darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

darth_ender said:

Bingowings said:

It's as inconsistent for me as arguing for the rights of a zygote while eating a pig.

It seems to me that, say, spiders don't have a definable personality, and therefore don't have any rights either. Their behavior is essentially programmed instincts. So exterminating them isn't a big deal ;)

I do wish to ask, do some animals merit more rights than others in people's views, especially Bingowings'? For instance, does greater intelligence warrant better treatment? Does greater similarity to humans warrant better treatment, such as a cow vs. a crocodile vs. a goldfish vs. a spider? Or are they all equally deserving of life, liberty, and their own pursuit of happiness?

I personally use animal life my general cut off point because I have to draw a line somewhere. Jainist monks would go much further but yes if I were to have an unmovable plague of babies eating my roof I would probably not use an exterminator. Where as millions of spiders which can't be scooped up and taken outside without leaving equally destructive stragglers will probably not be greeted with the same degree of mercy...to my regret. If I were to run over a fetus while cutting my grass I would be alarmed and probably as distraught as if I ran over a goldfish cutting my grass.

I appreciate your answer, and truthfully do enjoy your perspective on this subject. As I haven't studied much Jainism, where would they draw the line? And considering they can't photosynthesize, how do they obtain needed nutrients if too careful?

This article here illustrates some of the lengths Jainist monks and nuns go to avoid causing suffering in 'others'. Remember this is one of the oldest organised religion on the planet so it suggests that something a little less extreme is workable in a modern context.