If it was merely because of expecting good results, the above two questions would be moot, but they're not. Can you explain why?
So, for example, scientific research, and the spending of millions of dollars into these research and practices of ethical treatment for animal subjects was just to not piss of PETA? Really? Can you give evidence of this extraordinary claim?Yet I still do not see how an animal having emotions should change how we deal with them, ethically. As I said yesterday, I don't think those that justified their practices by saying "animals don't have emotions" really ever cared if they had emotions or not, they were just trying to say "they're not humans" in order to not piss PETA off.
Interesting view you have there, do you know what the main arguments for the justification for slavery was? For the justification of the suppression of women? They're like cattles, they don't have emotions, they can't reason (slaves), and they don't know how to reason as well as men (women's subjugation).To be honest, we don't base our ethical treatment of each other based on us having emotions either, human rights are usually argued against biological reasons and classifications like the fact that we are indeed all humans and thus should be treated equally.
Claiming oneself to be human didn't matter, claiming the RIGHT to get equal treatment as humans hinged on justifications of emotional capability (slaves) and reason (slaves and women). These 'proofs' were the snowball to recognition of rights.
Do animal have rights? In the legal sense, no, although there are certain rights of protected species and causing torture, etc...but, as an intrinsic right as humans do? No.
Can we see how it can be relevant if we start answering questions such as, "Do animals have emotion? Can animals have the capacity to reason?"** to the relevancy of possible changes to ethical treatments of animals? Yes.
We don't have to be either/or...the moving towards progress (in knowledge) is a worthy goal as well.
** Science has shown that on the evolutionary scale, emotion is older than reason and that reason hinges on emotional capacity, so if we answer the emotion q, we are closer to answering the reason q.
I don't see it as a constant danger of crashing, I was giving a justification of why we may want to care, that of upsetting the balance.I try to respect life, because it seems like the right thing to do. I guess that's a personal ethic of mine, although I'd consider it more of a general principle. I'm aware of how interconnected everything is, but I don't seem to see it as extreme as you do in that it is in constant danger of crashing down.
It is disrespectful to them, but if you are asking why having emotions should be a special priviledge in more consideration of respect? It's not because emotion = automatic respect. That's illogical. However, as I answered to you the first time you asked, it's a question of the philosophy of ethics.However, I don't see how animal consumption, animal testing, etc is an inherent disrespect to them, and I don't see how animals having emotions is allowed to confer special respect, moreso than a plant or an insect.
If we, as humans, are capable of abstract thinking like morality and ethics, can I ask you, why then it shouldn't be a consideration if in the past morality and ethics have repeatedly shown to be hinged on values subscribed through two main characteristics (emotion and reason***)? What makes this question of ethics moot for animals then?
*** to be able to reason, to not be able to reason - e.g., treatment in history of those with mental illness and/or intellectual disability, points to this, as well. And, ethics answers questions surrounding protection of vulnerability if 'cannot reason as well', etc.
Blue summed it up way better and much more concisely than I did: