Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Beating a human up VS beating up a non-human animal Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Tonight, I saw one human beat the **** out of another human.
    The victim was clinically retarded. They lacked the ability to conceptualise things in the way our culture, which they grew up in, does. They lacked the ability to apply anything beyond an infantile 'account' of logic. They were badly hurt, but not killed.

    About a month ago I heard a human talk about the way hundreds of baby chickens were killed because the farmers that controlled them had no use for them, they did not have the potential to lay eggs without expensive sex change treatments.

    The ones that probably would lay eggs were subjected to having their beaks cut off with searing hot blades and were crammed into cages with very little space, I think you get the idea of the situation I'm describing.

    The three scenarios seem to involve beings with similar levels of intellect (and if you think the birds intellect is not high enough then perhaps consider pigs).

    If one holds that it is wrong for the clinically retarded human to be beaten up does it not follow that the animals being harmed is also wrong.

    We can get the nutrients we need from other sources of food.
    One may claim that we get a use from meat but could the aggressor in the first scenario claim that he has a use, training his knuckles, improving his punches, from the actions he does?

    In essence does the argument from marginal cases not dictate that to say one is acceptable and another is not that we are committing speciesm.
    Even if one holds that humans are above in some way non-human animals, does that dictate that it is acceptable to treat non-human animals in that way?

    Furthermore is species-ism not an arbitrary divide? Surely it could be claimed that the marginal cases are below the rest of human kind? In which case it is not a matter of species divide but intellect/ability to feel pain that is the relevant criterion? And therefore we can kill and eat the marginal cases?

    For the record the scenarios above are fictional, in so much as the conversations didn't happen, but all of those events have happened before.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    because humans have souls..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    sure I'd beat up a chicken, but that's only because it wouldn't hit me back
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charzhino)
    because humans have souls..
    That's vague.
    Aside from issues such as 'what is a soul' there's no evidence that suggests souls exist.
    More than that if they do there's very little beyond that of religious texts that claims humans have souls and animals do not. Unless you have empirical evidence for souls I'm afraid that the belief in them will not suffice for the sake of this thread. Otherwise we have an issue of someone's belief that humans do not have souls and animals do coming into it, and why should I side with one of those views against another?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Honestly? The differences can seem arbritrary at times, but for some reason it's rather taboo to eat other people.

    I would say simply, that animals are not human. A rather redundant statement, but there you have it. That's the divide. Plus, to my mind animals lack the sapiance/Sentience of Human kind. They are not self aware and cannot think on a plane higher than that of instinctual behaviour.

    Does this mean I should be alright with the maltreatment of retarded humans? I don't think so, for a few reasons, one although I like to eat animals, I don't believe they should be harmed, overly in he farming process. That said, the mental capacity o a chicken is somewhat, limited so I'm not too worried. I know that makes me seem cold, but really, I care not. But also, by virtue of species the retarded human is still human, and we feel compelled to uphold the social norms, despite the fact that person does not, or lacks the capacity to.

    Society tells us it is wrong to treat the different differently, and so, we have been conditioned to say that person should be treated as any other, despite their deficencies.


    Oops, not sure I really answered the question. One shiould not beat a chicken, neither should one beat a retarded person. But it's alright to beat mentally stable people who are jackasses
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hmm a tough one, your post was like an essay and a bit long winded.


    But I would have neither the chickens killed nor the human, I'd rather they both stay happy and well.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Honestly? The differences can seem arbritrary at times, but for some reason it's rather taboo to eat other people.

    I would say simply, that animals are not human. A rather redundant statement, but there you have it. That's the divide. Plus, to my mind animals lack the sapiance/Sentience of Human kind. They are not self aware and cannot think on a plane higher than that of instinctual behaviour.

    Does this mean I should be alright with the maltreatment of retarded humans? I don't think so, for a few reasons, one although I like to eat animals, I don't believe they should be harmed, overly in he farming process. That said, the mental capacity o a chicken is somewhat, limited so I'm not too worried. I know that makes me seem cold, but really, I care not. But also, by virtue of species the retarded human is still human, and we feel compelled to uphold the social norms, despite the fact that person does not, or lacks the capacity to.

    Society tells us it is wrong to treat the different differently, and so, we have been conditioned to say that person should be treated as any other, despite their deficencies.


    Oops, not sure I really answered the question. One shiould not beat a chicken, neither should one beat a retarded person. But it's alright to beat mentally stable people who are jackasses

    Well all you've done is stated that there is speciesism, and that harming animals too much in the meat industry is bad.

    By that logic we can follow through and say unless you can defend that speciesism the marginal cases therefore can also be put through the meat industry as long as they're not harmed "too much" (whatever too much is? ).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Humans are the dominant race, we value ourselves over any other living thing. That's why if you kill an animal for dumb reasons it's okay but if you kill a member of our dominant race then you then you are punished.
    That's just how life works I'm afraid. Survival of the fittest. Only care for you own.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheSadReaper)
    hmm a tough one, your post was like an essay and a bit long winded.


    But I would have neither the chickens killed nor the human, I'd rather they both stay happy and well.
    What about when it's not just death? The egg and milk industries cause a lot of suffering to animals, are you also against that?

    And are your actions and consumerism reflective of that, or do you only apply it to paper?

    Also it's hardly an essay, it wasn't even 400 words!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Speciesm! Now that's going a bit far.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Smeezington)
    Humans are the dominant race, we value ourselves over any other living thing. That's why if you kill an animal for dumb reasons it's okay but if you kill a member of our dominant race then you then you are punished.
    That's just how life works I'm afraid. Survival of the fittest. Only care for you own.
    This has little to do with the thread. It's not a question of ability to kill, it's a question of prescription and logic.
    Instead of simply accepting a state of affairs. It's a question of 'Is there a logical reason/justification for the overlooked speciesism?'
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gavzzz)
    Speciesm! Now that's going a bit far.
    Please could you explain this post.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Well all you've done is stated that there is speciesism, and that harming animals too much in the meat industry is bad.

    By that logic we can follow through and say unless you can defend that speciesism the marginal cases therefore can also be put through the meat industry as long as they're not harmed "too much" (whatever too much is? ).
    Ok, I'm sorry.

    I don't see speciesism as a problem, there are clear differences between myself and a chicken, to pretend otherwise is frankly ridiculous.

    By too much I meant unssecsary. Free range farming is viable, so should be done, although it shouldn't be mandatory. I think the regulations on animal cuelty should be a bit tighter, that said inevitabley farmed animals will not have the perfect life, and to try and strve for that is to end dissapointed.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I get the feeling that you feel that animals and humans are equal and should have equal rights.

    I do however admit that animals do get treated badly by some methods of farming which is wrong, but if the need was not there then it would not be done would it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Ok, I'm sorry.

    I don't see speciesism as a problem, there are clear differences between myself and a chicken, to pretend otherwise is frankly ridiculous.

    By too much I meant unssecsary. Free range farming is viable, so should be done, although it shouldn't be mandatory. I think the regulations on animal cuelty should be a bit tighter, that said inevitabley farmed animals will not have the perfect life, and to try and strve for that is to end dissapointed.
    I'm not arguing that you're not different to a chicken, but I'm confused about how those differences are morally relevant.

    Moreover free range regulations still allow for a hell of a lot of suffering on the animals behalf. A more accurate description of free range regulations is yarding.

    There are clear differences between men and women.
    Between individual men. Between men, women and intersexuals.
    None of that entails that any of those categorisations should be allowed to be abused, discriminated against or oppressed.
    The same is true between the species. What is the relevant moral difference between two beings of different species who have the same levels of intellect, ability to feel pain.

    Lastly, not subscribing to the animal industries with food does not mean starving, there are plenty of plant based diets that suit human needs perfectly adequately, and in the west the availability of these diets is incredibly high, they are very accessible.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gavzzz)
    I get the feeling that you feel that animals and humans are equal and should have equal rights.

    I do however admit that animals do get treated badly by some methods of farming which is wrong, but if the need was not there then it would not be done would it.
    Whether I feel those things or not (and for the record equality is an abstract issue and I don't believe in moral 'rights') that does nothing to discredit what I'm saying, nor does it make those arguments only applicable to such views.

    It is not a case of need but instead consumerism. A case of supply and demand.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    My argument would be;

    The usual intellect of a chicken is very low.
    The usual intellect of a human is somewhat higher.

    The retarded human has an intellect which is, for the sake of argument, that of a chicken. However, humans are more intelligent in the general case.

    Similarly, you could take an intelligent chicken. Again, for the sake of argument, ignore the fact that you're never going to get a chicken of a similar intelligence to even the dumbest of humans.

    This one intelligent chicken would not mean that the general case chicken should not be eaten. Also, the one retarded human would not mean that the general case human should be eaten.

    You may not agree - in fact I suspect that you won't. But that's the logic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OMGWTFBBQ)
    My argument would be;

    The usual intellect of a chicken is very low.
    The usual intellect of a human is somewhat higher.

    The retarded human has an intellect which is, for the sake of argument, that of a chicken. However, humans are more intelligent in the general case.

    Similarly, you could take an intelligent chicken. Again, for the sake of argument, ignore the fact that you're never going to get a chicken of a similar intelligence to even the dumbest of humans.

    This one intelligent chicken would not mean that the general case chicken should not be eaten. Also, the one retarded human would not mean that the general case human should be eaten.

    You may not agree - in fact I suspect that you won't. But that's the logic.

    That's just a group of unfounded generalisations.

    Just because most humans are 'intelligent' doesn't mean all are.
    The issue there is one of intelligence, therefore it would follow if that was the criterion of our decision making that the marginal cases would be treated the same as the animals who have the same levels of 'intelligence'.

    That isn't a justification of speciesism, all it is is a different way of phrasing it, restating it.

    I'd be surprised if many people agree'd with that.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Whether I feel those things or not (and for the record equality is an abstract issue and I don't believe in moral 'rights') that does nothing to discredit what I'm saying, nor does it make those arguments only applicable to such views.

    It is not a case of need but instead consumerism. A case of supply and demand.
    Yes, there is the demand and the farmers provide the supply in the only way that they can. It is unfortunate that it has to be through the use of battery farming but that isn't going to make many people give up eating meat.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gavzzz)
    Yes, there is the demand and the farmers provide the supply in the only way that they can. It is unfortunate that it has to be through the use of battery farming but that isn't going to make many people give up eating meat.
    This makes no sense at all.

    Firstly factory farming, free range, and organic standards all allow for a lot of suffering to be cause to the animal.

    Secondly that demand does not HAVE to be met.

    Furthermore it doesn't address the question of, if that is justified why does it not follow on a logical basis that killing and eating the marginal cases is justified?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.