Ser Yo wrote: Hi Lion,
I am glad to read you...
About those posts, I think they are outdated... Better to concentrate on the new... About ontologists, I am not sure if we are talking of the same things, as for "existentialism" I know people like Sartre, and they did not exactly investigate on the "being" in a "abstract" way as ontologists... But you'll tell me what you were talking about, "

Just a quick hi to you Ser. I am very glad that the question of rudeness with Dee is water under the bridge. What really only matters to me is net result ... that you have the emotional intelligence and depth of character (heart) to go vegan.

I did print out and read the thread ... it was about 20 pages. On a lighter note, thought you would be happy to know that your injection of humor here and there made me laugh heartily (a good thing, yes?). Like, you said "Pasta and bread are not good, but eliminate them completely and you haved just destroyed Italy". There were some other gems but I can't find them.

I've been meaning to ask about traditional semolina pasta. Boxed, vs. restaurant style ... the former not made with egg, the latter with egg. Do you know? Maybe I need to make a separate post about it.

Anyway, don't have the time to elaborate about philosophy right now (I get tongue-tied anyway) ... just to say that the first time a new vocabulary word called 'ontology' came to me, I said wow, just to think, that the human mind actually was capable of studying the NATURE OF REALITY. Let us know how you are doing.

Hi Lion, I have answered about Pasta in that thread...
Let me know...
About humor, I think I would be already dead if I had not a good one.

See you later!
Ser

Hi LI!
bueno, ops, I was automatically writing to you in spanish...
Sometimes I do not even remember which language I am naturally born.
I am Italian, living in Argentina (and speaking spanish), practicing an Hindu and a Chinese spiritual discipline, making a japanese Tofu, and writing in English here...
I am not sure in which language I think and dream.

Well, here is my answer...
About my idea of a perfect interaction with animals, I will post a new thread, or this will be too long, and Mike can't read it (ih ih ih )

the property-status of other animals makes that "benevolent use" just a matter of personal choice
What you and me feel is not imperative only because we feel it imperatively. I have shared some days with some guests, a week ago. Two very good people. They had not seen Earthlings, so I cannot know if they will change opinion after seeing the movie. But in that moment, whatever I was saying to them, from any kind of approach, logic, moral, spiritual, or emotional, it never convinced them. I've also used your same arguments. And mine too. No way. They are sensitive, intelligent, they are vegetarian, they do not directly make any animal suffer, but they will not easily renounce to cheese in pizza and in spaghettis, and definitively not to chocolate Ice Cream...
Animals rights ARE a matter of opinion, exactly as human rights. As I said to Alex. We (humans) just happen to agree GENERALLY (not even always, and not totally) on many human rights. We (humans) do not yet agree about animals. Stop. Opinions.
It is correct to say that the property status makes all just a matter of choice, but the property status itself is actually a matter of opinion. Many people think we have the right to own animals, and the only argument you have to make them change idea is a conditional one, "IF we recognize that animals have got our same basic rights", "IF we consider that the principle of equal consideration is valid for other species and not only among humans", etc... IF, only if...

This is an excerpt from Gary Francione's book
Guys, you all are really fan(atic)s of this Francione... Nothing personal, I even agree with him, but I had to read kilometers of excerpts already, as this was a very large quote to read, and not very relevant about animals rights, and most importantly I am NOT unaware of these concepts. The fact that I state that all this is not "absolutely objective" does not mean that I do not know or understand it properly...
But you will see that Francione is not absolute as you are assuming, there always is a condition (ad Mike said that my arguments were conditional...):

If the Principle of Equal Consideration is to have any application to humans, then we must
IF, THEN... Conditions... And IF we don't, THEN nothing.

All that is required is logic: IF human interests in not suffering are to have moral significance, THEN humans cannot be resources. IF one human is a resource of another, THEN that other human gets to value the interests of the resources in not suffering...
IF, THEN, IF, THEN...

As we saw in the Introduction, a right is a way of protecting an interest.
I swear that I had not read this before replying to Alex about moral, where I said that every moral is based on selfish interests, opinion, and compromise.

If we are going to recognize and protect the interest of humans in not being treated as things, then we must use a right to do so; if we allow the interest of humans in not being treated as things to be traded away because the consequences of doing so will benefit others, then...
IF, THEN... both positively than negatively...

This is the one right that we all agree is inalienable
This was interesting: he said "AGREE". This makes implicit the fact that all is a matter of opinion, and that this right is just a right which we agree on, not a right that "we see", "we know", "we all can deduce", or whatever more objective thing... We just "agree"... But we could not agree. Why do we agree? As I said before, because we mainly aim to see this right applied to us, to protect us. We prefer to eventually loose the possibility of owning some other human, rather than risking to be owned. And, on the other side, in this last 100 years, well, let's say 50, we have evolved quite a lot, in our level of consciousness as a specie...
Which gives us "objective" arguments, but unfortunately, as Mike observed, we can't prove them to the others... The others must reach the same level of consciousness that most humans have reached in these last 50 years...
Fortunately new born people comes more evolved each time. See Indigo children...
Also, we are coming through a very special moment, of deep (and violent) transformation. We all hope that a chrysalis will result...

If humans have no inherent or intrinsic value, then they will be regarded merely as things,
IF, THEN...

Although the notion of inherent value is often associated with religious doctrines, there is nothing necessarily mystical or metaphysical about it.
Wow, finally a window of hope, religions and spirituality may say
something interesting, something which is not necessarily mystical, but
which can be mystical too.

So, quoting Francione once again, " f we agree with the underlying premise of the humane treatment principle and disagree that animals are merely things to which we can have no direct moral or legal obligation, we must go back to the drawing board.
Again, IF (even if it misses the "i", THEN (even if the "then" is just implicit).

if we are going to take other animal interests seriously, and give content to the prohibition against unnecessary suffering that we all claim to accept, then we must extend the same protection to animal interests in not suffering unless we have a good reason for not doing so."
IF, AND, THEN, UNLESS...

If we choose the former, then we must be committed to abolish...
IF, THEN.


What do I want to say? That ALL what Francione says is very reasonable, and I agree with him. But it is NOT absolutely objective, it is only conditionally objective... IF, THEN. If one do not agree with the IF, no THEN is possible...
And NO "if" is objective, ever, or it would not be an "if"...

Well, see you soon,

Peace,
Ser

QUOTE:
I would suspect from your tone that Sam has shared some news with you, and this is your way of extending sympathy. Either way it is a kind thought so thank you.

Well, at first I did not even associated "Sam" to Samuel, because I am used to call him LI, and we wrote each other just a couple of mails. So, no, he never told me anything, nor anybody else did. I just wanted to apologize, and to establish a bridge, because I feel that you are a passionate and sincere person, and I am not offended by your words, and I understand what in my words can have misguided you.
Of course, now that I know about your loss I am really sorry, for your loss and for having been a difficult experience in an already difficult moment.
And I share the general feeling to wish you back, when you will pass this moment of pain.
I understand that we had not the best beginning as to make you wish to talk to me, but if you would ever wish it, I will be happy to listen and to help you in any way possible. LI has got my personal e-mail address, feel free to write me when you want.
Peace, Dee,
and a hug...

Sergio

Sergio,

This is far and away your best post, yet. It helps that I agree with your point on logical argument versus conditional statements. But your post was also short enough for me to read without needing a nap.

Anyhow, while I don't believe in objective or absolute truths, I've already explained my belief in the consistency of human empathy. You've said it yourself. Protection of interests of others is based on a strong desire of having the same personal interests protected.

But empathy goes further than that. We are emotionally impacted when we see the interests of others being violated.

So, while I would still necessarily base my position in the abolitionist movement on a conditional, I believe that the conditional is not necessary.

For instance:
IF you have empathy for others, THEN you can follow logical argument leading to the acceptance of all animal interests.

I contend (though I do not yet have the empirical data to prove this) that human empathy is consistent enough that the vast majority of humans can and will make this connection provided the necessary candor and exposure of truths.

For instance: this IS happening to animals. This IS happening to the environment. This IS happening to human health. This IS something unnecessary.

I believe that it's not necessary to say IF you accept this, THEN it's only logical to accept this, because I think it can be proven that the vast majority of people DO believe that harming animals unnecessarily is morally wrong.

Anyway, thanks for switching your mode a bit. I can understand you much more clearly, now.

When I get a chance, I'll read the thousands of new posts you put up. HA! I do appreciate you breaking it up, though.

Sincerely,
Mike

Ser Yo wrote:

QUOTE:
What do I want to say? That ALL what Francione says is very reasonable, and I agree with him. But it is NOT absolutely objective, it is only conditionally objective... IF, THEN. If one do not agree with the IF, no THEN is possible...
And NO "if" is objective, ever, or it would not be an "if"...

But the point is that every conditional claim he's made is very well articulated, because the "IF" part is always something that is widely accepted as true by 99% of the human population. That's the key.

"If we agree that blue is a prettier color then purple, then we must accept that the sky is nice to look at on a sunny day."

NOT EVERYONE AGREES THAT BLUE IS A PRETTIER COLOR THAN PURPLE.

"If we believe exploitation of humans through slavery is wrong, then in order to be morally consistent and avoid hypocrisy, then we must also believe that exploitation of nonhumans through slavery is also wrong, and we must put that believe into practice by abolishing the exploitation of animals."

THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT 99% OF PEOPLE ALREADY AGREE THAT THE EXPLOITATION OF HUMANS THROUGH SLAVERY IS MORALLY WRONG.

Yes, it's an opinion. But it's a widely held opinion. Perhaps the bigger question is, did it become a widely accepted opinion because it's what most people regard as an "inalienable truth," or did it become recognized as an "inalienable truth" precisely because it's such a widely held opinion?

If it's the former, I think that's better for animals than if it's the latter.