Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:54:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1567 times
|
| |
|
|
Rearranged the order a bit.
Chris said:
> Larry said:
> > I have my answers to these, which I bet everyone that has been paying
> > attention can predict, and which give the conclusion I expected they would.
>
> I'm not entirely sure. On which points do you disagree with me?
Zero-th order answer: None. To that approximation, we're in agreement. Chicken
fighting is something I'd never indulge in, never bet on, and never view.
Further, I'd rather my kids didn't play games that had aspects of chicken
fighting, if that's the case. Now for some nitpicking and minor quibbles.
> > Or are both sides equally amoral?
>
> _Im_moral.
Well, I wrote amoral on purpose but agree you could ask two questions here.
From the viewpoint of the chickens it's an amoral fight. Chickens don't have
morals, they're not sentient enough to have them.
But from the viewpoint of the chicken handlers, it is indeed immoral, which my
next question got at....
> > Also, is it moral to force animals to fight in the first place?
>
> No.
The above was a nitpick, I'd say. Below is a bit more of a minor disagreement
than a nitpick.
> > > How is fighting different than eating animals, which lots of people do?
>
> It is a few steps further down the road to unnecessary, but basically of the
> same kind, if not degree.
Here is where we diverge a bit. I'm not a vegetarian and never will be. I see
it as OK to eat meat of non sentient creatures, and I see it as a difference
of kind, not degree. We genetically are omnivores, not herbivores.
> > Is it OK to be avoidably cruel?
>
> No. It is a sign of sociopathy.
Right.
> > Is it OK to cause hurt to an animal if it's unavoidable?
>
> No.
Now we really diverge a bit. Causing unavoidable hurt and being cruel are two
different things.
Again, I support eating meat. I want my animals killed in as pain free a way
as possible. I'd rather we just grew beef and chicken muscle in vats but we're
not there yet. Given that, some pain may be unavoidable in the slaughter
process. Ditto for experimenting with the effects of new drugs, tissue
cultures are useful, but the use of live animals is a valid and important
technique.
Heck, my cousin the molecular geneticist (or genetic biologist, I can never
keep it straight) has been causing pain to fruit flies for 20 years now, and
some important (in the esoteric way that significant research is important)
advances in our understanding of embryonic development have resulted. I'm not
going to be supporting any "free the fruit flies" campaign any time soon,
that's for sure.
> > Do we have a responsibility to property that is innate because of the
> > characteristics of the property?
>
> Our own or that of others? Is it right for sentient things to be property at
> all?
I'm not sure about the answer to this. We're not talking about sentient things
when we talk about chickens and roosters, though. I think it's OK to own most
animals. Where I get hung up is on, while I agree that inflicting unnecessary
pain on non sentient creatures is immoral, is it immoral enough to be illegal?
What rights do non sentient creatures have? Are we supposed to arrest all the
wolves of the world because they seem to enjoy chasing rabbits a bit? How
about the hunter who stalks the deer for a while instead of shooting it
outright? If we say yes, aren't we now judging intent instead of outcome?
Libertarians try to avoid judging intent, it's messy and error prone.
A further (tangential) thought experiment for you... if you have complete
ownership of your body, can you sell parts of it off? Certainly (I should be
able to sell a kidney on the open market to the highest bidder if I want). Can
you sign a contract to sell your services for money? Certainly (we all do that
today). Can that contract be in force 24 hours a day? Certainly (consider a
first year resident at a hospital, his time is NOT his own to dispose of as he
sees fit, he is always on call). Can it have an indefinite duration? Seems
reasonable (although this isn't known in real life).
Haven't you then just sold yourself into slavery? Is that enforcable? I dunno.
I think most would agree that you can't do that to anyone else (Not even your
kids), but what about yourself? I just dunno. I get apparent contradictions
when I try to analyse it. Which means at least one of my premises is wrong but
I haven't spotted the flaw yet. It's in there somewhere, I am sure of it.
> > Do the ends justify the means?
>
> No. I don't buy it. I know many of you do.
Me either. The ends don't justify the means. So does that mean that I am
rationalizing away something when I say it's OK to eat meat? Or am I making an
exception? I sense I'm on thin ice but I'm not sure. Everyone who's been
paying attention knows that I don't want to be merely "legal", I want to be
morally correct (even if doing so means that I am *il*legal in some things).
That moral certitude and sense of superiority is a lot of fun, you know. :-)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
149 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
|
|
|
|
