Thats nonsense. Aren't we in a relationship, or "friendship", with all animals by virtue of sharing the same land with them and benefiting from their ecological support?Isn't it true that the mere knowledge of animals existence in the wild makes millions of people and children happy? Is that not a relationship? If wild animals were to suddenly disappear don't you think it would cause some severe psychological distress to masses of people?
And when we use wild animals for our own purpose or destroy their habitat are we not establishing a relationship, a bad one perhaps, but a relationship none the less? I am suggesting that within that relationship that animal suffering be avoided when reasonably possible. I am not suggesting holding back progress or putting humans second.
To say an animals only value is in the eye of a human beholder sounds like an eerily religious argument. I will not get into a religious argument or whether if a tree falls does it make a sound if no human is there to hear it. Animals have a value in and of themselves and to suggest otherwise is certainly a human centric 14th century notion which led to the burning of many animal welfare advocates (by the church) at the stake. I think we have evolved since then. And from a scientific standpoint doesn't each animal have a value by simply keeping its ecosystem healthy? Apsychologicaly by the fact that their mere existence in the world makes millions of people and children happy?
And don't put words in my mouth, I and most activists in no way support overindulging animals with "luxuries". I find people who do so stupid and think the money could be better spent. Animal "lovers" are often as ignorant as abusers. I am not asking for overindulgence and even over the top "love" for animals I am simply asking for respect.
I can't argue existential arguments, like where do we draw the line on bugs or dogs or rabbits and how much pain do they feel and on and on. I will not let it paralyze me into an inactive stupor. I think it is safe to say that expanding ones circle of compassion outside just yourself isn't that hard to do and a worthy and noble pursuit by anyones philosophies. I cannot draw the line just like abortion activists can't draw a line in their debate. This is no reason to devalue the entire cause.
There will always be other causes to fight for....so by your logic one should do nothing. Nonsense. And as I have pointed out. One fight helps the other. A more humane world for animals by extension will be a more humane world for people. There are certainly enough people and resources in this world to fight all the good fights.
And just because a person is desensitized to animal suffering doesn't make it OK to do nothing about it. The Nazi guards at the concentration camps made the same argument for their inaction. Its bullshiit.
Any reasonable person can identify suffering in a human or animal and it is reasonable to expect that they would take some action to alleviate it. I cannot buy into your "its all relative" theory.
Mate, I'd love to go deeper and deeper into this debate, but TBH I don't see the point. We both have different premises that we're basing our arguments on and as a result, our trying to justify any point we make (to the other party) isn't going to be effective. Whatever opinion we present will be a logical extension of the underlying premises (at least in my case), so there is no point in arguing something like this when it's the fundamentals that we should be arguing about. And an in-depth argument on fundamentals and metaphysics isn't something that either of us can possibly type up and post, cause the time and effort required to do the same makes it impractical to do so. I will tell you this much - I'm not religious, at all. I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in (the existence of) God or supernatural phenomenon or similar things. I know this doesn't have an immediate bearing on the topic at hand, but am mentioning it cause you brought up the possibility of part of my arguments being defended on the grounds of (organised) religion.
Also, I'm not saying that every one of the animal rights activists out there should abandon their cause and move on to what I think is a more worthwhile cause. I'm just saying that it's unreasonable for you to expect sympathy, given the situation can be looked in a lot of different ways (which in fact, is the case), one version of which is my take on the whole thing. If you're passionate about a cause, you should go ahead and try to do the best you can to achieve what you possibly can. You can even go one step further and try to get other people involved in a positive way that'll advance your campaign positively. But what is not cool is being a crybaby when others refuse to share your enthusiasm for whatever it is that you're occupied with.
So, I'm not saying you should stop doing what you're doing or pointing out all the flaws in your philosophy. You're free to do what you wish, as long as it doesn't affect the 'rights' of another individual of course. I'm just sticking up for the rarely acknowledged, albeit invaluable and appallingly under-appreciated prime movers like scientists, who do animal testing for the sole purpose of ultimately improving the quality of human life.
Peace.
