Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:08:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1668 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Oh boy, I am in over my head on this one.
Those are the most important ones to work through. It's neat to pat yourself
on the back and show off how good you are, but it's nothing compared to finding
a hole and fixing it.
> 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.
Why? Too busy?
> 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.
I agree with all this.
> That to me is the definition of sentience.
OK. Whether or not I agree on that definition, I certainly agree that it's an
important cognitive distinction. I think that tool use is another. Actually,
those are the two things that (I think, at least mostly, except for the
exceptions) divide us from the other critters.
> 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.).
So even if they're not "sentient" by your measure, they are fairly
sophisticated and interesting creatures. Unlike the aformentioned fruit flies
which are basically fairly sophisticated robots (but still kind-of
interesting).
> 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).
And thus open for dining, right?
> But humans are animals underneath, I'm just don't think that eating meat of an
> non sentient creature is a moral decision.
Why is your version of sentience the key? Why is it not a moral decision at
all? What is it about morality that pulls away from the issue of deciding
upon which animals you will or will not cause needless pain?
> (I won't eat dolphins, for example,
> but I'm OK with cows, cows are stupid)
What experience with dolphins and cows do you have that suggests that dolphins
"reason about morality" substantially more? For what it's worth, I had that
stance when I was an omnivore too, I just don't think it was terribly
logical. I value(d) dolphins for fairly romantic reasons.
> 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.
In the most recent thread here about eating animals, I stated that I think my
choice is the morally right thing to do predicated on our societal
infrastructure. Were I in the 19th century frontier, I think I'd have to eat
whatever made itself available to survive. And I would. So in a minor way I
think it's OK to eat meat because our ancestors did too, but only if we have to
in order for survival.
> So I'm OK. But have I defined what sentience is merely as a convenience so
> that I can keep on enjoying steaks?
No, you've decided that 'understanding of morals' is where to draw the line as
a convenience so that you can keep 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.
I don't recall the details, but I read from some admittedly fringy source, that
meat tastes different depending on what experience the animal had leading up to
dying. If I understand it right from my muslim sheperd friend who kills his
own lambs in his religiously appropriate way, the lamb tastes bad if it's
frightened when it dies. I think that the vietnamese who tie a dog's paw to a
tree limb so that it thrashes around for an hour before slaughter might
disagree diametrically. YMMV. But, you might enjoy the pain in that
sense...or maybe it degrades the experience.
> 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)
OK, I'll watch for it. And I bet you'll have ample opportunity to comment in
further threads.
> , 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.
Any medical tests? What about very trivially beneficial (or of
questionable benefit) tests that put the rats through severe pain, but that is
the most humane that that particular test can be? What if they are studying
pain and thus must induce it? I would never argue that great good can come out
of evil (like animal testing), but that doesn't change the fact that it's evil.
> 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...)
What if he does? What if he became an animal researcher because he's a
maladjusted cruel bastard? On the one hand, we can say that at least he's
found a positive outlet for his pent up inhumanity, but on the other what about
his wards who are being abused?
> And I said I didn't want to judge intent, it's messy. Ack! How did I get here?
By not leaping to the obvious conclusion ;-)
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
