Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:05:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1513 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > _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.
I agree with this bit, but I'll get to sentience a bit further down.
> > > > 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.
Never? You allude further down to being close (at least) to buying in to the
idea that you're rationallizing somewhere. Mightn't you change your mind? If
not, why not? I am convinced that every person capable and willing to do the
thinking will come to largely the same conclusion that that I have and decide
that it's evil/wrong/immoral (take your pick) to eat meat when it is _so_
clearly not needed. I expect that some of those that figure that out, won't
change out of weakness, but most of those people won't have gotten that far in
the first place. So anyway, I think that never is a bit bold.
> I see
> it as OK to eat meat of non sentient creatures, and I see it as a difference
> of kind, not degree.
In the vernacular that I understand, sentient is taken to mean self-aware which
leaves the issue a bit fuzzy. How self aware? In what senses? But actually
it means to have sensation. You're sometimes a stickler for correct
definitions, so let's have it on this one too. ;-)
I understand you to mean that because chickens have cognitive abilities below a
certain line, it is OK for you to kill and eat them. Right? And I believe
that cows also fall under that line, right? I think that given the time I
could pretty sharply prove that some humans are dumber than cows. I don't mean
this in a cute sense, but only in reference to severely retarded people. Is it
morally OK for you to kill and eat those people?
> We genetically are omnivores, not herbivores.
So?
What we are genetically a bunch of things that we should consider hurdles.
There are many of those. We are told by our genes to protect our woman, but we
don't think it's OK to beat the guy who eyeballs her or even makes rude
comments. We are told by our genes to copulate with just about any member of
the opposite sex that will let us, but for a variety of social stability
issues, we've (well, most of us have) imposed willfull control on ourselves.
We are told by our genes to degenerate over time and have a hard-line
termination date, but we're sinking fortunes into figureing out how to
circumvent old-age as a cause of death. And that's a good thing. So what we
were is history. What we can be is my concern. And I believe that we can be
better than we were.
> > > 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.
Wait! I misread and answered. It _is_ OK much of the time if it is
unavoidable. But what is unavoidable? In modern society with so much powerful
infrastructure, it is downright _easy_ to not eat meat. So killing for food is
clearly avoidable.
> Again, I support eating meat. I want my animals killed in as pain free a way
> as possible.
Actually, I'm much more concerned with their lives being cruelty free than
their deaths. (Though both would be preferred.) To see why, answer the
following question:
Would you rather live for twenty years, and be shot in the head, or live for
forty in a 2x2x6 foot cage while being fed the same bad food every day and
being anally raped avery couple months?
> I'd rather we just grew beef and chicken muscle in vats but we're
> not there yet.
Yup. When we are, I'll try it, but I doubt I'll eat it much. For that matter,
I hope that we can grow human meat that way too.
> Given that, some pain may be unavoidable in the slaughter
> process.
They could not be slaughtered. That would be the easy way to avoid the pain.
> 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.
And millions of creatures have been destroyed after torture having not
benefitted human medicine at all because humans and
rats/cats/poultry/pigs/rabbits/monkeys all act and react differently than
humans do.
> 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,
Can you prove to me that drosophila feel pain? My understanding is that they
do not; but I could be wrong.
> > > 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.
As I pointed out, we are. What exactly marks the difference between us and
them?
> I think it's OK to own most animals.
Most implies not some. Which? Why? Only if certain standards of care are
met, or own in the 'without restrictions' sense that I typically use and
desire?
> 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?
Right, me too. Even from my place much farther down the 'animal rights' path
than you, it's pretty hazy. I hate to restrict people more than is needed, but
I really do feel like critters in general (not just we) ought to have a right
to their own life. To be free from predation from us.
> What rights do non sentient creatures have?
That depends on what a right is.
> 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?
I agree with your implied 'obviously not' stance. OTOH, why do humans have the
right to hunt deer?
> 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.
I'm not Libertarian, so I don't necessarily care. But I would prefer to avoid
sticky situations like that.
> 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).
Agreed.
> Can
> you sign a contract to sell your services for money? Certainly (we all do that
> today).
Agreed.
> 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).
I think it should be possible, but I think the Army is a better example,
residents can just walk away.
> Can it have an indefinite duration? Seems
> reasonable (although this isn't known in real life).
Agreed.
> Haven't you then just sold yourself into slavery?
Yes.
> Is that enforcable?
In the US, or in Libertopia? No (conditionally) to the former, yes to the
latter. OTOH, we're slaves of the state already, so I think the reason that
the US won't let us sign into slavery is that they already own us.
> 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.
What if someone else signs up to be your slave. Why not be able to sell them?
Agree that you can't force freemen into slavery.
> I get apparent contradictions when I try to analyse it.
What are they?
> 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.
I have the same opinion about logic, so let's figure it out.
> > > 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?
What do you mean by making an exception? I think it has to be one of the
two...or something.
> 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. :-)
Agreed on all points. Especially that taking the moral high road is fun.
Chris
|
|
Message has 4 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
|
|
|
|
