Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jul 2000 18:02:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1664 times
|
| |
|
|
Oh gosh...lots of comments to make. Don't you people realize I need to get
some work done ;-)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> 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.
You say this and don't seem to answer it? What are your thoughts about the
differences and which ones are relevant?
> 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.
To say "it is correct to not gain sustenance from animals" does not force "it
is not correct to gain sustenance from animals" to be true. I'm also not sure
what it is about your statement that makes it rationalizing-free any more or
less than the other statements.
> This suggests then that we should not sustain ourselves by eating.
I don't think so, but it maybe moot.
> 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).
Only if you accept that the morality behind your statement apples universally
and that it is correct at all to regulate others. And maybe some other stuff.
> 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.
How absolute is absolute? What if it's wrong to force someone/thing else to do
something in addition to it being wrong to consume lifeforms? I reject the
notion of absolute morality at all.
> Clearly this condition is impossible. Therefore I argue that the consumption
of lifeforms for sustenance is NOT a moral imperative.
Meaning that morality doesn't play a role in the decision at all? Since that
is clearly false, we can assume the logic or premises leading to it are too.
> 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.
What if we could sustain another kind of community with different restrictions?
What is to say that the kind of community, or the kind of humans that we are is
the best we can do?
> 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.
Why must it be the death of others that triggers our use of deadly force? What
about other forms of predation?
> 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,
When is that?
> however, note that the purpose of war is NOT to kill the enemy,
> only to stop them from killing others.
Well...hmmm. Does the operational expense of the campaign matter? What about
killing a few folks to obviate the need to kill a bunch? I contend that fewer
people would die if we implemented a policy of military assassination during
times of war. Iraq is a perfect example. Cuba is another.
> 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.
Are we having a kind of ivory tower moral conversation or a down to earth
practical one? What should we expect in return for going to war? Anything?
> 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.
The right to life is not, IMO, the most basic right. I believe the right to
own property is, and the right to life is derivative. I also believe that this
right is as immutable and absolute as one could be. Even when being put down
by a state, or killed in combat, one has the right to own their body. It's
just that sometimes others' rights conflict and are more important. The
burglar in my house has a right to life, but I have a more pressing (at least
from my view) right to protect my self and my family. So when I kill him, I'm
not treading on his right exactly, he just checked it at the door.
> 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).
Right, but that doesn't seem to fit with your analysis of the right to life
above.
> 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).
Agreed, at least maybe. I think many more limited forms of slavery would be
possible too. For instance, the slavery you're talking about without the
ability to kill the slave. The details would depend on the contract.
> 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,
But we haven't. You asserted that, but I question it.
> it is also clear that slavery is • immoral, even if a person were to voluntarily enter
> into a contract of slavery.
I agree that it is immoral, or at least very distasteful, but what if that's
what they want? Is it more immoral for me to tell you that you can't own
Larry, or more so for me to tell you that you can? Consenting adults and all.
> 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'm in favor of freedom.
> 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).
Or helping. What if I ask a doctor what drugs would kill me painlessly, he
tells me, I ask what they're normally used for, he tells me, and a week later I
report those symptoms. When he writes me the prescription, is he assisting my
suicide?
I believe that assisted suicide is not immoral. I believe so because I don't
believe that preservation of human life has some kind of ultimate innate value.
It is at the discretion of the body's owner. (Or whoever has been contracted
to oversee those concerns.) If that's what they want then interfering is
immoral.
> 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.
Disagree. I'd rather people butt out. It's a personal decision.
> 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
Right, it doesn't matter, but I still disagree that it has any negative moral
weight in and of itself. If you grease yourself while responsible for feeding
some kids, that's immoral. There are probably many circumstances like that.
> acknowledging the lives saved). It would also appear than
> committing someone to a hospital to prevent them from committing suicide
> is moral.
Questionable. If it is your charge/ward, then probably, if not, then it's
slavery and evil.
> 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.
It's higher moral ground on that subject only.
> 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.
I don't follow. Why would some and not others?
> Another issue is do we completely understand what should be our
purpose in life?
I don't see how this is something to understand. This is something to create.
You can decide what your "purpose" is. For many it seems to be to kill time.
> It would appear to me that almost
> everyone on Lugnet is not engaged in the most correct life.
Do you mean that we aren't morally perfect? I suppose that's going to be true
for everyone. It also depends how you measure. I think that stealing is
wrong, but I support tax fraud. That's fine for me, but I could easily see
someone claiming that it's hypocritical.
> 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.
I think you can only claim it's better in that some of our play leads to
innovation that might make lives better. We don't always clearly differentiate
between play and work. Is LUGNET Todd's play or Todd's work? Or both
(probably)? Anyway, it has made my life better. The dog chasing a stick might
be entertaining and rewarding to the dog's patron (which I prefer to owner) but
that's surely less "valuable" than LUGNET.
> It certainly requires more resources. I'm curious as to whether
> anyone has a non-religious explanation of our purpose in life.
I already gave my vote. You get to pick. Or choose not to pick and let it all
slide by.
> This really is the fundamental question I think which cause humans to
> be religious
Maybe so. It kind of encompasses the whole pig-picture.
> (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]).
Agreed with your logic, but I have no evidence to support the higher being
theory either.
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
|
|
|
|
