Animals Have No Souls

What's with this new trend in (((Modern Philosophy))) to emphasize more on "ethical treatment of animals" and whatnot.
I legitimately don't understand.

Other urls found in this thread:

liveleak.com/view?i=85d_1487067342
youtube.com/watch?v=32IDVdgmzKA
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

lol you're a retard.

But how. My understanding is that their lives aren't worth as much as human life, so I don't understand why people get their panties in a twist over this shit.

Hernetists say animals, humans, plants and even minerals have their own spiritual plane, which cant be crossed over.
So some people say its immoral to eat meat, but with the same logic it would also be immoral to eat planta, as they are both living things.
Seeing the different mental planes allows you to rationalize eating meat, as there is no way for you to know how the animal feels about it just like you have no idea how plants feel about it.
But still animals should be treated well

>spiritual plane
get off Sup Forums butt boy

>Souls
you too fag

whites and asians have no souls xD

whites and Asians have no souls xD

I understand where you're coming from when you say they should be treated well (not adding suffering/misconduct to the world, etc.), but where does one draw the line from a philosophical standpoint?

I can understand not wanting to kill animals unnecessarily brutally, but I can't seem to reason why I should let a pet dog lick me in the mouth.

Animals can feel pain like us so maybe you shouldnt be an asshole and hurt them without need

Have you not been around a fucking dog.
Its like theyre people in pup form, dogs are the best thing

t. a nigger

That awkward moment when a Russian is more sensible than edgy Americans.

Ethical treatment of animals is inherently moral and therefore, unethical treatment of animals is immoral.

Let's expand this.

Muslims hate dogs. They hate cats. They hate all animals.

Blacks hate dogs, they hate cats, etc.

Mexicans do not take care of their animals(As a Californian you cannot imagine how many dogs I've seen who have never been outside their homes)

On the other hand, St. Francis of Assisi is the Patron Saint of nature and animals.

rely meks mi thinc

>Kids like him will be rare in Western Europe

why even live

>he doesnt like dogs
fag

Non-white detected.

>Animals Have No Souls

Protip: Neither do you, asshole. All that "soul" shit is religious garbage.

That being said, why would you not treat animals ethically?

It's debatable if people even have souls. However animals do have emotions and feelings. By this metric of what we can observe, it isn't far-fetched to suggest that we're not that much different than animals and thus we should not abuse them.

its possible we are judged when we pass. be careful. animals feel pain. be careful about that too. dont fuck around with something you dont understand. just in case.

>human is still just an animal
>therefore human doesn't have soul
dumb burger

Simple.

Aside from their instinctive behaviors, all animals can do is mimic humans and never more.

I'm not trying to be edgy, I just don't see how we need fucking comfort pigs at the airport, or how people lose their shit over animals being abused. I think it's disgusting, but some people absolutely lose their shit over it full 14/88 style.

This desu. I have a friend that gets anxiety attacks from seeing animal cruelty on her facebook.

This guy gets it.

Only sub-humans don't love and respect God's creation.

>humans are capable of civilization, world wide organization, religion, mobile social hierarchy, etc
>cat shits in a box and will eat you once your body turns cold
wat

Animals are "little persons", they've got trauma, taste, moods, favorite humans, etc.

Therefore we shouldn't treat them as objects. Just a fact.

>planta

just kill yourself

Souls? Everything you are and ever will be is inside your brain. Dead people don't exist anymore after it shuts down for good

t. meat eater

animals do have souls, and they are in different states, just like human ones

some are more human, some less human
pets go through tremendous soul growth with the right masters and can possibly incarnate as human in the next life

Go back to studying for your exam.

>treating thing ethically is moral
>treating thing unethically is immoral

But by what metric? I'm trying to understand how I should treat an animal I have no attachment or relation to. Obviously I don't just maliciously attack it, but why is that assumed to be immoral?

>Animals Have No Souls
PROOFS!??

So you're saying that my actions in this life have no consequence as long as I'm not affecting human life?

So if I was to set up a puppy torture facility in my basement and never got caught, everything would be fine?

My life is worth more than yours stupid burger
Therefore you have no soul.

Thats your logic.I saw and owned dogs with more compasion than most of asia and more inteligence than most africa.

Shitskin trying to feel better about himself detected.

and people actually believe this

>Animals Have No Souls

Wrong. The bible clearly states that they do have souls.

If they don't have souls, they certainly have something inside them that is not dissimilar from *most* people,
excluded

liveleak.com/view?i=85d_1487067342

So you're saying across the board, the value of human life isn't equal? And what could a dog do for its life to have more value than a human's? Display traits of western virtues? If so, how do you know you aren't just imposing those ideas on a seemingly autonomous being?

Muslims are vile cunts to dogs, yes. But their pedo-prophet (whom they should ape in all things) was a major cat-man. A big warning sign in itself, really...

Anyway, cruelty fucks up the spiritual health of the perpetrator. Isn't this obvious? And most large mammals are on much the same mental level as a human baby, or a retarded human. They have feelings, and acts of cruelty against them are thus evil in themselves AND indicative of a bad streak in the perpetrator, who is shown to be more capable of cruelty to other humans.

...

I belive asians have no souls exept for group of Nippon people.
Rest of you are walking tools, so shut up make my t-shirt or spread that pussy you walking cumdump.

>liveleak
I ain't clicking that shit

I understand most animals have the capacity for memory (Pavlovian training and whatnot), but how does learned behavior translate into consciousness?

How you treat a person, or thing which means absolutely nothing to you, and can not benefit you at all, is an excellent judgement of a man's character.

It is the same thing with waiters/waitresses.

You can immeditately tell how a person is by seeing how they treat service staff.

Right. They are the embodiment of innocence, as they cannot and are not tainted by corruption, lust, greed, etc.

>that flag
>fails to understand empathy
Checks out.

If I talk about souls, any shitty septic will just ask me to define a soul, let alone prove a soul, and I'm fucked right there.

If I talk about existence it becomes a question of defining identity and any sophist without anything really deep to say would easily agree it's completely relative. I'd then be able to ask why it's relative, to which I'd receive either the "nature and nurture" response or the "body and mind" response. From here we then define identity as mind and body, hormones from your body influence your actions, as well as any ability your body has, and what you've learned throughout your life and have stored in your mind influence your actions.

Therefore this identity of yours is mind and body.

Reread this post. Good. Now that you understand why I wrote all that, has anything I wrote excluded animals? It only excludes the possibility of animals having the same type, since an animal's body is different and an animal's mind is different, but how different (especially in potential action, all the simple things humans can do) are humans from each other? With your state education, how different are your minds?

We can see that animals experience pain, those with healthy functioning brains have a sense of empathy/sympathy which causes an emotional reaction to this pain, this reaction is taken into considering and we make an informed decision based upon our conscience+consideration. Pretty simple, one aspect of evil may be defined as the cause of of unnecessary suffering.

>inb4 "pft conscious, stfu moralfag"

A functioning conscience balanced by intelligent consideration is a sign of a well developed mind.

>Souls

Dude

Its not gore or any abuse.Just a husky escaping a cage in a pet shop in china then freeing two other dogs.

The less that cruelty is necessary in our societies the less time we spend justifying abusing animals for our own purposes.

In the 1400s when horses and oxen were required to work the fields, a job that often worked them to death, we created a philosophy that justified it. Now that it's no longer necessary our philosophy no longer has to justify it.

People do what is necessary and then invent reasons why it was right after the fact. The "new trend" is really just a symptom of the increasing shift away from animals as resources.

>embodiment of innocence,
Well put, thank you. This is why transgressions against them seem particularly evil. Perhaps OP is a broken person in some way, like an autist, and cannot understand this instinctively as he should.

Ahh. I think I understand. Animals should be treated well based on our own understandings of ourselves as good/ethical people. That makes sense to me.

When it comes to the killing of livestock however, how does one approach that?

Nobody is discussing eating meat. We are discussing abusing animals. You can kill an animal without torturing it, faggot.

>When it comes to the killing of livestock however, how does one approach that?
Gotta eat to live, gotta kill to eat. Do it quick and clean.

As another said its not gore

Exactly. There is a reason sociopaths and other disturbed inviduals have a history of animal cruelty.

That's a great question.

I am a heavy environmentalist, meaning I am pro-agrarianism and I believe that we should take care of our Earth and its inhabitants. Hitler was also an environmentalist.

Cows were bred for us to eat. For us to sustain our lives. All killing of cows and livestock should be humane, and quick.

Do me a quick favor and skim through this video.

youtube.com/watch?v=32IDVdgmzKA

These animals have no sin in their heart, they have no concept of right or wrong. Why then, should we treat them as war criminals? They are creation of God and we choose to descrate that?

It is disgusting, and while I vehemently hate this new bandwagon of "Animal rights/Climate Change/etc." I absolutely support us giving back and treating God's Earth with the same exact respect it deserves.

I hope that clears some things up.

Bump, need more replies to reasonable reponses, much interest.

I think this is still the point of contention for me. If I take all of this in, I understand myself as being a good person by treating animals in alignment with my own ideas of ethical treatment. That being said, how do I permit the killing of animals to happen within my system of ethics given I believe that killing is wrong in most situations?

I personally feel greater satisfaction in eating a cheeseburger than I do hugging a dog.

that makes you a nigger

If babies can have souls then so can animals, at least some of them. There are plenty of animals out there that can be just as intelligent as human children (dogs, certain species of birds, whales, dolphins, gorillas, etc).

The way I see it, if you have enough self-awareness to be able to make a distinction between yourself and your environment, and to react and adapt beyond basic fight-or-flight instinct, then you have a soul. Now is there a gorilla heaven? Probably not, although that would be amusing. But I'd figure there's some sort of lesser afterlife for animals, or at least a process of the soul passing on to the next animal in line.

If God didn't care about animals, then Isaiah 65:25 wouldn't specifically state how when Earth is remade that the animals will be along for the ride. Not only that, but several verses (2 Kings 2:11, Revelation 19:11, etc) make specific mention of horses being used as steeds by the host.

>ethical treatment of animals
If you actually have a problem with that, you're a legitimate sociopath lacking in basic empathy.

This response helps me a lot and I think I'm beginning to understand the position of certain people who react violently to animal abuse. Thank you so much

Not an argument

>big warning sign
fuck off DIDF shill, cat's are the best

I am again.

Killing should be done humanely, and to cause the least amount of pain to the animal as possible.

You must remember that we must respect those which give us our sustenance in life.

Just like there is a certain respect given in hunting. When you kill an animal, you should do so quick and only for your survival. Sport hunting is a shit concept and should be outlawed. By doing so you are disrespecting nature.

There must also be a respect given in food. Think of yourself as a farmer, which raises an animal from it's birth to the day you need it's meat for your family.

You take it out to the back, pet it's head and comfort it.

You gently push the muzzle of your rifle against the back of its head.

"That'll do, pig."

And that's it. I hope I'm not confusing anything here.

My dog's life is worth ten of yours (to me)

get how that works now?

>St Francis of Assisi is modern philosophy

Gas yourself arab Christian cunt

I would commit genocide for my cat if it came down to it.

Killing animals for food is the law of nature. Torturing or killing them for no reason is immoral

That statement is scientifically impossible, what you are is electrical signals in the brain, energy channeled through matter. You cannot destroy energy nor matter.

telltale sign that women are in control.
this always happens.
feelings start to creep in to policy more and more.
females should have nothing to do with authority.

Considering he was alive 900 years ago, yes.

In the grand scheme of history, 900 years is an incredibly short amount of time.

>comfort pigs
Muslim detected, only arab street shitters think Dogs are dirty.

Don't know but America, but in Russia peasants hire a man to slaughter pigs

>900 years ago
>modern
no

In my book, someone who doesn't like animals isnt worth my time.
Its a redflag that the person isnt that good

>I personally feel greater satisfaction in eating a cheeseburger than I do hugging a dog.

I'm curious, would you say that the nature of the satisfaction is different between the two?

In regard to your before that statement; I get how you feel. I am in the same ethical dilemma when it comes to the killing of animals for eating meat.

>I understand myself as being a good person by treating animals in alignment with my own ideas of ethical treatment

My understanding of "ideas of ethical alignment" is that the better a system of ideas works, the more beneficial it is to human evolution. You may ask how I determine "better" in regard to ethics. It seems that there are ever evolving intuitive responses to stimuli in the world. These responses are influence by a certain (and perhaps fluctuating) degree of nature and nurture. We act upon our conscience with more or less consideration, see the results and adjust according to what works best. What works best seems to be what simultaneously promotes individual and group well-being. To come back to your statement and my reason for saying this..

What works best for humans is to eat meat, it seems. Treatment of animals that takes their well-being into consideration seems to work well. Especially seeing as we currently cause a lot of suffering in animals, perhaps the development and acceleration toward ethical treatment will be the evolution (in culture and the brain) that will balance the problems we create due to the current state of the farming industry. We may come to a point of it working better to just not kill to eat and have other replacements, but to get there we need to go through a series of changes. An essential step in that series of changes will the act of minimizing animal suffering, then we'll go from there as a society. To these ends, I think the dillema caused by the urge to treat animals ethically juxtaposed by the urge to eat them should be treated as a healthy internal. much like a compass.

>subjective understanding of an animal's worth

Well fug I'm confused again. Is it an objective truth about the universe or does it stem from personal understanding of animal-human relationships?

Philosophy is only 2300 years old, the middle of half of that time is not modern in any sense.

that sounds like some shintoist bullcrap

Alright, so I don't believe animals have souls, as souls are what make humans unique among conscious life. But the idea that pets undergo soul growth with good humans and go on to a greater existence than animals that were not selected to be pets makes a nice parallel with Calvinist Christianity. With pets being the chosen, or called.

*about America

Farmers will typically butcher the pigs themselves, here.
In towns and cities we have local butchers, and grocery stores.

The official standing of both Protestants and Catholics in general is

>Animals have souls
>they are lesser souls than human beings
>they remain in limbo with other animals unless they share the love of man, then they reside in heaven with their family

When you say "animals don't have souls" you imply that as opposed to animals, humans have one, so act like someone who has one, don't be a dick towards animals. Or don't, Idgaf anyway I don't believe in souls, animals are food

>exept for group of Nippon people
Mcfucking kill yourself you retarded weeb

>Sport hunting is a shit concept and should be outlawed.
Hunting for sport is disgusting. Some of my extended family lives in Indiana, and they hunt deer. But they don't do it for trophies to hang on the mantle, they do it because it's a great supply of meat.

Not only that, but if it weren't for people like them, the deer population would get way out of hand. It's the same way here in TN. I live in a fairly urban area, but there are still shitloads of deer around here. They're a huge traffic hazard, especially at night, and they can cause a lot of property damage. They don't have any natural predators around here either, so if they weren't hunted, their population would explode until the local environment was fucked.

Hunting is good in certain situations. But going out shooting animals just for the "fun" of it is just plain wrong. If you need to use your gun that badly, go to a shooting range.

Wa el rasul kaleb, Abdullah.

>they remain in limbo with other animals unless they share the love of man, then they reside in heaven with their family

What about dolphins? They have close to human intelligence in regard to communication, fuck for pleasure, and bully. There are dolphins with psychopathic brains that cause incredible amounts of damage to other dolphins with no pressing need to. Do they get a skip out on hell, ya know, cuz lesser soul? I imagine the argument is that animals don't have free will and therefore can't make the decisions to do evil. Dolphins seem to, they're fucked.

Calling Protestants and Catholics, please explain.

Don't get me wrong, I am on team human all the way but animals need our protection and when I say "our" I mean white people because it seems like white people are the majority responsible for animal conservation.

We are the empathetic elves who need to take care of all our dumb animals.

Right, yes. I forgot about that.

Kiling an animal in order to maintain the ecological status quo, isn't wrong. But you should still find some way to use the meat. A charity or something.

What did they do wrong?
The "victims" don't have souls.
Japs recognized this.

The relativism is strong in this thread.

Got you. But here they don't want to do this bloody job themselves

Story behind the pic? Is slaughtering cattle part of some ceremony at marriage or even at graduation from some educational institution?!

...

From my personnal experience I rank dogs over 90% of non-whites.
That's basically an entire species that evolved tailored on white men needs: they are extremely loyal, guardians and instinctively need and understand a hierarchy when you assert it (ie: they understand that they need the master).

>I legitimately don't understand.

then you might be a psychopath or you have legitimate autism.

you severly lack sympathy in case you don't realize that.

I mean, it's simple, do you think any life form is super crazy about feeling physical or emotional pain?

of course not. hence why survivalism exists.

I mean, it's honestly quite astounding I even need to explain this to somebody. I think you're a shit troll, OP.

The subjective development of the human beings sense of right and wrong when it comes to their relationship with animals is an objective phenomena - evolution.

Lesser souls never go to hell, in most denominations hell is the exception not the rule.

Could be anything.
Any family gathering they will slaughter an animal if they can afford it. Mostly only sheep but if you are rich enough a bovine.