Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[MRC_Hans]

I only see, they are beings i.e. life. Smaller or bigger, junior or senior, and they also have natural right to life, personal liberty and grow.

Do they? Why do you think so?

Hans

 

[Mojo]

Then what?

Then you're wrong. Plants and (non-human) animals are not human.

 

[Peregrinus]

Kumar,
For one creature* to live,another creature* must die. Nature is like that. Fuzzy-wuzzy philosophy isn't going to change it.

*For very broad uses of the term "creature."

 

[Kumar]

Do they? Why do you think so?

Hans

Because they are beings.

 

[Kumar]

Then you're wrong. Plants and (non-human) animals are not human.

Yes but they are live beings.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar,
For one creature* to live,another creature* must die. Nature is like that. Fuzzy-wuzzy philosophy isn't going to change it.

*For very broad uses of the term "creature."

Yes, they practice the nature. Let us also practice the nature.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes but they are live beings.

"Live" doesn't mean capable of cognition. In the non-Jain model of the universe -- the one everyone subscribes to -- plants and animals are not capable of the same degree of thought and emotion as humans. The whole Jainist sense of moral obligation is based on ascribing properties to living beings that the facts show they simply don't have.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Because they are beings.

What makes you think "beings" have some given rights?

Nature certainly doesn't work that way.

"Rights", "Justice", "Freedom", and all that stuff is nice; I like it, but it is something we humans have invented for use between ourselves. It may be possible to some degree to extend "Rights", etc. to other beings, but it is not a given thing.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, they practice the nature. Let us also practice the nature.

So, good Kumar, I asked you before and you evaded the question, but let's try again, and let's be more specific:

What does "practicing" nature mean for you?

How do you suggest it could be done in practice?

Please be specific and write in English, thank you.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Is it "deception" towards those crops & animals to whom we first nurse, protect & love initially but kill them on one black day beyond all their expectation?

No it is not. We have never told them we would do otherwise. Those crops and animals only exist because we need them for our purpose. Without that they would not exist, not even as a species.

Hans

 

[Peregrinus]

"Eat or be eaten." - Firesign Theatre

 

[abaddon]

Yes but they are live beings.

Everything you eat are or were live beings. Take to it's logical conclusion, you are not permitted to eat anything and must starve to death. You are not permitted to have a digestive system, since living beings are destroyed in the process of digestion, you are not permitted to derive and sustenance from anything.

Is it your proposal that we all starve ourselves for fear of killing anything? Despite the fact that regardless of diet, you body kills billions of entities every day as a matter of course?

 

[Kumar]

"Live" doesn't mean capable of cognition. In the non-Jain model of the universe -- the one everyone subscribes to -- plants and animals are not capable of the same degree of thought and emotion as humans. The whole Jainist sense of moral obligation is based on ascribing properties to living beings that the facts show they simply don't have.

They may not be having capability of cognition but humans have. Probably, nature has given capability of cognition to humans to protect lower lives. Live being or not, it can depend on how you take it. Few may even not consider lower plants and animals as live being, it does not mean that they are not. Anyone has property to get or give affects on stimulation, why can't be alike live?

 

[Kumar]

What makes you think "beings" have some given rights?

Nature certainly doesn't work that way.

"Rights", "Justice", "Freedom", and all that stuff is nice; I like it, but it is something we humans have invented for use between ourselves. It may be possible to some degree to extend "Rights", etc. to other beings, but it is not a given thing.

Hans

All that is man-made, made in self interest. Do we really follow nature's rules? How nature suggest, farming, captivity,slaughtering, nuclear weapons, pollution creating tools etc. etc. so many?

 

[abaddon]

They may not be having capability of cognition but humans have. Probably, nature has given capability of cognition to humans to protect lower lives. Live being or not, it can depend on how you take it. Few may even not consider lower plants and animals as live being, it does not mean that they are not. Anyone has property to get or give affects on stimulation, why can't be alike live?

Are you for real? Nobody here has claimed that even the lowliest bacteria has not life. Your yourself kill billions of live organisms in your every moment simply by dint of being alive.

 

[Kumar]

No it is not. We have never told them we would do otherwise. Those crops and animals only exist because we need them for our purpose. Without that they would not exist, not even as a species.

Hans

We have not made them. Nature has made them. We simply used our seniority to first nurse then for self interests and then kill them. It simply is monopoly. If we support monopoly, we should not consider any monopolistic person as odd. Nature has kept us & others existed for long without us. We are not God of them.

 

[Kumar]

So, good Kumar, I asked you before and you evaded the question, but let's try again, and let's be more specific:

What does "practicing" nature mean for you?

How do you suggest it could be done in practice?

Please be specific and write in English, thank you.

Hans

Practices, somewhat like early humans and animals & plants in wild.

 

[bruto]

I only see, they are beings i.e. life. Smaller or bigger, junior or senior, and they also have natural right to life, personal liberty and grow.

I like living things too, but to speak of crab grass or kohlrabi as having "personal liberty" is so crazy as to make the entire idea meaningless. It ends up saying nothing useful about anything.

 

[Kumar]

"Eat or be eaten." - Firesign Theatre

It is then, when you are living in Jungles. In modern city life, it will be "Eat and not to be eaten"- Kumar.

 

[Kumar]

Everything you eat are or were live beings. Take to it's logical conclusion, you are not permitted to eat anything and must starve to death. You are not permitted to have a digestive system, since living beings are destroyed in the process of digestion, you are not permitted to derive and sustenance from anything.

Is it your proposal that we all starve ourselves for fear of killing anything? Despite the fact that regardless of diet, you body kills billions of entities every day as a matter of course?

Yes, but we can minimize it by intelligent violence. We are made by nature, something special.