Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jul 2000 02:25:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1663 times
|
| |
|
|
Interesting debate. I'm not sure I can do this justice with my head hurting the way it is, but bear with me while I explore some
thoughts.
One thing which is clearly an issue in this debate ultimately comes down to what makes us different from other living things, if
anything, and what makes various species of life different.
Since people are having trouble deriving a basis for what is correct with regards to what we eat, I'm going to try a different tack.
Rather than trying to decide where to draw the line, I'm going to propose that it is correct to NOT gain sustenance from other
living things. I think this is the only hard and fast line we can draw without rationalizing.
This suggests then that we should not sustain ourselves by eating. This also raises the question of what we should do about almost
all other life (it may be true that there is a small set of life which is not dependant on the consumption of other living things
for sustenance). I would argue that if it is an absolute statement that it is wrong to consume other living things for sustenance,
that by implication we should attempt to stop all other lifeforms from sustaining itself by consuming any other lifeform.
Clearly this condition is impossible. Therefore I argue that the consumption of lifeforms for sustenance is NOT a moral imperative.
Now we are left with deciding why humans should not in general consume other humans. I don't think this is an absolute prohibition
(i.e. I would claim that the occasional situations which have been documented in recent history where some humans were forced to
consume their dead companions for the sustenance to stay alive are morally acceptable situations).
What we are left with is laying out a context within which we can operate. It is important to note that other lifeforms will have
different contexts.
What we can safely say about humans is that communities of humans are an essential part of what we are. Humans are humans because we
in fact form these communities. Next we need to look at what restrictions must we put on our actions in order to sustain that
community. The most important restriction which is absolutely required for such communities to be sustainable is that we strive to
not kill each other. It is impossible to totally avoid killing, as it is clear that stopping another human from violating the
community may require extreme measures. However, those measures must ONLY be taken when the death of others is a significant
possibility if the individual in question is not stopped.
By this reasoning, the death penalty is immoral. Once someone has been taken into custody, there are plenty of options to keep them
from causing more death. On the other hand, war is clearly acceptable when it becomes the only alternative, however, note that the
purpose of war is NOT to kill the enemy, only to stop them from killing others.
By this reasoning, I think it was imperative that we stepped in during W.W.II. I'm less certain of the American Revolution. I'll
leave other wars up for grabs.
It would also help to determine what other rights exist. Clearly no right is absolute (since the most basic right, that of life is
not absolute). Despite this, we can still enumerate certain rights as nearly absolute. As Larry often mentions, ultimately, the
fundamental rights always boil down to property rights (where the right to life is just the most fundamental piece of property).
Larry raised a question whether it is legitimate to sell oneself into slavery. I think this is dependant on understanding exactly
what slavery is. I would argue that what slavery ultimately is is the giving over ALL of one's rights to another (including the
right to life). Since we have already established that killing another human is not acceptable unless it is the only way to prevent
one human from (potentially) killing another, it is also clear that slavery is immoral, even if a person were to voluntarily enter
into a contract of slavery. Now we are just left with what are the enforceable conditions of contracts. Clearly, at some point ANY
contract may be voided, now we just need to decide how and where to draw the line.
Interestingly, I think I've just established for myself that assisted suicide is morally wrong. Ultimately, assisted suicide
involves an individual contracting with another for that other to terminate their life (even though the suicide may involve the
person who wishes to commit suicide actually pushing the button or whatever). On the other hand, this does not establish that an
individual has an absolute moral imperative to stop someone else from committing suicide, though one is standing on higher moral
ground if one does make every attempt to prevent someone from committing suicide. Unfortunately, it still leaves the act of
committing suicide in moral limbo. Of course there is not much we can do about it after the fact, and I would argue that in general
there is little to gain by judging someone after the fact (though in certain cases, such as the soldier throwing himself on the
grenade to save the lives of others, it is likely that there is gain in acknowledging the lives saved). It would also appear than
committing someone to a hospital to prevent them from committing suicide is moral.
Back to the food question. I think that a person who draws the line between what they will and will not eat to exclude more
lifeforms may have some claim to higher moral ground, but of course that is just one aspect of their life. I'm not sure how to
answer this question though. One problem is that I don't think we have enough information yet. While we know that large numbers of
people seem to live healthy lives as vegetarians, what I think we don't know is if every human can live a healthy life as a
vegetarian. Another issue is do we completely understand what should be our purpose in life? It would appear to me that almost
everyone on Lugnet is not engaged in the most correct life. While I suspect that a certain amount of "play" is important to our
wellbeing, I'm not sure that our play is "better" than a dog chasing after a thrown stick. It certainly requires more resources. I'm
curious as to whether anyone has a non-religious explanation of our purpose in life. This really is the fundamental question I think
which cause humans to be religious (I'm not going to claim that humans invented religion in attempt to answer this question, though
my feelings are strongly towards human invention [but such invention does not also preclude the possibility of a higher being]).
Ok, my head hurts too much now. Time to see some responses to this.
Frank
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
