In past eras, "scholars" assured us that animals are automata that feel no pain and in fact are not even sentient (self-aware). They dismissed the screaming and struggling of animals in laboratories and slaughterhouses as mere "reflex" activity that did not signify suffering or fear. And they were not talking about fish, but about dogs and cats, pigs and cows.

It was nonsense then and it is nonsense now. We cannot know what another creature--even another human being--is actually experiencing, but we are correct to assume that if it looks and sounds like agony, it probably is. So the question for us, as "higher beings," is what we should assume: That fish feel no pain, which would support their exploitation? Or that they do feel pain, which would make their exploitation a moral problem? And if we say, truthfully, that we cannot actually know what they feel, then we are acknowledging that they MIGHT feel pain.

As in every other aspect of life, people believe any damn thing they want to believe--so those who enjoy or profit from exploiting animals will fervently believe that animals are automata placed on Earth by God to be exploited by man.

What do hyenas think wildebeasts are for? I would guess food. I recall seeing a program on Discovery showing hyenas chasing ripping the guts out of a wildebeast calf while it was still alive. That would certainly look evil if a human did it. Why do we have to apply human morality to nature? Why not approach nature on it's own terms?

@regfife:

There are very few people that need to fish to live. ie, All fishing is a choice and therefore a moral issue. It's the same reason we don't consider killing someone in self-defense a murder.

Predators kill prey because that is nature. But humanity has evolved from savagery to civilization, and we no longer live in a natural way. (Anyone who denies that is invited to give up all possessions and go live naked and unarmed in the forest, foraging for food as best you can.) It is natural to take what one wants, but a civilized person understands that mutual respect for others' rights works better than fighting and killing each other.

Steven Tiger:

Predators kill prey because that is nature. But humanity has evolved from savagery to civilization, and we no longer live in a natural way. (Anyone who denies that is invited to give up all possessions and go live naked and unarmed in the forest, foraging for food as best you can.) It is natural to take what one wants, but a civilized person understands that mutual respect for others' rights works better than fighting and killing each other.

True, but that doesn't apply to the non-human elements of the natural world, because in the non-human world, nature doesn't work that way. It's the world of alpha/omega, predator/prey. And unless we find a way to live in a completely sythesized, self-contained environment where we don't interact with any non-human organisms, we have to deal with that world. And to me, the best way to deal with it is the same way you deal with a foreign culture. Not with the Golden Rule, but the Roman Rule. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." To attempt to deal with said culture based on your own paradigms is at best naive and at worst arrogant. Plus we do live in a natural way, in that we use Earth's resources the best ways we can. The only reason animals have a "cap" on their advancement is because nature gave it to them. And the caps aren't even the same among various animals. When a chimp fishes for termites with a stick, it's not using Mother Nature-approved instincts, its using it's Mother-Nature approved brain. Sure its brain gives it a serious advantage over its neighbors, but again, that is how nature works, and as long as we are a part of this Earth and however much or little we use its resources, we are a part of nature.

Now, I'm all for being careful with our environment, because we shouldn't destroy our own means of support. I'm also okay with more humane treatment of animals, because humane slaughtering methods are more sanitary, and those who abuse animals in a manner such as kicking around cats and dogs often graduate to abusing people. What concerns me is the extremism and hypocrisy of groups such as PETA which are on the front lines of the animal welfare fight.

reglife, I don't see this issue as an either-or (either we are entirely animalistic or we are entirely pacifist). There is a huge spectrum of ways to live. I place value on living in as nondestructive a way as I can reasonably manage--it is far less destructive than the way some people live, and yet more destructive than the way others live. But I am not in competition with anyone, nor do I take a holier-than-thou attitude toward anyone else. I simply wish that those whose lifestyles are gratuitously destructive will someday re-evaluate how they live, for I believe that a less destructive lifestyle serves all life on Earth.

Steven, I read some of your other posts and feel that we see eye to eye on some things but what I don't understand is this "holier-than-thau attitude" thing. I'm not sure if your "trying" to be modest or you really feel like everybody is on the same level.

As dangerous as thinking a person is "holier" than somebody else is, I think there has to be some kind of system of categorizing different types of people.

I'm not sure where it originates from but in the US there seems to be this idea that its okay for people to be stupid or ignorant. Now I do believe that people have a right to be ignorant, but I don't think that right is an excuse. The problem comes from the fact that (for the most part) we live in a democracy. Peoples opinions can change policy and can effect everyone around them.

For example, the nutty Christians kept Bush in office. Although Christians arnt necessarily any less of a "human", their religious beliefs impair their judgment and it can effect everyone around them. I think this is dangerous in that religion is simply total bull shit and unfortunately, Christians have a say in how we live. In that sense, like you say in your post, "less destructive lifestyle serves all life on Earth." if people think Jesus is going to come back to save everyone and that earth is just a vessel that needs no care, I think these people are not only of less value, but destructive to the progress of our society.and mother earth.

Now nothing is that simple and I know there are many variables and this "who is a better person" thing can cause division and hatred but if everybody had a equal opinion, we should still let people own slaves. The fact of the matter is, some people are simply wrong. Do I think they should have no voice? Exact opposite. I think we need a better system where we can all speak out and discus and debate whats going on but also, proper education must be implemented for a more stable and self aware nation. Ignorance is a right, but its not an excuse.

But yeah, I too wish people would take a look at their own lives but apparently, its not that easy. I'm not sure if it even works like that. I don't know if certain types of people or whatever variable will effect the ability to reflect on ones lifestyle and beliefs but I'm getting the feeling that a solid education, sensibility and love is needed from early childhood to make an impact big enough to make big changes in the way our country is run. I'm really not sure if I would have found the right path if I had been raised with religion. Maybe I would have never had the epiphanies I've had. Maybe I would have ended up being just some "ignorant hick." Well, a "ignorant, Japanese/Cuban American"

Thank you for fighting against animal farming. Although I'm a poor college student, another torch has been lit and I'll do what I can and fight beside you.

Saying that Christians are nutty and dangerous is the kind of thing that causes hatred and strife. I'm glad you threw in the caveat "nothing is that simple", but the rest of your post suggests it is that simple, that people who have a different way of looking at the world are wrong and that entitles you to call them nutty. I am getting sick and tired of people dissing religion and ignoring the fact that the biggest experiment in atheist living, Communism, basically fell on its face. If you are looking for a philosophy that guarantees that all those who claim to adher to it will behave in a respectful, loving manner towards their fellow human beings, you're not going to find it. There are hypocrites and extremists everywhere. The idea that it is okay to be stupid or ignorant comes from the notion "I'm always right, anything that goes in my direction is always right, therefore I need not ever alter my course, learn about other courses and compare, or otherwise check my thoughts and actions."

Steven, I'm glad you clarified your postion. At first I thought you took a more extreme view, and that's what I responded to. My bad for jumping to conclusions.

I'm all for expressing differences of opinion, but I believe one should clarify what their own initial position is, be prepared to defend it, let the other side have a fighting chance to make their case, show respect for their postion, and accept the final outcome, whichever side comes out stronger.

To reglife and deepsleep: Thank you both for your thoughtful perspectives. I sincerely believe that much of the conflict and needless suffering in the world comes about not because people have different views but because those different views are advanced in a dogmatic rather than thoughtful manner. Peace.

regfife, As I'm not a good writer, you may have misinterpreted some of my views. I never said Christians are nutty and dangerous. I did say nutty Christians but before I wrote that, I said I know it can be dangerous to talk about how one is more "moral."I was talking about my own views in how I draw a line in different circumstances when it comes to if someone is more credible or is a hypocrite. This drawing of a line is something that divides people BUT sometimes people need to be divided.

That said, I do think having religion cloud ones judgment is dangerous. My "nothing is that simple" comment was about many things. I wrote a thread on this same subject titled is it a crime to torture animals. Maybe if you read my posts it will give you a better idea of my view.Some things ARE that simple in which somebody is simply wrong or have no grounds to judge others. For example, those priests that abused all those little kids. They acted like they were so holy and I'm sure they preached all about it but the fact is that some were sexually abusing children. They have no room to start talking about morals because they are total hypocrites. Thats simple and obvious. People who think creationism should be taught beside evolution are WRONG. No doubt about that too right? The list goes on and on.

You wrote "I am getting sick and tired of people dissing religion and ignoring the fact that the biggest experiment in atheist living, Communism, basically fell on its face. If you are looking for a philosophy that guarantees that all those who claim to adher to it will behave in a respectful, loving manner towards their fellow human beings, you're not going to find it." What does this comment even mean? What does the fall of communism have to do with the ass backwardness of religion? Who said I'm looking for a philosophy that guarantees everyone will behave respectfully and lovingly? I didn't. I'm starting to get the feeling that you yourself are religious for you don't seem to make logical arguments and seem offended by my nutty Christian comment. I know there are hypocrites and extremists everywhere, NOBODY is denying that. I'm sure there have been many crazy atheists that murdered or whatever. Nobody is saying if we didn't have religion that it would be some utopia, that's ridiculous. This is going heading to a totally different subject so I'll leave it at that for now.

Please read my other thread and maybe you will understand what I'm trying to say. So if you could do as you say in your post " I believe one should clarify what their own initial position is, be prepared to defend it" What is your position?

Rereading my post, I saw that I did imply that having religion cloud ones mind is dangerous because it effects ones ability to make rational decisions but anyways, this is still in line with my thoughts but sorry about the error.

I admit I jumped the gun on you a bit, and I'm sorry. If that's what you meant by not making logical arguments, I see your point.

I'm starting to think more and more that people would not bring religion into debates on what is good for society and what is not. And that goes for both relgious and non-religious sides. You'll notice in my prior posts to this thread I did not once refer to religious doctrine to make my points. I instead referred to what I observed in nature. I'm not going to debate with a Hindu on whether or not its wrong to eat beef, except from a perspective of whether or not it is bad for mankind outside the Hindu implications, and whether or not it should be a law imposed be the state. In my opinion, teachers don't have to bring up the Bible creation story (or the creation story of any other religion) in biology, but I don't think it would kill them to point out the unbelievable unlikelyhood of all the necessary components for self-sustaing life to come together by accident. As for religious people doing or advocating things I believe to be bad for society, I would rather not attack their religion, but their desire to impose it.

Also, when I write my posts, I often speak not only to those posting on the same thread, but others who may be reading. You say nobody is denying that there are hypocrites and extremists everywhere, but I've run across those who would only condemn hypocrites and extremists on the religious side, and I wrote what I did partially on the chance that any of them might be reading.

To me, this comment takes allot away from your credibility.

"In my opinion, teachers don't have to bring up the Bible creation story (or the creation story of any other religion) in biology, but I don't think it would kill them to point out the unbelievable unlikelyhood of all the necessary components for self-sustaing life to come together by accident."

You are obviously a religious person. Its not about it being such a hard thing to point out the unbelievable unlikelyhood of it all. Unbelievable? Might be without the facts. Unlikely? Maybe with out the facts. But we do have the facts so what we "feel" like is the answer, is might be wrong. This is what I'm talking about when it comes to you not having a logical argument. There was a underlining illogical foundation to some of your statements for example. Your defence of religion was that communism did not do well economically or whatever you ment by what you said. You're drawing connections where they don't exist. I think this is a sign of a clouded mind. Now I'm not saying there arn't atheists with clouded minds, but your thought process in particular seems to be clouded by religion.

You are obviously a religious person. Its not about it being such a hard thing to point out the unbelievable unlikelyhood of it all. Unbelievable? Might be without the facts. Unlikely? Maybe with out the facts.

What facts? Do we know for a fact that life can occur spontaneously from the appropriate raw materials? Has this been observed in the present day? If you happen to know of circumstances where is has been, let me know. If not, then in my opinion it is illogical to treat it as irrefutable fact. I will admit it doesn't automatically prove there is a God, let alone the Judeo-Christian God, but unless we can recreate the prebiotic soup, and observe self-sustaining organisms being formed spontaneously, the intelligent design theory is at least as good a guess as any. Again, we need not go further than that in biology, and I am not even opposed to teaching evolution, but we should only teach notions as facts when they can be clearly verified. Otherwise they should be clearly referred to as theories.

As I have said before, I do not believe in arguing specific religious beliefs, first, because I believe it is not necessary for a stable society. I believe that even an atheist state can survive and prosper as long as certain individual rights are respected and upheld by all, and everyone is accountable to some authority for actions that affect others. However. it is my personal opinion that part of the reason the Soviet Union fell is because the State was not accountable to anyone, least of all God. If the Soviet State was at the very least accountable to the people, and at most accountable to a God who would judge them for their actions (even though they were in charge). The Founding Fathers of the US may not have not typical Christians, but they were not atheists either, they believed themselves to be accountable to a Higher Power. The problem with religious people who abuse their positions and do destructive things, is that they too, for whatever reason, do not believe themselves accountable before God or their fellow men.

The second reason I do not like to argue specific religious beliefs (even though I have a well-defined set of my own) is because finding God is something one must experience for themselves. But for me, that does not make the experience any less valid.

Ah! I failed to finished a sentence (I'm not a perfect writer either). I meant to say, "If the Soviet State was at least accountable to the people, and at most accountable to God who would judge them for their actions (even though they were in charge) they likely would not have fallen.