Animal Rights extremist

[gregtpal]

This is probably the next trendy woketard cause they'll jump on to avoid confronting real issues or adressing the problems created by their previous causes

https://nypost.com/2023/02/14/professor-martha-nussbaum-calls-for-animals-to-be-represented-in-court/

[mazzgolf]

This is nothing new really. Organizations like PETA and others have been fighting to get individual gorillas and monkeys and other animals the same rights as humans - not just in the US but also in other countries. It's unbelievable that the courts even entertain such things - but I fully expect one day for some judge to rule in their favor.

If you think the current political and legal arguments currently ongoing dealing with "What is the definition of a woman" are bad now, just wait until the fight over the definition of "person" starts to heat up (it has already begun, but so far only on the fringes ... just like how the gender-identity-vs-biology thing was on the fringes until very recently). Does "person" include animals? These extremists believe so, and they already have lawyers fight for their ideology in courts.

Since hunters, anglers, and trappers are also conservationists at heart, we can easily support animal welfare initiatives. But these far left extremists want the discussion to turn to animal "rights" - granting personhood to each individual animal, and the rights that come with personhood.

[JFC1]

1 hour ago, gregtpal said:

This is probably the next trendy woketard cause they'll jump on to avoid confronting real issues or adressing the problems created by their previous causes

https://nypost.com/2023/02/14/professor-martha-nussbaum-calls-for-animals-to-be-represented-in-court/

Yeah, like mazzgolf says, it's nothing new. I've been trying to read her for years simply to know what's going on in my academic world--which could also be laland--and often I don't know whether to laugh or puke. Apparently, it's a slippery slope from disabled humans to animals...I believe she makes that argument! 

But going even further back, there are plenty of colonial US legal cases in which farmers in Princeton, for example, try to argue that their pigs are people. Not human, but people. Go figure. I guess the human/nonhuman division was less clear in the 1700s. I kid you not. And apparently in Middle Ages England many animals were considered people. It strikes me as nuts, but the historical records indicate that it's true. But then again, there are extensive debates about whether or not Native Americans or African slaves are people, or not. Craziness all around. 

All that said, the crazy arguments made about defending animals by people who don't know a hippo from a rabbit and think brown cows give chocolate milk is a big reason I sometimes puke at academic conferences. It's also why I'm writing a book intended to slap back at these people.  Ethical hunting is key to that slap back. 

[swamprat142]

God gave us dominion over all other life on this earth He created. We are not to abuse it or elevate it to human status. This woman is a prime example of a blithering misguided educated idiot.

[mazzgolf]

(as I've been writing a doctoral thesis here, I see @swamprat142 managed to say in two sentences what I'm about to say in several paragraphs. but let me indulge myself...)

I know some people here (most?) are not Christians - but let me evangelize a little bit. I've thought about this a lot in the past, particularly when I started hunting myself.

This whole "animals are people, too" argument actually goes against the Christian worldview (and I would think this would be true for any of the Abrahamic religions, so not just Christians but Jews and Muslims as well would/should agree with me). Why? Because the Hebrew scriptures (something Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in) are very clear that man was made "in the image of God" (the imago dei), and the animals were not. Thus, man as the image of God (which is a scripturally unclear-but-non-trivial description of man) is separate and higher from the animals . Animals do not, therefore, enjoy the same status (and thus do not enjoy the same individual rights) as human beings.

Not just that, but this same Christian worldview believes that man was given dominion over God's animal (and plant) kingdom. Now, this doesn't give man the right to run roughshod over creation; man should be good stewards and care for animals as the divine gift they are. But man can take from the bounty that God provided. This worldview is also our grounding for the ethics we employ in hunting. It is why we can harvest animals, but also why we try not to needlessly inflict undue suffering (how many of us say we want to make a "clean, quick kill" - ever think about why you say that? What is your grounding for believing you have such a duty to make a clean, quick kill?)

If someone does agree with an animal rights perspective, and is a naturalist (i.e. not a believer in that Christian worldview) then they need to answer why they think that human beings have any objective moral duties at all toward other animals? (not just a subjective, "I don't like it personally myself" - but rather where is their objective grounding such that it binds all of us to adhere to their animal rights ideology?) As a naturalist, why think it is morally wrong for humans to inflict pain on other animals? On their atheistic, naturalistic worldview, we are nothing but animals ourselves and, after all, animals cause pain and kill other animals all the time. So who or what prohibits humans from so doing? Who or what lays a burden on mankind to have a duty to provide animals individual rights?

So while the naturalist has no objective grounding for their belief in the animals rights movement, it is actually the Christian who enjoys the advantage here, in that the ethical treatment of animals can be objectively grounded in God’s commands to human beings to be good stewards of creation. But that same Christian worldview also elevates mankind (being in the image of God) and allows us to harvest from the bounty of creation, as long as we do so in an ethical manner and we avoid excessive exploitation of the natural resources around us.

[Bucndoe]

Christians bear the Cross of Christ and have been persecuted since the beginning. They will always be persecuted. The end of their persecution comes when they enter God’s Kingdom

[Nomad]

2 hours ago, mazzgolf said:

 

I know some people here (most?) are not Christians -

 

I would have guessed that 80% or more of the people on here were Christians.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Nomad

[JFC1]

14 hours ago, mazzgolf said:

(as I've been writing a doctoral thesis here, I see @swamprat142 managed to say in two sentences what I'm about to say in several paragraphs. but let me indulge myself...)

I know some people here (most?) are not Christians - but let me evangelize a little bit. I've thought about this a lot in the past, particularly when I started hunting myself.

This whole "animals are people, too" argument actually goes against the Christian worldview (and I would think this would be true for any of the Abrahamic religions, so not just Christians but Jews and Muslims as well would/should agree with me). Why? Because the Hebrew scriptures (something Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in) are very clear that man was made "in the image of God" (the imago dei), and the animals were not. Thus, man as the image of God (which is a scripturally unclear-but-non-trivial description of man) is separate and higher from the animals . Animals do not, therefore, enjoy the same status (and thus do not enjoy the same individual rights) as human beings.

Not just that, but this same Christian worldview believes that man was given dominion over God's animal (and plant) kingdom. Now, this doesn't give man the right to run roughshod over creation; man should be good stewards and care for animals as the divine gift they are. But man can take from the bounty that God provided. This worldview is also our grounding for the ethics we employ in hunting. It is why we can harvest animals, but also why we try not to needlessly inflict undue suffering (how many of us say we want to make a "clean, quick kill" - ever think about why you say that? What is your grounding for believing you have such a duty to make a clean, quick kill?)

If someone does agree with an animal rights perspective, and is a naturalist (i.e. not a believer in that Christian worldview) then they need to answer why they think that human beings have any objective moral duties at all toward other animals? (not just a subjective, "I don't like it personally myself" - but rather where is their objective grounding such that it binds all of us to adhere to their animal rights ideology?) As a naturalist, why think it is morally wrong for humans to inflict pain on other animals? On their atheistic, naturalistic worldview, we are nothing but animals ourselves and, after all, animals cause pain and kill other animals all the time. So who or what prohibits humans from so doing? Who or what lays a burden on mankind to have a duty to provide animals individual rights?

So while the naturalist has no objective grounding for their belief in the animals rights movement, it is actually the Christian who enjoys the advantage here, in that the ethical treatment of animals can be objectively grounded in God’s commands to human beings to be good stewards of creation. But that same Christian worldview also elevates mankind (being in the image of God) and allows us to harvest from the bounty of creation, as long as we do so in an ethical manner and we avoid excessive exploitation of the natural resources around us.

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for posting. But doesn't your "objectivity" rest on belief in a Christian God? And a particular way of interpreting that God? Belief is a basis of human objectivity? I'm hard pressed to see it as objective in any broad sense. The word of God needs to be interpreted in the version of Christianity in which I was brought up. The mysteries of what God wants for us are not always decipherable. And may be describes metaphorically or allegorically in the Bible.

That's not to say that there isn't a major contradiction in the ethical exceptionalism of an animal rights person who preaches about an obligation to rise up beyond our poor nature while so positioning us as just a other animal. 

[JFC1]

12 hours ago, Nomad said:

I would have guessed that 80% or more of the people on here were Christians.

At least nominally...they're often not very "christian" w a lower case c. And bmvan have a hard time loving their (human) brethren 

[Coyoteslayer]

18 hours ago, gregtpal said:

This is probably the next trendy woketard cause they'll jump on to avoid confronting real issues or adressing the problems created by their previous causes

https://nypost.com/2023/02/14/professor-martha-nussbaum-calls-for-animals-to-be-represented-in-court/

I heard Robert shadeero is the top animal esquire!!

[Rusty]

16 hours ago, swamprat142 said:

God gave us dominion over all other life on this earth He created. We are not to abuse it or elevate it to human status. 

Well said.       
 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Rusty

[mazzgolf]

3 hours ago, JFC1 said:

But doesn't your "objectivity" rest on belief in a Christian God? And a particular way of interpreting that God? Belief is a basis of human objectivity?

My answer would be "no". It doesn't rest on my "belief" in a Christian God that these moral facts are objectively true. My beliefs really have nothing to do with it. Consider the argument like this ... "IF the Christian worldview is true then ...." and the rest. Think about it. Whether I believe that the Earth is flat or not is irrelevant to the "fact of" the Earth being round. That is an objectively true fact. Thousands of years ago, no person believed the Earth was round, yet it was true that the Earth was round. It is objectively true a water molecule (H2O) has one oxygen atom, and that was objectively true even before humans walked this planet. That's what "objectively" true means in this context. It doesn't matter what any human believes, it "just is" objectively true.

Another way to explain it would be this - atheists can be good, moral people, and yet they don't believe in God. Believing in God is not the point. The existence of God is the point since God is the grounding of moral values and duties. So whether anyone believes in God or not, it doesn't matter. IF God exists, THEN objective moral values and duties exist. (Now, how we come to know what those moral values and duties ARE is a different question - that's a question of epistemology, not ontology).

So IF Christianity is true, then what I explained in my earlier post is true. Conversely, IF naturalism is true, then my argument is the animal rights proponent (assuming they are a naturalist) has no grounding for their morality because on their very worldview humans are nothing more than animals and animals cause suffering and pain to other animals all the time and that isn't considered immoral. So why would humans causing suffering and pain on other animals be immoral? What is their grounding of that morality IF naturalism is true? I don't see anything that grounds that morality other than the animal rights activist's own personal dislike (i.e. a subjective taste).

If the debate then turns to, "But how do you know Christianity is true?", well, I have plenty of reasons to believe that God exists and that Christianity is true. So my belief that Christianity is true is solidly grounded on philosophical, metaphysical and scientific reasons.

[Woodsman416]

If the belief is that we're just another animal, I can accept that. When they can stop the coyotes, foxes, wolves, bears, eagles hawks, mink, otters, bluegills, spiders etc from killing their food I'll stop too. Until then, I'll not accept that a robin eating a worm has more "rights" then I do.

[JFC1]

23 hours ago, mazzgolf said:

The existence of God is the point since God is the grounding of moral values and duties. So whether anyone believes in God or not, it doesn't matter. IF God exists, THEN objective moral values and duties exist.

If the debate then turns to, "But how do you know Christianity is true?", well, I have plenty of reasons to believe that God exists and that Christianity is true. So my belief that Christianity is true is solidly grounded on philosophical, metaphysical and scientific reasons.

I'm not saying that I don't think that morals may be grounded in God. I don't really know. But as you yourself say, your "belief" in Christianity points to the existence of a god who you then believe (my wording) grounds morals and values.  And for you, morals and values exist because your God exists. But for example, an extreme naturalist could easily believe in morals and values as adaptive strategies, necessary for group cohesion for a social, physically weak, and very cerebral being like a human to survive but not necessarily necessary--or as necessary-- for a chimpanzee, wolf or wolverine (to grab quickly just a few that are varyingly social and strong). Note that the solitary wolverine seems to have few structuring values akin to what we call morals, and is known for wanton destruction of other animals....apparently for the sake of killing.

Christianity is beautiful. But it's easy to project. About as easy as "science" is easy to project. Two complementary belief systems with different approaches to the problem of ethics. I admire them both but suggest that they both have their limits. I know I shouldn't be talking flippantly about limits and the Christian God. 

[mazzgolf]

1 minute ago, JFC1 said:

But for example, an extreme naturalist could easily believe in morals and values as adaptive strategies, necessary for group cohesion for a social, physically weak, and very cerebral being like a human to survive but not necessarily necessary--or as necessary-- for a chimpanzee, wolf or wolverine (to grab quickly just a few that are varyingly social and strong). Note that the solitary wolverine seems to have few structuring values akin to what we call morals, and is known for wanton destruction of other animals....apparently for the sake of killing.

Ah.. but you have now made the mistake I tried to avert in my previous post when I said, "how we come to know what those moral values and duties are is a different question - that's a question of epistemology, not ontology". You have now just crossed over into epistemology, NOT ontology.

The fact is someone may explain HOW we come to know what our moral values and duties are (e.g. in your words, a naturalist could say it is "adaptive strategies, necessary for group cohesion for a social, physically weak, and very cerebral being like a human to survive"), but that says nothing about the ontology of those moral values - i.e. are they objective and real, and if so, grounded in what?

I'll give an example what I mean about epistemology vs. ontology from a science perspective. Humans have slowly come to know about the rotation of the Earth around the sun, and about the law of gravity, and how the human heart pumps blood through our veins through experimentation and observation. The law of gravity was always there, the Earth always rotated around the sun - that is reality. But humans didn't know about these things until sometime later in human history when we gradually discovered these things. And sometimes we got it wrong (there was a point in human history when we thought the sun rotated around the Earth). How we came to know these things does nothing to explain the ontology of those things.

Now let's go back to morality. Just because you can explain how you think humans come to know what our moral values and duties are, that doesn't say anything about their ontological grounding. For example, you say, we could believe in "morals and values as adaptive strategies, necessary for group cohesion for a social, physically weak, and very cerebral being." Let's grant that for the sake of argument. Even if that is correct, that may be due to blind evolutionary processes (a naturalist position) OR maybe God guided the evolutionary process so we could slowly (though fallibly) discern what our moral values and duties are through natural processes and brain development (a theist position). In other words, our epistemological framework of HOW we come to know our moral values and duties does not explain the ontology of those moral values and duties. We still don't know who or what grounds them for us to later discover them.

This is not to say we can't be ignorant or wrong about morality, even if it is grounded in God. The process of how we came to know such things is gradual and fallible, but this is no different than our gradual, fallible understanding of the physical world around us. We misinterpreted what we were seeing with our eyes when we thought the sun revolved around the Earth. So our epistemology was flawed, but that doesn't do anything about the ontological reality of the Earth revolving around the sun. We were just wrong about it. And just as our physical senses are fallible so, too, our moral senses are fallible (which would explain, for example, why only recently many human societies find antebellum slavery to be abhorrent). It also explains why even Christians get morality wrong (even Christians disagree about some ethics - the death penalty, justification for war, etc.)

So I go back - what is the ontological grounding of morality if naturalism is true? Just because we think we know how humans came to know moral values and duties, that doesn't give us an answer. I still don't know who or what grounds moral values and, more importantly, who or what binds me to obey moral duties.

If we think naturalism provides the answer, then we will be in a sad state of affairs because there is no objective grounding - it's all subjective, person- and society-relative. For example, who or what binds me to obey moral duties such that they ensure group cohesion? Maybe I personally don't want group cohesion. That might make my life harder, but oh well, that's what I want. Who or what is to tell me I'm wrong? Hitler, on the other hand, demanded strict group coherence, and he put a government in place to reach that end goal (his charisma got millions to freely follow him; and the millions that disagreed with him, he killed). Nazi society in Germany could have had great group cohesion if Hitler would have been able to eliminate all the undesirables and those who disagreed with him. Who or what says he was wrong?

I believe theism (and Christianity in particular) is true - and I have reasons and arguments that warrant that belief. And if I'm right, moral values and duties are grounded in God and we get our moral values and duties from God's nature and commands, revealed to us in conscience and Scripture. Yes, our knowledge of moral values and duties are gradual and fallible and we must be willing to say we are wrong about certain things. But at least we have a divine standard that has been revealed to us and that should guide us when determining what morality we should follow. We have no such guidelines or "guard rails" if naturalism is true. As Dostoevsky wrote (paraphrasing), "Without God, all things are permitted, men can do
what they like."