LaserGuy wrote:So why do you think we should care about their suffering at all?
EDIT: Sorry, I misread that:
Because we are empathic individuals who should care about causing undue suffering to others. Because it is in our power to utilize animals to our own purposes, if we decide to take ownership of an animal, it is our responsible duty as a sentient, emphathic species, to treat that ownership ethically as we can. That means if you're going to eat an animal, you kill it in such a way to minimize it's suffering. If you're going to keep an intelligent animal as a pet, you minimize it's emotional stress.
Diadem wrote:In my ideal world, you can still eat some kinds of animals for food, but if you kill a chimpanzee you'll be tried in the same court, for the same crime, as when you kill a human.
I disagree; a chimp isn't a human. In the life calculus of things, if I had to decide between saving a drowning chimp or a drowning human, I'd let that chimp drown, and frankly, I hope you'd do the same. What I will agree with is that if you kill a chimp, you should be punished more severely than if you, say, killed a house fly. But you aren't a murderer of a human being for killing a chimp.
Diadem wrote:Because they are very intelligent, capable of very complex emotions, even have a sense of morality. Plus they are family. Apes are an example. A few other animals might also apply (Dolphins, certain octopi, etc).
Yes, but that again is an argument for treating them well, not an argument against having them perform.
How many are the enemy, but where are they? Within, without, never ceases the fight.