Yes, except in the medical realm. This falls into that realm. It's fairly self-evident that a human's life (or vision) is more valuable than that of a rabbit. If you don't believe me, try this question on for size: If you could save the life of one of the following, which would it be? A mother of one human child, or the mother of 15 baby rabbits?
"It's fairly self-evident that a human's life (or vision) is more valuable than that of a rabbit. If you don't believe me, try this question on for size: If you could save the life of one of the following, which would it be? A mother of one human child, or the mother of 15 baby rabbits?"
Your logic is a bit fuzzy (no pun intended). All the answer to this question shows is what the asker believes is more important, not what is actually more important. If you don't believe me, ask this question: If you could save the life of one of the following, which would it be? A mother responsible for the care of 5 kids not related to you, or your own wife responsible for the care of your own child?
Questions about moral judgements are questions about suffering. Since suffering is subjective, the morality of the choice made to alleviate suffering is also subjective. To pretend that it is 'self-evident' that your moral judgement is the absolutely correct one is not logically justifiable. Here's another great question, for fun: You must press one of two buttons - one will direct poison gas into room one, containing a despotic historical dictator (take your pick). The other contains a service dog and/or a mother rabbit and her bunnies. Which do you choose? Is your choice now 'self-evident'? I personally know what I would choose, and I also know there is nothing self-evident about it - it is a subjection based on a value assessment derived from logical evaluation, based on my personal feelings and experience.
"The other contains a service dog and/or a mother rabbit and her bunnies. Which do you choose?"
Sorry - grammatic error here: I (self-evidently) mean that the other ROOM, not the other BUTTON, contains the dog and/or bunnies. Sorry for the screw-up there.
Sorry Don but your assessment of the issue isn't relevant either IMO.
I strain to believe that a rabbit would have any concept of the same moral understanding that would save that rabbit's life. Rabbits don't have the ability to cognitive thought which humans do. In my mind, pain is 90% mental and the suffering of impending death has more to do with understanding it's coming rather than dealing with as it takes place. Rabbits have no idea that death is approaching until it's cute, fuzzy feet touch the boiling water (sorry but it was the only analogy I could come up with). This may be, and probably is, a bit of a stretch for the opposing view but had it not been for the success of human understanding, rabbits wouldn't be as widespread throughout the world as they are today which means scientists in Europe wouldn't be able to experiment on them at all. Rabbits were only introduced to Europe when the settlers brought them back from America.
Longer story short, if it weren't for rabbits or any experimental animals for that matter, we wouldn't have anywhere near an understanding of the world that we enjoy today.
But again, just my opinion. I wish now I could have worded that a bit differently. Oh well...
I'm willing to say that human life (in general) is more important than any individual animal's. Call it "specieism" or what have you, but the idea that something to help humanity (and not "help us look better" or whatever crap cosmetic companies say about their animal testing) can't come at the cost of cute fluffy animal is the opinion of someone who can't find any cute people to hang around instead.
Also, in a related way, I don't feel that killing dogs can possibly warrant a jail sentence, though it is still reprehensible and says quite a bit about character.
"Sorry Don but your assessment of the issue isn't relevant either IMO."
That's a nice opinion. Unfortunately, my comment is very relevant relating to the 'self-evident' nature of DT's faulty argument. That you have decided you are correct because you 'strain to believe' that you might be incorrect is a similarly faulty premise. All you've done is (more eloquently) restated the exact thing that DT did.
If rabbits had 'no idea death is coming', they would have been selected out long ago. That you fail to realize that indicates that you don't have a lot of experience with animals in general, nor any particular understanding of their unique but valid motivations.
Likewise, we can see cognition in several animal species (although I am unaware of any study focusing on Rabbits). Birds do it, as do some breeds of dog. Wolves, and their genetic cousins the bears, most certainly cognate - wolves in particular as well as some young children. Yet because you think that YOU hold some special, privileged space in the evolutionary hierarchy, you think that whatever you do to an animal can be pshawed away.
What you have shown, and it isn't really 'bad', persay, is that you are willing to take advantge of another organism to increase your chances. That's OK, because it is what most organisms (probably all) do. What you HAVEN'T shown is that your actions are morally defensible.
"I'm moving to a small studio and for some reason the cable connection is in an awkward place and I need a way to transmit HD quality video and audio no more than 20 feet away. What is the best wireless HDMI transmitter / receiver for this situation? Thanks!"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
poor animals is right. arent we opposed to animal testing. except in the medical realm?
I'm not. Crap, the stew is burning!!!
Yes, except in the medical realm. This falls into that realm. It's fairly self-evident that a human's life (or vision) is more valuable than that of a rabbit. If you don't believe me, try this question on for size: If you could save the life of one of the following, which would it be? A mother of one human child, or the mother of 15 baby rabbits?
"It's fairly self-evident that a human's life (or vision) is more valuable than that of a rabbit. If you don't believe me, try this question on for size: If you could save the life of one of the following, which would it be? A mother of one human child, or the mother of 15 baby rabbits?"
Your logic is a bit fuzzy (no pun intended). All the answer to this question shows is what the asker believes is more important, not what is actually more important. If you don't believe me, ask this question: If you could save the life of one of the following, which would it be? A mother responsible for the care of 5 kids not related to you, or your own wife responsible for the care of your own child?
Questions about moral judgements are questions about suffering. Since suffering is subjective, the morality of the choice made to alleviate suffering is also subjective. To pretend that it is 'self-evident' that your moral judgement is the absolutely correct one is not logically justifiable. Here's another great question, for fun: You must press one of two buttons - one will direct poison gas into room one, containing a despotic historical dictator (take your pick). The other contains a service dog and/or a mother rabbit and her bunnies. Which do you choose? Is your choice now 'self-evident'? I personally know what I would choose, and I also know there is nothing self-evident about it - it is a subjection based on a value assessment derived from logical evaluation, based on my personal feelings and experience.
"The other contains a service dog and/or a mother rabbit and her bunnies. Which do you choose?"
Sorry - grammatic error here: I (self-evidently) mean that the other ROOM, not the other BUTTON, contains the dog and/or bunnies. Sorry for the screw-up there.
now just make the circuit out of some flexible transparent conductor and I'm in.
Sorry Don but your assessment of the issue isn't relevant either IMO.
I strain to believe that a rabbit would have any concept of the same moral understanding that would save that rabbit's life. Rabbits don't have the ability to cognitive thought which humans do. In my mind, pain is 90% mental and the suffering of impending death has more to do with understanding it's coming rather than dealing with as it takes place. Rabbits have no idea that death is approaching until it's cute, fuzzy feet touch the boiling water (sorry but it was the only analogy I could come up with). This may be, and probably is, a bit of a stretch for the opposing view but had it not been for the success of human understanding, rabbits wouldn't be as widespread throughout the world as they are today which means scientists in Europe wouldn't be able to experiment on them at all. Rabbits were only introduced to Europe when the settlers brought them back from America.
Longer story short, if it weren't for rabbits or any experimental animals for that matter, we wouldn't have anywhere near an understanding of the world that we enjoy today.
But again, just my opinion. I wish now I could have worded that a bit differently. Oh well...
I'm willing to say that human life (in general) is more important than any individual animal's. Call it "specieism" or what have you, but the idea that something to help humanity (and not "help us look better" or whatever crap cosmetic companies say about their animal testing) can't come at the cost of cute fluffy animal is the opinion of someone who can't find any cute people to hang around instead.
Also, in a related way, I don't feel that killing dogs can possibly warrant a jail sentence, though it is still reprehensible and says quite a bit about character.
OK, say you find yourself in a dungeon. You see a flask. Obvious exits are North, South, and Dennis. What do you do?
Mmm...rabbit stew!
"Sorry Don but your assessment of the issue isn't relevant either IMO."
That's a nice opinion. Unfortunately, my comment is very relevant relating to the 'self-evident' nature of DT's faulty argument. That you have decided you are correct because you 'strain to believe' that you might be incorrect is a similarly faulty premise. All you've done is (more eloquently) restated the exact thing that DT did.
If rabbits had 'no idea death is coming', they would have been selected out long ago. That you fail to realize that indicates that you don't have a lot of experience with animals in general, nor any particular understanding of their unique but valid motivations.
Likewise, we can see cognition in several animal species (although I am unaware of any study focusing on Rabbits). Birds do it, as do some breeds of dog. Wolves, and their genetic cousins the bears, most certainly cognate - wolves in particular as well as some young children. Yet because you think that YOU hold some special, privileged space in the evolutionary hierarchy, you think that whatever you do to an animal can be pshawed away.
What you have shown, and it isn't really 'bad', persay, is that you are willing to take advantge of another organism to increase your chances. That's OK, because it is what most organisms (probably all) do. What you HAVEN'T shown is that your actions are morally defensible.