Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 27 May 2000 14:50:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1078 times
|
| |
|
|
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 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 gratuitous killing is.)
>
> 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?
Being not merely animal does not give us the right to do as we wish to those
creatures that are merely animal. My point is that I do not believe that we are
indeed just animal; we are fully animal, but something more.
>
> > 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?"
If all life forms are of inherently equal value, then I'm afraid that your above
question is a correctly-logical conclusion. But, I disagree with the
presupposition that all life forms possess equal rights in all situations.
Please see my deity answer below.
>
> 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?
Yes, I do eat flesh, and I admit that it is for pleasure in most circumstances.
>
> 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.
I am opposed to the factory farming industry of livestock, which is a reason why
I am seriously considering only eating meat when I have good assurance that it
was not produced in one of those awful factory places.
> 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.
Indeed. The afterlife will be a poorer place if it lacks animal life, but I
think that it shall.
> > 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?
Both. I do not divorce the inexplicable from scientific inquiry.
>
> > 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.)
Yes, I am a Christian, but no, I am not offended by your worldview. To explain
my position on the religious aspect a wee bit further:
For a member of a religious group (such as mine), the question of what we
believe that God has said regarding our diets must be weighed into the equation.
I have a friend who is equally orthodox in terms of his theology who has been
persuaded by the arguments of Peter Singer (with whom you are no doubt
familiar), and has come to the view that it is wrong for humans to eat animal
flesh if such act can be avoided. I completely respect that position, but am
not ready to make the same commitment. Perhaps you will think my view to be
merely self-rationalizing, but it is genuinely where I am at today: Yes, the
Bible records God telling Peter in the Book of Acts that humans may eat animal
flesh. Now, as I've said I am much persuaded by many of the moral arguments
against carnivorous survival. The crux of my decision to eat meat rests on a
fact which I believe to be true: God never created this as the best possible
world that could be (or has been) created. Carnivorous survival was very much a
part of things here before humans ever emerged. Because I believe that humans
are a created species (even by evolution - the means by which we came to be
matter not to me), I believe that I do have the latitude to partake of something
that has always been "natural," so to speak. I do not say, however, that such
latitude is always the best thing. If a person feels that it is a moral
imperative to not eat meat, then I say that person should by all means follow
their conscience. And, perhaps we (I, whomever) should not be content to allow
this world to remain anything other than the best possible, so long as we have
power to do so.
>
> > 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?
(Actually, I do believe that other intelligent life forms exist throughout the
universe.) I concede the point that you possess the moral high ground by not
eating flesh. It is always better to chose mercy. Perhaps our higher position
in this world behooves us to refrain from eating other creatures, because by
killing them we WILL cause them to suffer. I am not ready to make your
commitment, but I am seriously considering it.
>
> 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.
Necessary predation when done for survival is neither good nor just, nor evil,
nor unjust...it is just a fact of our condition as inhabitants of this imperfect
system of survival that exists on Earth. But, I concede that because we possess
moral faculties, we do have the responsibility to use them correctly. Predation
is probably no longer necessary for our society.
>
> > 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?
Ok, when I see a roach outside, I rarely, rarely kill it. I generally leave
bugs alone unless they are in my home. If it is in my power to do so, I try to
let all creatures alone (live and let live) unless they are im my home. If I
find any insects in my home, I kill them. I respect their survival, but not at
my expense. I realize that I have let down my gaurd with that statement, but I
have already conceded your moral argument.
>
> > 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?
Inherent value and the relative worths of different creatures when competing
claims must be weighed.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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!?! ;-)
Pardon me. I have great respect for moral objections against eating meat.
>
> > > 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.)
Rape the environment? Absolutely not. I am much distressed by the state of our
environment. Have humans been created special (by some means)? Yes, I believe
that.
>
> > 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.
If dolphins had arms, then many things would no doubt be different in this
world. I am not afraid of the idea of other creatures having equal, or
superior, intelligences and moral faculties than us.
>
> > 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.
If you'd like to share why you feel that burrying and burning are creepy, I'd be
interested to know.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) being (...) 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 think that murder "is an unfortuante part of the reality of this world" too. (...) (24 years ago, 27-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
|
|
|
|
