We treat animals differently to humans, why?

[Simon says...]

This question has been burning at the back of my head for many years, and I've yet to come up with a satisfying answer. This is problematic, because this is important. The way we treat our fellow homo-sapiens is fundamentally different to the way we treat beings of another species, which is odd, given that at least some of them seem pretty goram sentient. There are many things that regularly we do to animals that we would never normally do to human beings, which, depending on the action, can be seen as good or bad. For example:

1. We hunt and kill animals/Farm them as livestock i.e. treat them as a source of food Whilst cannibalism does occur in humans, it is exceptionally rare, and usually only in either the most desperate of survival situations, or in individuals with extreme mental illnesses and/or behavioural conditioning. On the whole, humans seem to be the exception to the rule of cannibalism as a means of obtaining food. That said, there are chemicals in the human body which, when consumed by other humans, has a nasty habit of sending those people insane. So it could be argued that our abhorance at even the idea of cannibalism comes from an evolved instict to stay away from food which harms our mental health. For hundreds of thousands of years, we have cooked our meat. This has, unfortunately, ruined our natural immune systems. Animal immune systems are generally much better than ours, so they tend to be less at risk the side effects of cannibalism. Nevertheless, the disparity is interesting. To my mind, there are only two responses to this where one can be morally consistent. Either you take the vegetarian/vegen approach, and say that any consumption of meat and/or animal products is immoral by humans, who do not neccesarily need it. Or, you take my approach, as say that eating animals is morally acceptable (provided they are not tortured beforehand), but only if it is also morally acceptable to eat people, we merely don't for health reasons.

2. We keep animals as pets and as beasts of burden: Actually, until relatively recently in human history, we did exactly this to human beings; they were called slaves. What is interesting is that whilst slavery has largely been abandoned as an immoral practice, we appear to see nothing wrong with keeping animals for either labour or for companionship (btw not all slaves were kept as mindless labourers, some were kept for more social roles, not unlike pets---and many slaves were treated very well, but many wern't, it was just a matter of how lucky you were I guess). Humans often form very close bonds with their animals, treating them almost like family, however, the emphasis goes on the *almost*. It is seen as less tragic when a puppy dies than when a human child dies. That said, we do control the lives of nearly everyone for at least as it takes for them to grow to adulthood, its called being a parent. I guess the perception is that children as less cognitively developed and more vulnerable than adults, but whilst this is temporary in humans, animals will never be as cognitive or less vulnerable in a human world than human adults, hence we look after them their whole lives.

3. We euthanise animals, but not humans: Depending on your views on euthanasia, this could be seen as good or bad. But the point is, when a human is dying in agony, doctors are usually obligated to keep them alive as long and as "comfortable" as possible. In a the same situation, most vets would never put a dog through that, but would end their suffering quickly. This, again, seems to stem from the fact that we seem to value human lives more than animal lives. My position to be fair is that we *should* euthanise humans who are dying in agony, but that's a whole nuther debate.

4. We have sex with each other, but almost never with animals: Interspecies mating in nature is not uncommon (nor is homosexual behaviour amounst animals just in case you thought it was "unnatural"---no, it is, seriously, look up giraffes). It is only really humans who have quite such a shock reaction to it. Only recently in fact, I saw footage of seals forcing themselves on penguins. I know, I don't understand it either. Anyone who owns a non-neutered dog will tell you stories. Don't even get me started on certain non-human primates and what they get up to. Point is, it really isn't as uncommon as people like to think. What's more interesting is that we see no problem with making some degree of sexual contact with animals if it is for either medical or farming reasons. A prime example is that pig farmers regularly need to "give the boar a hand..." in order to get him ready for inseminating the sow i.e. quite literally giving it a handjob. Many keepers of any animal in either zoos or farms also practice artifical insemination and/or sperm collection, which could I suppose be seen as a sexual act performed on the animal; males need to be made to ejaculate, and an insertion must be made into the females. My position on sexual ethics has always revolved around the concept of *informed consent*. This is why even if a child is coming onto you, its still your fault if you do anything to them. I suppose the perception is the same with animals. They do not understand the risks to both mind and body, and it *is* hilariously risky. Dogs, for example, are known to be very aggressive in their mating. Don't even get me started on horses. Hygiene can also be a problem, as you don't always know where said animal has been. This does not explain how we justify controlled breeding in farms and zoos, however.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

As you point out in your post, the things people do to animals are done to humans by some humans often times much more frequently. Slavery was common in many places throughout history and still is even in the United States, for example.

Where humans universally or near universally enjoy more freedom than animals at present, it seems somewhat a matter of luck. Why treat animals that way? Well, for profit, probably. Greedy profit-seekers will often find victims of one kind or another. At one point, black slaves in American were the unlucky ones falling victim to these profit-seeking selfish oppressors. In other places and times it might be animals being used as test subjects for dangerous perfumes and makeups. It costs more to raise free range chickens than to brutally overstuff cages in factory farms and cut off their claws and beaks even though it hurts so bad, so these profit-seekers do it for the money. Similarly, in other places and times the profit-seekers sell human sex slaves; it's cruelty to the sex slaves but it makes money for the victimizers. It's really that simple. Some people are just really really selfish and the rest of us are just selfish enough to enjoy indirect benefits (like blood diamonds and cheap fast food), play our collective part, and turn a blind eye to the systemic problems.

[Shadowfax]

The way we treat our fellow homo-sapiens is fundamentally different to the way we treat beings of another species, which is odd, given that at least some of them seem pretty goram sentient.

Of course we treat animals differently. Homo sapiens are a separate species. Sharks don't interact with jellyfish.

1.We treat animals differently to other humans because humans, like any other species on the planet, will use their capabilities for survival. If humans can exploit animals to survive, we will do so. We began eating meat because it was a convenient source of energy. Humans will not become cannibalistic unless there is no other food we can consume. Instinctively, i believe, we do not eat other humans unless we have to because we can see that humans are social creatures, and will first attempt to work together, not against each other, to survive.

2. We see nothing wrong with keeping animals to either enjoy their company or exploit them, because humans are on the top of the food chain, and are intellectually superior to other animals. This is why humans exploiting humans is seen as immoral, whereas humans exploit animals with little/no qualms.

3. This is an interesting point. We have problems euthanising humans more so than animals because euthanising a member of your own species is more morally complex because you are euthanising someone as superior as you (which raises the question of rights). For animals it's different because we generally believe we are superior to animals, hence we believe we have a right to end their life.

4. We do not permit sex with animals because it is seen as disgraceful, as animals are below us (regarding superiority). Simon says, you mentioned seals having sex with penguins. This is slightly bizarre, nevertheless if it's true I doubt animals care about things that concern humans, such as privacy, social standards etc because our intelligence is superior to theirs, and intelligence is the fundamental explanation as to why humans have morals/social etiquette/a sense of decency.

[AB1OB]

We treat others differently than we treat ourself.

We treat members of our tribe differently than those from other tribes.

And that just relates to other humans. When you extend this to animals, plants, etc. there is a scale of relativity...

The more alike (we think) we are with the "other", the more we empathize with it.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Simon says,

I cannot answer your question because I'm not certain that humans and animals aren't one and the same thing and therefore your question sounds to me like a loaded question, as it seems to presume that humans and animals aren't one and the same thing, something to which I conscientiously object.

To say that an animal is, by definition (to which we are all bound), any being but a human being does inform me which being is the human being but only if I’m self-centered, something which I happen to be, but only occasionally.

I therefore do not believe that we treat animals and humans differently; but we do call them differently. Why? I think the reason has to do with brutal politics more than anything else or even, as Scott would say, greed politics.

[Ma2k9]

Humans feel and act superior due to the luck of nature. We are lucky to have evolved with a higher intellect. We should be no different but because we have higher intellect we feel superior. Just about everything on earth has a purpose with a few exceptions. One of those being parasites. I consider humans a parasite and feel that we are a freak of nature. Do we contribute to the wellness of the planet? A vulture contributes more than humans in my opinion. Humans do nothing but destroy.

[NothingDoesNotMatter]

While I tend to believe that our treatment of of non-human species will evolve, and even revolutionize, as our understanding of consciousness and its permutations changes, I do no think it is completely irrational given what we seem to know about body/brain ratio and the relationship between mind and matter to divide species into different categories for treatment.

Can a chicken suffer its own destruction or have the same conscious wants and needs as a human? As a pig? As a dolphin? The subjectivity of these species could be such that we never have adequate information to understand the universe as they experience it. But I think we know enough to be confident that killing a chicken for food is not the same thing as killing a dolphin for food. The potential life experience extinguished and the suffering inflicted are not the same.

I could be wrong, of course, but if we are really to entertain the notion that the life of a chicken or an ant is equally valuable to the life of a dolphin or a human, then we really need to examine our understanding of sentience and consciousness altogether. Why assume, for instance, that objects we deem inanimate cannot likewise suffer when we alter them? When we cut down a tree? When we bite into an orange? When we put out a fire?

Should we treat animals better than we currently do? Most likely. Should we treat them as equals? Doubtful. But it is a fascinating topic.

[AB1OB]

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/10/plants- ... yre-eaten/

Click on that...

[Wilson]

We treat others differently than we treat ourself.

We treat members of our tribe differently than those from other tribes.

And that just relates to other humans. When you extend this to animals, plants, etc. there is a scale of relativity...

The more alike (we think) we are with the "other", the more we empathize with it.

Good post. I agree with all that.

Since I believe that morality is individual, with each of us having ideas of right and wrong that are not exactly like anyone else's, there's no right or wrong answer as to whether it's immoral to treat animals and humans differently. I feel that cruelty to animals is wrong, and would smite anyone I caught doing it, but not everyone feels that way, because they don't empathize with animals as I and most people do. Me, I see more positive human qualities in some dogs, for instance, than in some people. So there are many dogs whose misfortunes would make me sad, and many people whose misfortunes would not.

[AB1OB]

We treat................The more alike (we think) we are with the "other", the more we empathize with it.

........... I agree with all that. .....................

Tell me , Wilson or anybody...do you believe in coincidence?

Wilson & AB1OB both joined this forum on the same day.

[Sy Borg]

In part, we take our cues from the way animals behave towards each other, which tends to be calculated and brutal. They hunt, we hunt. It's a small step from hunting to exploitation. In each instance the other entity is seen purely as a source of energy, not as a valuable individual. People know that nature is all about destruction and rebirth in nature. Most species that have ever lived are now extinct.

So the way we treat animals is in tune with nature. Even factory farming is less grotesque than wasps that lay eggs on a paralysed spider, so that it will be eaten alive by the emerging grubs. Or parasites that eat their host from the inside. The cannibalism taboo loosens off when there's nothing else to eat, and crime rates during blackouts or police distractions suggest that our veneer of civilisation is thin. Look at the actors in meat ads salivating over animal carcasses with happy jingles and cute mascots. Imagine our horror if carnivorous aliens advertised human meat like that - tra la la, here's a picture of a scrumptious dead human with little Xzyxlvrr smiling at the camera as he bites off some charred fingers saying, "I like the crunchy bits!". Cut to doting alien parents as they smile approvingly.

We could aspire to is something better than brute nature - to be distinctly civilised and human, which is perhaps the perennial challenge.

[Invictus_88]

We treat animals differently to humans, why? This question has been burning at the back of my head for many years, and I've yet to come up with a satisfying answer.

Answer: We treat animals differently to humans, because they are different.

Clue: We treat plants differently to animals, and differently to humans. Why?

[Sy Borg]

We treat animals differently to humans, why? This question has been burning at the back of my head for many years, and I've yet to come up with a satisfying answer.

Answer: We treat animals differently to humans, because they are different.

Clue: We treat plants differently to animals, and differently to humans. Why?

In a way I treat my dog differently to humans because, yes, they are different. I do not offer my human family and friends dog biscuits, or take them for walks, pat them, or say "whosagorgeousdoggy" in a silly voice. At least not usually.

However, in another sense I treat dogs and people exactly the same - with everyday goodwill. I think the giving of empathy and goodwill to humans but not to animals is the nub of the OP, at least #1.

Back to the OP ...

Re #2, "slavery" is a pejorative word and I'm not convinced that the negative connotations fit the word's semantic if applied to pets-as-companion-slaves. I concede that I may be biased, speaking as a dog's human servant and provider of food, door opening, grooming, medical, massage, gaming and hiking guide services. While companion animals miss out on the stimulation of survival in the wild, they also miss out on the many hurts, privations and dangers of wild living.

I see it as a symbiotic arrangement although one could posit that the dog's apparent contentment is due to institutionalisation and Stockholm Syndrome. She might just not know what she's missing out on in the wild - being bottom of the status ladder as a runt of the litter, parasites, untended prickles and abrasions, sleeping outdoors on rough ground, going hungry during lean periods. Thing is, if living wild is so good, then why have we worked so hard to keep distancing ourselves from the elements and small pesky organisms?

No, I'd say that pets in loving homes with competent owners have been blessed. As have we, to be born into civilisation.

Re #3 - euthanasia of animals but not people. It makes sense to put more effort into saving more complex organisms, just as we would prioritise treatment for a sick dog over a sick lizard, or a sick lizard over a sick beetle.

However, we have become mechanistic in our thinking; the first notion of tending people to make them better has made way for a "keep them alive" focus (largely driven by fears of litigation and dogmas). So the dying suffer unnecessarily through our lack of flexibility and understanding. Also, the immense medical resources put into keeping dying people dying for a little longer means less resources to save those with more hope of recovery. I like to think our society will one day grasp the nettle and grow up.

#4 - sex with animals. Our natural disgust reaction makes this usually a non-issue. Even if a human and animal had a consensual relationship, the potential for exploitation is so great, and the tracks of exploitation so difficult to trace, that it's hard to condone. A similar situation to child sex.

As for the seal raping the penguin example, my guess when I saw the video (it was hard not to feel for the poor penguin) is that the seal was beta male, sexually sidelined by the alpha, whom I doubt would waste his sexual energy on a penguin. So I suspect this beta male relieved his sexual tension in what he perceived the best way available. The mindset would probably not be miles from frustrated farm boys having sex with sheep.

[Hoggy]

"We treat animals differently to humans, why?"

Animals are innocent

[Sy Borg]

"We treat animals differently to humans, why?"

Animals are innocent

True. Humans included.