To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 11402
11401  |  11403
Subject: 
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:24:05 GMT
Viewed: 
1298 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
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.

While I agree that that *is* true in practice, the reason *behind* those
social taboos *is* a moral reason, I think. So while it actually does
violate *both* our morality *and* a social taboo, the actual reason behind
it is purely moral, I think-- unless it was generated by some
superstition/religious belief.

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.

Again, I stand by my statement. Morality arises when we associate other
being's desires as having value in the way that our *own* desires have
value. This is *precicely* why we feel more morally violated when bad things
happen to those we know-- BECAUSE we've gotten to know them, we more clearly
develop a sense of their desires and the fact that they have value. The
moral implication is not insofar as pigs *have* more self-awareness
actually, so much as the fact that we're aware or not aware of it.

For instance, if plants in fact had consciousness matching our own, and we
were unaware of this, would that make us immoral to kill them? Because I
judge based on intent, I say no-- it only becomes immoral when we're made
aware of the fact.

So the cost, in terms of guilt, in eating a chicken is less than the benefit
of the meal?

Yep. Sad but true, I suppose.

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.

Agree.

DaveE



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
 
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR