Hacker News Reader

Comment by gregshap | Hacker News Reader

Also frowned upon when done to humans, but accepted by most humans in regard to animals: slavery, raising for food, taxidermy, hunting for sport, neutering and keeping as pets, etc.

Some people don't think this treatment is appropriate for non-human animals either.

Personally I eat other animals, but I'm against both eugenics and cannibalism.

View on HN

Nit (doesn't challenge your argument), but plenty of sci-fi short stories explore (and glorify the concept of) humans as pets for some random aliens.

The problem is most people do not have a rational basis for the differences in the behaviors you outlined. The reasoning generally rests completely on logical fallacies.

It's very rational to want the treatment of humans to be held to a high standard when you yourself are a human.

But I am also a primate, mammal, vertebrate, animal, terran life-form. And going the other direction I am homo sapiens as opposed to neanderthal, caucasian, German, member of my specific family. Why draw a sharp line specifically at "human"..?

One reason is that we can communicate with (most) other humans to establish the shared boundary in a way we cannot (as reliably?) with other life.

I make no particular claim here as to how this reason should be weighed against the various other reasons pulling in the various directions.

How is that actually relevant though? Do your morals change when it comes to humans you cannot communicate with?

One of the things "morals" is is a negotiation with society about what should be construed as blameworthy. Potential participants in that negotiation may have different treatment without, as you said, it "rest[ing] completely on logical fallacies," which is why I brought it up.

I am not saying this makes up the entirety of my moral system, and I am explicitly (here) saying that a naive application does not.

Historically, that seems pretty common

Because humans that extract value from animals outcompete the humans that don't.

It's in a humans best interest to believe the narrative that allows them to extract that value without moral uneasiness.

> going the other direction

Many do go in this other direction.

Because humans are made in the image and likeness of God.

If your comment was some kind joke please disregard my comment.

Sorry to see you getting down voted into the basement, I too am a devout theist. I don't think the nature of your argument being theistic is the primary reason you are getting down voted though. I think if you built a stronger set of arguments about why this matters and how it relates to humans deserving a better level of treatment than other animals your comment would fair better.

A decent example might be something like, "As a Christian, I believe all humans are made in the image and likeness of God. This gives humans a special place in the order of the universe in Gods eyes and God asks us to respect that view in relation to how we treat other human beings. Giving humans a higher level of reverence than other animals. Being made in Gods likeness is also a reflection of the higher order cognitive, spiritual, and social faculties that humans share and other animals often don't display. Although we do see animals having some advanced emotions or social ordering we don't see them simultaneously containing all the high order functions that humanity does at once"

I wrote Christian because I'm a Christian, you might be part of any religion or none. Something like the above comment might be more constructive in the future best wishes.

The problem is that you’re approaching the discussion with a completely different philosophical framework than most people have, so they’ll latch on to specific things they disagree with in your example comment and dismiss the rest. For example your statement “I believe all humans are made in the likeness of God” will lead to “well I don’t”, and the discussion is over.

I think it’s more effective to find the core issue of disagreement, which here seems to be whether or not ethics can exist without some kind of a moral authority.

Christians have a tough time in public discussions these days, unfortunately because of some blunders in the past and poor arguments in the present.

I agree with all of your comment. However, I think many people presume the purpose of the HN comments section is to have a robust debate that helps the community arrive at some conclusion. I think there is a lot of value in comments that simply share a persons point of view. I would really enjoy hearing others perspectives outside of secular scientific/evolutionary viewpoint and christian viewpoint.

Particularly it would be great to hear from people with hindu backgrounds as they often have a lot to say about our relationship with animals.

It is true that without a foundation for human exceptionalism, like belief that humans were designed for a special purpose by a higher power, it becomes very difficult to answer ethical questions of why humans should be treated differently than other animals. The eugenics movement was strong in American institutions in the early 20th century.

If octopuses wanted to be treated humanely they would reply to this comment and say so!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com