Subject:
|
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:05:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1360 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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.
As far as I know, pigs are not self aware either. The only animals I know of
that have been "scientifically" classified as self-aware are humans,
dolphins and a couple species of great ape.
Is there a correlation between intelligence and self-awareness? I think so.
How about intelligence and morals, or self-awareness and morals? Are people
more willing to eat an animal that is deemed less intelligent simply because
it doesn't make them feel as bad?
Meat is meat. Most people that I know are willing to eat a meat that looks
familiar. They only balk when they find out that it is something
"different". It makes me wonder if that is just an emotional response due to
a "social taboo" as stated above, or what. I myself try to sample everything
at least once, just so that I can make an informed choice as to whether it
is something I like or dislike.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
If only you knew how well some of those animals were treated. I was raised
on a ranch in South-Eastern Montana, so I have a little firsthand
experience. I can remember having sick calves in our bathroom inside our
house (the bathroom because it cleaned up well) so that we could keep a
better eye on them. I also remember delivering many a calf in the barn on a
cold winters night. I can remember bottle-feeding calves who's mothers
rejected them. You wouldn't believe the troubles some ranchers go through to
ensure the health and well-being of their animals.
-Duane
>
> Scott A
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
