What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Nobody follows the so called "golden rule". Penn and Teller should do a show about it because the golden rule is bovine fecal matter.

Oh but they already did

 

[Pup]

This assumes that there is nothing in the act of skinning a pet alive that should be prohibited, and only the effect on the pet is to be considered. I disagree.

Not sure I see the difference. Or rather, I can't see that anything in the act should be prohibited, except because of its effect on the pet. If it were dead and a cow, most people wouldn't even think twice.

 

[Michael Redman]

Not sure I see the difference. Or rather, I can't see that anything in the act should be prohibited, except because of its effect on the pet. If it were dead and a cow, most people wouldn't even think twice.

Well, if you read my post 176, I explained why. I happen to believe there's something wrong with taking pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering. Clearly there are reasons some behavior is forbidden apart from the effect on the object of the action. We punish attempted murder, even if the intended victim is unaware. We don't allow guards to torture of death row prisoners, even though they have forfeited their rights. We prohibit sadistic behavior, not just the results.

 

[Pup]

Well, if you read my post 176, I explained why. I happen to believe there's something wrong with taking pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering. Clearly there are reasons some behavior is forbidden apart from the effect on the object of the action. We punish attempted murder, even if the intended victim is unaware. We don't allow guards to torture of death row prisoners, even though they have forfeited their rights. We prohibit sadistic behavior, not just the results.

But that's where I'm stumped. If it didn't have a certain effect on the pet, it wouldn't be considering inflicting pain and suffering, and therefore wouldn't be prohibited for that reason. So it still goes back to what effect it has on the animal.

 

[c4llum]

This is worth checking out. I'm a vegetarian and agree with Singer on this topic as well as Dawkins. I think it's important not to defend your point just because you, let's say eat meat and do not want to give it up. A part of being critical minded is being open for new information and accepting it.

Anyway, I'll say no more. Instead let these two speak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU

 

[Drewbot]

Of course, besides tasting good, and delivering a wonderful feeling of the hunt, the other excuse for killing an animal would be if it is about to kill you.

Example: A lion charging out of the tall grass would give someone an excuse to kill it.

 

[Mirrorglass]

This is a species-centric utilitarian excuse imo. Not logically different than torturing other humans being moral if doing so saves x number of other humans. Or if I'm starving and steal an apple to survive, it was moral.

I believe in both those cases what you describe would be the correct thing to do. Don't believe me? Well, if you believe the actions you describe are morally wrong, then that means you think the opposite actions are morally better. So that means you think it's okay to

- Let a number of humans die so others would be spared of pain
- Let a human starve to death so another can make slightly more money selling his apples.

Is that your position? I didn't think so.

The problem is that moral choices aren't black and white. There are always some fortunate and unfortunate consequences. The utilitarian worldview states that we should pursue the highest good/bad ratio possible. What does your worldview suggest we do?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

It's funny that it's us humans who decide to speak for the rights of all creatures, and decide to claim we own the ethic of everything else; and decide to instill guilt in others even though we are not consistent about this rule, and how far the concept of "life" extends.

This whole Golden Rule and Sanctity of Life BS is indeed nothing but human self importance.

 

[Dragoonster]

I believe in both those cases what you describe would be the correct thing to do. Don't believe me? Well, if you believe the actions you describe are morally wrong, then that means you think the opposite actions are morally better. So that means you think it's okay to

- Let a number of humans die so others would be spared of pain
- Let a human starve to death so another can make slightly more money selling his apples.

Is that your position? I didn't think so.

I never said it was. My position is if I tortured someone or stole something, I'll admit I did something immoral even if I thought in context it was the "least immoral" decision. I wouldn't conflate "correct" with "moral".

The problem is that moral choices aren't black and white. There are always some fortunate and unfortunate consequences. The utilitarian worldview states that we should pursue the highest good/bad ratio possible. What does your worldview suggest we do?

What we do is not my point, it's what we admit we do.

The problem I'm trying to get at is people who attempt to absolve themselves of committing immoral acts by pointing to utilitarianism, or evolutionary survival, or other defenses of killing/eating animals. The only way this is a ho-hum, not immoral at all decision is if they really don't think animals have any moral rights and wouldn't hesitate to torture them for any reason.

If you rape, torture, and decapitate one innocent person to save 100 innocent people, do you really think you didn't do anything immoral?

 

[Michael Redman]

But that's where I'm stumped. If it didn't have a certain effect on the pet, it wouldn't be considering inflicting pain and suffering, and therefore wouldn't be prohibited for that reason. So it still goes back to what effect it has on the animal.

What if someone intended to pour a pot of boiling water on a child, but missed, and the child remained unharmed. No victim. Moral behavior?

Let's say we created non-sentient virtual children that reacted indistinguishably from the real thing. Let's say someone tortured them for entertainment, delighting in their screams and cries. No victim. Moral behavior?

What if the guy didn't know the children were non-sentient virtual children, but thought they were real. No victim. Moral bahavior?

There is more to the morality of an act than its outward effect.

 

[Cavemonster]

If you rape, torture, and decapitate one innocent person to save 100 innocent people, do you really think you didn't do anything immoral?

If the alternative was letting 100 innocent people die, then no moral choice existed by your measure. I guess you can call it immoral, but that's a pretty useless distinction. It isn't worthy of condemnation, it isn't a poor deciscion or one that should not have been made.

 

[Brocolis]

How does that not describe your new position? Are you going to tell me that the list of criteria you just named (possession of a nervous system, ability to feel pain, sentience (good luck defining this one)) as being proper for distinguishing between what forms of life get rights and what forms of life don't is somehow less arbitrary or "gibberish" than the various lists of criteria meat eaters in this thread have suggested (species being one example)?

oh this is going to be a hard one to defend (sarcasm)

the criteria to attribute rights can be very simple. We give rights based on what a specific life form is “interested” in.

A man is interested (among other things) in avoid suffering, driving a car, voting, etc...
So we give them all those rights

A baby, or a dog, or a cow is also interested in things such as avoid suffering, but they don't really care for voting or driving a car. so we don't give those rights to them.

Bacteria or plants have no brain, feel no pain, have no consciousness. They are just unaware life reproducing, so they don't care to have any rights

Taking rights considering a being's race, specie or sex is gibberish, but giving rights based on what that life form is “interested” in makes good sense. That is the position

 

[Dragoonster]

If the alternative was letting 100 innocent people die, then no moral choice existed by your measure. I guess you can call it immoral, but that's a pretty useless distinction. It isn't worthy of condemnation, it isn't a poor deciscion or one that should not have been made.

You guess I can call raping, torturing, and murdering an innocent person immoral? Thanks for that generous allowance...

If it's a useless distinction, then torturing innocents in certain circumstances would be legal. It's not, nor is it moral--it's the immoral component of the most-moral decision.

 

[Michael Redman]

Taking rights considering a being's race, specie or sex is gibberish, but giving rights based on what that life form is “interested” in makes good sense. That is the position

Perfect. Then those interested in eating meat have that right.

I guess we're done here.

 

[coalesce]

Would you consider pumping all women full of fertility drugs, and increasing the output of their breast milk as furthering the women species?

Are either silicone or saline considered "fertility drugs?"

Michael

 

[Cavemonster]

You guess I can call raping, torturing, and murdering an innocent person immoral? Thanks for that generous allowance...

If it's a useless distinction, then torturing innocents in certain circumstances would be legal. It's not, nor is it moral--it's the immoral component of the most-moral decision.

What does legality have to do with morality?
There are many immoral things that are legal and many moral things which are illegal.

You realize that laws are created by humans who vastly disagree on many things, and those laws vary wildly from country to country, even from smaller localities.

 

[Dragoonster]

What does legality have to do with morality?
There are many immoral things that are legal and many moral things which are illegal.

You realize that laws are created by humans who vastly disagree on many things, and those laws vary wildly from country to country, even from smaller localities.

It was an example that the distinction is not useless, but rather signficant in at least one other context, and legality was the first one that came to mind. Didn't mean to suggest laws=morals.

If you really don't see anything immoral in raping, torturing, and murdering innocent people even in certain contexts I guess it's either a difference of opinion, or ability to admit something.

 

[Cavemonster]

It was an example that the distinction is not useless, but rather signficant in at least one other context, and legality was the first one that came to mind. Didn't mean to suggest laws=morals.

If you really don't see anything immoral in raping, torturing, and murdering innocent people even in certain contexts I guess it's either a difference of opinion, or ability to admit something.

Please define explicity what use a moral judgement is for situations where the only possibilities are considered immoral, such as your odd hypothetical case of rape/murder being the only was to save 100 other lives.

If an act is the more moral of the available options, how is it useful to label it as immoral? Specifically.

 

[Mirrorglass]

You guess I can call raping, torturing, and murdering an innocent person immoral? Thanks for that generous allowance...

If it's a useless distinction, then torturing innocents in certain circumstances would be legal. It's not, nor is it moral--it's the immoral component of the most-moral decision.

The thing is, things are always in context. To take an action out of that context deprives it of it's original meaning. If I take "rape" out of context, I get simply "sexual intercourse". Surely that is not morally wrong?

The answer is yes, it is, in the context where said intercourse is forced. According to my moral system it isn't morally right to force intercourse on anyone.. except in the context where said act of rape saves lives.

I don't consider the morality of my actions out of context, since that would be completely meaningless. In my moral system, the action that causes most good and least evil (or to be more accurate, the action perceived as such) is morally correct, and the fact that it does cause some evil does not change that.

 

[Pup]

What if someone intended to pour a pot of boiling water on a child, but missed, and the child remained unharmed. No victim. Moral behavior?

Not moral, but only because of the effect the intended action would have had. If someone tried to pour a pot of cool water on a child suffering from heat stroke and missed, it would still be moral because of the intended good the action would have done, if it had succeeded. There's really no other way to judge, except by taking into consideration the effect on the other person.

Let's say we created non-sentient virtual children that reacted indistinguishably from the real thing. Let's say someone tortured them for entertainment, delighting in their screams and cries. No victim. Moral behavior?

Isn't that what video games are? Not to mention those clown-shaped punching bags?

I'd say it's moral behavior (or at least not immoral) because the person knows the virtual children aren't real and knows there's no actual effect on them. Obviously this is somewhat debatable in society, due to the controversy over violent video games. But the controversy seems centered on whether the games will lead to behavior that will cause actual harm, and not that it's wrong to shoot a stream of pixels at another set of pixels, by itself.

What if the guy didn't know the children were non-sentient virtual children, but thought they were real. No victim. Moral bahavior?

Not moral, because the person believed his actions were having an effect.

There is more to the morality of an act than its outward effect.

And yet it still comes down to making a decision about whether there was an intent to cause actual harm, which requires judging the potential effect on the victim.