From: Martin Moore (lethe07@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Apr 19 2008 - 11:50:52 MDT
Even if we forget intelligence as having any
correlation to natural rights, from a utilitarian
perspective, animals can feel pain and experience
pleasure, therefore they should be entitled to a
certain treatment from humans (or an AI?) as it
applies to these senses. Obviously, non-human animals
do not have the capacity to exercise voting rights or
the right to freedom of the press, but they feel fear
and pain in the same way that we do. Inflicting pain
on them is not ethical. Humans have always known this,
and proper treatment of animals is, at least ideally,
has been a source of pride (or shame) in most
agricultural communities. Unfortunately, as developed
countries have become more and more disconnected from
our food sources, "factory farms", where
production-line treatment of animals in conditions
where many of them never see sun, grass, or even make
a full rotation in their small cages, produces over
95% of all store-bought animal products.
For more on the utilitarian perspective, especially in
relation to animals, see Peter Singer and Jeremy
Bentham.
Martin
--- Stuart Armstrong <dragondreaming@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> > Since the cows belong to the humans, the humans
> ought to be left
> > alone in the case that they're not hurting anyone
> (e.g. the cows).
>
> Can you develop this argument a bit? (ie I don't get
> it :-) As it
> stands, it sounds a bit like a defense of slavery
> (or possibly a
> defense of abolishing slavery only with proper
> financial compensation
> to the slave owners).
>
> Stuart
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT