Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:22:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1873 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
TIME WARP WARNING: My replies do not always follow a chronological sequence.
Explanations to such lurk somewhere in the middle.
> > 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.
Aha! What we need is a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy beast that kills it
self (humanely). :-)
And if it is done painlessly? (I asked that before, didn't I? - lost in the
snippage somewhere)
No, it was just further down the message.
>
> > > > 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.
Only if attacked. One must eat, period.
> 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.
Breathing we gotta do. Sleeping we gotta do. Warfare we don't gotta do.
>
> > > > 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.
Okay, then it isn't ultimately about pain and suffering (not to trivialize
those complaints). It's a right to life issue. So, going back to the
deer/mountain lion thing, do we kill the mountain lion to protect the deer?
Just lock it up? What do we feed it when it is locked up? If the mountain
lion has a right to do its predator thing, how are we any different?
Oh, and why the mountain lion/deer hang-up? I'm only a few miles from both (or
a few feet at any given moment), so it has an immediate application to me.
>
> > > > > > 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...
"Thug" has a pejorative connotation.
>
> > > 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.
Murder is murder. He did it to survive? Okay, that means he'll do it again.
Best to take him out now since he violated a basic social compact.
> > > > 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.
Species intelligence standards (my cat is dumb, but cats in general are past my
"I'm not going to eat you" threshold so I'm not going to eat my cat).
> > > > > > 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?
That we are genetically adapted to eat meat and not genetically adapted to kill
our neighbor (regardless of whether we can).
> You were asserting that because our bodies could
> digest (fairly well) flesh, that we should(?) eat it.
I'm asserting it is a natural part of our diet and meats (ooooo, sorry) meets
certain nutrional requirements. As such, it is a natural thing for humans to
do. You are asserting that there are ways to get around that and still satisfy
nutrional requirements. I am asserting that just because there are ways around
it doesn't mean that those ways are required or have a moral imperative. Your
primary reply to that is that animals have a right to life on some level (i.e.
there IS a moral imperative). I'm not so sure what those rights are, or if
they even exist (i.e. we are at the point that there is not much left except to
agree to disagree).
This is a basic summation of what I think are our main points (convoluted
discussion digressions aside). Since we seem to be finding the logic train not
so much derailed, but off on an unknown siding at times hopefully that clears a
lot up (and sequentially, this is the last thing I'm writing, so if I seem to
be writing in ignorance of what I just wrote....I am!). :-)
> 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.
We make social compacts with each other, which is where "rights" derive from
anyway, so animal rights and human rights are not directly comparable.
>
> Basically, I'm just pointing back to the just because we can, doesn't mean we
> should argument.
And just because we don't have to, doesn't mean we shouldn't.
> 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.
If the plants don't grow, eating meat will be kinda worthless. Better to grow
something. And if I thin out the cute bunny population, that will be easier to
do (oooooooooooo, stOOpid but cute: a typically american moral dilemma).
>
> > 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.
We are talking about the predator side on this point - herbivores would seem
less likely to kill and eat each other (despite the fact they would be
tastier).
>
> > > > > > > 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?
Because they are hungry? Same as the mountain lion.
>
> > What right does a mountain lion have to hunt me?
>
> What does that have to do with us?
It has to do with predators, prey, and rights. It addresses all the same
subjects except it pulls us out of the equation and puts something else in, but
the actual results of the equation are the same. If you apply standards to
one, then they should apply to all. If that doesn't work, you must explain the
difference (if there is one). If, for example, you say the mountain lion
doesn't have a right to hunt the deer, they just do it anyway; are you saying
that "rights" don't apply, the mountain lion IS violating the deer's rights, we
should intervene to enforce the deer's right, should we feed the mountain lion
a nutrionally balanced but plant derived meal, etc.?
> But, I would say they don't strictly have
> that right...they just do it anyway.
Okay, the point I'm getting at is: the animal world doesn't recognize rights.
The mountain lion hunts the deer and eats it if it can. We do to. Tell me the
difference. Tell me why the deer has "rights" vis a vis humans? If it has
rights against the mountain lion, too, then a consistent vision of the two
needs to be defined.
>
> > 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.
Situational judgment. What right do humans have to hunt deer? Satisfy hunger.
Not in the USA? Who says this has to be the USA? It's kinda hard to build a
case that we shouldn't eat meat as a rule, but only based on local. Further,
let's say that nuclear winter happens (maybe it was just an asteroid winter).
I kept my hunting skills up (okay, I haven't, but this is hypothetical), you
haven't. I survive, you don't. Do I have a right to keep my hunting skills
up? If so, why? Basic survival? AND the basic statement still stands:
hunting the deer is to satisfy a basic need (food). That you can get food
somewhere else does NOT make this untrue (feel free to bash sport hunters).
>
> > 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.
Stealing lego satisfies nutrional requirements? I just don't get it.
> I would also say that the huge majority of deer hunters,
> regardless of their consumption of the flesh of the deer, are sport hunters.
As long as the ultimate effect is that they eat the deer, it's immaterial.
>
> > > > > > 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.
By your assement of mountain lion motivations elsewhere (gosh, this is getting
too baroque - I apoligize if this gets confusing because I'm reading stuff
later in this message and going back and rewriting sections but not necesarily
rewriting what's ostensibly later in this message. If you followed that,
please explain it to me!), the mountain lion does not seem to be a "thug". My
brain hurts.
> 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.
A guy at work walked out his office door and spotted a dead deer. He went back
inside and called security to remove it. When security arrived and they went
to get the deer, and it was gone! You don't have to go looking for 'em both
where I work and live - they are probably watching you (and admittedly, taking
one look at you and running).
>
> > 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.
But that was my point all along. Are we just fooling ourselves with this talk
of rights, of distinguishing between what we should kill and eat and what
animals kill and eat?
Don't mistake me: I'm NOT saying I have the answer to this. I'm NOT even
saying that you are ultimately wrong. Maybe one day I'll decide that I'm just
being weak and I'm eating animals because they are tasty (but I've noted that
virtually all my acquaintances that are vegetarian actually do eat meat every
now and then). All I'm ultimately saying is that at this point I'm by no means
convinced that you are right. Which leaves an unsatisfying gray area that can
get murkier even as we attempt to shed more light on it.
>
> > 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.)
No argument on the trappers.
The thug thing is because you were drawing a parallel between a mountain lion
doing its basic survival thing and a human thug. I don't believe you can apply
human moral standards to animals.
>
> > > > > 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?
Yup. As several asian restaurants found out (not that they didn't know in the
first place). Maybe that's just California.
> 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.
My stOOpid cat breathes a sigh of relief. :-)
>
> > > > > 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.
Is it a matter of spin? Is the government protecting people from themselves,
or are they stopping sleazebags from taking advantage of people?
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
|
|
|
|
