An ethical dilemma of consent

[Jarhyn]

Imagine for a moment that you have two entities.

One is a logical, intellectual, rational person. They use reason to parse out how to best survive in the world.

The second is an animal of some sort. It is incapable of processing higher thought. It feels, and does as it wants with no contemplation of why it wants.

Imagine now that both of these entities are forced by whatever means or reality to share a single body. The emotions the animal feels are felt by the person, and the injuries the animal sustains are similarly injuries which threaten the person, and They cannot be made separate without killing both.

The animal, however, cannot consent to anything that the person does, by the definition of informed consent. And the animal has wants which it will act upon, against the informed interests of the person.

So if one must be forced to act against their goals, which, and why?

 

[Bronzeage]

I think you have described a human being as we know them to be. This can be seen in any addict. They once indulged in something for pleasure, beyond their ordinary needs. Now their addiction drives them to do self destructive things. It maybe against the informed interests of the person, but the logical, intellectual, rational person finds rational justification for their behavior.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think you have described a human being as we know them to be. This can be seen in any addict. They once indulged in something for pleasure, beyond their ordinary needs. Now their addiction drives them to do self destructive things. It maybe against the informed interests of the person, but the logical, intellectual, rational person finds rational justification for their behavior.

It's more than just that though. I have evidence to suggest that for most humans, the person is a slave to the animal. The animal hooks into it to do a trick and get what it wants, then leaves it sit, rather than the more healthy model of person keeping a well disciplined pet that it lets out of the kennel for play and/or training.

But what does this relationship imply for the discussion of such things as keeping pets, zoophilia, the use of animals for food, neutering animals, animal fighting, etc? What does it imply for animal rights? And what do animal rights arguments mean for the persons that coexist within the same body as an animal?

 

[Bronzeage]

I think you have described a human being as we know them to be. This can be seen in any addict. They once indulged in something for pleasure, beyond their ordinary needs. Now their addiction drives them to do self destructive things. It maybe against the informed interests of the person, but the logical, intellectual, rational person finds rational justification for their behavior.

It's more than just that though. I have evidence to suggest that for most humans, the person is a slave to the animal. The animal hooks into it to do a trick and get what it wants, then leaves it sit, rather than the more healthy model of person keeping a well disciplined pet that it lets out of the kennel for play and/or training.

But what does this relationship imply for the discussion of such things as keeping pets, zoophilia, the use of animals for food, neutering animals, animal fighting, etc? What does it imply for animal rights? And what do animal rights arguments mean for the persons that coexist within the same body as an animal?

If you have evidence, trot it out.

A human is an animal, no different than any other on a cellular level. This does not mean we extend our fraternal feelings to all creatures. We tend to be kinder to those which fit well into our lives do not threaten us.

We happen to have a higher level of reasoning than other animals, as far as we know. There is no separation of the human and the animal within. The idea implies there is something superior about human nature, which while possible, our superior reasoning power should deduce that we are not really capable of impartial judgment in this instance.

 

[bigfield]

I think you have described a human being as we know them to be. This can be seen in any addict. They once indulged in something for pleasure, beyond their ordinary needs. Now their addiction drives them to do self destructive things. It maybe against the informed interests of the person, but the logical, intellectual, rational person finds rational justification for their behavior.

It's more than just that though. I have evidence to suggest that for most humans, the person is a slave to the animal. The animal hooks into it to do a trick and get what it wants, then leaves it sit, rather than the more healthy model of person keeping a well disciplined pet that it lets out of the kennel for play and/or training.

But what does this relationship imply for the discussion of such things as keeping pets, zoophilia, the use of animals for food, neutering animals, animal fighting, etc? What does it imply for animal rights? And what do animal rights arguments mean for the persons that coexist within the same body as an animal?

Why should persons require the consent of animals?

 

[fromderinside]

Why should persons require the consent of animals?

Operational imperative. We are built to act behind events. Being thus we are driven to act within a terminally short time. Sure we can plan. but have you followed your local weather reports lately? We are in a time of weather change and predictions often fail. Unless one has the capability to act to immediate stimuli over taking time to consult the record one is probably dead. Its all a matter of fitness and we are stuck with it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why should persons require the consent of animals?

Operational imperative. We are built to act behind events. Being thus we are driven to act within a terminally short time. Sure we can plan. but have you followed your local weather reports lately? We are in a time of weather change and predictions often fail. Unless one has the capability to act to immediate stimuli over taking time to consult the record one is probably dead. Its all a matter of fitness and we are stuck with it.

You are confusing consenting to the action of animals with the consent of the animals to others acting upon them.

I consent to my personal animal taking certain classes of immediate action, but not to others. I have trained my inner animal to freeze and wait for affirmation before taking other actions, and in yet other classes of action to entirely stow it.

It is the difference between a person consenting to his dog attacking a man running at him without command, (where the dog has not been trained to be averse to that action), versus a dog's consent to being dragged to the vet.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's more than just that though. I have evidence to suggest that for most humans, the person is a slave to the animal. The animal hooks into it to do a trick and get what it wants, then leaves it sit, rather than the more healthy model of person keeping a well disciplined pet that it lets out of the kennel for play and/or training.

But what does this relationship imply for the discussion of such things as keeping pets, zoophilia, the use of animals for food, neutering animals, animal fighting, etc? What does it imply for animal rights? And what do animal rights arguments mean for the persons that coexist within the same body as an animal?

Why should persons require the consent of animals?

The polite thing to do.

Excuse me, Mr. Pig. May I eat one of your legs?

Well okay, but just one.