Humans close to wiping out another species

mlp said:
There seems to be an implication that there's something wrong with ranking parasites low on the care scale?
Click to expand...

It would depend on one's personal philosophy. I kill mosquitoes and ticks. I dewormed and gave my cats flea treatments when I first got them. I'm pretty comfortable with that. Most of these creatures have a relatively simple neural system, and them causing harm to me or my pets is enough for me to take their lives.

Some others may claim that's wrong, that creatures like mosquitoes, ticks, parasitic worms, etc, have the same right to life that other creatures do. I disagree with this, since I think that some animals have more of a right to life than others (specifically, animals not trying to eat me or use me as a host), but philosophically, my veganism and my slapping mosquitoes may not be a logically consistent position.
 
das_nut said:
Some others may claim that's wrong, that creatures like mosquitoes, ticks, parasitic worms, etc, have the same right to life that other creatures do. I disagree with this, since I think that some animals have more of a right to life than others (specifically, animals not trying to eat me or use me as a host), but philosophically, my veganism and my slapping mosquitoes may not be a logically consistent position.
Click to expand...

And it's at this point that the entire concept of veganism sounds ludicrous to the most open minded nonvegan.
 
das_nut said:
I don't base my ethics on what other people think.
Click to expand...

I think that's a rather broad statement that's probably only really true for sociopaths.

I also think it's rather self defeating, insofar as the ethics concern what it is/is not appropriate to do with respect to other living beings, assuming one cares what happens to such beings generally, rather than just limiting one's concern solely to one's own actions vis a vis them.
 
mlp said:
I think that's a rather broad statement that's probably only really true for sociopaths.

I also think it's rather self defeating, insofar as the ethics concern what it is/is not appropriate to do with respect to other living beings, assuming one cares what happens to such beings generally, rather than just limiting one's concern solely to one's own actions vis a vis them.
Click to expand...

You can base your ethics on your respect for other human beings without caring what they think.
 
That's not the point I was making. Let me try to state it more clearly.

Let's assume that at least some vegans would prefer that humans in general give more consideration to nonhuman animals than they are currently giving. Let's assume that at least some of those vegans would like to influence other humans to act at least somewhat more ethically to nonhuman animals.

When you start arguing that ticks, fleas and parasitic worms should logically/ethically receive the same consideration as other animals, most nonvegans are going to label you as an extremist nutjob, and quite possibly judge the veg*n philosophy as extremist nonsense. Not a very good way of advocating for animals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muggle and AlmandineSky
could we PLEASE get a 'graphic image: may be distressing' warning on that bloody picture of the mutilated rhino? i do not need to see that unexpectedly. :(
 
jeneticallymodified said:
could we PLEASE get a 'graphic image: may be distressing' warning on that bloody picture of the mutilated rhino? i do not need to see that unexpectedly. :(
Click to expand...

Done.

MOD POST
Please people, be mindful and post warnings when posting such images. Spoilers are not only used for NSFW content, and it is not it's only intended use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kazyeeqen
I would say that if eradicating, parasitic species like the one in the OP was inconsistent with vegnism, then veganism would be evil.

But I don't think they are inconsistent.
 
mlp said:
I think that's a rather broad statement that's probably only really true for sociopaths.

I also think it's rather self defeating, insofar as the ethics concern what it is/is not appropriate to do with respect to other living beings, assuming one cares what happens to such beings generally, rather than just limiting one's concern solely to one's own actions vis a vis them.
Click to expand...

I thought it was pretty pointed, myself.
 
mlp said:
When you start arguing that ticks, fleas and parasitic worms should logically/ethically receive the same consideration as other animals, most nonvegans are going to label you as an extremist nutjob, and quite possibly judge the veg*n philosophy as extremist nonsense. Not a very good way of advocating for animals.
Click to expand...

I have to reject that idea. Consider some of the rights we're fighting for today - for example, the right for homosexual couples being treated the same as heterosexual couples. Forty years ago, advocating for such a right would be an "extremist nutjob" position. Now, it's far more mainstream. We didn't get from there to here without some of the advocates appearing to be "extremist nutjobs".

I don't think ticks, fleas and parasitic worms should receive the same consideration as other animals. That's my personal philosophy. But if anyone's personal philosophy does put such creatures on par with other animals, then they should not change their personal philosophy merely because it's unpopular.
 
das_nut said:
I have to reject that idea. Consider some of the rights we're fighting for today - for example, the right for homosexual couples being treated the same as heterosexual couples. Forty years ago, advocating for such a right would be an "extremist nutjob" position. Now, it's far more mainstream. We didn't get from there to here without some of the advocates appearing to be "extremist nutjobs".

I don't think ticks, fleas and parasitic worms should receive the same consideration as other animals. That's my personal philosophy. But if anyone's personal philosophy does put such creatures on par with other animals, then they should not change their personal philosophy merely because it's unpopular.
Click to expand...

I don't think any other creatures have any more "right to life" than any parasites or ticks or fleas, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to wipe them out if they do nothing but cause other species harm.

If it was something like an invasive animal, then I might think differently, but with things like Guinea worms, it bothers me much less.
 
das_nut said:
I have to reject that idea. Consider some of the rights we're fighting for today - for example, the right for homosexual couples being treated the same as heterosexual couples. Forty years ago, advocating for such a right would be an "extremist nutjob" position. Now, it's far more mainstream. We didn't get from there to here without some of the advocates appearing to be "extremist nutjobs".

I don't think ticks, fleas and parasitic worms should receive the same consideration as other animals. That's my personal philosophy. But if anyone's personal philosophy does put such creatures on par with other animals, then they should not change their personal philosophy merely because it's unpopular.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that someday fleas, ticks and parasites should not be killed? Because that's the only context in which your argument above is relevant.
 
Top Bottom