Living creatures might be too much (see bacteria), but if you think we should care about other people - it follows that we should also care about other creatures that can feel and think. Mammals certainly qualify.
> but if you think we should care about other people - it follows that we should also care about other creatures that can feel and think
It doesn't automatically follow. I can entirely correctly, subjectively decide which living things I want to care about and which I do not. I can separate living things by a hierarchy of importance. Which is exactly what we do all the time with other people and our relationships to them (example: hey HN, let me know how much you love Donald Trump and where he ranks on your hierarchy of importance).
I don't care about mice. I care about puppies (insert reasons here). That is not an irrational position. It's entirely subjective either direction. Any attempt to apply logic or science to the premise is inherently absurd. What we each value and why is subjective, it's personal; it inherently can't be objective. Rat and mice fans might likely pick those over puppies or kittens for example, due to their personal experiences and their hierarchy of values.
No, I wouldn't kill or injure the mice myself for a living. I think it's grotesque.
I wouldn't perform abortions for a living, it's sometimes a very grotesque process. I'm entirely pro-choice.
I wouldn't butcher animals for a living, it's often quite a disgusting process as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with other people doing so. And I have no problem with eating a steak. That's not contradictory or hypocritical.
I also would never want to be a nurse. I fully understand what nurses do. The human body can be quite disgusting at times. I'm glad nurses exist.
Such things are not contradictory. You can find an action and outcome acceptable, while not enjoying (or glorifying) all aspects of the process in question.
Once you cross the line of: all living things matter without exception and should never be killed, on to: some living things do not matter as much as others (eg plants for consumption) - then you're down to subjectivism as your argument across the board.
The animal rights argument is entirely subjective (what should the protections be, should there be any protections, how many should there be, who decides, for which living things, and on and on). What that means is, the opposite position has as much validity, it's also subjective. What it comes down to is majority politics ultimately: how many people can you get to agree with you, such that you can pass legislation in your preferred direction.
There's clearly a spectrum of consciousness between us and insects, there is no one clear-cut threshold, and some people are lower on it than some animals (see some neurological problems). Therefore arbitrarily deciding to put a strict care/don't care threshold on a species border is irrational. It makes much more sense to have a care/don't care spectrum, and not to limit it to one species.
I’m not so sure its clear that there’s a spectrum of consciousness. We have no way to observe consciousness (other than our own). For all we know, ants (or even trees or rocks) might well be just as conscious as us. We don’t have any evidence that they are, but that’s largely true of mammals and even other humans too.
> The animal rights argument is entirely subjective (…). What that means is, the opposite position has as much validity, it's also subjective.
The subjective aspects of a difficult question doesn’t mean all takes are equally valid. That’s the same as giving up and saying that nothing means anything.
It doesn't automatically follow. I can entirely correctly, subjectively decide which living things I want to care about and which I do not. I can separate living things by a hierarchy of importance. Which is exactly what we do all the time with other people and our relationships to them (example: hey HN, let me know how much you love Donald Trump and where he ranks on your hierarchy of importance).
I don't care about mice. I care about puppies (insert reasons here). That is not an irrational position. It's entirely subjective either direction. Any attempt to apply logic or science to the premise is inherently absurd. What we each value and why is subjective, it's personal; it inherently can't be objective. Rat and mice fans might likely pick those over puppies or kittens for example, due to their personal experiences and their hierarchy of values.
No, I wouldn't kill or injure the mice myself for a living. I think it's grotesque.
I wouldn't perform abortions for a living, it's sometimes a very grotesque process. I'm entirely pro-choice.
I wouldn't butcher animals for a living, it's often quite a disgusting process as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with other people doing so. And I have no problem with eating a steak. That's not contradictory or hypocritical.
I also would never want to be a nurse. I fully understand what nurses do. The human body can be quite disgusting at times. I'm glad nurses exist.
Such things are not contradictory. You can find an action and outcome acceptable, while not enjoying (or glorifying) all aspects of the process in question.
Once you cross the line of: all living things matter without exception and should never be killed, on to: some living things do not matter as much as others (eg plants for consumption) - then you're down to subjectivism as your argument across the board.
The animal rights argument is entirely subjective (what should the protections be, should there be any protections, how many should there be, who decides, for which living things, and on and on). What that means is, the opposite position has as much validity, it's also subjective. What it comes down to is majority politics ultimately: how many people can you get to agree with you, such that you can pass legislation in your preferred direction.