Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:08:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1515 times
|
| |
|
|
Oh boy, I am in over my head on this one.
Rather than analyse in depth every one of Chris's point by point responses
(well done as usual), I think I'll try to take the easy way out and say why I
think I'm on thin ice as a meat eater and leave it at that.
I've said before that animal behaviors are what they are, they're not moral or
immoral, that is, the wolf is making no moral judgement about himself or his
prey when he catches the rabbit. Wolves don't reason about morality. That to
me is the definition of sentience. So neither the rabbit nor the wolf is
sentient by that yardstick (although wolves can and do communicate, can and do
solve problems, can and do show loyalty, can and do feel pain, etc.).
Humans as a species generally are reasom based amd moral, although as I've
said before I hold that refusing to reason (or being incapable of reasoning)
morally makes one inhuman (even if one genetically is).
But humans are animals underneath, I'm just don't think that eating meat of an
non sentient creature is a moral decision. (I won't eat dolphins, for example,
but I'm OK with cows, cows are stupid) I go back to the argument that we are
meat eaters by nature, although I concede Chris has a point about changing our
nature voluntarily being a doable, and sometimes even desirable, thing.
So I'm OK. But have I defined what sentience is merely as a convenience so
that I can keep on enjoying steaks? I dunno. See? There's a contradiction
there, I think. I do know this, I don't enjoy any pain that an animal has to
go through in order to end up on my table. At least I don't think I do.
Now that that's weaseled out of (yes, I acknowledge that I should, and will
try to, come back to it, but hey, I also have Matt Miller's "what is the
nature of rights" question hanging over me too), I'll just toss out that I
think tearing the wings off flies (even if it is true that flies feel no pain)
is not a very good practice either, while at the same time performing medical
tests on rats (even though rats *do* feel pain), if done in as humane a way as
possible, is fine.
To me the difference is (ack!) why we do it... The fly tearer is doing it for
fun, while the researcher is not doing it merely for fun (although he may well
take great pride in, and derive enjoyment from, his work, he doesn't enjoy the
pain the rat feels per se...)
And I said I didn't want to judge intent, it's messy. Ack! How did I get here?
Can we go back to talking about copyright law? That's (comparatively) easy. :-)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
