Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Hens can be killed (for food) but not pigeons. Dogs can't be shouted on but cows don't even have right to live.

    How is this justified? (scientifically)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It can't be justified scientifically, but we don't live our lives purely through science.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arkasia)
    It can't be justified scientifically, but we don't live our lives purely through science.
    Can it be justified otherwise (non scientifically) then?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tangotangopapa2)
    Can it be justified otherwise (non scientifically) then?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    In a social sense, we have grown to view certain animals as more sentimentally worthwhile than others, especially those we keep as pets (dogs, cats etc).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tangotangopapa2)
    Hens can be killed (for food) but not pigeons. Dogs can't be shouted on but cows don't even have right to live.

    How is this justified? (scientifically)
    (Original post by Arkasia)
    It can't be justified scientifically, but we don't live our lives purely through science.
    The scientific method can be used to determine whether or not a particular organism satisfies a given criterion, but a question like this is beyond the remit of science. These questions are firmly a matter of philosophy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tangotangopapa2)
    Hens can be killed (for food) but not pigeons. Dogs can't be shouted on but cows don't even have right to live.

    How is this justified? (scientifically)


    There's a few measures at which we've got better at with fMRI scans and other instruments of awareness.

    Things to consider:

    How much pain/suffering does the animal feel to be captivity bred
    How consciously aware is the animal
    How much do we need to eat them over other forms of nutrition

    ps. Dogs have no right to live. You could take your pet dog to a vet and have it put down with no reason necessary and plenty of people eat pigeons

    (Original post by Comus)
    The scientific method can be used to determine whether or not a particular organism satisfies a given criterion, but a question like this is beyond the remit of science. These questions are firmly a matter of philosophy.
    It always a mixture of both. Science provides the evidence upon which people can make an informed decision. Science will hopefully develop forms of meat in the lab so animals are not required at all.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    We kill millions of insects through pesticides in order to grow crops for us to eat. And tons more to feed all our domesticated animals too. If you start saying all animal lives are equal, it's going to lead to some awkward conclusions. Is a human life more important than a million insect lives? How about a billion?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    We kill millions of insects through pesticides in order to grow crops for us to eat. And tons more to feed all our domesticated animals too. If you start saying all animal lives are equal, it's going to lead to some awkward conclusions. Is a human life more important than a million insect lives? How about a billion?
    Much to peoples' amazement these decisions happen now all the time. We don't turn every scrap of land available in to farms & industry even though it would it give us more jobs and cheaper food. Some is preserved for wildlife so future generations are not left with some hellhole to sink into.

    It always a balance
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skeptical_john)
    Much to peoples' amazement these decisions happen now all the time. We don't turn every scrap of land available in to farms & industry even though it would it give us more jobs and cheaper food. Some is preserved for wildlife so future generations are not left with some hellhole to sink into.

    It always a balance
    The cynic in me says that's perhaps more for our benefit than the animals, to preserve some of the world so we can still enjoy it, while not preserving too much so we can't enjoy McDonalds at the same time. :p:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    The cynic in me says that's perhaps more for our benefit than the animals, to preserve some of the world so we can still enjoy it, while not preserving too much so we can't enjoy McDonalds at the same time. :p:
    Yes it is for our benefit as well as the animals but it would still be a case of we could save more lives if we ripped up what little remained of our natural habitat. Look at the fights against fracking as an example.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comus)
    The scientific method can be used to determine whether or not a particular organism satisfies a given criterion, but a question like this is beyond the remit of science. These questions are firmly a matter of philosophy.
    Cheers Dawkins
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arkasia)
    Cheers Dawkins
    Upon re-reading, it did come across as a bit condescending, I do apologise.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Pigeons are killed for food my local butcher sells pigeons.. Gross but hey.

    Either way one view is on their supposed intellect, to a degree, for instance most people arent going to eat Whales/Dolphins/Apes of course some do but in general.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arkasia)
    It can't be justified scientifically, but we don't live our lives purely through science.

    I would disagree here.I would say a chimpanzee for example has a lot more right to life than a rat just like a human has a lot more right to life than an insect.Actually maybe it isnt scientific but rights are a human concept we can apply it however we want.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Pigeons are killed for food my local butcher sells pigeons.. Gross but hey.
    Pigeon meat is actually really nice. Though you probably don't want to be eating the er, "free range" stuff. :erm:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    Pigeon meat is actually really nice. Though you probably don't want to be eating the er, "free range" stuff. :erm:
    Mmm I just think Pigeon and up pops an image of a feathered rat from the station..
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tangotangopapa2)
    Hens can be killed (for food) but not pigeons. Dogs can't be shouted on but cows don't even have right to live.

    How is this justified? (scientifically)
    It isn't justified scientifically, in fact, the term, "animal rights" is rather silly, since humans belong to the kingdom of animals too. In reality, animals that we like (such as the dogs) have more rights than animals that taste good ( such as cows or chickens).


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    I would disagree here.I would say a chimpanzee for example has a lot more right to life than a rat just like a human has a lot more right to life than an insect.Actually maybe it isnt scientific but rights are a human concept we can apply it however we want.
    Rights are a purely non-scientific concept, so 'right to life' is a nonsensical term in science. You could say that a chimpanzee has a higher cognitive ability to feel pain and other emotions, but there is still a chasm between that and saying that it therefore has a scientifically valid reason to be favoured.

    The only exception would be in the case of endangered species, as the destruction of an entire species could have devastating effects on various ecosystems at a micro or macro level. But this does not apply to pets or other common animals.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tangotangopapa2)
    (scientifically)
    You can't justify a moral issue like this scientifically.
    (Original post by skeptical_john)
    It always a mixture of both. Science provides the evidence upon which people can make an informed decision. Science will hopefully develop forms of meat in the lab so animals are not required at all.
    I read an interesting thing a while ago about scientists working towards making decent lab grown burgers, apparently they reckon they'll have it totally sorted by 2020:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...e-reality.html
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    You can't justify a moral issue like this scientifically.


    I read an interesting thing a while ago about scientists working towards making decent lab grown burgers, apparently they reckon they'll have it totally sorted by 2020:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...e-reality.html
    yes it will be a revolution. the meat industry will fight till its death to stop this happening but it's only a matter of time. there is so much subsidy wrapped up in out meat industry it's unsustainable on both economic and climate levels.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    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.