Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 27 May 2000 12:24:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1262 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > I think that there is a real inherent difference between eating human flesh • and
> > > eating other animal flesh, because there is a difference between being Fully
> > > Animal, and Merely Animal.
> >
> > Why does this difference (which I agree exists) have anything to do with • being
> > murdered?
>
> I'm not sure that I follow your question...do you mean murdering any creature?
I mean, why does the difference between being fully animal and being merely
animal have anything to do with who should be able to victimize whom?
> I see a difference between killing and murder...killing is an unfortunate part
> of the reality of in this world for a great number of creatures...murder is in
> cold-blood for no good reason.
I think that murder "is an unfortuante part of the reality of this world" too.
I think the key to your statement above is "good reason." What makes a good
reason? If good-reason is the difference between murder and killing (which is
presumably OK), I think we need to define good reason. For instance, if you
think that a "good reason" to take a life is because you like to run their
heated body oils along your tongue as an act of hedonism (ie. you like the
taste), then why shouldn't I (or more specifically, a cannibal) be allowed to
kill (for instance) you, for the same reason? Isn't his reason equally "good?"
Now, if you mean that killing because you have to to survive, then I would
agree with you. Is that what you mean? Do you eat flesh?
Also, for the record, I'm in many ways more opposed to ritualistic torture than
to murder. For instance you are simply evil (I mean this in a pretty weak
sense, not like a burning in hell sense) for eating deer that you hunt, but you
are a really vile life form for which I have no respect or sympathy if you eat
grocery-store veal beacuse you are approving of and financially supporting a
system of methodic torture.
Any one care to object? :-)
> animals that exhibit a "soulishness; horses, cats, dogs, [and] I'm
> sure that others can. Please see transcendentalism.
> >
> > > ...and transcendental qualities that no other
> >
> > What's that mean?
>
> I tried to find a short, concise word for that quality that makes humans
> spiritually aware, if you will.
I believe we have reached the point where our argument breaks down, but I'm
willing to pursue it a bit farther in case I'm wrong. I believe that humans
are probably the only spiritually aware creature. But I believe that this is
the case only because we're the only ones with sufficient cognition to make
such notions up.
And if I'm wrong about the non-existance of anything spiritual, then I doubt
that we're the only ones. I have experienced a few exceptional non-humans with
more depth of character than most people exhibit. Were I to wax poetic about
souls and afterlife, I would require that other animals be included.
> The great majority of humans have believed in
> some sort of creative deity, or have pursued some means to come to terms with
> the origin of our universe.
You mean like the study of physics? Or do you just mean perusal of the
inexplicable?
> I think that one can reasonably argue (not from a
> water-tight position of certainty, but nonetheless with at least reasonable
> merit) that humans are endowed with faculties of sensitivity and inquiry that
> allow us to operate on a higher plane of awareness than all other animals.
I'll agree about the animals that I've known -- having not worked with many sea
mamals, I'm not willing to write them off. But I still haven't heard how this
matters at all.
> > > animals on Earth are capable of. Humans are indeed Fully Animal, but not • Merely
> > > Animal. I think that this is a powerful argument as to why humans possess • the
> > > greatest inherent value of any species on Earth - which is not to say that
> >
> > Value is not objective. That's not how the concept of value even works.
> > Things are valuable to intelligences. I tend to value humans more than other
> > animals because they can do more for me. OTOH, I value my pets more than I
> > value most strangers. I disagree with the very concept of inherent value.
>
> I fully admit that I argue from a presuppositional basis that this world has
> been created by a benevolent God; therefore, my conclusions will not doubt be
> different from those who hold the impersonal universe worldview.
I've discussed my "ethics of life" with both Christians and Muslims who were
offended by my stance -- that clearly isn't your situation -- but it allways
boiled down to the fact that their diety told them they could eat animals, so
they didn't have to invest the time thinking about whether it was right or
wrong. If that's your case, let's stop now, because as far as I'm concerned
that's just stupid. (I don't mean to accept the teaching of your religion, but
instead, to use it as an excuse not to think about things further.)
> As such, I do believe that all created life possesses
> inherent value, but those respective values are not equal. Frankly, I believe
> that humans possess these transcendent faculties because we have been endowed
> with qualities that objectively make us more valuable than other life-forms.
What if aliens arrive tomorrow (for the record I don't believe in aliens
either) who possess "transcendent faculties" much superior to our own? That is
to say that they are much smarter, more emotionally complex, and spirtually
advanced. And they have a Bible that is realy pretty close in meaning to our
own, and they think we were put here as a trans-galactic rest stop complete
with munchies? Is that right or wrong? Good or bad?
Or is it your belief that there is a line between us and the other animals on
earth, that allows our predation on them to be good and just? And if we find
other animals above that line (these aliens, for instance) then those above,
can all kill those below, but not each other? I see two possibilities for said
line. The first is that the measure of whether one is below of above is
determined by whether one understands the concepts of personal rights,
morality, etc. The second is that it is utter hogwash.
> Don't get me wrong: I believe that all other life-forms are remarkable and
> wonderful
"Remarkable and wonderful" but not wonderful enough to live and let be toward?
> Anyway, we will no doubt need to agree to disagree regarding the issue of
> inherent value, but I think that a solidly reasonable case for it can
> nonetheless be made.
A reasonable case for what can be made?
> Precious few creatures have the capacity, innate ability, or even
> environmental luxury to chose alternative means to sustain
> themselves. We humans, fortunately, possess that ability to a
> high degree. Even under the extreme circumstances we can chose
> mercy, we can chose not to kill.
This is a big precise chunk of why it is wrong to kill. It is completely
unneccessary. Our society is sufficiently complex to provide a wildly
nutritive cruelty-free vegetarian diet. Right now it costs more if you want
variety too. If we did it en masse, then it would be cheaper and more
sustainable than the current system.
> I may seem to be arguing both sides of the issue
> here...although I am not a vegetarian, I do have great respect for moral
> objections against it.
Against vegetarianism!?! ;-)
> > So, as I mentioned in an other note, if you base this value on intellectual
> > capability, in a variety of forms, and that's your explanation for who can • eat
> > whom, how do you feel about Mensa members picking through the alzheimer ward
> > for scooby snacks?
>
> By no means. I believe that the inherent value of a human being is not
> contingent upon that human's intellectual ability;
Oh. I guess I was correct that the whole argument breaks down to you think
that "God made us special and told us to rape the environment, so there!"
(That's more snide than I really feel, but I'm leaving it that way to
illustrate the way it feels sometimes.)
> in the moral equation,
> I believe that a human is a human. I guess to some up my arguments,
> humans have the moral and "transcendental" ability to master our
> biology, if you will, to a degree that no other creatures on this planet
> possess.
What if they could? What if dolphins would have if they'd lucked into arms a
million years ago? I know that there are real (not just fringies) researchers
who have hypothesized that.
> We as a species can't
> step out of the food chain altogether, but some of us can give it a go, and I
> salute anyone who has the compassion and wherewithall to try.
Another "for the record" here: I don't want to step out of the food web. But
my family - if I'm still in the US will be prohibited by law from following my
wishes on disposal of my body. I would like to be dumped out of a plane into
the deep woods and left to the environment to deal with. Burrying and burning
are both creepy.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) I'm still not sure that I follow you. My answer, if I understand the question correctly, is that I believe that it is a moral evil to kill animals gratuitously. (No doubt we'll find some common ground here, but disagree as to what exactly (...) (24 years ago, 27-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) I had a professor in college who has made arragements to be buried six inches deep in a forest in VA. I know it doesn't have the same effect as your wishes but it sounds like its legal. -chris (24 years ago, 2-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Hmm.. What if you lightning subsequently sets fire to the woods where you're hypothetically dropped? Or if a landslide buries you? Burying and burning may be creepy, but cholera (for example) and the stench of rotting corpses trouble me, too. (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jun-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) I certainly didn't mean to suggest that I expected an imminent flame from you...I was merely acknowledging that some people following this thread will no doubt vehemently disagree with me. (...) I'm not sure that I follow your question...do (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 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
|
|
|
|
