Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 28th, 2012, 12:42 PM   #21

Tlacaelel's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Foundations of Heaven
Posts: 71

First of all, it isnīt a valid comparation.

Human dignity is higher than Law itself, the Holocaust was a grave violation to the dignity not only of some mere individuals labeled as "undesirable" but of our whole race.

Second, humans can think (reason) when animals do "not" think. Let me explain this point which can be controversial, we humans (or any neanderthal out there reading this) thanks to our reasoning and way of thinking have developed things like culture or civilization; technology or art, etc. And I remit this argument to the facts: we humans arenīt exactly the same as we where three millenia ago, while lets say, dolphins, are substantially exactly in the same state as they were three millenia ago.

Third, Humans beings have rights while animals not. Why? Easy, a right (in Law) is something you can obligate someone to compel to or respect. You can demand your right to not to be killed by a...butcher while a chicken cannot demand that of Colonel Sanders.

In Law (which I am studying by the way) animals cannot be entitled with rights because they cannot demand their enforcement or protection, BUT, they are and should be protected by law.

And finally, some people would argue that "killing" (I am more inclined to use the word "sacrifice") these animals is justificated because we need to consume them in order to survive; the food chain argument in a few words. And as far as I know, the Nazis didnīt killed Jews for their meat.

Nevertheless, my opinion is that cruelty should be strictly forbidden in our interactions with animals, it is our duty to protect them as we consume or use them, not excluding in the process many living thing with which we interact or have contact.

Last edited by Tlacaelel; November 28th, 2012 at 01:03 PM. Reason: Spelling/Syntax
Tlacaelel is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 28th, 2012, 12:44 PM   #22

Naomasa298's Avatar
Bog of the Year
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 21,396

Quote:
Originally Posted by The merchant of Venice View Post
If the reasoning it's only the creation of art etc you should apply it between different humans too.
No. Why should I? I don't apply it to plants, fungi or bacteria either. It is a judgement I choose to make between species. You think it's invalid. I don't. Your opinion vs mine.
Naomasa298 is online now  
Old November 28th, 2012, 12:50 PM   #23

The merchant of Venice's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: .
Posts: 1,944

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
No. Why should I? I don't apply it to plants, fungi or bacteria either. It is a judgement I choose to make between species. You think it's invalid. I don't. Your opinion vs mine.
Then art and science (or whatever) it's not the real criteria of applying different behaviour, but it's the different specie the main discrimen.
The merchant of Venice is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 01:08 PM   #24

Inc's Avatar
Inc
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,449

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tlacaelel View Post
First of all, it isnīt a valid comparation.

Human dignity is higher than Law itself, the Holocaust was a grave violation to the dignity not only of some mere individuals labeled as "undesirable" but of our whole race.

Second, humans can think (reason) when animals do "not" think. Let me explain this point which can be controversial, we humans (or any neanderthal out there reading this) thanks to our reasoning and way of thinking have developed things like culture or civilization; technology or art, etc. And I refer this argument to the facts: we humans arenīt exactly the same as we where three millenia while...lets say dolphins are substantially exactly in the same state as they were three millenia.

Third, Humans beings have right while animals not. Why? Easy, a right (in Law) is something you can obligate someone to compel or to respect. You can demand your right to not to be killed by a...butcher while a chicken cannot demand that of Colonel Sanders.

In Law (which I am studying by the way) animals cannot be entitled with rights because they cannot demand their enforcement or respect, BUT, they are and should be protected by law.

And finally, some people would argue that "killing" (I am more inclined to use the word "sacrifice") these animals is justificated because we need to consume them to survive; the food chain in a few words.

Nevertheless, I am cruelty is gross and should be strictly forbidden in our interactions with animales, it is our duty to protect them as we consume or use them, not excluding any living thing with which we interact or have contact.
This reply references 'the law' - a human invention. A necessary convention - if it wasn't for laws, think what travasties we might have to deal with - one only has to glance at history to see how horrible we've been to each other.

And animals.

Of course, these laws would naturally tend to favour their makers, rather than those creatures without a voice to protest their treatment.

As regards our 'rights', George said it well:


Last edited by Inc; November 28th, 2012 at 01:35 PM.
Inc is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 01:32 PM   #25

Tlacaelel's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Foundations of Heaven
Posts: 71

There is a problem for me when translating some terms that do not seem to exist properly in English, in Spanish "Derecho" has a very HUGE field of meanings, we differentiate "derecho" (strictly "law") from Derecho (latu sensu, not only laws but philosophy, etc). Do you know if this applies also for English? I ignore it.

Now that we discerned about "Law", there is a part of the doctrine (ius naturalismo) that says that what it should be law or is law is already there, and we humans have to "discover" them through reason. An example of this thinking is the apparent "universal" sense of justice.

And Mr George Carlin is hardly an authority in any aspect related to law/Law. He shows a biased opinion, not to say a flawed understanding of what he is criticizing, uses only cases that support his opinion but doesnīt say a thing about facts contradicting his "reasoning". An angry funny man IMHO.
Tlacaelel is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 01:35 PM   #26

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 4,628

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inc View Post
In your opinion is it legitimate to compare the two?
No, it isn't.
redcoat is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 01:44 PM   #27

Inc's Avatar
Inc
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,449

This thread has brought up something which I'm pondered on before - does anyone here know if someone has ever proposed the idea of "units of suffering" i.e. some scale by which the suffering of a being could be evaluated?
Inc is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 01:51 PM   #28

Tlacaelel's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Foundations of Heaven
Posts: 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inc View Post
This thread has brought up something which I'm pondered on before - does anyone here know if someone has ever proposed the idea of "units of suffering" i.e. some scale by which the suffering of a being could be evaluated?
Yes, they already exist. Although I ignore how really accurate they are, since pain sometimes seems to be subjective.

WebCite query result


As for animals, I ignore if such scale exists.
Tlacaelel is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 01:56 PM   #29

Inc's Avatar
Inc
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,449

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tlacaelel View Post
Yes, they already exist. Although I ignore how really accurate they are, since pain sometimes seems to be subjective.

WebCite query result


As for animals, I ignore if such scale exists.
Thamks for that Tlacaelel, though I'm thinking more of units that could be weighted to compare the suffering of different creatures, relevant to their evolvement / sentience.
Inc is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 01:59 PM   #30

Inc's Avatar
Inc
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,449

Quote:
Nevertheless, my opinion is that cruelty should be strictly forbidden in our interactions with animals, it is our duty to protect them as we consume or use them, not excluding in the process many living thing with which we interact or have contact.
Quote:
As for animals, I ignore if such scale exists.
Inc is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
animal, comparison, holocaust, human


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Value of Human Life and Human Rights throughout History? EpicHistory360 General History 12 March 7th, 2014 06:34 PM
Does human life have more value than animal life? Salah Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 113 August 31st, 2012 02:29 PM
Comparison of WW2 battleships Naomasa298 War and Military History 16 June 7th, 2012 03:36 PM
Why a human is more important than an animal? Kinan Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 100 April 27th, 2011 01:00 PM
A Human is completely human only when s/he plays coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 9 October 29th, 2008 11:09 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.