Subject:
|
Re: Killing (was: Re: Voluntary, private discrimination (Was: Disparicies in Sentencing))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Sep 1999 04:04:39 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswestIHATESPAM.net
|
Viewed:
|
2142 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> "Moz (Chris Moseley)" wrote:
> >
> > Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote
> > > <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote:
> > > > > Moz wrote:
> > > > > Killing animals is ethically hard to defend in most cases
> > > > I would like to hear why killing animals is hard to defend.
> >
> > Case one: humans. Should not be killed unless obsolutely necessary.
> > Reasons? Killing reduces happiness not just in the victim, but also
> > in their community. And can further reduce happiness in a wider
> > group by spreading fear of other deaths.
>
> As you note below, your standard is that happiness is central to your
> philosophy. For those who disagree, their conclusions would be different.
>
> > Case two: other "higher" animals that can have a time sense and memory
> > for friends, for similar reasons to case one. Examples being apes and
> > cetaceans, also many pet animals.
>
> Don't be silly, no 'animals' can experience unhappiness. God put them
> on this earth for us to use and abuse. At least that's what I've been
> told by several Christians and a couple of Muslims.
Yeah, a couple of idiots who happen to be Christian and Muslim speak for God, or all
of Christianity or Islam. Or maybe not.
> > Case three: other animals. Anything that can feel happiness to some
> > degree should be encouraged. Exeptions generally based on greatest
> > happiness.
>
> Measured how? Is the cow getting to live happier, or is Mike eating
> sixty steaks (presumably not in one sitting)?
>
> > > Wondering if he means for food (which I'm willing to accept - it IS
> > > hard to defend in a lot of cases
>
> I had assumed that Mike meant hunters going for food, but that's more
> reasonable IMHO than grocery store meat. It seams that you're taking
> his comment as referring to industrial agriculture.
>
> > Growing animals for food is hard to defend if you start with premises biased
> > toward maximising happiness as the ultimate good. Those are what I use, but
> > I image there are others that lead to similar conclusions, for instance
> > ones based on efficiency.
>
> And others that don't.
>
> > > for sport, as in the case of trophy hunters, which is impossible to defend,
> >
> > One way to defend this is to use pests as the trophy animal. The most easily
> > defended trophy animal is another trophy hunter. You both have the same
> > goal and agree to the same conditions, taking the same risks. One of you
> > gets a trophy.
>
> :-)
>
> Wait, I know, we gun-toting American lunatics who don't want to pay
> taxes to feed the poor, could set up a lottery where by the poor who
> participate get fed on the dole but they risk being the quarry (sp?) in
> _The Most Dangerous Game_ or some such.
>
> > > the killing of say pets or something, which is also difficult to defend, since
> > > it is the destruction of the property of another person.
> >
> > Killing of pets is generally tricky, because it affects their primary caregiver
>
> Agreed. Property rights is difficult to apply because of relative value.
>
> > But I don't buy the destruction
> > of property argument as being special to pets. Is killing a Golden Eagle less
> > bad than killing a cat because no-one owns the eagle? Is killing a pet better
> > or worse that stealing a television?
>
> In part it depends on what you mean by bad. I'm against folks shooting
> Golden Eagles, but I would take it much more personally if they killed
> one of my cats. Killing my pet is MUCH worse than stealing my
> television. I might shoot to kill someone attempting to heist my TV in
> the heat of the moment, but I'm certain that I wouldn't hunt them down
> after the fact were they successful.
>
> > On a similar note, the harm in killing is also related to the relative size of
> > the population. Losing a hundred humans in auto wrecks is bad, but it's not
> > as if there's any shortage of humans. Losing 10 Right Whales to "scientific
> > whaling" is a tradgedy, because that's about 1% of the population. Not quite
> > as bad as losing 50 million humans, but much worse than losing 10 of them.
>
> Depends on the 50M and the 10 as far as I'm concerned.
>
> > So the question for me becomes, how many people do I think it reasonable to
> > kill to stop whaling? Well, if I thought that any killing I could do would
> > stop it, then my feeling is somewhere between 100 and 10000. I have no qualms
> > for instance, advocating a program of scientific ship-sinking to see how
> > many whalers have to die before the Japanese stop sending them out.
>
> I like that phrase..."scientific ship-sinking."
>
> So now it sounds like you agree with me about killing abortion doctors.
> _IF_ you thought that abortion was similar in degree to murder (as we
> generally think of it) and believed that you could terrorize doctors
> into ceasing performance with a few killings, you would consider it. Right?
Ethics 101, two wrongs don't make a right [1]
-John
[1] but three lefts do.
>
>
> later,
>
> Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
276 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
|
|
|
|
