Considering the Equality of Life

^^ Yaye, good evening everyone,

I am very sorry for my absence during this previous number of days.

This day, I do hope it is alright that I speak of my beliefs concerning those who are non-human. I believe this state of belief for me is now very natural and therefore I may find difficulty in explaining. However, to perhaps understand how I feel, we just need to consider the areas explored in the previous posts.

Perhaps it is best to first consider some arguments that humans often provide to why a non-human animal is not "equal" to a human. I believe this term, "equal", often means that the human thinks that they are more entitled to privileges than a non-human.

1) One argument may be "The human race is a superior species". By considering the selves and consciousnesses involved, we have already argued that superiority is there merely by chance, and therefore that actual self is not really superior.

I must state that I believe that evolution is correct in many wats (though it is possible that the beliefs of others are possible). Yet, there appears to be some implications drawn from evolution that I feel do not really follow. I believe that evolution really just explains one part of how an individual came to be that individual.

I feel that many evolutionists seem to draw a hierarchy of species. And, if an individual is believed to belong to a particular species, they have a greater right to life and happiness (by happiness, I define a form of contentedess, that involves no suffering for the individual). Why? Well, the argument just seems to be that they are part of that species and a member of one species must help only members of that species. Helping is good, but why the prejudice? Every life form is an individual, not a species. The little pixies in my head become very upset when the the word "we" is used in a global sense (for instance, as part of a news article), but this excludes non-humans. For instance, "Wasps like to eat our food". Why are the wasps not included in this "we", but I am? The food that you eat is not mine. Also, we could argue that possession is relative anyway, so it is the food of nobody.

I feel that because humans believe that they understand evolution, that they must "follow it" blindly. I once asked an individual why they favoured their grandaughter over their adopted kitty. They replied by saying that the grandaughter was "one of their own". (I am very sorry for this, my beliefs are very eccentric I believe, however please refer to my introduction at the top of the page). Yet, why do genes mean that you must favour that individual? I do believe there is difficulty, as we could ask "why favour any individual"? This is my personal belief, yet I believe all should be favoured equally. Though, this produces a very, very, very, very large number of complications as the balance of life does not particularly allow for this. Thus, one potential answer for this is provided in my previous post. That is, is a death necessary?

2) This is perhaps the more complex matter to consider. "You cannot prove that non-human animals feel as much as humans". I believe this is certainly correct and I find this a difficult problem to consider. ^^ I have so many ideas in response to this that it is difficult for me to order them.

First, the primary sense that a human possesses for detecting feelings is through communication. By viewing individuals that belong to many species of mammals in particular (though I believe best to think of individuals as individuals), it is very possible to see feeling and suffering. We cannot prove this. Yet, I can see the way a mother greets her child, or the way they act if the life of the child is lost (for example). This may not be proof. However, if a human tells me that they are suffering, this is not proof either. Both of these are interpretations. A form of communication. As individuals, I believe we must decide for ourselves, if we can.

There is also another response to this. That is, the level of feeling. In many ways, I do not have a response for this. Simply that an individual must consider carefully before potentially causing suffering of any kind before they do so. Is this necessary for the absolute well-being (life) of another individual? Do you consider that individual more important? Each case, each individual must be considered carefully. One individual many not have certain feeling that another does, bt they may have different ones.
I am very sorry for I do not appear to possess many answers here. ^^ I would be very grateful for any comments, as I find great difficulty in knowing which of my ideas to type, and how to order them

Thank you very much for reading.

Thomas.