Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:13:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1604 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
(snipping all the things previous that I agree with - excellent analysis)
> 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).
Indentured servitude did not give over the right to life, but it was form of
slavery, so I would disagree with this definition.
> 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.
Again, if the slave-holder is specifically denied the right to take life (or
even physical punishment), what would you say? Me? I'm not a Libertarian and
I'm with California on the fact that you cannot sign away certain rights and
freedoms.
> 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.
I don't recall signing a contract with that Golden Trout who is going to be
dinner. :-)
>
> 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.
Euthanasia of a terminally ill and suffering pet? And by extension a relative?
I don't have a clear-cut answer - I wish I did.
> 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]).
There is no universal answer to that question, so trying to make the one
dependent on the other is asking for a headache (unless you want to use a
specific answer for purposes of illustration or debate).
>
> Ok, my head hurts too much now. Time to see some responses to this.
My brain hurts (see, I TOLD ya). I suppose it will have to come out, then.
Bruce
>
> Frank
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
