René Descartes: "animals have no mind, torture them all you want"

[LuckyR]

Absolutely. We are all more linked to our environment than our job description.

Isn't philosophy intended to escape the boundaries imposed by the human perspective, to question the nature of the environment and therewith to prevent dogmas?

Yes, that is the goal. But in reality, it is an error to not take into account environmental upbringing, no matter how flattering it is to feel we chart our own course independent of outside influence.

[Belindi]

Absolutely. We are all more linked to our environment than our job description.

Isn't philosophy intended to escape the boundaries imposed by the human perspective, to question the nature of the environment and therewith to prevent dogmas?

Yes, that is the goal. But in reality, it is an error to not take into account environmental upbringing, no matter how flattering it is to feel we chart our own course independent of outside influence.

We all are subject to what we learn as individuals; brain-washing is sort of an exception to ubiquitous subjectivity.

Subjectivity is good . Subjectivity is how we can talk to each other and learn from each other. A few interesting people are subjective to the point of dangerous eccentricity.

[LuckyR]

Absolutely. We are all more linked to our environment than our job description.

Isn't philosophy intended to escape the boundaries imposed by the human perspective, to question the nature of the environment and therewith to prevent dogmas?

Yes, that is the goal. But in reality, it is an error to not take into account environmental upbringing, no matter how flattering it is to feel we chart our own course independent of outside influence.

We all are subject to what we learn as individuals; brain-washing is sort of an exception to ubiquitous subjectivity.

Subjectivity is good . Subjectivity is how we can talk to each other and learn from each other. A few interesting people are subjective to the point of dangerous eccentricity.

Yes the power of the group clearly shows the average analysis of a group is more accurate than individuals on average, though the group will contain some wildly eccentric analyses.

[Sculptor1]

From the top of my head, I would say it was Descartes's religiosity, the belief that humans were divine and animals not. He and his peers have been responsible for untold unnecessary and gratuitous suffering.

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter.”
― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

[Sculptor1]

The Skeptics Bible lists 0ver 1300 separate instances of cruelty.
Dominion over the animal kingdom is there from the outset.
Descartes was the worst type of arsehole - a Christian arsehole

[psyreporter]

It appears that you are right. Informative is the response from the French philosopher Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet) who lived in the same time as René Descartes and who witnessed the torturing of animals which he described in an enlightening way:

The traditional Christian approach to animal cruelty was formalised as a philosophy by René Descartes (1596–1650). His Discourse (1637) and Meditations (1641) informed Catholic attitudes about animals into the 21st century. ... In lectures he would torture and dissect animals, asserting over their cries of pain, that these cries were merely automatic reactions. Voltaire, whom the Church regarded as its greatest enemy, was horrified by such displays:

Hold then the same view of the dog which has lost his master (René Descartes), which has sought him in all the thoroughfares with cries of sorrow, which comes into the house troubled and restless, goes downstairs, goes upstairs; goes from room to room, finds at last in his study the master he loves, and betokens his gladness by soft whimpers, frisks, and caresses.

There are barbarians who seize this dog, who so greatly surpasses man in fidelity and friendship, and nail him down to a table and dissect him alive, to show you the mesaraic veins! You discover in him all the same organs of feeling as in yourself. Answer me, mechanist, has Nature arranged all the springs of feeling in this animal to the end that he might not feel?

Voltaire (1694–1778), Bêtes, Dictionnaire Philosophique.

[Sy Borg]

Voltaire was proved right and Descartes has been proved to be disastrously wrong. This resulted in Descartes committing regular atrocities to extreme for any to comprehend, other than rank psychopaths.

[psyreporter]

Most articles mention that Descartes philosophy has carried on its influence on society until today, with as a result widespread animal cruelty. Emotional opinions such as that of Voltaire have been neglected. It is something to note.

It may be indicative that a serious and strategic philosophical counter effort is required to improve animal welfare.

Why is it important that humans care (apply moral consideration) for animals, plants and perhaps more?

As it appears to me, emotionally driven endeavors to demand moral consideration for animals are not successful in the face of philosophically grounded movements that abolish morality to gain access to material advantages (e.g. money and power).