Subject:
|
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:21:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1181 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> >
> > > Following that statement, would you also conclude that "might makes right?"
> >
> > No, because I don't know of *any* boundary conditions where it would hold,
> > contrasted with the many boundary conditions where "don't yell at your kids"
> > is invalid, and the few boundary conditions where "free speech" is invalid.
>
> Really? I'll propose the following:
>
> "Might makes right"
> - Application: killing animals for food
> - Boundary:
> - Within bounds: animals are not "self-aware" by Larry's definitions
> Ex: cows, chickens, fish
> - Outside bounds: animals are "aware enough" by Larry's definitions
> Ex: Humans, dolphins, chimps
Disagree that this is an application of such.
Let us postulate that I own clear title to a piece of real property for the
sake of what follows, to avoid the (legitimate, in my view) questions of was
might involved in acquiring title. These questions OUGHT to be explored (I
do not suppport what was done to the native americans in the course of our
expansion but am not sure exactly how to unmake that particular omlette
neatly) but not here, please.
Further postulate for the sake of this discussion that there are no property
usurping restrictions imposed by force by government on what I can do with
my own property insofar as it does not injure others.
Now, if I in my role as owner of that property, exploit it by, say, smashing
a rock with my hammer to make gravel to decorate or improve another part,
there is no "might makes right" involved. As long as I have clear title, and
there are no deed restrictions, it is mine to do with as I wish.
If I similarly exploit a clearly non sentient organism and rightless, a
blade of grass for example, there is no difference. This neatly extends to
any other organism that doesn't have rights. No might makes right involved.
It's simply a case of exploitation of resources that belong to me.
The only time that "might makes right" is involved is if I am exploiting
something that has rights. In which case it's a different scenario not a
boundary condition. Important distinction.
Killing ones own food animals for food is not an amoral act because it is
not *amoral* to wish to sustain yourself with the fruits of your labor.
Rather, it is profoundly moral to wish to live and to further that end in a
non violent non rights abrogating way. Not amoral, not immoral, but moral.
Just and right to do so, just as it is just and right to exploit grass or
rocks, as it is appropriate to live, and immoral to wish to die if one is
not guilty of any transgression.
Now, I would be happy to eat steak grown in a vat (from an original donor
cell) rather than sliced from carcasses, and would welcome such a
development, but that's not here yet. Till then it is right and proper to
eat cows as they are totally clueless and have been bred to be so.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
