Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Jul 2000 13:46:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1762 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > 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.
Right, OK, I see what you want now. It is wrong to cause pain in others. This
may either be 'commuted' or ignored (depending on how you look at it) when it
is needed for your survival.
> > > 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.
One has to eat something and one has to defend oneself somehow. Beyond that we
have many choices about the details. We don't generally have to cause pain to
eat, and we generally don't have to use weapons of mass destruction for
defense. But there are exceptions. I think the parallel is perfect.
> > > 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)?
I am uncomfortable with two things as distinct issues. The far more important
(to me) issue is the causing of suffering. If you can breed, raise, and kill
your animals in a dignified and almost pain-free way, I am much happier. But
killing is still wrong. I think that other animals have exactly the same
'right to life' that humans have. How you want to define that, I am somewhat
flexible on.
> > > > > 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.
Oh, but by thug I didn't mean to imply evil or morally wrong...
> > 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).
Meaning that you would hold it against the ones who killed and ate their fellow
vicims, right? If so, we disagree. I think that refusing to prey when needed
to survive is above and beyond the call of duty. It's nice, but not requisite
for being an OK person. I'm not sure which approach I would take.
> > Of the standard meat animals, [pigs] 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.
Right, me too. I have known cats all my life quite well. I've known dogs less
so but fairly well. I know pigs only fairly poorly. I'm not the right
person to make a qualified assertion. But the reading that I've done on the
nature of intelligence (they included a bit of that in the curriculum for the
Master's of Education that I went through) did compare various species and
discuss their strengths and weaknesses. It is pretty universally understood
that pigs are smart.
> > > 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.
Sorry, I don't get your meaning. Which standards.
> > > 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).
OK, I think that the more of us (and I just meant that I include myself) who
are comfortable establishing and following a code of morality based on what
they can derive to be good and bad, the better off we are. I would prefer that
people decide issues of right and wrong for themselves through and ongoing
process of reflection.
> > > > > 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.
What are you getting at here? You were asserting that because our bodies could
digest (fairly well) flesh, that we should(?) eat it. I was including humans
in the same logical derivation. Being able to deal with your neighbor doesn't
affect your gastrointestinal ability to derive sustenance from him.
Basically, I'm just pointing back to the just because we can, doesn't mean we
should argument. By the way, I really am glad that I can survive by eating
meat. If we ever have a nuclear winter it will come in very handy.
> Further, predators eating their own kind really isn't done
> much, so it has some level of hardwiring against it.
I'll buy that, but humans aren't strictly predators (like say mountain lions).
There are at least as many biological clues pointing to our being herbivores
for the majority of our evolution.
> > > > > > 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.
Yes. I am. And given the luxury of choice, why do humans have the right to
hunt deer?
> What right does a mountain lion have to hunt me?
What does that have to do with us? But, I would say they don't strictly have
that right...they just do it anyway.
> Hunting the deer is to satisfy a basic need (food).
Not in today's USofA. At least not for most people most of the time. In fact,
for those who aren't poaching, if you include the cost of weapons, license,
travel, and time, it's quite a luxury to hunt deer, not a necessity at all.
> Stealing Lego has no connection with this. Yes, I'm aware
> people trophy hunt. Take a photo, ya bloodthirsty sport hunters!
I say it does. I would also say that the huge majority of deer hunters,
regardless of their consumption of the flesh of the deer, are 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?
No. We shouldn't kill all human thugs either. Though I do think that it's
basically OK to kill one when being threatened by one, and the same holds to
mountain lions. Though I'd personally cut them more slack since they are in
the top 2% of cool things on Earth, and for me to be in danger from one, I
would have basically had to go out looking for them.
> Mountain Lions are adapted to eating virtually nothing but meat.
Yup, just like my six domestic felines that I feed beef and chicken to. Isn't
it weird how I can do that? I may need to think on it a bit.
> 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.
I still don't think that the mountain lion, thug or no, is evil. Calling it a
thug is an anthropomorphisation. We can just drop it if you like, since it
seems to be tripping us up. I understand that deer will be hunted by mountain
lions. I don't hold it against the mountain lions. Just like I don't hold it
against the frontiersman for hunting to supliment his farming. (Though I do
hold it against the trappers.)
> > > > 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.
Is it? Either way, illegal has almost nothing to do with immoral. Now, that's
not exactly what I meant. For instance, I am willing to say that anyone who
farms their children (regardless of culture) for consumption is evil. Really
evil...or maybe just evil and really sick. I guess by my logic, I have to say
that if that were their only way to survive, then it wouldn't be immoral.
That's ugly, and I wouldn't choose to - at least not for long - but I'm willing
to stand by it. And I'm comfortable stating that it's immoral to eat cats, not
just for me.
> > > > 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.
OK, I think that people should have the right to allow themselves to be taken
advantage of in many ways that the government currently protects them from.
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
