RIP Baby Alan Rabbit

[AeolianHarp]

We, unlike animals have a moral choice which gives us a special responsibility and people frequently and deliberately make the wrong choice through pride and selfishness.

Spot on- pride and selfishness. And let's not forget arrogance also. Arrogance that humanity is better than animals, who we evolved from.

You list a whole load of negatives but what about the positives? What about great music, architecture, charity and a whole host of things people do to help others? I love animals, plants and the natural world, it is all part of creation, but no rabbit ever wrote a symphony that I'm aware of!

Of course humans have created great art- example being the man whose website we are on! No rabbit has written a symphony true, but nature has its own specialness- just what inspired Beethoven to write the Pastoral...
But what of Birds? They make music of sorts, whales sing, apes can paint pictures...art is often in the eye of the beholder..

All the more reason why we should respect nature of course and to come back to the original post, it is why Baby Alan deserved better than this cheap act from a human being whatever the motive behind it.

Yes well said Peter. Baby Alan's life was worth so much more than this.

[AeolianHarp]

Here is a song I'd like to dedicate to AeolianHarp, sung by my all time favourite Art Garfunkel. Love his voice.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGyQmH9NZcw[/YOUTUBE]

Thank you Megan. Let this be dedicated to dear little Baby Alan.

[Chris]

And he could have gone and had a plant based meal which would have not resulted in Alan's brutal murder. There was NO NEED to murder and eat baby Alan at all. Denmark is a western country with plenty of plant based options.

What is it about the nature of animals that you find elevated above the nature of plants, such that plants may be killed and eaten at our pleasure, but animals may not?

Also, your comment implies that if there were a need to kill and eat a rabbit, that would be acceptable (if there were no plants around to eat, for example). But surely if killing and eating an animal is wrong, need for food could not make it right. You would not say that a human being could kill and eat another human being even if he needed food and there were no other options, would you?

Oh sure, that's why we have ISIS, Auschwitz, FGM, constant wars, eugenics, slavery...
Above animals we most certainly are NOT.

You seem to be quite the self-hating human, AeolianHarp! Yes, those things exist, but what of the flood of aid that pours in after a natural disaster? What of a soldier dying in defense of those he does not even know? What of the mother choosing her own death over that of her unborn child? If you were to compare humans with animals, you would find unbelievable brutality among the animals, and no acts of charity as you find among humans. But of course, we cannot compare them like that, because as you point out:

Animals eat their young if they feel unable to care for them, the young are weak and won't survive, or if they are ill themselves. The fact that it is not premeditated deliberate wickedness makes it more innocent than human acts- humans are the most brutal species on this planet.

Animals are not capable of premeditated, deliberate wickedness. Nor are they capable of premeditated, deliberate goodness. You cannot excuse their brutality by appealing to their lack of intellect and will and at the same time ascribe some nobility to them for their gentle acts. For animals, these are one and the same - results of instinct. That is why I say that, regardless of the behavior of specific humans, or even humans in general, human nature is above animal nature. Because we possess faculties that they do not - intellect and will.

That is what is supposed, but none of us can truly know an animal's thought processes- but one thing is clear they are quite capable of love and compassion and helping each other.

I think we can know it because animals do not possess language. Language is the sign of a rational creature. Of course, we need to be a little more specific about what we mean by language in this context. Karl Popper distinguishes four functions of language:

Expressive - The outward expression of an inner state.
Signaling - The causing of a reaction in others.
Descriptive - The statement of a complete thought, such as what would be expressed in a complete sentence.
Argumentative - The statement of an inference from one complete thought to another.

Obviously some animals are capable of the first two, but none are capable of the latter two, which require the grasp of abstract concepts. If animals could know and reason in the way humans can, they would be capable of these last two functions of language.

[AeolianHarp]

What is it about the nature of animals that you find elevated above the nature of plants, such that plants may be killed and eaten at our pleasure, but animals may not?

Quite simply plants do not have brains and nervous systems to think, feel and suffer the way animals do. The role of plants is to provide food, shelter and life (food ) for animal life. The difference lies in the suffering caused. I would have thought that was obvious. However, that doesn't mean one should destroy plants for a lark about as some yobs do (ripping up plants from peoples' gardens) , or razing forests for profit and shoving tribes people out of the forests and so on. Gardening and horticulture can be done respectfully.

Also, your comment implies that if there were a need to kill and eat a rabbit, that would be acceptable (if there were no plants around to eat, for example). But surely if killing and eating an animal is wrong, need for food could not make it right.

It isn't exactly right but borne out of desperation- when there is sufficient plant based foods then the need to kill an animal is not there. In a modern western society there is no need to kill animals for food. Times have changed.

You would not say that a human being could kill and eat another human being even if he needed food and there were no other options, would you?

That is what it boils down to isn't it? Under no circumstances do people agree it is ok to kill each other for food, but they see animals as lesser beings for their plates. Thus human arrogance- a baby rabbit is seen as property in a way a human baby isn't. Yet both feel pain equally. Stab a rabbit with a fork, stab a human baby, both will feel pain.

You seem to be quite the self-hating human, AeolianHarp!

No, I just don't elevate humanity above other beings on this planet - humanity is arrogant and selfish. It is time humanity got a grip and started to use these brains (which we think are so superior!!) to start living in peace with each other, stop brutalising each other and other beings on this planet.

Yes, those things exist, but what of the flood of aid that pours in after a natural disaster? What of a soldier dying in defense of those he does not even know? What of the mother choosing her own death over that of her unborn child? If you were to compare humans with animals, you would find unbelievable brutality among the animals, and no acts of charity as you find among humans.

Oh really?!!! I know one true story in which a dog sat on a railway line to stop a woman he'd never met before from committing suicide by jumping onto the railway line. He sat there looking at his "owner" who was calling and calling him (he had never ran way like that before, and sat there calmly looking at her). Would you do that for some random woman you'd never met???
How did Rex the dog know that??? His senses knew it.

Animals rescue each other from dangers, feed each other, and save humans from drowning and all sorts.

Animals do know charity and kindness.

Humans can do this too, but we are the most brutal species on this planet.

But of course, we cannot compare them like that, because as you point out:

Animals are not capable of premeditated, deliberate wickedness. Nor are they capable of premeditated, deliberate goodness. You cannot excuse their brutality by appealing to their lack of intellect and will and at the same time ascribe some nobility to them for their gentle acts. For animals, these are one and the same - results of instinct. That is why I say that, regardless of the behavior of specific humans, or even humans in general, human nature is above animal nature. Because we possess faculties that they do not - intellect and will.

Again you judge them by human standards, which doesn't work. I say they are capable of doing "good" and capable of doing "bad." They can show love, they can show hate. But humans show the most extremes of hate than animals do.

I think we can know it because animals do not possess language. Language is the sign of a rational creature. Of course, we need to be a little more specific about what we mean by language in this context. Karl Popper distinguishes four functions of language:

Expressive - The outward expression of an inner state.
Signaling - The causing of a reaction in others.
Descriptive - The statement of a complete thought, such as what would be expressed in a complete sentence.
Argumentative - The statement of an inference from one complete thought to another.

Obviously some animals are capable of the first two, but none are capable of the latter two, which require the grasp of abstract concepts. If animals could know and reason in the way humans can, they would be capable of these last two functions of language.

If humans are rational then I am the Wizard of Oz! What is rational about a species that has constantly waged war on themselves since they evolved???
Language is not all that- it is only our form of communication. Animals have their own forms of communication. Ours might be more complex, but it allows for more devious and nasty ways to abuse each other.
Dolphins and whales have a very complex system of communication, some of it is even like hieroglyphs and they can communicate far more than we can at a much faster rate- something like 15 times more information a minute. They see sound in ways we cannot.

http://www.speakdolphin.com/ResearchItems.cfm?ID=6

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-65481827.html

http://paulapeterson.com/Joan_Ocean.html

Elephants also have sophisticated communication and emotional depth.

Koko and Michael- gorillas have painted art which is symbolic and expresses their thoughts and feelings. They also learned sign language and Michael used this to describe seeing his mother murdered by humans and how he felt about it ( emotional pain).

http://www.koko.org/gorilla-art-1

In this clip, Michael responds to a question about his mother with this description of that event — a memory that he conveyed several times, before his own passing in 2000.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXKsPqQ0Ycc[/YOUTUBE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_%28gorilla%29



Humans are not the most superior forms of life on this planet, and the way that humanity thinks it is, and uses this premise to abuse other beings on this planet is despicable.

The way things are going, we will keep creating more big toys, and destroy ourselves with it in our petty squabbles about whose god is better than another's.

Animals at least, are above such disgusting nonsense.

[Peter]

Humans are not the most superior forms of life on this planet, and the way that humanity thinks it is, and uses this premise to abuse other beings on this planet is despicable.

The way things are going, we will keep creating more big toys, and destroy ourselves with it in our petty squabbles about whose god is better than another's.

Animals at least, are above such disgusting nonsense.

I agree with a lot you say and as I've said I love animals and wouldn't harm an ant if I could avoid it. However you are in danger of over-sentimentalising, focusing on the positive attributes of animals and the negative ones of humans. What about my pet cat who loves slowly torturing a bird to death for the sheer fun of it? What about Chimpanzees who rip a monkey to bits or the Cuckoo who invades the nests of other birds. What about parasitic insects that devour their hosts from within?

The difference with humans is that we have a choice - we have the ability not to act instinctively because we know right from wrong deep in our hearts. All the dreadful things humans do are done in spite of this knowledge and in this sense we are worse than animals because we are culpable.

However we have the potential to overcome our selfish desires and it is in this potential that we have 'superiority' though I prefer the word difference - the freedom of choice that is denied to animals. It is up to us to choose. Now many do choose to do good, but unfortunately our media is saturated with negativity which is why I hardly ever watch tv - if you want just one positive story of what humans can do in regard to animals look at this:
https://www.kangaroosanctuary.com/

Let's not fall into that old chestnut of blaming religion for war - that it has been and is used as an excuse for war is very true, but that is a perversion of the message at the heart of all religions which is love. As a Buddhist you should know the Dalai Lama's thoughts on this. Let's not forget that Stalin, Mao and Hitler weren't fighting because of religion, indeed they wanted to eradicate it as they wanted to be worshipped as Gods themselves.

[AeolianHarp]

I agree with a lot you say and as I've said I love animals and wouldn't harm an ant if I could avoid it. However you are in danger of over-sentimentalising, focusing on the positive attributes of animals and the negative ones of humans. What about my pet cat who loves slowly torturing a bird to death for the sheer fun of it? What about Chimpanzees who rip a monkey to bits or the Cuckoo who invades the nests of other birds. What about parasitic insects that devour their hosts from within?

Of course animals have negative traits also- but they also have good ones- and they often show kindness to each other, even to a different species to their own.

The difference with humans is that we have a choice - we have the ability not to act instinctively because we know right from wrong deep in our hearts. All the dreadful things humans do are done in spite of this knowledge and in this sense we are worse than animals because we are culpable.

Exactly Peter- well said.

However we have the potential to overcome our selfish desires and it is in this potential that we have 'superiority' though I prefer the word difference - the freedom of choice that is denied to animals. It is up to us to choose.

Yes, if one wants to use the term "superiority" then it ought to be of some elevation, some compassionate motivation, acts etc.

Now many do choose to do good, but unfortunately our media is saturated with negativity which is why I hardly ever watch tv - if you want just one positive story of what humans can do in regard to animals look at this:
https://www.kangaroosanctuary.com/

Yes, I know that- there are people who do a lot for animals, giving them sanctuary, rescuing them from factory farming and laboratories and so on...but that is from other humans' despicable acts. News like that is bitter-sweet in that we feel sorrow at the animals' abuse they suffered and relief and happiness they were rescued from it.

Let's not fall into that old chestnut of blaming religion for war - that it has been and is used as an excuse for war is very true, but that is a perversion of the message at the heart of all religions which is love. As a Buddhist you should know the Dalai Lama's thoughts on this. Let's not forget that Stalin, Mao and Hitler weren't fighting because of religion, indeed they wanted to eradicate it as they wanted to be worshipped as Gods themselves.

Stalin et al were just as bad- creating a cult of personality. It is said this is happening in North Korea at this present time.

[Chris]

Quite simply plants do not have brains and nervous systems to think, feel and suffer the way animals do. The role of plants is to provide food, shelter and life (food ) for animal life.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Certainly plants do play that role for animals. But animals also play that role for us - yet you object to it. I would say that the "role" or purpose of a plant is, at a basic level, the same as any other kind of life - to flourish as the kind of thing that it is.

The difference lies in the suffering caused. I would have thought that was obvious.

Is that really the criteria you mean to apply? Certainly we could kill animals without causing them any fear or suffering. If we did that, could we kill as many of them as we wished for food, even though there are plants available to eat?

That is what it boils down to isn't it? Under no circumstances do people agree it is ok to kill each other for food, but they see animals as lesser beings for their plates. Thus human arrogance- a baby rabbit is seen as property in a way a human baby isn't. Yet both feel pain equally. Stab a rabbit with a fork, stab a human baby, both will feel pain.

Yes, but what is your answer to the question? Is it moral for one human being to kill and eat another if there are no plants (or animals) available to eat?

Oh really?!!! I know one true story in which a dog sat on a railway line to stop a woman he'd never met before from committing suicide by jumping onto the railway line. He sat there looking at his "owner" who was calling and calling him (he had never ran way like that before, and sat there calmly looking at her). Would you do that for some random woman you'd never met???
How did Rex the dog know that??? His senses knew it.

Animals rescue each other from dangers, feed each other, and save humans from drowning and all sorts.

That is hearsay without a citation, but it does not seem impossible. I do not claim animals are incapable of sensory experiences. Obviously they are. They are also capable of imagination. But neither of these things is reasoning or free choice. Instinct is sufficient to produce these results. That is why dogs make such good pets - because their pack instincts are incredibly strong. And while we tend to anthropomorphize our pets and see their pack instincts as love and loyalty, they are not love and loyalty in the way human beings experience them, because those things require faculties that non-rational animals do not possess. As much as animals are capable of saving the lives of humans, they also turn and attack humans for apparently no reason at all. Dogs maul children and other animals. That people get angry at the dogs when this happens is yet another example of this kind of anthropomorphizing. As much as their "good" acts are not the result of rational thinking and free choice, neither are their "bad" acts. It is simply animals behaving like animals, according to their instincts.

Again you judge them by human standards, which doesn't work. I say they are capable of doing "good" and capable of doing "bad." They can show love, they can show hate. But humans show the most extremes of hate than animals do.

No, my point is that we must not judge them by human standards! Animals can demonstrate tenderness or aggression, according to their instincts, but not love and hate in the relevant sense, because those things require intellect and will.

If humans are rational then I am the Wizard of Oz! What is rational about a species that has constantly waged war on themselves since they evolved???

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Animals may know Socrates. They may recognize how he looks, how he sounds, and how he smells. They may form a mental picture of him when they smell something of his, even when he is not present. But they cannot understand the abstract concept man. And they cannot understand the abstract concept mortal. They can only sense and imagine specific instances of these things. They cannot understand the concepts, and they cannot reason from one to another. That is what makes human beings rational and animals non-rational. In the same way that animals posses faculties that plants do not (such as imagination), human beings posses rational faculties that other animals do not.

Language is not all that- it is only our form of communication. Animals have their own forms of communication. Ours might be more complex, but it allows for more devious and nasty ways to abuse each other.
Dolphins and whales have a very complex system of communication, some of it is even like hieroglyphs and they can communicate far more than we can at a much faster rate- something like 15 times more information a minute. They see sound in ways we cannot.

Language is the tell-tale sign of rationality. Language in the relevant sense, that is - in its descriptive and argumentative functions. As in the syllogism above. These examples of animal communication are only examples of the expressive and signaling functions of language.

In this clip, Michael responds to a question about his mother with this description of that event — a memory that he conveyed several times, before his own passing in 2000.

This again does not demonstrate language in the relevant sense. And even so, the evidence for ape sign language is highly dubious. Several scientists have expressed doubts about the legitimacy of this research.

MIT linguist Noam Chomsky:
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/2007----.htm

Cognitive scientist Steven Pinker:
http://www.math.chalmers.se/~ulfp/Review/pinker.pdf

The way things are going, we will keep creating more big toys, and destroy ourselves with it in our petty squabbles about whose god is better than another's.

Animals at least, are above such disgusting nonsense.

No, they are not above it. They are so far below it that they cannot even comprehend what it means.

Let me reiterate that I am not saying that animals are machines, in a Cartesian sense. On the contrary, sensation and imagination are not mechanistic processes. Nor am I saying that we are free to abuse animals in any way we like. I am only examining what animals are and what they are not.