Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jul 2000 22:06:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1908 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Gosh, these are getting long.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> >
> > So it is only now that it is immoral, and not in previous generations? Or • was
> > it a necessary immorality all along? Hmmmmm (I'm pondering this, by the way • -
> > the questions are just questions).
>
> The former. I believe that it was not evil when it was the only option. That
> is not the nature of evil.
Fair enough. Hmmmm, situational ethics, though. Them's the breaks, I guess.
>
> > > > Is that true over the entire world (I'm asking that as a question,
> > > > not a challenge - I don't know)?
> > >
> > > Not as it stands. I believe that we (the industrialized nations) have the
> > > resources to make it so, but we choose not to.
> >
> > What if their culture chooses to retain traditional values and practices and
> > doesn't wish to import our values (and produce). Are they immoral or wrong?
>
> If a person or people are given the chance to improve their moral ground, and
> do not, my first inclination is to say that they are evil. However, I
> recognize that to some extent, those people have not been truely given what
> they need to step through that door. On the other hand, I'm not willing to
> waver on calling it evil. Aghhh <head explodes>!
As long as they understand the situation...okay, I might not agree with what
you define as evil, but its a reasonable process.
>
> OK, I'm better. Some people in the world perpetuate evil and hide behind
> cultural identity and preference. (e.g. slavery, genital mutilation, animal
> abuse, etc.) I don't buy it. I don't like it. And I don't think we should
> let it go in the interest of getting along.
Yes, that does happen, no I don't agree that it's so easy to decide what's
absolutely evil.
>
> > > > What's wrong with eating meat if that is what we are adapted to doing[?]
> > >
> > > Our adaptation doesn't enter into it, in my opinion. It is wrong because we
> > > can afford for it to be wrong, and the fact that we _can_ subsist on a • largely
> > > carnivorous diet, doesn't change that.
> >
> > Being able to afford it being "wrong" (i.e. having another option) and it
> > actually being wrong are not necessarily the same thing. What makes it • wrong?
>
> In this case, it being wrong requires that you be able to aford it being
wrong.
You mean that it can't be evil until at least you have a choice. Okay, let's
presume we have a choice: now, why specifically is it wrong? Having a choice
does not define the evil either way.
> > > And maybe I wouldn't have
> > > really learned that bending people to my will through the use of force was
> > > wrong if I hadn't done it. So we can be through with that unfortunate (no
> > > matter how needed) stage of our development.
> >
> > Nuclear warfare and basic sustenance are two different things. I'm not
> > convinced you can draw a parallel between the two.
>
> What is the essence of their difference that makes you think them not
> analagous?
One has to eat, one doesn't have to invent elaborate weapons and detonate them.
>
> > I do understand what you
> > are trying to get at: just because we got to point B through point A doesn't
> > mean we have to keep going through Point A everytime we want to get some • place.
> > But at the same time, we need to define WHY we want to bypass point A, not
> > merely point out that we the capablity of doing so.
>
> Well, I think we should want to not go through point A because it is the cause
> of needless suffering.
Ahhh! A reason (you probably wrote it somewhere else and I simply didn't see
it). Needless suffering of the animal? What if it is an instant or painless
kill? Or does this violate animal rights (as in we don't have a right to kill
them)?
>
> > > > Are non-human omnivores wrong/evil/immoral for eating meat?
> > >
> > > My personal stance on this is that to be evil you have to understand your
> > > choices, and in fact to have the choice.
Keep that in mind when we get down to the mountain lion being a thug.
> >
> > Seems reasonable to me.
> Right, regular cannibals are. Normally. But plane crash survivors and • whatnot
> is really what I was meaning. But if a big box were filled with people and no
> food and no way out, and the only thing to eat was one another. I might award
> the moral high ground to those that refused to prey on others and died because
> of it, but I also wouldn't hold it against the ones who survived.
Having not been in such a dismal situation, I find it hard to judge those that
have one way or the other (assuming that they didn't kill the others, in which
case I can).
>
> > > > In addition to weakness, please add taste (okay, so maybe that is a form of
> > > > weakness).
> > >
> > > It is. By the time you accept (which I understand you're not doing) that
> > > eating meat is 'wrong' then to continue to do so because it tastes good must
> > > be evil because one is weak or evil because one loves evil.
> >
> > Ahhhh, now you may have me (or I may have myself, because I have pondered • this
> > one before). Notice I never mentioned pigs on my list? Now, they aren't the
> > smartest thing in the world, but are they truly stOOpid?.
>
> For the record, they're quite smart. See _Babe_ and _Green Acres_ as • examples.
> ;-)
You wouldn't be wise to quote Green Acres - that just gets me thinking about
eating bacon! :-)
>
> > I may be willing to
> > slaughter a fish or a chicken, but am I willing to slaughter a pig (beyond
> > simple squeemishness)?
>
> Of the standard meat animals, they are far and away the smartest. Arguably
> smarter than either cats or dogs. So if that's what you value...
By some tests. Others disagree. Idunno. Like I said, never say never. I've
certainly been thinking about removing them from the "deep fry" list.
>
> > I don't have the answer to that one yet, beyond they
> > currently fall into the category that they wouldn't have had a life if it
> > wasn't for someone to eat. A good friend of mine has crossed all mammals off
> > his list (he'll still eat fish and poultry). I may change my mind, which is
> > specifically why I agree with your "Never?"
>
> Right, that's the conservative approach.
>
> > > Why on a species by species basis instead of judging individuals as such?
> >
> > Avoids mistakes in judgement. Not that I'm unsure that my current cat is
> > stOOpid (if pleasant), but my previous cat was very smart. As a group, they
> > have crossed over the line that I have drawn.
> >
> > > Isn't that the same as the kind of discrimination that we generlly accept as
> > > being bad? (e.g. assuming that a black woman at the mall is obnoxious • because
> > > some other folks who look vaguely like her are?)
> >
> > No. I'm making an error in the prospected food's favor, not against it.
>
> So the same kind of discrimination is wise if it has the opposite vector?
I wouldn't apply those standards for judging individual or sets of humans, so I
just don't feel that it applies.
> >
> > Morals are usually dictated by your peers in ANY society.
>
> Mine are not, at least not beyond the point that people have (of course)
> influenced my thoughts.
I did say "usually". It may also be argued that unless the morals come from
original thought, then you are merely choosing between sets of peers (a
non-homogeneous society such as the USA is more likely to see this).
>
> > > > So that's what we are genetically adapted to do.
> > >
> > > We are genetically adapted to kill and eat our neighbors, and take their
> > > posessions (wife, cattle, car, whatever), but that doesn't make it right.
> >
> > No, that's not hard-wired in. Your digestive system and nutrional
> > requirements are.
>
> We are hardwired to be able to consume human flesh. Not specifically, but in
> the same category as your assertion about the flesh of other animals.
I can make a deal with my neighbor not to eat each other, I can't do that with
a mountain lion. Further, predators eating their own kind really isn't done
much, so it has some level of hardwiring against it.
> > > > > why do humans have the right to hunt deer?
> > > >
> > > > Because they are hungry?
> > >
> > > So if I want to play, I have the right to steal your LEGO?
> >
> > That is not a basic survival issue.
>
> Neither is hunting deer. You could grow corn and beans instead.
Only if I have the resources. You are presuming the luxury of choice. What
right does a mountain lion have to hunt me? Hunting the deer is to satisfy a
basic need (food). Stealing Lego has no connection with this. Yes, I'm aware
people trophy hunt. Take a photo, ya bloodthirsty sport hunters!
>
> > >
> > > > Because if we don't the mountain lions will?
> > >
> > > Because if I don't some other thug will?
> >
> > Mountain lions are thugs?
>
> Well actually, I was trying to apply your mountain lion logic to the earlier
> LEGO theivery example. But the moutain lion as thug example works too. Sure.
If the mountain lion is a thug, shouldn't we then kill all predators? Or
somehow convert them. Mountain Lions are adapted to eating virtually nothing
but meat. You are placing a moral judgment on something that you already
concluded couldn't make that distinction (i.e. a mountain lion, incapable of
understanding morality or evil, inherently can't be a "thug"). The deer is
going to be hunted, regardless.
>
> > > That's interesting. I've never understood this oft held philosophy. As if
> > > merely by being a product of humans, the humans have all rights to them. By
> > > the same logic, your parents have the right to kill and eat you...at least • if
> > > that was their intent from the get go.
> >
> > Wrong. Humans pass the "stOOpid" test.
>
> So not only is it distasteful for you to eat cats because they cross your • line,
> but it's immoral for others to eat cats?
Other may not have the same standards, and by your definition, they don't see
the question, so the can't be judged as immoral. But in this country, it's
illegal in any case.
>
> > > Yeah. This silly double standard is the result of the ward_of_the_state
> > > mentality in which people (more notably liberals, but most people really) • have
> > > decided that other people don't have the clue required to make intelligent
> > > decisions about the disposal of their property.
> >
> > Rather, those awful liberals have figured out that rich people (dare we say
> > most notably conservatives) are only too happy to take advantage of poor
> > people, uneducated people, people who don't know the law.
>
> I didn't mean to imply liberals are any more awful than conservatives. Each
> have their weaknesses.
Absolutely. But ignoring that aspect, my reasoning stands.
>
> > > This is bad for two reasons.
> > > First it needlessly limits our self determination.
> >
> > Needlessly? I disagree.
>
> Noted.
>
> > > And I believe that the less
> > > you expect people to take care of themselves, the less they are capable. I
> > > know that the more you expect of kids in the classroom, the more they can • do.
> >
> > At the same time everyone is not infinitely knowledgable on all subjects.
>
> Then they should be careful about the contracts they sign.
We both know how that works. That's why we got together and agreed beforehand
that certain rights can't be signed away (we admit that we aren't infinitely
knowledgable). Which doesn't mean you can't sign a bad contract or that you
shouldn't be careful.
Bruce
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
