Ken Ham: New York Court May Grand "Personhood" to Chimpanzee

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

You're basically right, but I would call into question whether any other animal can have consciousness, and without it, "pain" isn't really all that similar to the thing we experience which we call pain, which I would say is the basis of the concept of a morality of pain.
Which is not to say that we have a negative liberty to use the natural world however we see fit, but I think empathy might not be the appropriate response.

Animals feel pain in the exact same way we do - signals go to the brain, neurotransmitters and stress hormones are released, the animals squirm or cry out and suffer. We may never know exactly what the mindset of other organisms is like, perspective-wise, but do you really think that an omnibenevolent God would want us to ignore all those signs and continue on mistreating them?

I think animals are completely different as far as mindset goes. Animals probably cannot feel pain, otherwise God would object to our eating of meat, etc.

[Utceforp]

You're basically right, but I would call into question whether any other animal can have consciousness, and without it, "pain" isn't really all that similar to the thing we experience which we call pain, which I would say is the basis of the concept of a morality of pain.
Which is not to say that we have a negative liberty to use the natural world however we see fit, but I think empathy might not be the appropriate response.

Animals feel pain in the exact same way we do - signals go to the brain, neurotransmitters and stress hormones are released, the animals squirm or cry out and suffer. We may never know exactly what the mindset of other organisms is like, perspective-wise, but do you really think that an omnibenevolent God would want us to ignore all those signs and continue on mistreating them?

Do you really think an omnibenevolent God would create pain in the first place?

[Nerotysia]

What the group is actually calling for does not seem to outrageous. If I'm not mistaken apes such as these are quite similar to humans. I don't think I'd agree with giving chimpanzees and such equal rights as humans, but certainly their legal status could be improved.

I'm not a great ape expert, though, so if they aren't as similar to us as I had read then I would revise my position. The scientific consensus seems to be that we are incredibly similar, though.

[Imperializt Russia]

Animals feel pain in the exact same way we do - signals go to the brain, neurotransmitters and stress hormones are released, the animals squirm or cry out and suffer. We may never know exactly what the mindset of other organisms is like, perspective-wise, but do you really think that an omnibenevolent God would want us to ignore all those signs and continue on mistreating them?

I think animals are completely different as far as mindset goes. Animals probably cannot feel pain, otherwise God would object to our eating of meat, etc.

If you beat an animal, it will cry out. If a horse damages its leg, it will limp and it will wince.

Animals can sense pain.

[Nerotysia]

Animals feel pain in the exact same way we do - signals go to the brain, neurotransmitters and stress hormones are released, the animals squirm or cry out and suffer. We may never know exactly what the mindset of other organisms is like, perspective-wise, but do you really think that an omnibenevolent God would want us to ignore all those signs and continue on mistreating them?

I think animals are completely different as far as mindset goes. Animals probably cannot feel pain, otherwise God would object to our eating of meat, etc.

But they do feel pain. We can prove it. Did you not read his post?

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

I think animals are completely different as far as mindset goes. Animals probably cannot feel pain, otherwise God would object to our eating of meat, etc.

If you beat an animal, it will cry out. If a horse damages its leg, it will limp and it will wince.

Animals can sense pain.

I don't understand how it works completely. Still, they work differently than we do. Perhaps the wincing and crying is just a natural stimulus. Do ants feel pain if you step on them? If you had the ability you could detect an ant's reaction to being stepped on. That does not infer that the ant itself feels the pain. It just infers the ant (or any other animal) is able to express his incapacitation.

[Avenio]

Animals feel pain in the exact same way we do - signals go to the brain, neurotransmitters and stress hormones are released, the animals squirm or cry out and suffer. We may never know exactly what the mindset of other organisms is like, perspective-wise, but do you really think that an omnibenevolent God would want us to ignore all those signs and continue on mistreating them?

I think animals are completely different as far as mindset goes. Animals probably cannot feel pain, otherwise God would object to our eating of meat, etc.

The Sixth Commandment contains exactly that, though - an explicit objection. The Hebrew word used (and commonly translated solely to 'kill), 'retzach', is even more specific - it can mean 'harm', 'break', 'murder' or 'destroy' or other synonyms. It never differentiates between humans and animals, so it applies equally to all. 'Thou shalt not harm' is God's instruction to his creations.

[Nerotysia]

If you beat an animal, it will cry out. If a horse damages its leg, it will limp and it will wince.

Animals can sense pain.

I don't understand how it works completely. Still, they work differently than we do. Perhaps the wincing and crying is just a natural stimulus. Do ants feel pain if you step on them? If you had the ability you could detect an ant's reaction to being stepped on. That does not infer that the ant itself feels the pain. It just infers the ant (or any other animal) is able to express his incapacitation.

Pain literally exists in order to warn organisms of danger or harm and to persuade them to withdraw in order to heal. So, every animal feels pain or some similar sensation, else they would not have prospered as much in evolutionary history.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

If you beat an animal, it will cry out. If a horse damages its leg, it will limp and it will wince.

Animals can sense pain.

I don't understand how it works completely. Still, they work differently than we do. Perhaps the wincing and crying is just a natural stimulus. Do ants feel pain if you step on them? If you had the ability you could detect an ant's reaction to being stepped on. That does not infer that the ant itself feels the pain. It just infers the ant (or any other animal) is able to express his incapacitation.

Yeah ant s can feel a sort of pain, they can get burnt as well, saying animals don't feel pain either means you've lived your life in a box or you are as oblivious as a blindmand in a snowstorm

[Dyakovo]

Animals feel pain in the exact same way we do - signals go to the brain, neurotransmitters and stress hormones are released, the animals squirm or cry out and suffer. We may never know exactly what the mindset of other organisms is like, perspective-wise, but do you really think that an omnibenevolent God would want us to ignore all those signs and continue on mistreating them?

I think animals are completely different as far as mindset goes. Animals probably cannot feel pain, otherwise God would object to our eating of meat, etc.

Unsurprisingly, you think wrongly.

[Imperializt Russia]

If you beat an animal, it will cry out. If a horse damages its leg, it will limp and it will wince.

Animals can sense pain.

I don't understand how it works completely. Still, they work differently than we do. Perhaps the wincing and crying is just a natural stimulus. Do ants feel pain if you step on them? If you had the ability you could detect an ant's reaction to being stepped on. That does not infer that the ant itself feels the pain. It just infers the ant (or any other animal) is able to express his incapacitation.

A sentient being can feel, and from that, can experience pain. Much of animal welfare law is based around this concept of sentience.

[Margno]

You're basically right, but I would call into question whether any other animal can have consciousness, and without it, "pain" isn't really all that similar to the thing we experience which we call pain, which I would say is the basis of the concept of a morality of pain.
Which is not to say that we have a negative liberty to use the natural world however we see fit, but I think empathy might not be the appropriate response.

Animals feel pain in the exact same way we do - signals go to the brain, neurotransmitters and stress hormones are released, the animals squirm or cry out and suffer. We may never know exactly what the mindset of other organisms is like, perspective-wise, but do you really think that an omnibenevolent God would want us to ignore all those signs and continue on mistreating them?

Well the thing is, there's not much of a "sign" that something is conscious. We don't have a conscious experience of pain because we cry out and squirm, that might be done unconsciously, as with our reflexes or heartbeat, we have a conscious experience of pain because we subjectively feel it. It is so difficult to get a viable outward sign of consciousness that defeating solipsism is at once one of the more difficult and more fundamental tasks of philosophy, and there are those who think it's entirely impossible. (Though a Christian would not say that it's impossible.) Within that perspective, the only reason a person has to believe that other beings really exist, rather than just being "visions," artifacts of one's experience not corresponding to an externally existing thing, is because one (maintains that one) can extrapolate the existence and certain attributes of a God from what they do know (the existence of the self, the existence and characteristics of conscious experience, ect.) and from this conclusion, one can extrapolate that other beings probably exist, because the entire premise of the Christian concept of "love" is that they do. However, someone in this position might be rather less quick to extend subjective experience to non human animals, for a few reasons. First of all, humans are not necessarily dependent upon the destruction of other humans for their existence (which leaves the possibility of love open) but they are necessarily dependent upon the destruction of plants and, in most climates, barring advanced technology such as we have had for only a short time relative to the existence of humans, animals for our existence. What's more, animals are fundamentally dependent upon the destruction of plants and, in most cases, other animals for their existence, whether directly or through intermediaries. Secondly, we have very little account of animals practicing the altruism which defines Christian love (and has been present as far back as we can see as morality,) instead, animal behavior seems to be almost exclusively selfish, and, once again, they seem to require selfishness as a perquisite for their existence in a manner in which humans do not. Thirdly, we see among humans a great degree of identity-referencing behavior (which has also been called existential angst and moral crisis) whereas other animals appear to be incapable, and it is unclear how consciousness would be conceivable without it, as consciousness, in its most fundamental characteristic, attaches itself to this self reference. Finally, the Christian (being a theist, and not a deist) would be under the impression that information from "outside the system" of the universe can come into it, as he believes the law of love, the influence of God, and much else has, and he will look to the teachings of prophets to attempt to find such information: and the account of the Christian's bible is not entirely clear, but seems to point to at least killing and eating certain animals being acceptable, despite strongly condemning murder.
I'm not beyond being swayed on this subject, but those are the thoughts I've had on it thus far.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

Animals feel pain in the exact same way we do - signals go to the brain, neurotransmitters and stress hormones are released, the animals squirm or cry out and suffer. We may never know exactly what the mindset of other organisms is like, perspective-wise, but do you really think that an omnibenevolent God would want us to ignore all those signs and continue on mistreating them?

Do you really think an omnibenevolent God would create pain in the first place?

Only as a result of the Fall of man.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

Animals feel pain in the exact same way we do - signals go to the brain, neurotransmitters and stress hormones are released, the animals squirm or cry out and suffer. We may never know exactly what the mindset of other organisms is like, perspective-wise, but do you really think that an omnibenevolent God would want us to ignore all those signs and continue on mistreating them?

Well the thing is, there's not much of a "sign" that something is conscious. We don't have a conscious experience of pain because we cry out and squirm, that might be done unconsciously, as with our reflexes or heartbeat, we have a conscious experience of pain because we subjectively feel it. It is so difficult to get a viable outward sign of consciousness that defeating solipsism is at once one of the more difficult and more fundamental tasks of philosophy, and there are those who think it's entirely impossible. (Though a Christian would not say that it's impossible.) Within that perspective, the only reason a person has to believe that other beings really exist, rather than just being "visions," artifacts of one's experience not corresponding to an externally existing thing, is because one (maintains that one) can extrapolate the existence and certain attributes of a God from what they do know (the existence of the self, the existence and characteristics of conscious experience, ect.) and from this conclusion, one can extrapolate that other beings probably exist, because the entire premise of the Christian concept of "love" is that they do. However, someone in this position might be rather less quick to extend subjective experience to non human animals, for a few reasons. First of all, humans are not necessarily dependent upon the destruction of other humans for their existence (which leaves the possibility of love open) but they are necessarily dependent upon the destruction of plants and, in most climates, barring advanced technology such as we have had for only a short time relative to the existence of humans, animals for our existence. What's more, animals are fundamentally dependent upon the destruction of plants and, in most cases, other animals for their existence, whether directly or through intermediaries. Secondly, we have very little account of animals practicing the altruism which defines Christian love (and has been present as far back as we can see as morality,) instead, animal behavior seems to be almost exclusively selfish, and, once again, they seem to require selfishness as a perquisite for their existence in a manner in which humans do not. Thirdly, we see among humans a great degree of identity-referencing behavior (which has also been called existential angst and moral crisis) whereas other animals appear to be incapable, and it is unclear how consciousness would be conceivable without it, as consciousness, in its most fundamental characteristic, attaches itself to this self reference. Finally, the Christian (being a theist, and not a deist) would be under the impression that information from "outside the system" of the universe can come into it, as he believes the law of love, the influence of God, and much else has, and he will look to the teachings of prophets to attempt to find such information: and the account of the Christian's bible is not entirely clear, but seems to point to at least killing and eating certain animals being acceptable, despite strongly condemning murder.
I'm not beyond being swayed on this subject, but those are the thoughts I've had on it thus far.

I've actually just bookmarked your post on my computer, it is quite good, I'll refer to it in the future.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Do you really think an omnibenevolent God would create pain in the first place?

Only as a result of the Fall of man.

Which he knew would happen in advance and still allowed to happen, but I digress.

But no I don't think a Chimp should be granted personhood.

[Margno]

Well the thing is, there's not much of a "sign" that something is conscious. We don't have a conscious experience of pain because we cry out and squirm, that might be done unconsciously, as with our reflexes or heartbeat, we have a conscious experience of pain because we subjectively feel it. It is so difficult to get a viable outward sign of consciousness that defeating solipsism is at once one of the more difficult and more fundamental tasks of philosophy, and there are those who think it's entirely impossible. (Though a Christian would not say that it's impossible.) Within that perspective, the only reason a person has to believe that other beings really exist, rather than just being "visions," artifacts of one's experience not corresponding to an externally existing thing, is because one (maintains that one) can extrapolate the existence and certain attributes of a God from what they do know (the existence of the self, the existence and characteristics of conscious experience, ect.) and from this conclusion, one can extrapolate that other beings probably exist, because the entire premise of the Christian concept of "love" is that they do. However, someone in this position might be rather less quick to extend subjective experience to non human animals, for a few reasons. First of all, humans are not necessarily dependent upon the destruction of other humans for their existence (which leaves the possibility of love open) but they are necessarily dependent upon the destruction of plants and, in most climates, barring advanced technology such as we have had for only a short time relative to the existence of humans, animals for our existence. What's more, animals are fundamentally dependent upon the destruction of plants and, in most cases, other animals for their existence, whether directly or through intermediaries. Secondly, we have very little account of animals practicing the altruism which defines Christian love (and has been present as far back as we can see as morality,) instead, animal behavior seems to be almost exclusively selfish, and, once again, they seem to require selfishness as a perquisite for their existence in a manner in which humans do not. Thirdly, we see among humans a great degree of identity-referencing behavior (which has also been called existential angst and moral crisis) whereas other animals appear to be incapable, and it is unclear how consciousness would be conceivable without it, as consciousness, in its most fundamental characteristic, attaches itself to this self reference. Finally, the Christian (being a theist, and not a deist) would be under the impression that information from "outside the system" of the universe can come into it, as he believes the law of love, the influence of God, and much else has, and he will look to the teachings of prophets to attempt to find such information: and the account of the Christian's bible is not entirely clear, but seems to point to at least killing and eating certain animals being acceptable, despite strongly condemning murder.
I'm not beyond being swayed on this subject, but those are the thoughts I've had on it thus far.

I've actually just bookmarked your post on my computer, it is quite good, I'll refer to it in the future.

Oh, thank you. I'm glad you liked it.

[Margno]

Do you really think an omnibenevolent God would create pain in the first place?

Only as a result of the Fall of man.

Do you suppose that's all pain, or just our subjective pain specifically?

[The balkens]

wait, hold up.

are we talking about the Ken Ham?

the same Ken Ham that thought he would win in a scientific debate with Bill Nye THE SCIENCE GUY?

[Geilinor]

Did you even read what they are trying to accomplish?

They seem to think that the chimpanzee is being enslaved and imprisoned by being kept in a zoo. I disagree. I consider the chimpanzee to be an animal that we humans are superior to*.

*Which does not mean that we should mistreat animals, neglect them, etc. We are supposed to be stewards of the environment. Animal abuse is even condemned in scripture (Number 22:28).

They're trying to prevent what they believe to be animal abuse.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

wait, hold up.

are we talking about the Ken Ham?

the same Ken Ham that thought he would win in a scientific debate with Bill Nye THE SCIENCE GUY?

Yes that fellow

[The balkens]

wait, hold up.

are we talking about the Ken Ham?

the same Ken Ham that thought he would win in a scientific debate with Bill Nye THE SCIENCE GUY?

Yes that fellow

Ah.

do continue then.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Evolution is not a religion.

But evolution is disputable. We all have the same evidence; it depends on how we interpret it.

Correction, it depends on how other scientists interpret it.

[Geilinor]

OP, what determines personhood in the US is not creation in the image of God but the 14th Amendment. I don't think chimpanzees should have personhood, but because they have no use for most human rights.

[The balkens]

OP, what determines personhood in the US is not creation in the image of God but the 14th Amendment. I don't think chimpanzees should have personhood, but because they have no use for most human rights.

quite.

[Immoren]

Obviously pan troglodytes should be reclassified as homo troglodytes.
And human ights should extend to at least whole homo genus.