Page 2 of 4 [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Jan 2007, 11:49 pm

snake321 wrote:

To your 1st question, I don't think it's just "my morality". "what consequences for human society will your morality being about that would be more positive than just letting people act freely"... And, this is once again, primitive animal self centerdness. Yes, theyr just that way too, maybe moreso. But, with our "divine intellect", it's ok to make the innocent suffer for no better purpose than our ammusement?
As to your 2nd question, all life deserves a right to live. It's not like we chose to be here.

Why is it wrong to make things suffer for our amusement? Not only that but why is it the job of the government to force your views on this upon other individuals? Just because there is selfishness doesn't mean that there must be laws stopping it. Not only that but once again, this still goes back to your morality specifically, as if it was judged from an individuals point of view then each individual would have the choice to treat an animal however they wanted based upon ownership, however, you want to impose your views upon other people so therefore the question should be asked why your view should dominate. After all, if I want to kill my cat in my basement or have a dogfight, why should you intervene in my life and stop me?

Why does all life deserve to live? You make a big metaphysical claim but really do you have evidence backing your claim? Is evidence even possible? If not, then why should we accept this claim as being true? I can just as easily affirm that no life deserves a right to live. After all, how does the mere condition of living give one the right to continue doing so? That being said, is there any more concrete reason to let the continued existence of other life if that existence goes against a human interest?



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

07 Jan 2007, 12:10 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
snake321 wrote:

To your 1st question, I don't think it's just "my morality". "what consequences for human society will your morality being about that would be more positive than just letting people act freely"... And, this is once again, primitive animal self centerdness. Yes, theyr just that way too, maybe moreso. But, with our "divine intellect", it's ok to make the innocent suffer for no better purpose than our ammusement?
As to your 2nd question, all life deserves a right to live. It's not like we chose to be here.

Why is it wrong to make things suffer for our amusement? Not only that but why is it the job of the government to force your views on this upon other individuals? Just because there is selfishness doesn't mean that there must be laws stopping it. Not only that but once again, this still goes back to your morality specifically, as if it was judged from an individuals point of view then each individual would have the choice to treat an animal however they wanted based upon ownership, however, you want to impose your views upon other people so therefore the question should be asked why your view should dominate. After all, if I want to kill my cat in my basement or have a dogfight, why should you intervene in my life and stop me?

Why does all life deserve to live? You make a big metaphysical claim but really do you have evidence backing your claim? Is evidence even possible? If not, then why should we accept this claim as being true? I can just as easily affirm that no life deserves a right to live. After all, how does the mere condition of living give one the right to continue doing so? That being said, is there any more concrete reason to let the continued existence of other life if that existence goes against a human interest?


Your an aspie, how did YOU feel when others made YOU suffer for THEIR amusement? Your logic (if you could call it that) comes off like someone who would use eugenics to justify the halucaust or slavery. What makes it wrong? How about hurting an innocent being for no particular reason other than bloodlust?
As for your 2nd remark, it's good you believe in logic but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have compassion. You didn't ask to be here either, how would you feel if someone tortured you to death because they thought it was funny? It's not a matter of evidence, it's a matter of decency and morality.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

07 Jan 2007, 12:11 am

You need evidence that life has a right to live? Evidence is all around you. Why would we have all been born if we weren't supposed to be here?



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

07 Jan 2007, 12:12 am

awesomegloriousness, are you a secular humanist? Because you sound like one.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

07 Jan 2007, 12:52 am

snake321 wrote:
Your an aspie, how did YOU feel when others made YOU suffer for THEIR amusement? Your logic (if you could call it that) comes off like someone who would use eugenics to justify the halucaust or slavery. What makes it wrong? How about hurting an innocent being for no particular reason other than bloodlust?

The only thing is that I am a member of a human society and for others to act as such to me goes against the interests of the greater whole of a human society both as a person as society will lose my individual potential and as a rule because if this happens on a large scale then a lot of potential is lost and a lot of what could be created never is. However, these same claims cannot be made for animals. As well, the only reason my "logic" as you'd say comes off as being so foul is because you morally disagree with it, and your rejection is not a well-founded one so much as a moralistic attack. If my logic is bad, like the logic justifying the holocaust or slavery then it is debunkable as being bad, but if it is good and based upon good premises then why not follow it. Your reason is not an absolute statement of why it should be enforced by a government but rather a re-affirmation of your moral dislike for such an idea. I could go on some tirade about how you seek totalitarianism and the submission of the individual to state-sent morality, but that is not proof and that does not get us any closer to any solution.
Quote:
As for your 2nd remark, it's good you believe in logic but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have compassion. You didn't ask to be here either, how would you feel if someone tortured you to death because they thought it was funny? It's not a matter of evidence, it's a matter of decency and morality.

The only thing is that decency and morality are not absolutes. My morality could say that it is perfectly fine to do such a thing, can you objectively prove that wrong? The issue is one of evidence, as there must be a compelling reason for a human society to restrict human freedom in such a manner, other than your moral biases.
Quote:
You need evidence that life has a right to live? Evidence is all around you. Why would we have all been born if we weren't supposed to be here?
Why not be born? Just because something happens doesn't mean that there is necessarily a higher reason for it.
Quote:
awesomegloriousness, are you a secular humanist? Because you sound like one.

Does it matter? I could be devil worshipper. I could be a hard-core anarcho-capitalist. I could be a devil's advocate. What really matters is the validity of my premises and the following logic. I am not a secular humanist though.



McJeff
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 361
Location: The greatest country in the world: The USA

07 Jan 2007, 5:26 am

I'm an animal lover - 2 cats, 2 dogs - so take my opinion for what it's worth.

If it's acceptable to give a human being preferential treatment over all other animals, then why is it unacceptable to give, say, pet animals like cats and dogs, preferrable treatment over food animals like cattle?



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

07 Jan 2007, 5:34 am

snake321 wrote:
Well.... The ONLY reason I'm such a carnivore is because I can't stand certain cheeses, green leafy vegies (other than lettuce), and garlic. Those things make me wanna vommit. And, you can barely name a single vegetarian meal that doesn't have atleast one of those things in it. If they had wider vegetarian options, I would probably be a vegetarian...... But, vegetables live too though.... And plants have feelings as well, they can feel pain.......


as awesomelyglorious pointed out, this is only a matter of your own taste ans personal preference. because physiologically you can eat the vegetables, you just claim not to like them.

Quote:
I mean, meat is a source of protein that is essential to growth and development, and only in more recent times have medical experts found ways to get around this and remain healthy.


this is actually quite an incorrent assumption. enough protein for human requirements is easily available from plant foods. in fact, most westerners at least consume far too much protein. over consumption of protein can cause serious problems in terms of health.
[edited to add]: in fact, vegetarianism has been practiced since well before the christian era, notably among hindu communities. it is arguable also that pythagoras was vegetarian, as were his followers. therefore, "medical experts" have done nothing really to assist the human in its ability to live happily on plant foods.

Quote:
But if the killing is in the aims of sustaining our own lives, I think it's acceptible.... Just as it is when a lion eats a person.

but why? it's not necessary for you to eat the meat. its just a choice you make, because you've been brought up to eat meat. you can easily live on plant foods, whereas, the lion cannot. there seems to be an inconsistency in your argument, no?



also, awesomelyglorious, your argument could also be used to justify killing/eating of humans.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

07 Jan 2007, 11:38 am

peebo wrote:
also, awesomelyglorious, your argument could also be used to justify killing/eating of humans.

Some aspects of it could. Most of it could not as my argument is based upon allowing individual moral preferences, and the idea that the interests of humans are more important than that of animals. To go into that discussion I'd start pulling out concepts of rule utilitarianism and about how such laws(or lack thereof) would lead to greater harm for the human species that would not exist for killing/eating animals.



headphase
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 709
Location: NC, USA

07 Jan 2007, 3:42 pm

McJeff wrote:
I'm an animal lover - 2 cats, 2 dogs - so take my opinion for what it's worth.

If it's acceptable to give a human being preferential treatment over all other animals, then why is it unacceptable to give, say, pet animals like cats and dogs, preferrable treatment over food animals like cattle?

Well, my standards of preferential treatment is cognitive ability.



McJeff
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 361
Location: The greatest country in the world: The USA

07 Jan 2007, 5:48 pm

In which case dogs at least are entitled to a higher level of preferential treatment than any living creature besides a human being, but that's a fair way to look at it. If someone tortured an ant I wouldn't give a crap one way or another, but if someone tortured a dog, I'd endeavor to kill him in the same way he killed said dog.

There was a case like that around my town once. Some kid set a dog on fire (it survived, just barely), and some other kids hogtied the first kid and set his legs on fire.



headphase
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 709
Location: NC, USA

07 Jan 2007, 6:39 pm

McJeff wrote:
In which case dogs at least are entitled to a higher level of preferential treatment than any living creature besides a human being, but that's a fair way to look at it.

Are you kidding? You are telling me that dogs have better cognitive abilities than dolphins and chimpanzees? There is a reason tuna is supposed to be dolphin safe.



Xenon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,476
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

07 Jan 2007, 6:49 pm

peebo wrote:
this is actually quite an incorrent assumption. enough protein for human requirements is easily available from plant foods. in fact, most westerners at least consume far too much protein. over consumption of protein can cause serious problems in terms of health.


Actually, that's a myth... provided that one's kidneys are functioning normally. Excess protein simply gets broken down into glucose. Unless the "serious problems in terms of health" you state refers to weight gain caused by eating too much... but in that case, protein is not the only culprit.


_________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips


snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

07 Jan 2007, 6:58 pm

pecking order under humans for intelligence:

1. dolphins
2. monkey/ape
3. elephant
4. dog (would have been number 3 but some dogs are smarter than others obviously, depending on breed, so I rounded it out)...
5. I dunno, maybe whales?



lonelysoul
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 11

07 Jan 2007, 9:10 pm

Here's how I feel. Yes, I eat meat. I think it's simply part of the food chain. If we hadn't taken the animals we now know as cattle out of the wild and bred them, long ago, they would not be sitting there eating grass and looking all cute and smiley, despite what some may think. lol, They would be hunted by natural predators, and ripped to shreds brutally. I understand that what makes us different is compassion. So what, is it now our duty to remove all those poor "prey" from their natural habitats and "save" them? Should we start breeding domesticated livestock anmals to go BACK to the wilderness? What are these animals purpose, then? My thing, personally, is that I believe animals used for livestock should live in decent living conditions and entitled to a quick and painless death.

Now, as far as animal cruelty, I'm completely against it, in any form. I think beating and starving a dog should earn the same in return.

But, if I wanted to go off certain A-stereotypical atheist views I've seen here, morality is a myth, so therefore we should f**k our dead grandmothers corpses and run around eating aborted fetuses. Go back to Norse Viking Days. Cold hard logic. OK, fine. But, what logic says that me stabbing you in the face because "I felt like it" is wrong? I've then proven I'm "dominant".

I understand that morality is relative, but there has to be a line. What is "progress", anyway? Reverting back to base animal instincts like f*****g Neanderthals because "morality is a myth" or becoming like friggin Vulcans (emotionless beings)?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

07 Jan 2007, 9:42 pm

lonelysoul wrote:
But, if I wanted to go off certain A-stereotypical atheist views I've seen here, morality is a myth, so therefore we should f**k our dead grandmothers corpses and run around eating aborted fetuses. Go back to Norse Viking Days. Cold hard logic. OK, fine. But, what logic says that me stabbing you in the face because "I felt like it" is wrong? I've then proven I'm "dominant".
Simple, the logic that human societies are built upon legal structures meant for mutual protection and that stabbing me in the face would be harmful towards your desires, think of Hobbes when reading this argument and no, not from the cartoon. You seem to lack an understanding of the entire argument or of the nature of the societal structure and how the nature of laws
Quote:
I understand that morality is relative, but there has to be a line. What is "progress", anyway? Reverting back to base animal instincts like f***ing Neanderthals because "morality is a myth" or becoming like friggin Vulcans (emotionless beings)?

Derive this line. The very fact is that the line argument has no meaning. There is NO line, there is logic and illogic and the fact that you don't realize the illogic of allowing senseless killing leads me to conclude that you really haven't thought out these issues as there are plenty of reasons without referring to morality to not have the war of all against all, sheer self-interest argues against that. We already have animal instincts anyway, would the legalization of this really change that? We like violence, we like sex, we like lots and lots of animalistic things and the real question has nothing to do with animalistic desire but rather whether or not it allowing these animalistic things is acceptable from a utilitarian view of society. As well, one does not have to be a Vulcan to claim that a personal belief should not be enforced upon society. The relative nature of morality can allow for individual moral characteristics to go against the norm, the question comes down to why you should force other people to accept your morality and I sense that few people really get that. It is like I am arguing whether or not homosexuality should be allowed and you claim that my arguments allow child-rape when I make no reference and even statements that would go contrary to such.



headphase
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 709
Location: NC, USA

07 Jan 2007, 9:46 pm

lonelysoul wrote:
Here's how I feel. Yes, I eat meat. I think it's simply part of the food chain. If we hadn't taken the animals we now know as cattle out of the wild and bred them, long ago, they would not be sitting there eating grass and looking all cute and smiley, despite what some may think. lol, They would be hunted by natural predators, and ripped to shreds brutally. I understand that what makes us different is compassion. So what, is it now our duty to remove all those poor "prey" from their natural habitats and "save" them? Should we start breeding domesticated livestock anmals to go BACK to the wilderness? What are these animals purpose, then? My thing, personally, is that I believe animals used for livestock should live in decent living conditions and entitled to a quick and painless death.

I don't get why you are saying what is the animals purpose. Shouldn't their purpose be the same as ours, to procreate and survive? Why do people keep mentioning dogs, because the animal shows empathy toward humans it should be held in higher regard than a pig?