UPB and animal rights

[RestoringGuy]

I don't think it has anything to do with weather or not people understand UPB because then it wouldn't be universal. It would be like saying the scientific method is only valid once everyone understands the scientific method. UPB is true independent of weather any individual human being understands it or not. 

 

Animals are not capable of understanding it, therefor it is inapplicable. Just like animals are unable to speak, therefor the right of free speech is not applicable to them. It's not like they don't have that right, it makes no sense to apply it to them. Similarly it's not like animals are exempt from UPB because they can't reason, because they can't reason it makes no sense to apply UPB to them. Explain to a lion how it's universally preferable not to kill as you step into his enclosure at the zoo.  

Some good observations.  The scientific method, if valid before a person knows it, would seem to apply to everyone including the first person to understand it, especially if UPB is asserted.  By extension, before humans evolved, the scientific method was valid but remained undiscovered.  Otherwise if validity kicks in at some specific time, we are making understanding a key ingredient.  In other words, if we discard the notion that understanding is a prerequisite for validity, then understanding should be unnecessary for even the first person to get the idea.  The scientific method was essentially valid yet unknown even during the dinosaurs I would imagine.

 

For animals, my thinking is this:  whether or not an animal thinks or knows UPB presently is inconsequential.  A man in a deep sleep may be incapable of holding UPB presently in his mind.  Yet it's his future ability, the capacity to wake up and evaluate behaviors is supposedly what makes UPB relevant.  One may be quick to say, "but animals cannot do this and never will".  I believe that kind of thinking disregards evolution and the indeterminacy of the world.  At one time human ancestors were rodents, presumably with no future ability to grasp UPB.  But apparently their descendants could do so because we are here now.  So everybody endorsing the idea that animals have no rights, I believe are Creationists.   I say that because there is complete failure to address the transitional problem of "human UPB and animal non-UPB" .

 

On the one hand, a system is regarded as having no potential for understanding (the mammals long ago), and another system is regarded as having potential (sleeping man), yet both arrive at the same result (awake humans, here we are), it's just over different timescales.  If there is capacity for transition to take place, even over a long time scale, I think there is a good argument that animals have rights even if they somehow aren't quite as good as ours.

 

[PatrickC]

For animals, my thinking is this:  whether or not an animal thinks or knows UPB presently is inconsequential.  A man in a deep sleep may be incapable of holding UPB presently in his mind.  Yet it's his future ability, the capacity to wake up and evaluate behaviors is supposedly what makes UPB relevant.  One may be quick to say, "but animals cannot do this and never will".  I believe that kind of thinking disregards evolution and the indeterminacy of the world.  At one time human ancestors were rodents, presumably with no future ability to grasp UPB.  But apparently their descendants could do so because we are here now.  So everybody endorsing the idea that animals have no rights, I believe are Creationists.   I say that because there is complete failure to address the transitional problem of "human UPB and animal non-UPB" .

 

It's always been stated with UPB that it will always apply to creatures, aliens or otherwise that are able to concieve of UPB either now or in the future. Evolution would just be another way for certain species to 'wake up' as you put it. That doesn't mean UPB should apply to them now.

 

Referring to those that argue UPB doesn't apply to animals as creationists, is not an argument and neither is the assumed transition animals 'might' take (since we have no idea and when). A species is either UPB aware or not. There is no middle or transitional ground where they become half aware of UPB.

[AncapFTW]

Some good observations.  The scientific method, if valid before a person knows it, would seem to apply to everyone including the first person to understand it, especially if UPB is asserted.  By extension, before humans evolved, the scientific method was valid but remained undiscovered.  Otherwise if validity kicks in at some specific time, we are making understanding a key ingredient.  In other words, if we discard the notion that understanding is a prerequisite for validity, then understanding should be unnecessary for even the first person to get the idea.  The scientific method was essentially valid yet unknown even during the dinosaurs I would imagine.

 

For animals, my thinking is this:  whether or not an animal thinks or knows UPB presently is inconsequential.  A man in a deep sleep may be incapable of holding UPB presently in his mind.  Yet it's his future ability, the capacity to wake up and evaluate behaviors is supposedly what makes UPB relevant.  One may be quick to say, "but animals cannot do this and never will".  I believe that kind of thinking disregards evolution and the indeterminacy of the world.  At one time human ancestors were rodents, presumably with no future ability to grasp UPB.  But apparently their descendants could do so because we are here now.  So everybody endorsing the idea that animals have no rights, I believe are Creationists.   I say that because there is complete failure to address the transitional problem of "human UPB and animal non-UPB" .

 

On the one hand, a system is regarded as having no potential for understanding (the mammals long ago), and another system is regarded as having potential (sleeping man), yet both arrive at the same result (awake humans, here we are), it's just over different timescales.  If there is capacity for transition to take place, even over a long time scale, I think there is a good argument that animals have rights even if they somehow aren't quite as good as ours.

 

In a billion years algae may have a descendant that can understand UPB.  Does that mean that we can't even eat algaes?

 

Animals don't even have the genetic potential for it.  Yes, at some point in the future mutation and natural selection, or even genetic engineering may create a descendant of modern animals that can understand it, but that is irrelevant.  They cannot now,  nor do they even have the potential to be able to at some point in their lifetime, so it can't apply to them.

 

 

It's always been stated with UPB that it will always apply to creatures, aliens or otherwise that are able to concieve of UPB either now or in the future. Evolution would just be another way for certain species to 'wake up' as you put it. That doesn't mean UPB should apply to them now.

 

Referring to those that argue UPB doesn't apply to animals as creationists, is not an argument and neither is the assumed transition animals 'might' take (since we have no idea and when). A species is either UPB aware or not. There is no middle or transitional ground where they become half aware of UPB.

I would argue that there is a middle ground where a being is capable of understanding some reason, but not on the scale necessary for UPB.  Chimpanzees may be at an area like this, as they can understand some logic, and even develop and use tools.

[Justin K.]

I still don't see how any living being's ability to understand UPB is relevant as to whether harming and killing them is morally justified. The only reason we debate how we evolved or what our ancestors are is because regardless of how we got here there remains no nutritional imperative for any human being to eat animals today. The omnivores are searching for one or claiming evolutionary advantages because without that it is even more apparent that eating animals can only be justified for reasons of pleasure, entertainment or convenience. Causing non moral agents suffering & death for convenience, or unecessarily is something no one can argue in a debate about morality. As Bentham said, "it is not a question of whether they can reason, it is a question of whether they suffer." If it wasn't, then we would have absolutely no problem with dog fighting. Sure you can live off eating meat. But you can earn a living dog fighting. So why do we not say, oh Dogs or cocks aren't moral agents so we can fight them in a ring? Because we erroneously believed for some time that meat was needed for survival or optimal health. Today we don't even have that excuse left, so UPB is merely an affirming the consequent fallacy as it relates to animals, or we are schizophrenic as to how we are applying it.

[J. D. Stembal]

The only reason we debate how we evolved or what our ancestors are is because regardless of how we got here there remains no nutritional imperative for any human being to eat animals today.

 

Can you provide any explanation or evidence for this assertion? If we were omnivores in the past, should we not be omnivores in the present? What is the extenuating circumstance that gets us off the nutritional hook for an effective survival behavior that has persisted for millions of years? Why should we start caring about eating animals now?

 

The rest of your reply conflates eating meat with dog fighting. I'm not sure how to address this because it's a non-sequitur.

 

Why should humans care if a member of another species suffers? We should be concerned about our own species first, which is suffering to a greater degree than any other animal. No wild animal populations, including the ones that eat meat, are one-third diabetic, pre-diabetic, and obese.

 

This is the current suffering of the human species, at least in American adults, and there is a strong correlation between optimal health in humans and the amount of dietary fat consumed. Animals are the most concentrated sources of fat, ergo eating meat is preferable to eschewing meat if you are concerned about your health in the long term.

 

Is it absolutely impossible to achieve health while avoiding meat? No, I don't think it is impossible, but it will be a difficult balancing act. You might eat your weight in coconut oil in a year to consume sufficient amounts of saturated fat, for instance. I will take the easier road, and welcome the caloric density of the helpless, lovable and furry animals.

 

Save the humans and forget the other animals. They will take care of themselves while we are slowly killing ourselves. Your loyalty is admirable, but misplaced.

[AncapFTW]

I still don't see how any living being's ability to understand UPB is relevant as to whether harming and killing them is morally justified. The only reason we debate how we evolved or what our ancestors are is because regardless of how we got here there remains no nutritional imperative for any human being to eat animals today. The omnivores are searching for one or claiming evolutionary advantages because without that it is even more apparent that eating animals can only be justified for reasons of pleasure, entertainment or convenience. Causing non moral agents suffering & death for convenience, or unecessarily is something no one can argue in a debate about morality. As Bentham said, "it is not a question of whether they can reason, it is a question of whether they suffer." If it wasn't, then we would have absolutely no problem with dog fighting. Sure you can live off eating meat. But you can earn a living dog fighting. So why do we not say, oh Dogs or cocks aren't moral agents so we can fight them in a ring? Because we erroneously believed for some time that meat was needed for survival or optimal health. Today we don't even have that excuse left, so UPB is merely an affirming the consequent fallacy as it relates to animals, or we are schizophrenic as to how we are applying it.

Animals also can't understand employment contracts.  Does that mean that circuses still have to go through the employment process whenever they get a new elephant?

 

You are assigning human motives and behaviors to animals.  That's called personification, not logic.

 

The animals generally don't suffer, because people wouldn't buy the meat if they did.  When they are killed, it is generally done in a fairly humane manor.  They don't suffer when shot in the head.  If you believe they suffer, then prove it.  And no, propaganda put together by a group that says killing animals is wrong, then euthanizes many animals per year doesn't count.

[Justin K.]

No they shouldn't use animals in circuses because it's immoral. By definition, keeping an animal against its will or in spaces so small they can't turn around causes them suffering. I don't PETA to make that point - it's definitional - it's a gestation crate, or a veal crate.

 

And I didn't conflate eating animals with dog fighting - I quite clearly asked why you or we, society would think one is ok and the other you go to jail for. In both instances you are exploiting animals for pleasure or convenience but not necessity. He doesn't know how to address my post because there is no good answer to it, logically. That's all.

[Justin K.]

Can you provide any explanation or evidence for this assertion? If we were omnivores in the past, should we not be omnivores in the present? What is the extenuating circumstance that gets us off the nutritional hook for an effective survival behavior that has persisted for millions of years? Why should we start caring about eating animals now?

 

The rest of your reply conflates eating meat with dog fighting. I'm not sure how to address this because it's a non-sequitur.

 

Why should humans care if a member of another species suffers? We should be concerned about our own species first, which is suffering to a greater degree than any other animal. No wild animal populations, including the ones that eat meat, are one-third diabetic, pre-diabetic, and obese.

 

This is the current suffering of the human species, at least in American adults, and there is a strong correlation between optimal health in humans and the amount of dietary fat consumed. Animals are the most concentrated sources of fat, ergo eating meat is preferable to eschewing meat if you are concerned about your health in the long term.

 

Is it absolutely impossible to achieve health while avoiding meat? No, I don't think it is impossible, but it will be a difficult balancing act. You might eat your weight in coconut oil in a year to consume sufficient amounts of saturated fat, for instance. I will take the easier road, and welcome the caloric density of the helpless, lovable and furry animals.

 

Save the humans and forget the other animals. They will take care of themselves while we are slowly killing ourselves. Your loyalty is admirable, but misplaced.

 

The idea that optimal health is easier obtained eating meat than from abstaining from meat is just wildly untrue. There is no nutrient supplied by meat not available in plants - it simply contains many other things proven harmful to humans. As just one of a myriad of misconceptions and lies, often repeated, from amino acids, complete proteins, B12, see attachment. No one needs meat. Everyone is healthier without it.

[J. D. Stembal]

No they shouldn't use animals in circuses because it's immoral. By definition, keeping an animal against its will or in spaces so small they can't turn around causes them suffering. I don't PETA to make that point - it's definitional - it's a gestation crate, or a veal crate.

 

And I didn't conflate eating animals with dog fighting - I quite clearly asked why you or we, society would think one is ok and the other you go to jail for. In both instances you are exploiting animals for pleasure or convenience but not necessity. He doesn't know how to address my post because there is no good answer to it, logically. That's all.

 

Why don't we put Escherichia coli O157:H7 (the most virulent strain) in prison for exploiting and murdering humans and causing the tremendous suffering of humans, especially children and the elderly?

 

If there is no logical answer to your question, what is the real purpose behind asking it? Did you pose it intending it to be a riddle? When asking illogical questions, don't expect answers. Expect more questions.

[Justin K.]

But specifically when you asked why would we care about the suffering of another species, why shouldn't we do things for our convenience? I mean then why should we care about the suffering of another race, sex, anything? Idk fellas, maybe just because we have a heart. Maybe because when you look at the suffering of anything it doesn't make you feel good unless you're a psychopath. See most people has to block it out or rationalize it away. To say that humans suffer more than the billions of animals slaughtered & kept in factory farms yearly, is kind of crazy. Particularly when animal agriculture causes tons of human suffering as well in terms of hunger, inequity. Someone earlier went on a diatribe about scarcity in Africa they witnessed. Well I said it before but 1 sonar fishing vessel with football field sized nets can catch in 2 weeks what 7k local fisherman would catch in a year, killing many species of fish in the process as unused by catch. We take their grain to feed our cattle and ship them aid in an inefficient rigged game. They are starving primarily because westerners want prawns. Veganism is an ethical

Solution to most of humanities most challenging ecological crises. That's why. Because if we are "moral agents" we should concern ourselves with easy, pragmatic,

Compassionate choices where we find them instead of how we might find a way to wrap bacon around a dominos pizza crust I'm thinking.

Why don't we put Escherichia coli O157:H7 (the most virulent strain) in prison for exploiting and murdering humans and causing the tremendous suffering of humans, especially children and the elderly?

 

If there is no logical answer to your question, what is the real purpose behind asking it? Did you pose it intending it to be a riddle? When asking illogical questions, don't expect answers. Expect more questions.

Well no, I asked it so that when you realize there is no good answer to it, one could understand the hypocrisy and double standard as it relates to how we treat animals, obviously. A question isn't illogical just because you can not come up with a logical answer to it to support your argument - what is illogical would therefore be your argument. Nice spin though

[antonina2]

This is all very interesting indeed.  I think the major issue here is the assumption that we are trying to answer this question with ONE UPB for all living organisms that is biased toward humans.  

Syllogistically, this is:

1. All organisms require universally preferred behavior to live.
2. Man is a living organism.
3. Therefore all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behavior.
4. Therefore any argument against universally preferable behavior requires an acceptance and practice of universally preferred behavior.
5. Therefore no argument against the existence of universally preferable behavior can be valid.  

 

 

1. Organisms succeed by acting upon universally preferable behaviour.
2. Man is the most successful organism.
3. Therefore man must have acted most successfully on the basis of universally preferable behaviour.
4. Man’s mind is his most distinctive organ.
5. Therefore man’s mind must have acted most successfully on the basis of universally preferable behaviour.
6. Therefore universally preferable behaviour must be valid.

 

SO, what if we zoom out?

 

This says to me that to be able to employ UPB you need an organism, one living entity.  This can go from groups of the smallest organisms (such as mycoplasma, or viruses, depending on what you consider to be alive) to the world and contents itself.  The Earth itself being a null argument since we have no understanding as to it's participation in the solar system or the universe; I just wanted to make a point that the rules for UPB lends its principals to that of what is preferable to an organism rather than the personal desires of that organism, opening the general UPB postulation to more than just the human forum.

 

UPB does not say that in order to exercise UPB the organism has to also exercise or understand UPB.  UPB appears to me to be based on or developed from instinct.  We regard it generally wrong to kill people to serve the instinct to retain a thriving population, people generally feel bad when people die because it is a real life example of the fact that you are going to die, the world is coming to an end, anything can happen and that you fear the unknown.  Why do people fear the unknown?  This is an instinct to evade again a primal fear of death.  So, organisms prefer what they instinctively think will keep them alive.  We humans gum the simplicity of this all up with our abilities for abstract thinking.  Suggesting that UPBs arise from basic black or white instincts, the vast gray areas created by our ability to cognate and communicate these cognitions, kind of like how a computer takes binary signals and turns it into webs of informaiton. 

 

The way I see it, is that it is kind of set up like governmental bodies and maybe that is why we tend not to gravitate toward anarchism.  Anyhow, in the US and most other countries we have everything from the neighborhood watch group to groups that discern what is right on international levels.  These groups do not follow all of the same rules, they follow a set of similar rules considering the universal laws of societies, which in most cases fall under human UPB and adapt their own individual rules based on their situation.  So, in the realm of all organisms there are a set of UPB rules that apply to everything.  Basically speaking our actions/behaviors are directed by our instinct to remain alive (omitting suicidal personalities for the moment), our morals are developed through reinforcement of the fact that we continue to thrive.  This makes the smallest of organisms or even organisms we cannot communicate hard to put in this category for us.  Everything has memory to some extent, even rocks, no matter how minuscule and because we have not learned to identify/quantify an actionable response does not mean it does not happen. This creates a basis for what is good and what is bad.  Therefore, morals and UPBs are built from the fact that behaviors can cause life or death, I guess this could be thought of as primary, secondary, etc UPBs.  If all organisms in some way strive to remain alive, what drives that?  It has to be simpler than cognitive ability.

 

Cow to human is similar to one prehistoric tribe running into another.  Say one tribe has survived by roaming the land looking for other tribes to pillage and eat and the other tribe has remained stationary for generations thriving off the land.  What happens, both tribes follow their own UPB principles, the peaceful tribe tries to peacefully interact, the killers eat the other tribe, this behavior is further imprinted on the killers moral functioning as necessary for survival and they move on.  Let me just say that this in no way reflects my personal opinions of right or wrong, but I am outlining what I see UPB rules to encapsulate.  Each tribe has individual paths to the reinforcement and solidification of each UPB, making each UPB moral to its specific grouping of people.  That said, cows have their own UPBs, we know that they instinctively prefer to stay alive as do we.  As hunter gatherers back in the day, it was necessary for humans to kill prey to survive and have deemed it morally right to do so since it once allowed us to thrive.  I will admit, I do not know much about the behavior of cows and don't really care to learn, but I would assume that they have some capacity for learning.  SO again each species have individual UPBs with some similar aspects.  While eating meat is no longer a necessity, we have more or less been programmed by our history to do so it now remains a matter of opinion and is no longer subject to mortality, so far.  Before this statement sets anyone off, you are violating the UPB of living organisms by killing, but on the other hand you violate the UPB of nature as a whole without death.  If nothing died nature would not be efficient and have an ever increasing entropy, which is the opposite of what the behavior of matter strives for.  To kind of make this make sense a perfect circle is made up of an infinite number of lines, there is no defined beginning or end, yet it contains an infinite number of things concerning what it is around.  

 

SO every organism has it's own set of UPBs, when you get to organisms that interact socially you bring complexities into the situation.  Animal rights for example are not a product of human UBP thought before we consider empathy, since the establishment of the morals creating the UBPs followed do not include eating animals.  But, if you use the UPB of all organisms and the basic instinct to stay alive then yes you are in violation of that way of thinking, which in turn puts you in potential violation of nature UPB.  When it comes right down to it, again I am not saying I personally feel this is right, the question as to whether or not animals deserve rights, or if they should be eaten at all, human UPB principles thus far cannot answer.  

 

That said, organisms with the ability to articulate sensory data to one another have additional ways to imprint, produce morals and UPBs through communication that discern good from bad.  The only rules for the UPBs of other organisms that we have any real concept of are ones that are in plain site and that we can experience.  Pain at its root produces a reaction to that which may kill someone.  When one experiences an others pain an empathetic response is produced through the mirroring of the others experience and influences us to react to protect the other from the cause of their instinctual reaction.  This can fall under human UPB or organism UPB depending on how you define the universe to which you prefer and that is why someone can be an ethical vegan and yet say if I or someone lived in Antarctica with no means of creating plant life to consume, I would eat fish or penguins.  So I guess that since causing animals unnecessary pain is no longer important for the larger portions of our species existence and our ability to mirror and communicate pain caused to animals by humans that nullifies my argument that eating animals unless absolutely necessary to continue living is no longer a matter of morality and the creation of UPBs?  And human UPB now includes organisms that we can empathize with.

    

Animal testing is a bit different, in that once a population is considered to be genetically inbred enough that genetic variance no longer matters in experimental results, it is no longer categorized as an animal population according to the government.  Testing protocols still have to be approved by an ethics committee within each institution, but these animals do not have the rights of "natural" animals.  BUT, genetically speaking a rat is a rat is a rat regardless of its genetic differences from population to population, it just so happens that populations of rats used for testing have less genetic variance than "natural" populations.  So, according to what I said above, this would be in violation of human UPB.  What about cell cultures, since we cannot empathize with their innate drive to stay alive you are not in violation of human UPB but are with organism UPB.  

 

 

Overall, it is to our existential advantage to keep other species thriving as well as our own, what if we need to eat them to survive.  Is the hierarchy to be implemented from the top to the bottom or from the bottom to the top or randomly?  How do we effectively go about defining interspecies UPB beyond what we currently know?  We are and have always been so commonly concerned with ourselves that to perfect human to animal UPB, UPBs must further be reinforced for it to stick.  

 

So in a nutshell animal cruelty is in violation of human UPB, when the human has the ability to be empathetic.  The same goes for the treatment of the mentally ill and when trying to change the behavior of the mentally ill in accordance with human UPB we address only symptoms and not the problem. 

 

Thought I would toss out another way to consider the topic.

[J. D. Stembal]

All organisms require universally preferred behavior to live.

 

...

 

So in a nutshell animal cruelty is in violation of human UPB, when the human has the ability to be empathetic.

 

You contradicted your first syllogism.

 

Why are humans required to be empathetic when empathy is not a universal? Refer to my previous replay that mentions how savage certain E. Coli strains are to human well-being. If empathy is universal for all life, why don't we require bacteria to show us empathy?

 

1. Organisms succeed by acting upon universally preferable behaviour.
2. Man is the most successful organism.
3. Therefore man must have acted most successfully on the basis of universally preferable behaviour.
4. Man’s mind is his most distinctive organ.
5. Therefore man’s mind must have acted most successfully on the basis of universally preferable behaviour.
6. Therefore universally preferable behaviour must be valid.

 

How are you measuring the success of organisms? Why do you contend that humans are the most successful species? In terms of biomass, single-celled organisms are way more successful than us. There's not even a contest.

[Matt D]

I have not read any of the posts on this very long thread but I thought I'd share my thoughts in a video since there is significant interest in the ethical position of veganism.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7YTLj8z0fY

[Justin K.]

Okay MAtt D., I listened to the first 3 minutes of your video before realizing you are not only stoned, as well as drunk on your own self importance, but clearly DO NOT understand the vegan position and were going to be arguing against ridiculous straw men, the moment you brought up plants. Refraining from eating animals has nothing to do with how "helpless" they are. Clearly you don't actual know any real vegans. Didn't make it past minute 3.

[fulop78]

FDR2987 3:26:45 Stef says: It is immoral to have children that you can not feed. right. Well, i should say: it's immoral to have and keep children that you can not feed in the same way that it's immoral to bring a pet home from the animal shelter and starve it to death, right? It's just wrong.

 

Anyone care to explain from UPB standpoint how starving an animal to death is immoral?

[LovePrevails]

 there is a difference between a moral actor and a moral object. If an insane or mentally retarded person or someone with a damaged brain hits you we do not call them immoral or evil for doing so - they don't have the capacity for moral thinking. However we do not call it moral to hit such a person in an unprovoked way. IE. We are moral actors and moral objects, on the other hand the person with a damaged brain can be a moral object but not a moral actor. Animals are not moral actors, they do what animals do, but they can still be moral objects.

[fulop78]

 there is a difference between a moral actor and a moral object. If an insane or mentally retarded person or someone with a damaged brain hits you we do not call them immoral or evil for doing so - they don't have the capacity for moral thinking. However we do not call it moral to hit such a person in an unprovoked way. IE. We are moral actors and moral objects, on the other hand the person with a damaged brain can be a moral object but not a moral actor. Animals are not moral actors, they do what animals do, but they can still be moral objects.

 

So what exactly is the difference? And how are moral objects different from amoral objects?

 

Also, assuming that animals are moral objects, is it OK to kill them for food in case there are plenty other food choices that do not involve killing and other abuse of animals?