h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't think it is for you or I to judge the motivations of the medical profession. We could maybe ask someone like Tipu Aziz. However...I seriously doubt that medical experimenters are wantonly cruel to either animals or humans in their spare time.

Nevertheless, the result is - by and large, in the round, for all the mistakes, deliberate distortions and unintended consequences, to the human good. I'm content to allow you, others, and me to benefit from medical advances made at the expense of animals. It's a moral position that I'm prepared to stand by and to justify. Note that I personally am not wantonly cruel to animals or humans either.

I accept that there counter arguments - that some would say the suffering isn't worth it. But I've yet to be given a clearer argument than 'I don't think so.' In the absence of such an argumant, I think the word 'aesthetics' is appropriate. Unlike ethics, aesthetics requires no justification.

And empathy for animals does not lead to empathy for humans
And most humans feel empathy for some but not all of the human race - even here on 'liberal' h2g2 I've seen posts that showed a disturbing lack of empathy towards large sections of the human race
And lots of foxhunters love their dogs and horses

I can't see how who/what we feel empathy for should affect our morality (as I've said before I think I don't particularly like animals)

Then we have to ask: "What is morality?". Is it about:
- Rules for the sensible conduct of our lives?
- Giving us feelings of 'goodness'?

Morality is rules for the conduct of our lives - Who said they had to be sensible? Most moral codes aren't.

Who gets to decide whats sensible, rational, practical etc?

IMO, both, with the first being the most important.

Which is why we shouldn't be killing and eating our fellow living creatures, or contributing to their suffering, regardless of whether it makes us feel "good" or "bad", or nothing at all. We should conduct ourselves compassionately to the best of our ability; when circumstances make it difficult or impossible to do that, we should push to change those circumstances, rather than resigning ourselves to accepting them.

Morality is about doing what's best for everyone. There are far fewer humans on this planet than other animals, so surely it's not for "the greater good" for a vast number to be sacrificed- or even slaughtered- to sustain relatively few?

(The same criteria apply when discussing issues like global warming. Surely it isn't enough to change the way we treat our planet merely to save ourselves, while saying to hell with walrus and polar bears and thousands of others? Hundreds of species *a day*, in fact?)

Oh, yeah, and I agree with BC about "sensible". What does sensible mean anyway? Most of what I think is sensible, other people think is totally bonkers.

Which is what I've been trying to get at.

Yes - morality is concerned with how we conduct our lives. On the whole, there are no negative consequences of mistreating animals. Yes - I accept that we'd worry about a kitten torturer - but society observably does not fall apart if people eat meat or use animals for medical purposes.

But I fully agree with PC's 'both'. Not all of human existence is about being functional. It's perfectly legitimate to choose to do things because they make us feel good. Music, cunnilingus and recognising that animals suffer all come within this sphere. But does it count as morality?

If it doesn't - surely there's no imperative for others to agree that animal suffering should have equal status to human, any more than we judge someone 'immoral' for being tone death? The statement:
>>We should conduct ourselves compassionately to the best of our ability
Is similar in character to:
'Music is life-enhancing.'
And even for those of us who don't wish animals to suffer (and I don't) - might there not be occasions on which we have to put our personal desire aside for the higher good?

For the questions in the last para - I don't necessarily expect agreement. My point is that because human morality and animal suffering are questions in different spheres, there will always be differences of opinion and therefore tradeoffs to be made.

I still don't think you've shown this. All your arguments rely on human life being more valuable and important than other life. Why? I don't think its really gone any further than because most people think so but at various times most people have thought all sorts of abhorrent things.

I agree that the morality we base laws on has to be one that society as a whole accepts but I see no reason why personal morality can't co-exist. In any society there are competing moralities and it is healthy that they compete for adherents and we avoid imposing a socially based morality on individuals (like the Church used to).

Well...I think you've partly given the answer in:
>>valuable and important

OK - so on one level they're personal, irrational judgements. But if we take them in the context of society at large - the welfare of animals neither adds to nor detracts from its functioning. It's aesthetic qualities, maybe, but not its functioning. I really don't think this is an "I think so" argument.

As for the coexistence of personal and public morality...up to a point they can co-exist...but I'd suggest that public morality has the upper hand. I refer again to the homosexuality issue. Racism would also be a good example When lesser considerations are made by one group for another, life becomes difficult for the other. Tne glove would be on the other foot if the position reversed, and so we need a social contract of mutual recipricocity. But animals can neither make nor adhere to such a contract. Their behaviour towards us isn't determined by our treatment of them (except in extremes - eg goading a dog until it bites).

Back to recipricocity. The ability of some humans - children, the mentally ill or disabled etc - to make and adhere to such a contract is limited but we still have moral responsibility to them don't we?

Agreed. Good point.

In the case of children...clearly their wellbeing is essential for the good of society. Our own treatment during our declining years may depend on how well we treat them. Even if there's not a one-to-one recipricocity, there's a child-to-society one.

With the mentally ill or disabled - recipricocity then applies because it's a condition that could come upon any one of us. It's the Rawlsian principle (are you familar with John Rawls?) that we should set up social contracts within society on the understanding that even if we're not having a bad time at the moment, we want settled arrangements to be in place in case our circumstances change.

This also applies for permanent incapacity. In this case there is additional empirical evidence of 'the slippery slope'. Societies that dispose of the disabled as worthless are prone to widening their net. This is observably less true in the case of animals.