Jump to content
CurryGuy123

Anthro K

Recommended Posts

I was looking through the evidence for the anthropocentrism kritik and I was wondering whether anthropocentrism is the right term. The way I saw it, the aff plan advocates for earth-centrism, not anthropocentrism. Can they be equated as the same for the purposess of the kritik? And if not, is there any evidence saying earth-centrism is bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geocentrism bad.

 

There's critical literature on this, for sure. The Copernican revolution was kind of a big deal. Not all of it will be relevant to what the affirmative is advocating, but the best stuff will.

 

Although, there's a pretty sweet Arendt card contending the opposite. They might try to use that against you.

 

Lastly this doesn't sound at all topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are 6 arguments to think about:

1. Its fundamentally flawed. Animals and humans are different. (that is a link but you already link to it)

2. Mostly radical environmentalism bad (= totalitarianism & a whole host of other)

3. Technology good. Technology saves the environment & solves scarcity, which is the root cause of the problems they discuss.

4. Going to space/colonization = good & solves scarcity, which is the root cause of the problems they discuss. Going to space solves otherization.

5. Radical environmentalism would send us to the dark ages.

6. Their authors romanticize the past--it was actually worse for the environment. Or economic growth/modernity saves the environment. The historical record on this issue is pretty hard core.

 

6 other arguments include:

7. Pragmatic environmentalism works.

8. Law key to protect the environment

9. Other issues check the environment (for instance Gaia hypothesis say the environment checks itself--its dynamic).

10. This isn't in the carded literature....but identity is key for any action of humans. They dissolve that identity.

11. If we don't have power as a nation to deter and act as a global sherrif--other nations will invade.

12. Realism true. Realism good. OR view from space = new conciousness.

 

You could also make the argument that science helps save the environment.

 

Or draw on historical examples of space, research, science, law, technology, or economic growth helping the environment.

 

You might also think about the way your aff could be made to protect the environment....or the way your language could more fully integrate value in other species. Go from them to us. (note there is a bit of tension between this and the idea that realism is good)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't in reference to answers to the anthro k, but more about if I were to run it. I guess my real question is, for the purposes of the kritik, are earth/geocentrism and anthropocentrism different?

 

But thanks for those responses, cause I can prep answers for those if I run the K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advocating a focus on Earth:

1. Isn't a governmental action.

2. Is the opposite of advocating more space stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, in the the event I run the anthro K as the neg, can the aff sort of get out of it by saying they aren't anthropocentric because they're advocating earth/geocentrism? Or can they be equated as the same thing for the purpose of the kritik?

 

I'm not talking about my aff in particular, just any aff in general about space.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They still link and your alternative will solve better than their link turns--solves all their offense. When in doubt....read more links.......and explicitly use the language of their affirmative to prove they link. This is what you should always be doing in the block.

 

Its helpful if you have one catch all link card which speaks to technology, science, etc... (the inverse of that....is its potential impact turn ground). However, in reality it was probably always impact turn ground because of the nature of the K (its like saying "i think realism is bad"...."but I'm indifferent to US hegemony".....)

 

But.....if its done in a capitalist way.....it probably means we ravage space & its resources (i'm pretty sure there is historical evidence somewhere)......also macro-technology projects encourage a worldview thats anti-thetical to the earth & humanity.

 

Our willingness to leave space debris...suggest a certain ethos about how we view space when we're there. (this probably isn't a good argument versus an aff that solves space debris--but it could be re-framed to be so)

 

Note: I'm making a distinction between technology & mega-technology projects. Its probably easier to make a distinction between the ideology of technology contained in government technology projects versus you using your ipod. There is a distinct difference a) scale b]what is implies about our stance as a nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, depending on the lit you're using for Anthro, it could be sort of problematic to have to answer the Earth Perspective arguments.

 

You'll probably win some defensive mitigation on the link turns but I don't know if that would be enough to win.

 

If you want to, PM me your anthro 1NC shell and I'll criticize it. I won't show anyone, even my teammates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason, it says you can't receive any more messages. Is your inbox full?

 

And also what part of the country you're from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link to anthro is probably going to be their prioritization of 'human lives' at all costs. For example, they read a warming advantage and then read the 'extinction' card. You're arg will likely be that they view the biosphere and the animals only as a means to an end - i.e: it isn't JUST enough that all the animals may die from global warming, god forbid we die too. Also, links off of their advantages. Hegemony is certainly anthropocentric because it presupposes a concept of domination and domineering others to get what you want. Think cattle. If you want to see their leaving off the Earth is bad (an arg I find anti-compelling because I don't think there is a reason to have a strictly Earthbound ontology) then check out the Heidegger / Arendt links to 'going to space'. Most can be found in camp heidegger files produced this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest perhaps switching to social ecology versus deep ecology for the sources of your links......and perhaps alternatives.

Its slightly less radical in orientation. The main author is Bookchin.

 

The other main strategic option (in terms of the anthropocentrism argument landscape, if you will) is to go more philosophically deep....in the direction of Heidegger. Heidegger is a bit harder to read and understand.....and some of this theories run into parallel problems that anthro runs into.

 

It seems hard for you to win that we should never use utilitarian justifications.....especially when its hard to explain how anthros' own philosophy isn't itself moderately utilitarian in nature (ie cause & effect and big impact scenarios). Not to mention, I think the aff has the side of history on its side.

 

And furthermore either the law of the jungle applies to humans or we are fundamentally different from animals with respect to rationality. Either way, you vote aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason, it says you can't receive any more messages. Is your inbox full?

 

I just saw this, PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shouldn't be doing this. I should be in bed, and if not in bed, I should writing on my new article. oh well. And Nathan, sorry for the drive by responses, but I doubt I will be checking back anytime soon.

 

Also, I am not sure if this is the anthro k about animals, or the anthro k of the deep eco variety.

Here are 6 arguments to think about:

1. Its fundamentally flawed. Animals and humans are different. (that is a link but you already link to it)

If they say this, you should read your Derrida card (or whatever) explaining the point isn't that there isn;t a difference between humans and other animals, but rather that the problem is one dividing line, that will clearly delineate on one side all of humanity in its variety and presentations, and on the other side live all animal existence. Either a trait is so universal that many non-human animals will have access to it, or it is so particular that some beings we want to include as humans won't have access to it. The problem isn't one of difference, just not a singular difference. Instead there exists a multiplicity of differences, that doesn't just exist between humans and other animals, but also exists among humans. What the Aff team has to do is create an ethically important reason to limit their focus to just humans.

After that, read some stuff about the desire for particular differences between species being the internal link to biopolitics (probably start with either Agamben's The Open, Matthew Calarco commentary on that book in Zoographies, or cite some of Ladelle McWhorter's "The Enemy of the Species" found in Queer Ecologies). The desire for species differentiation is behind genocidal logic, slavery, and general biopolitics stuff.

 

 

 

It seems hard for you to win that we should never use utilitarian justifications.....especially when its hard to explain how anthros' own philosophy isn't itself moderately utilitarian in nature (ie cause & effect and big impact scenarios). Not to mention, I think the aff has the side of history on its side.

 

Actually, the neg team doesn't have to win that util doesn't exist. If they win that part of that utilitarian calculus should include other animals or even the environment, they probably control the internal link to who gets to access util. And considering the most famous animal philosopher, Peter Singer, is a big league animal philosophers, they really should have some cards on hand, and be ready to go deeper into this debate than the team they are hitting.

 

And furthermore either the law of the jungle applies to humans or we are fundamentally different from animals with respect to rationality. Either way, you vote aff.

The same could be said of babies, or the mad, or the severally mentally handicapped. Or hell, even those who are merely asleep. This sort of logic that allows for us to exile vast numbers of humans from our moral and political projections prove the biopolitics arguments above.

 

 

Okay, goodnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>>>What the Aff team has to do is create an ethically important reason to limit their focus to just humans.

 

I think once you win this--you win a break stop against the problems the neg. will throw at you.

 

>>>>>The desire for species differentiation is behind genocidal logic, slavery, and general biopolitics stuff.

 

Would you like some chicken medicine or some dog food?

 

What about your kids kindergarden teacher? Is it important the qualities of life they demonstrate? Some differences are morally relevant.

 

It is the case that any line (rationality, autonomy) seems fraught with problems. However, its less fraught with problems than no line at all. In the same way that the SAT & grades suck, but they are better than just guessing at who should get into the Ivy League.

 

Ignoring difference is (pretty much) just as bad--because it erases identity and we end up with a meaningless broth of normalcy.

 

I think you can make an argument that evolutionarily they are important distinctions. Not an argument I'm a fan of, but it might work.

 

When forced to choose 5 gerbils versus 5 humans (randomly picked from the population) I hope you pick right.

Also, from a utilitarian perspective this should be easy--because the humans have the chance to save more animals in the long run. (the later is perhaps to assert too much).

 

And back to the issue of the law of the jungle. Lets look at the same argument--just in a different frame. We're humans. We're animals. You can't say any of our actions from washing our hair....to talking on a cell phone....is unnatural anymore than you can say the behavior of a dog or rat is unnatural. (ie this is a link takeout--and it takes out the underlying theory as well). Or not as a rationalization....but if the law of the jungle applies to animals, why not to humans? (their answer to this should be the answer to the first question)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the case that any line (rationality, autonomy) seems fraught with problems. However, its less fraught with problems than no line at all. In the same way that the SAT & grades suck, but they are better than just guessing at who should get into the Ivy League.

 

Ignoring difference is (pretty much) just as bad--because it erases identity and we end up with a meaningless broth of normalcy.

The arguement is not that there isnt a difference (there obviously is one, even at a basic chemical level) the arguement is that the priveliging of one mode of existance allows us to section off values.

 

Lets not forget that historically genocides have often began with the characterization of other human beings as 'animals'.

When forced to choose 5 gerbils versus 5 humans (randomly picked from the population) I hope you pick right.

Also, from a utilitarian perspective this should be easy--because the humans have the chance to save more animals in the long run. (the later is perhaps to assert too much).

From a purely utilitarian perspective would mean you'd lose. You have to win humans come before other animals, otherwise if all living beings are equal, its better to save a cow than a human because there is only a chance the human eats meat (and hence ==> genocide).

And back to the issue of the law of the jungle. Lets look at the same argument--just in a different frame. We're humans. We're animals. You can't say any of our actions from washing our hair....to talking on a cell phone....is unnatural anymore than you can say the behavior of a dog or rat is unnatural. (ie this is a link takeout--and it takes out the underlying theory as well). Or not as a rationalization....but if the law of the jungle applies to animals, why not to humans? (their answer to this should be the answer to the first question)

The argument isnt one based on nature. In many ways the anthro k recognizes that what it is proposing "isn't" natural, the same way that it isn't natural to be a vegetarian (our molars are designed to eat meat). The argument is that because human beings are capable of language and by extension ethics, we should be ethical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>"the argument is that the priviledging of one mode of existence allows us to section off values."

 

We exist in a world of scarcity (an actually technology is one of the only ways out)....we have to pick what we should prioritize for survival and existence.

 

Really? Even vegetarians kill something. You've got to have a line.

 

In abstract terms this is Derridas "other others" argument--that protecting others trades off with still others.

 

And you can't quantify what value you protect....I probably can quantify the value of rationality & human dignity.

 

>>>History says wars begin with "characterization of other human beings as 'animals'."

 

Ok....well I don't see any impact to evaluating animals as......well animals.

 

Utilitarian justification is pretty bad, but humans = breeding. Means that more cows get a chance at living in the first place. Also, over the longer term--human pragmatic environmentalism is good. (Not the most true argument....).

 

>>>>"The argument is that because human beings are capable of language and by extension ethics, we should be ethical."

 

The same argument applies to technology. We uniquely can use technology.

 

In order to get more of that....you have to make tradeoffs with lower-order animals. You made the distinction....not me. Try not to link to your argument.

 

>>>>"The argument isnt one based on nature."

 

I'm not sure i get this distinction except as a means to attempt to avoid the argument AND that you've just created more distinctions between humans & animals--which you say is the root cause of genocide. [not in this arg....but in the overall 3 line argument]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We exist in a world of scarcity (an actually technology is one of the only ways out)....we have to pick what we should prioritize for survival and existence.

I'll humor you and assume that there is some "trade off" between having science and not slaughtering animals (although you should probably realize there isn't, vegetarian cultures have existed for a long ass time.) But here you go: Who's survival? Humans? If the survival of humanity means they continued genocide of billions of animals maybe the world would be better if we disappeared.

Really? Even vegetarians kill something. You've got to have a line.

For most anthro authors the line is at pain and suffering.

In abstract terms this is Derridas "other others" argument--that protecting others trades off with still others.

 

And you can't quantify what value you protect....I probably can quantify the value of rationality & human dignity.

Suffering and pain are the most basic calculations for util. Studies show animals can feel pain and fear. For example, when pigs are brought into slaughter houses and hear the screams of their kind having their throats slit, they can't move as they are paralyzed with fear.

 

Ok....well I don't see any impact to evaluating animals as......well animals.

Really? It is called the forced domestication ( and subjugation) of many living bodies, restrained and confined to dark spaces and harvested like plants for their products (wool, milk, eggs). Those that can't produce are forced to populate until they are slayed and packed into boxes for us to eat.

 

9 billion animals are slaughtered for consumption every year. Imagine if those 'animals' were humans - it would be event of tremendous catastrophe comparable to the Holocaust in body counts and perpetrated without mercy day-in-and-out.

Utilitarian justification is pretty bad, but humans = breeding. Means that more cows get a chance at living in the first place. Also, over the longer term--human pragmatic environmentalism is good. (Not the most true argument....).

If you think civilization has done anything to advance the living status of non-human beings you are being foolish. Your only possible argument would be the so called bonds we have with our domesticated pets (dogs, etc), but this domestication is a result of years of genetic manipulation and in-breeding to finds "traits" preferable to us.

 

Think eugenics on a special scale. Unless you wanna defend eugenics.

The same argument applies to technology. We uniquely can use technology.

Dude, you can't be serious. Not even close to the same thing. If you're argument is, 'We can do things, ergo, lets do them." then lets just all be pedophiles and commit genocide because if we weren't supposed to, why was I born without the feeling of remorse when I kill?

 

This argument relies on parts of your argument - i.e: there are some things of 'higher order' that should be preserved. In this case, ethics should be preserved over our petty 'wants' for All the reasons you state humans are unique because we can think, etc, is because we have compassion, so lets use it.

 

Unless you wanna argue about compassion vs. egoism in which case, ya, thats responsive, but judges are often more convinced of the former rather than the latter.

In order to get more of that....you have to make tradeoffs with lower-order animals. You made the distinction....not me. Try not to link to your argument.

If I was running this K, I'd probably say us not having computers is fine if it means we also don't have nuclear weapons, rifles, knives, and partake in the genocide of billions of animals every year.

 

 

I'm not sure i get this distinction except as a means to attempt to avoid the argument AND that you've just created more distinctions between humans & animals--which you say is the root cause of genocide. [not in this arg....but in the overall 3 line argument]

The arg is that we shouldn't prioritize one over the other. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

 

If I said to you, "Theres a white person and a black person, you have to choose one that has to die." your decision should not be based on the color of their skin if those are the only defining qualities you obtain from them.

 

Think of the K the same way: we shouldn't prioritize human lives OVER animal lives, they should be held as equals because they both feel pain and suffering which is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said yourself that humans are a higher order of beings. I'm just saying that in a world of scarcity that makes sense

 

Suffering and pain is rough, but its inevitable. There are also authors who say that plants undergo pain--so thats not a very good standard either. (sorry I don't have an author cite for you).

 

In this case, ethics should be preserved over our petty 'wants' for All the reasons you state humans are unique because we can think, etc, is because we have compassion, so lets use it.

 

Compassion springs from thinking?

 

If you're argument is, 'We can do things, ergo, lets do them."

 

No, just pointing to the odd paradox in your argument.

 

I would re-emphasize this, "Ok....well I don't see any impact to evaluating animals as......well animals." To which you replied with a bunch of impact whines--not really answering the fundamental question I was asking.

 

I'm sorry that animals experience pain........ However, I fundamentally fail to see how the suffering of a bacteria is the same as a rat.....and I sail to see how the suffering of a rat is the same as the suffering of a human. Yes, there probably should be ethical codes and compassion that humans abide by that check back the worst atrocities you speak of....but going to the other extreme is silly...

 

When I take a shower I probably kill like 500 bacteria.....I don't know why I should stop taking showers if its healthy. (moreover those bacteria are actually a threat presumably to other animals). Not all forms of suffering are equal. Not all forms of "life" are equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said yourself that humans are a higher order of beings. I'm just saying that in a world of scarcity that makes sense

The arguement is that we are a 'unique' species in the sense that we are capable of language and ethics. That doesn't mean we should value humans over animals, infact it proves why we shouldn't. We should have compassion.

Suffering and pain is rough, but its inevitable. There are also authors who say that plants undergo pain--so thats not a very good standard either. (sorry I don't have an author cite for you).

I'm pretty sure plants don't have the necessary nerve endings to experience pain....

 

Also, even if suffering and pain are inevitable that isn't a reason we should willingly condone and participate in the gennocide of billions of animals.

Compassion springs from thinking?

Thought and reflection, ya. Tigers don't regret killing antelope because they are apex predators, but humans are able to reflect on what we've done and make ethical choices. We already decide that human life should be protected (util), why not go a step further and argue that animal life should be protected also.

 

I would re-emphasize this, "Ok....well I don't see any impact to evaluating animals as......well animals." To which you replied with a bunch of impact whines--not really answering the fundamental question I was asking.

The impact does not stem from calling animals animals, it is the inherent discourse underlying the word choice. Aka: when people commit gennocide they harkon the recipients to be 'like' animals which impleis that the people can sometimes be a 'pest' or are expendable.

 

The way that we have associated animilhood as beings to be harvested, destroyed, and killed wtihout remorse is the problem. Basically, the problem isn't that we call animals animals, it is from assuming that by virtue of being an animal and us being humans that we have an inherent right to slaughter and consume them.

I'm sorry that animals experience pain........ However, I fundamentally fail to see how the suffering of a bacteria is the same as a rat.....and I sail to see how the suffering of a rat is the same as the suffering of a human. Yes, there probably should be ethical codes and compassion that humans abide by that check back the worst atrocities you speak of....but going to the other extreme is silly...

Pain should be the standard of moral comparison. Bacteria may be living but it doesn't experience pain, the same could be said for plants. The reason death is bad is because it causes pain and results in suffering. Animals including birds, reptiles, and mammals feel pain. That pain is suffering which should be avoided.

When I take a shower I probably kill like 500 bacteria.....I don't know why I should stop taking showers if its healthy. (moreover those bacteria are actually a threat presumably to other animals). Not all forms of suffering are equal. Not all forms of "life" are equal.

Pain, not degrees of pain but pain in the abstract, should be evaluated equally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your interpretation of value flattens meaning and value:

The reason death is bad is because it causes pain and results in suffering

 

Also, breeding means that more cows, fish, etc... live in the first place.

 

Your interpretation of pain and value would kill:

1. health care

2. transportation

3. housing (after all those pests that Orkin kills have feelings)

 

That means there is a forced choice between humans & animals--that an animals like lions, bears, snakes and yes....insects threaten the human race. In such a forced choice, the humans have priority. You can't just create a hedonic calculus for utilitarian bean counting of the pain of gerbils, hamsters, small woodland creatures, and the honey badger. Jeremy Bentham tried this....and failed. 1832 called...it wants its broken theory back. (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus ). Thats why JS Mill wrote Utilitarianism in the first place as a response to Mr. Bentham.

 

Pain should be the standard of moral comparison.

 

Pain is one part, but not the whole. Otherwise punishment would never be allowed & we'd never achieve greatness. Also, by this standard we could kill them if we minimized the pain.

 

We already decide that human life should be protected (util), why not go a step further and argue that animal life should be protected also.

 

Sure, but they aren't equal or equivalent.

 

Your genocide arguments are just bad--its like saying if we provide some identity category for anything that we're going to turn into the Rwandan genocide. Thats silly. Plus, we have tons of legal checks which ensures this doesn't happen.

 

The impact does not stem from calling animals animals, it is the inherent discourse underlying the word choice. Aka: when people commit gennocide they harkon the recipients to be 'like' animals which impleis that the people can sometimes be a 'pest' or are expendable.

 

Just calling a spade a spade....and a pig a pig....and a duck a duck. Thats not labeling them all expendable. It would really only be genocide if we didn't eat or otherwise use the body and/or meat.

 

My guess is the plantitarians or whatever they are called would say that nerve endings aren't the prerequisites for pain & suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, breeding means that more cows, fish, etc... live in the first place.

 

Your interpretation of pain and value would kill:

1. health care

2. transportation

3. housing (after all those pests that Orkin kills have feelings)

Dude why would it kill health care? What? Or motion? Or having a shelter?

 

Dude your arguement is like, "We ==> more cows" but you produce the cows... for SLAUGHTER. Do not understand how fucked up that is?

 

Have you ever seen "The Island." In it, people are cloned for spare organs to better the lives of others, and they are killed for their organs are harvested. But those people that are cloned are still HUMANS, and even if they are 'just clones' their pain and suffering and agency should be protected. You are pretty much saying, "Ya, keep making people for slaughter, I wanna live another 10 years." Imagine the slaughterhouses and farming instutions of America and throughout the world as these 'cloning plants.' Ya you keep resulting in animals births, but only to end their lives short in an act of brutality.

That means there is a forced choice between humans & animals--that an animals like lions, bears, snakes and yes....insects threaten the human race. In such a forced choice, the humans have priority. You can't just create a hedonic calculus for utilitarian bean counting of the pain of gerbils, hamsters, small woodland creatures, and the honey badger. Jeremy Bentham tried this....and failed. 1832 called...it wants its broken theory back. (link: http://en.wikipedia....icific_calculus ). Thats why JS Mill wrote Utilitarianism in the first place as a response to Mr. Bentham.

First off, Bentham and Mills hardly disagree at all; second, this knowledge drop is totally irrelevent to the point at hand. Did you know that my favorite burger is Burger King because they use charbroiled grills?

Obviously people are going to have to make choices: i.e: if someone attacks me I'll probably defend myself, but that doesnt mean we should be willing participates in a senseless genocide. There is no 'forced coice' for making Dairy cows, for killing baby lambs because we want their meat nice and soft, or for killing animals in general for food. And even if there was, i.e: poverty or some shit, that is only because we have structured our society, global society I'd argue, AROUND eating meat in the first place.

 

Pain is one part, but not the whole. Otherwise punishment would never be allowed & we'd never achieve greatness. Also, by this standard we could kill them if we minimized the pain.

If pain is A PART, then we shouldn't be forcing living beings to go through pain to satisfy our own desires.

 

Dude I have yet to hear a convincing arguement from you about why we should prioritize human lives over other lives besides, "Spiders scare me, please mommy call the Orkin man!"

 

 

Your genocide arguments are just bad--its like saying if we provide some identity category for anything that we're going to turn into the Rwandan genocide. Thats silly. Plus, we have tons of legal checks which ensures this doesn't happen.

When we use animal lingo to imply that a certain group is disposable and 'less than human', i.e: it wouldn't matter if we kill them, that is probably a precondition for genocide.

 

"they are also enlisted to make humans killable. There is a long history of people being imagined as unloved animals in times of war: from the “lice†of Nazi Germany (Raffles 2010) to the Hutu “cockroaches†of Rwanda (Copeland 2004) to the creatures that live in the swamp of today's war on terror (Rumsfeld 2001a, 2001b; see also Rhem 2001). There is also the history of soldiers becoming animals that are seen as super human (Deleuze and Guattari 1980). In either case, these human transgressions matter"

Just calling a spade a spade....and a pig a pig....and a duck a duck. Thats not labeling them all expendable. It would really only be genocide if we didn't eat or otherwise use the body and/or meat.

So if the Nazis ate the jews when they finished murdering them it would be ok.

 

That makes perfect sense!

My guess is the plantitarians or whatever they are called would say that nerve endings aren't the prerequisites for pain & suffering.

First off, you have to eat something to live - just putting that out htere. Second, they'd be wrong?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is almost classic slippery slope argument, plus again and again, I've said their are limits. No one is calling cows or rats lice.

 

No one is mindlessly putting the honeybadget in the gas chamber. In fact, how many animals have died sesnelessly in gas chambers in the last 200 years? After the nazies?

 

"they are also enlisted to make humans killable. There is a long history of people being imagined as unloved animals in times of war: from the “lice†of Nazi Germany (Raffles 2010) to the Hutu “cockroaches†of Rwanda (Copeland 2004) to the creatures that live in the swamp of today's war on terror (Rumsfeld 2001a, 2001b; see also Rhem 2001). There is also the history of soldiers becoming animals that are seen as super human (Deleuze and Guattari 1980). In either case, these human transgressions matter"

 

 

First off, Bentham and Mills hardly disagree at all;

 

They disagree on 2 core points which aren't at all trivial

1. Quality of pleasure = key. I believe Mill may develop a more in depth version of happiness. His may be more toward Aristotle's definition of happiness versus pure pleasure.

2. Rule utilitarianism versus act utilitarianism (rule utilitarianism is more deontic)

 

You say:

 

Dude I have yet to hear a convincing arguement from you about why we should prioritize human lives over other lives besides, "Spiders scare me, please mommy call the Orkin man!"

 

1. Health (bacteria & insects & animal based diseases....as well as animal testing for diseases.)

2. Transportation (roads & cars kill animals)

3. Housing (Orkin argument)

4. Energy (roads & cars kills animals. also pollution kills animals).

5 = poverty. (you made this one...but it makes sense.)

 

If you are going to add up pain and pleasure on the hedonic calc...you have to consider 5 years of living versus the 5 minutes of death. Happiness wins out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you know that my favorite burger is Burger King because they use charbroiled grills?

 

Do you not remember Blimpy's???

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...