Subject:
|
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:33:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1435 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
The fact we do eat cows, chickens & fish and not humans, dolphins & chimps
is more to do with social taboos that it is our morals. A dog is no more
self aware than a cow in my opinion - but I don't see them on the menu (near
me). Pigs are one of the smartest animals there are - but they are on the menu.
>
> Hence, killing the animals is an amoral act, which, as I recall, is how you
> intended the phrase "might makes right", more correctly translating to
> "might makes reality"? Disagree, do you? Or were you assuming he meant
> "might makes moral", to which I think nobody's even suggested, really.
>
> Personally, I think this is an excellent example for comparing with
> relativistic physics. I would agree that Larry's system (alright, my
> *interpretation* of his system-- he may still deny it) generally holds for
> me. HOWEVER, in the miniscule aspect, it's wrong. Does killing a human
> violate my moral sense? Yes. Does killing a chicken? Yes, but to a lesser
> degree. How about an insect? Yes, but even lesser. How about a carrot? Yes,
> but even lesser. *SO* much lesser, in fact, that I might as well say that it
> doesn't violate my moral code. It's up to me how far I can violate it before
> it DOES become significant. And for me, it's in the same ballpark as Larry.
> Within those set boundaries, I don't feel that I've violated my own moral
> sense significantly. Just as in Newtonian/Relativistic physics-- within the
> bounds of "acceptable tolerance", I might as well use the easier rule.
> Hence, I *AM* violating my moral sense by killing (eating? maybe to some
> degree) a chicken, but not sufficiently for me to call my own action immoral
> by any "large" standards. The immoralness rounds down to 0 in my book.
So the cost, in terms of guilt, in eating a chicken is less than the benefit
of the meal? If so, that is pretty much my stance. The main guilt, for me,
about eating animals is not the fact that we kill them, it is the way we
treat them to reduce the cost. I’d feel a little better if you could treat
them like…. well… animals – not raw materials.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 2 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
|
|
|
|
