or the chimpanzee trying to kill the baby? Or does a moral universal principle not apply at all?? If so – why not?
One quote: "The one historical constant in my field is that each time a claim of human uniqueness bites the dust, other claims quickly take its place. Meanwhile, science keeps chipping away at the wall that separates us from the other animals. We have moved from viewing animals as instinct-driven stimulus-response machines to seeing them as sophisticated decision makers. "
Another quote:
"Dale Peterson, one of the world’s leading chimpanzee researchers, once mentioned to me that he believes chimps given the opportunity to satisfy their hunger with plant sources may very well ponder the morality of eating other animals. Could they be evolving ethically, just as we humans are?"
From an interesting article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323869604578370574285382756.html
Another quote: ”Primatologist Jane Goodall became the first to describe such behavior when she witnesses a mother-daughter duo of chimpanzees kill and eat three chimpanzee infants in 1976 and since, it has been described by a number of other researchers. There are a number of possible explanations for such behavior. Due to human encroachment, food is becoming scarcer and more chimpanzees are being cramped into a smaller and smaller area which is a recipe for disaster. As this happens, different groups of primates will be forced into conflict with one another and are fighting territorial debates. Interestingly enough, a study of one group of chimpanzees found that only the aggressive females were involved in the cannibalism of chimpanzee infants. Male chimps were even spotted trying to separate the females from the infants, males that researchers believed to have fathered the infants in question which suggests that chimpanzees have more highly developed social and familial ties than once believed.”
[Related to this article: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Female-Chimps-Practice-Heavily-Infanticide-and-Cannibalism-54687.shtml ]
Who is doing the right thing??: The chimpanzee trying to save the baby, or the chimpanzee trying to kill the baby? Or does a moral universal principle not apply at all?? If so – why not?
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar