|
|
#21
10-10-2005, 03:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
[ QUOTE ]
However, I think there is a big difference between feeling that killing bunnies with butterknives is wrong, as I strongly do, and thinking this behaviour is wrong, which I, frankly, don't. [/ QUOTE ] I think from an evolutionary view that its the opposite, theres nothing wrong with torture/killing bunnies, but the behavior is wrong. In a communal/gregarious society that behavior would be selected against (who wants to live with someone callous/crazy enough to pointlessly torture an irrelevant living being? A lot of serial killers get their start doing this) and taboos and repulsion is manifested toward these actions. 
|
|
#22
10-10-2005, 04:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Have to get it right the first and only time here(at least that is how I feel). [/ QUOTE ] Get what right?
|
|
#23
10-10-2005, 06:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
This is a good post. I disagree with you on your assumptions and "leaps", but only slightly, and I certainly respect them.
Thank you for clarfying in such an articulate manner.
|
|
#24
10-10-2005, 06:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
[ QUOTE ]
I think from an evolutionary view that its the opposite, theres nothing wrong with torture/killing bunnies, but the behavior is wrong. In a communal/gregarious society that behavior would be selected against (who wants to live with someone callous/crazy enough to pointlessly torture an irrelevant living being? A lot of serial killers get their start doing this) and taboos and repulsion is manifested toward these actions. [/ QUOTE ] I definantly agree with this, and it is a good point. I alluded to it in my frist post. This explains things very nicely from a 3rd person view, but how do you feel on the subject? The vast majority of social norms that have evolved specicically help a society when they are enforced. However, this does not have any negative impact except by appearence. In the case of slaughterhouses and animal testing, it actually has a very positive benifit when people deviate from the norm. So again, I do not think that the quoted passage is a good reason to personally maintain this moral in certain situations.
|
|
#26
10-10-2005, 02:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
I hope I understand what your asking, but here goes:
We get one shot at life. Everything gets one shot at life. If there is something alive that is more destructive than beneficial, it's rational to kill it. [ QUOTE ] it is immoral to torture a rat, or an unwanted mut, or to mass slaughter cows. Why? [/ QUOTE ] What need does torture satisfy? Certainly nothing beneficial. Torturing it for no reason other than that it's alive and you want to watch it suffer? Boys will be boys, I suppose. I have more trouble when adults do this. Killing any non-rational animal is not immoral, but torturing them to death is wrong for two reasons; it doesn't satisfy the intent conveyed to the recipient for past crimes and it can do irreparable harm to the perpetrator. If a pit bull mauls a child, it won't find remorse by being skinned alive or drug behind a car. Killing it quickly is sufficient, as much for future danger as past crimes. As far as cows go, they're bred and raised as food. If beef and poultry went off the market tomorrow, there would be a lot fewer cows and chickens. They only exist for their utility. So they are "paying" for their lives by being food later. Harvesting millions isn't the same as torturing one, but I don't agree with their treatment in many cases while they're alive, so I'm choosy about meat. But that's a personal choice. [ QUOTE ] However, I think there is a big difference between feeling that killing bunnies with butterknives is wrong, as I strongly do, and thinking this behaviour is wrong, which I, frankly, don't. [/ QUOTE ] The next time you need a babysitter, hire the person who is willing to kill a bunny with a butterknife.
|
|
#28
10-10-2005, 04:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
You make many assumptions about justice and life which make it impossible for me to argue with you. Your points about torture have already been adressed. I'm not sure if you didnt read the thread or are going for a cheap laugh. You are taking a small part of the issue and blowing it up.
I feel like if I discuss parts of your post I will have to discuss the whole thing, which I do want to waste time doing. You have brought far to many beiliefs to this discussion; you need to discuss these beliefs not the effects they have on your moral relativism.
|
|
#29
10-10-2005, 04:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
[ QUOTE ]
rofl [/ QUOTE ] I know why you think it matters. Your post is still completely worthless. Your assumtions that you are right before hand, demonstrated in your making fun of me from the side lines and complete unwillingness to discuss anything annoy me. I have encountered a lot of your religious types, who believe everything you are spoonfed. You are now the first user here I have put on ignore.
|
|
#30
10-10-2005, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
I agree with your post here and your follow-up post as well. I just don't understand why it needed to bring utilitarian ethics in to this argument. Additionally, once you do bring them into play, resolving your reasoned position of “my life is valuable to me”, with the altruistic ethic of utilitarian ethics “my life is valuable and subjugated to society”. Utilitarian ethics adds nothing to your argument and is the greatest logical jump in your post.
[ QUOTE ] When attempting to make moral decisions the first questino I ask myself is what do I value? What scenarios are preferable to me over other scenarios? The answer is simply that I value my own happiness and well beeing, I value good food, I like playing basketball and poker, I care deeply for family members, etc... I can then reseaonably assume that every other human beeing has certain preferences and values and care about things in a way that I do. Therefore I consider the morally good option to be the one that gives the most people the most happiness (basic utilitarianism). Ending a life is thus bad in that it eliminated all future positive expereiences a particular individual can have (which is especially worrisome if you don't buy into an afterlife). [/ QUOTE ] Therefore I consider the morally good option to be the one that gives me what I value, while not taking away what others reasonably are shown to value (basic individualism and objectivism, rejection of hedonism and altruism). Ending a life is thus bad in that it eliminated all future positive experiences a particular individual can have (which is especially worrisome if you don't buy into an afterlife). Your follow up post was especially insightful in that it explains that ethics will only be as correct as our reason, and knowledge is correct. It is only when we say that mankind is not able to reason or understand does ethics live outside of mans domain. I would say that it is also important to distinguish between values and desires. As to interchange the two will lead to incorrect ethics.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
