Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Animals are just animals so why do people make such a ruckus over the treatment of some?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26821points) June 7th, 2016

Even more so in a world that is just the world, animals are just parts of it. Yet in the US we frown on eating horses because it is believed they are a more noble animal (using them for glue when their time is up is OK), dogs and cats are pets and not food, (damn them Asians for eating our pet’s distant cousins ~~) monkeys are sideshow or zoo creatures, we ban ivory and don’t even think of having a real tiger-skinned rug, people might even thumb their nose at you for having a trophy head of a deer over your mantel , and a who series here in the US is dedicated to stopping whaling. Why is all the ruckus? Someone somewhere regards animals differently. Hindus worship cows and some worship monkeys, does that mean the US have to give up beef and not have monkeys on zoos? Do Asia have to stop seeing dogs and cats as food because the US see them as so adorable, even to the point of spending millions on food, jacket, booties, and other junk for them every year? Animals are just a part of this word to be utilized or often misused, but that is just the way it is. If animals have rights who determines which ones do and what they have? Is Uncle Sam going to let India determine animal rights if the burger has to die?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

22 Answers

chyna's avatar

People are just people. Why make a rukus of their bad treatment?

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

We get treated how we treat others. edit If you can mistreat an animal then it is a gateway to doing it on humans. Just Google edit Robert Pickton Sorry for the weak argument that farming is a gateway to murder.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ If you can mistreat an animal then it is a gateway to doing it on humans.
Yeah, and all those deer and duck hunters are your psychopathic killers of tomorrow. Weak premise I think given how many more deer and duck hunters we have over psychopathic killers. Then again is merely shooting one for the wall a mistreatment?

DrasticDreamer's avatar

Humans are also “just” animals. Case closed.

ibstubro's avatar

I agree that it’s hypocritical to eat animals and look down on others because they eat different animals than you do, endangered species excepted.

I don’t eat meat, but I don’t have a problem with others eating meat, be it cow or cat, as long as the animal is treated humanely.

Pet your dinner in Peru.

JLeslie's avatar

I agree that there is no logical reason behind what animal are customary to eat from country to country. Where I disagree is that animals are living, feeling, creatures, and they should be treated that way. I eat meat (sometimes I wish I didn’t) but ii certainly don’t want animals to suffer while alive. I cannot understand abusing an animal. It’s really beyond me, and I’m so glad it is. I’ve seen puppy mills, and chickens barely able to move in a coop there are so many, and calfs unable to turn around in a pen, and it’s horrifying to me.

longgone's avatar

Because pain is just pain, no matter who feels it?

AshlynM's avatar

I stick up for animals more because they can’t talk, they don’t have a voice.

LostInParadise's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central , Let me see if I can fill in your argument for you. Let me know if this is the way you think. Only humans have souls so we can treat animals any way we like. There is nothing in the Bible that says we should treat animals kindly.

If there were no biblical commandments saying “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal”, would those activities be acceptable?

Do you see nothing wrong with beating a dog? Is it okay to confine livestock in pens where they don’t even have enough room to turn around?

syz's avatar

People are just animals so why do people make such a ruckus over the treatment of some?

JLeslie's avatar

I’ll never forget watching an Oprah show about puppy mills in Pennsylvania. The video was horrific. The guest talking about it said the problem is in PA the laws governing treatment of dogs falls under the laws for cattle. All I could think was, WTF does that matter? Why is it ok for cows to be treated like that? No one on the show was appalled like me for the cattle!

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@LostInParadise Let me see if I can fill in your argument for you. Let me know if this is the way you think. Only humans have souls so we can treat animals any way we like. There is nothing in the Bible that says we should treat animals kindly.
Let me slow you down right there, for this question, the world is just the world that mistakenly or haphazardly popped into existence out of nothing, and man mistakenly or haphazardly got graced to be the smartest being on the planet, therefore being the biggest predator. With no Creator setting things in order, it comes down to eat and being eaten, like fish, whose only choir is to swim around and find something that will fit into its mouth while avoiding fitting into some larger being’s mouth. With a world that is just that, all animals are just that, even if you wish to call man an animal, reducing him to some glorified ape way smarter than an orangutan. The only reason animals are not seen equally as animals is because we ”glorified apes” choose to see some as better than others. Does the tiger figure the gazelle is nobler than the wildebeest and thus will spare a gazelle primed for takedown at the watering hole? I think not, if the gazelle is slipping it will end up on the dinner menu just as easy as a baby giraffe, wildebeest, zebra, springbok, or gazelle. Man being the top predator by way of being the ”glorified ape” can takeout any animal he is smarter than and had by means of hunting tools best. Lions and tigers do not have pets or animals they keep about for their enjoyment; they also care not if wild dogs decide not to tackle wildebeest but only go after springboks. Be it a whale, dog, ferret, etc. if there is a greater beast to take them down, then that is just the way it is, same as the barn owl not missing a meal because the rabbit is cute and cuddly.

LostInParadise's avatar

Perhaps I missed where you were going with this. Are you saying that it is only because there is a Creator “setting things in order” that we should be kind to animals, that being a non-believer should cause us to disregard the well being of other animals?

The existence or non-existence of a God is totally irrelevant as to how we should treat other people or other animals. Being human allows us to see the intrinsic worth of both other people and of other animals. We are born with a moral capacity, a sense of right or wrong, with or without God. I know that killing and stealing are wrong without having to consult the Ten Commandments. Whether or not other animals have this capacity is also totally irrelevant.

JLeslie's avatar

I’ll never forget being at a funeral several years ago, and a friend of the deceased, who happened to be a minister of some sort, spoke at the funeral service.

For some reason while talking about how the deceased person is now in heaven, he for some reason had to mention animals don’t go to heaven. WTF? I was bewildered. First, I didn’t know this was part of some belief systems. Second, why does that have to even be mentioned when we are at a funeral. Is it to emphasize that we as human beings are superior? I was really put off by it.

Months later when talking to a Mormon coworker the subject of evolution somehow came up. She kind of giggled as she said, “we didn’t come from apes.” It was said in a way that it seemed like a ridiculous thought to her. I remembered the funeral and thought, these people really see human being as superior in every way, including God’s eyes. I just thought to myself it was all like a puzzle that I don’t have all the pieces to.

Soubresaut's avatar

To the initial question, why do people make such a ruckus about the treatment of certain animals/species—I don’t think it’s any great mystery. When we have emotional (and/or spiritual) attachments to other species, we become more acutely aware of their life and their suffering and their welfare. When the species become part of our sense of family—as dogs, cats, and horses do now in modern western society (and before that, if not family they were at the species we worked with, rather than the livestock we ate)—of course we develop even yet stronger attachments. Our empathy is more effectively activated. This is part of the reason “save the ______” campaigns work so hard to emphasize the lovability of the species they are trying to protect—they want to get people looking at the species as the living creatures they are. As for the campaigns against whaling, or poaching elephants and rhinos, etc., those are people who are trying to save a species from unecessary extinction and the individual creatures of that species from unnecessary suffering. As for the differences between countries’ perspectives—countries disagree on a lot, and are constantly balancing which disagreements are worth potential confrontation and war and which are best to leave alone.

Not everyone agrees on how we ought to relate to the other species with whom we share the earth. But again, I don’t think this is a big surprise, since we tend to disagree about a lot of things… Some believe humans are the “best” in some capacity, and animals are here to be used by us—and often they disagree on limits to our use of them. Some believe certain species have some quality which merits better treatment, while other species fall below some threshold—and often they’ll disagree what those qualities are, and what the thresholds are. Some people believe all creatures should be treated with compassion and respect—and then disagree on what exactly this entails. I’m strongly in this last group. I think it’s foolhardy to pretend that other creatures aren’t as sentient and intelligent as they are, or to pretend that just because we can cause them suffering we don’t have to care about whether or not we do.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@LostInParadise Are you saying that it is only because there is a Creator “setting things in order” that we should be kind to animals, that being a non-believer should cause us to disregard the well being of other animals?
No. A Creator God was not an equation of the question. The only way it could, would be if animals had the capacity to understand Him, which they don’t, even we of higher intelligence, many don’t. Without factoring in that, it places everything on the same level.

The existence or non-existence of a God is totally irrelevant as to how we should treat other people or other animals.
Correct in parts, it has no factor here. However, treatment of people is not required for this question as it is how animals are treated and why some get bent on how said treatment is administered.

We are born with a moral capacity, a sense of right or wrong, …]
Not to divert, but that is flat incorrect. Humans have to be taught not to lie, not to steal, not to be selfish, all of which are present in 2 year olds without anyone having to teach it to them. They will stand right in the middle of the kitchen with chocolate cake all over their face and when asked did they get into the chocolate cake before dinner will say ”no”. A three year old will horde all the toys and when his cousin wants to play with one will say ”it’s mine” and have to be told to share, any morality or good humans have has to be trained in them when growing up.

Whether or not other animals have this capacity is also totally irrelevant.
Again, it was not anything even needed for the question. The only thing that makes man top predator is his mind, take away his reasoning and he is somewhere in the lower half of the food chain. He would be on the dinner menu of wolves, mountain lions, bears, tigers, lions and then some. He would spend his time trying to catch smaller animals while trying to avoid being eaten himself.

Do you see nothing wrong with beating a dog?
From the construct of world being just the world, it would be of no consequence, it would be no different than a cat playing with the mouse before he ate it. It is what the cat does, to some humans it may seem like some sick game because of empathy for the mouse, but the mouse knows it has to avoid the cat and of it doesn’t it is dinner. I do not know why the cat plays with the mouse (as it seems), but he sure is not going to lose a cat nap over it.

LostInParadise's avatar

I am not clear what point you are making. Whether or not you beat a dog has no worldwide consequences. It does relate to adding to the amount of suffering in the world. I do not base my morality on the behavior of cats. As I stated previously, and to which you agreed, whether or not other animals have a moral capacity is irrelevant to how I should act. It does pose a challenge to believers. Why would God allow for animals to cause suffering to each other? How you deal with that question is your problem. It has no bearing on your original question.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ I am not clear what point you are making. Whether or not you beat a dog has no worldwide consequences.
In the grand scheme of things, especially a world that is just the world, if one beat a dog for fun, beat the head of a harbor seal in to steal the fur off its back, shoot a deer just for the head, it is no game changer worldwide. Neither animal has any more value than the other less man place upon it. If a pack of hyenas take down a giraffe, literally eating it alive, we might feel for the giraffe but that is the law of the jungle, the hyenas more than likely would not be seen as villains or evil creatures to eliminate. If they take out the family beagle that got loose, then the hyenas will more than likely be seen with more distain and hatred. The dog was no greater than the giraffe to the hyenas, both were food for the dinner table if they got caught slipping. Whether a hyena takes out the dog, or its owner beats its head in in a rage, the death of the dog is not going to cause famine, leave anyone starving, bring the world to a halt, only how man view the termination of that life is in play and that is all negligible.

LostInParadise's avatar

So it would be perfectly fine to beat the crap out of some homeless person. It has no worldwide consequences.

What you fail to understand is that animals, like humans, have value in and of themselves. It is not a question of what value that they have to some other entity, either human or animal.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@LostInParadise So it would be perfectly fine to beat the crap out of some homeless person. It has no worldwide consequences.
We ”glorified apes” have rules about beating and killing each other, at least in the US. I am sure in other nations as well but maybe not to the same degree as here. Even though homeless people on the surface appear to have no probative use or worth, they are still in the family of ”glorified apes” and thus cannot be killed or beaten by whim.

What you fail to understand is that animals, like humans, have value in and of themselves. It is not a question of what value that they have to some other entity, either human or animal.
They may have. I am sure every animal and insect on this planet serve some spot in the ecosystem even if unknown to man, however, if they are not the smartest top predator they are at the whim or mercy of those who can best them and eat them, no matter how much actual importance they have.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther