Beauty and the Beast

[This One Guy]

I think anyone who says it is never immoral to needlessly hurt any living creature who is capable of feeling pain is a danger to society because they obviously are lacking in empathy.

Why would you ever cause any harm to anything if you didn't need to, if you knew that creature would suffer?

No. You're lacking in empathy if you're not moved by the pain of another living thing, which I am. I didn't say I didn't find bestiality distasteful - I said I didn't find it immoral and therefore it should be legalised. I wouldn't want to cause harm to anything for the sake of causing harm, because I do have empathy. Even if I didn't though, it wouldn't be an argument against my position, since people who lack empathy presumably can't help it, and at any rate this doesn't demonstrate that bestiality is immoral (you can't arrest someone just because you think they're a danger to society - they have to actually have done something wrong).

 

[This One Guy]

I think anyone who says it is never immoral to needlessly hurt any living creature who is capable of feeling pain is a danger to society because they obviously are lacking in empathy. So what if an animal is less intelligent than me? I don't go around torturing those with down syndrome. So what if the animal has less rights than I do? So do illegal aliens, and I'm not torturing any of them in my basement.

Why would you ever cause any harm to anything if you didn't need to, if you knew that creature would suffer?

I think intentionally and needlessly causing suffering to any living thing that has the capacity to suffer is in itself immoral and anathema to basic human decency.

Sorry, you changed your post while I was halfway through writing my reply, I think. I don't think animals don't have rights because they're less intelligent than us - I think that they don't have rights because they don't have free will, which people with downs syndrome do. And illegal aliens don't have less rights than you - society just thinks they do.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

There is a great story from a researcher in the book "Becoming a Tiger: how baby animals learn in the wild."

The researcher was caring for a young chimp, and would some times bring the chimp (Lucy) home with him. Lucy had been taught sign language.

At one point, Lucy was acting up, and she had caused a huge mess of some kind. The researcher, in his rage, raised his hand and moved forward to strike her. The chimp signed back, "No. Don't. It's Lucy."

The researcher stated that after that, he was no more likely to ever harm one of his research animals than he was his own daughter.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I think that they don't have rights because they don't have free will.

Free will is a made up philosophical term. It doesn't actually mean anything really other than the connotations we apply to it. You can't scientifically measure free will or prove something does or does not have it, so it seems completely ridiculous to base our treatment of something based on a symbolic term.

Animals can suffer the same as we can. What else matters? I wouldn't ever hurt anything I didn't need to. If I see a worm on the sidewalk after it rains, I put him back in the dirt. Why wouldn't I? It takes literally no effort on my part, and it saves a life. Who cares if it is a very small life indeed? Why would I want that worm to die when it takes no effort on my part to save it? Why would I want to hurt anything that I don't need to? Why would I not save something that is in my capacity to save?

And illegal aliens don't have less rights than you - society just thinks they do.

All rights are determined by society. There is no inherent biological agent which determines who (or what) has rights and who doesn't. It's not like humans are born with a tags that say "I have rights" and animals are born with tags that say "I do not have rights."

 

[This One Guy]

There is a great story from a researcher in the book "Becoming an animal: how baby animals learn in the wild."

The researcher was caring for a young chimp, and would some times bring the chimp (Lucy) home with him. Lucy had been taught sign language.

At one point, Lucy was acting up, and she had caused a huge mess of some kind. The researcher, in his rage, raised his hand and moved forward to strike her. The chimp signed back, "No. Don't. It's Lucy."

The researcher stated that after that, he was no more likely to ever harm one of his research animals than he was his own daughter.

Great, and if that's a demonstration of free will, then I'll admit that that one chimp that one time had moral rights (and moral responsibilities, meaning that if that chimp bites someone, it's got to go to jail). I'm not convinced however, and even if I was, there would still be billions of animals to whom this doesn't apply.

 

[RobRoy]

No, I didn't.

Yes, you did. So denying it at this point just reflects either you lack of understanding or your lack of integrity.

I'm still waiting for your reply: why do you think it's wrong to harm humans?

I’ve already answered this. Your unwillingness or inability to read my answer seems to be a problem you have with most responses to your posts. This suggests then that you are either unable or unwilling to understand the responses to your questions.

I also suspect that you've misread my last post.

No, you misread. I said that I’d already addressed that issue. I have.

I like the way you dismiss hundreds of years of philosophy out-of-hand, including the work of Socrates, Hume, Kant, Mill, and Karl Marx, who all thought that questions of morality were resolved by argument.

Another strawman.

Can you show me where Kant stated that questions or morality were resolved by argument? Show me where Hume defeated Socrates? Marx defeats Mill? What was the score? Did anyone make the point spread?

Questions of morality can certainly be discussed, debated, argued, but they can't be resolved. Otherwise, we'd have a nice little check-box of the morality issues already figured out, who figured them out, and how. As I said, the best that can be hoped for is education on the sides of an issue and an understanding of those sides. Perhaps you'll change your mind, perhaps you won't (in your case, I'm betting won't).

Clearly you’re not interested in reading what others are writing, but simply in arguing for it’s own sake. Your actions say troll. Enjoy.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Great, and if that's a demonstration of free will, then I'll admit that that one chimp that one time had moral rights (and moral responsibilities, meaning that if that chimp bites someone, it's got to go to jail). I'm not convinced however, and even if I was, there would still be billions of animals to whom this doesn't apply.

you haven't demonstrated

1. that free will is something that actually exists in the sense that it can be measured with absolute determination and is not subject to interpretation (i.e. whether or not I have eyeballs)

2. why free will is a necessary qualification to be protected from suffering.

 

[This One Guy]

Free will is a made up philosophical term. It doesn't actually mean anything really. You can't scientifically measure free will or prove something does or does not have it, so it seems completely ridiculous to base our treatment of something based on a symbolic term.

Animals can suffer the same as we can. What else matters?



All rights are determined by society. There is no inherent biological agent which determines who (or what) has rights and who doesn't. It's not like humans are born with a tags that say "I have rights" and animals are born with tags that say "I do not have rights."

I think that free will is a real quantity: there is a genuine, important difference between those things that just act according to the laws of nature, and those things that can examine their possible choices and deliberately choose between them. I don't think whether something can suffer or not has anything to do with moral rights, since I see no reason to assume that suffering and happiness are moral quantities. It's not that one is moral and one immoral, it's that one's pleasant and one's not. And I don't believe that all rights are determined by society. I believe that a man living in a society where he's not allowed to say what he believe still has the right to free speech - it's just that his right is abused. And I believe that a Jew in Nazi Germany has the right not to be thrown into a fire, and would do even if everyone else in the world were united in the conviction that the fire is where he belongs (yeah, I know, Godwin, blahblahblah - it's a relevant example). So, no, I don't believe that there is an inherent biological agent: but I do believe some things have rights and some don't depending on whether they have free will - which does mean something, really. It means being able to examine the possible choices and deliberately choose between them, and not acting on the arbitrary dictates of nature.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I think that free will is a real quantity.

prove it.

And I don't believe that all rights are determined by society

.

And you have in your mind what you think those rights "should" be. Prove you're right in what rights are inherent to us and that this is not subject to interpretation. Plenty of people think we have a right to health care, and some disagree. Plenty of people think we have the right to legally use drugs, and others disagree. You can come up with a list of rights you think we all "should" have, and I can find another person who doesn't agree with your list, and has a list of their own with rights you think AREN'T inherent rights.


and again, why is free will necessary to moral rights? Why are you basing our treatment of animals on what animals are capable of, rather than what we are capable of? All this talk of rights and free will has nothing to do with the amount of pain a living creature can feel.

Haven't you ever had a pet? How can you be so callous? You honestly think that if someone burned a puppy alive for the fun of it, there's nothing wrong with it because puppies can't vote or go to jail?

 

[This One Guy]

you haven't demonstrated

1. that free will is something that actually exists in the sense that it can be measured with absolute determination and is not subject to interpretation (i.e. whether or not I have eyeballs)

2. why free will is a necessary qualification to be protected from suffering.

I didn't say that free will was a necessary qualification for being protected from suffering, but a necessary qualification for sovereignty over your own body. That is, in order to be able to decide what happens to your body (ie, whether or not someone is allowed to have sex with you), you need to be able to make decisions at all. As I said, suffering has nothing to do with morality.
Also, I don't need to show that it's something that can be measured precisely. As I said, there's a difference between those who act on purpose and those who act arbitrarily, but it's a difference that may be hard to see from outside. I could be wrong about animals having free will, in which case I think they have to have their rights recognised the same way ours are: no more eating them, and when they kill each other they're punished. That it's difficult to tell whether something has free will is irrelevant: it's not immoral to treat something as if it doesn't if you honestly believe it doesn't (this is a requirement of all morality, since morality only judges the choices we make - it could not judge the consequences when we have no control over them).
You have yet to demonstrate why suffering is immoral.

 

[Stellafane]

However having sex with a ham sandwich is totally fine.

Well, only if you don't lie to it.

 

[This One Guy]

prove it.

.

And you have in your mind what you think those rights "should" be. Prove you're right in what rights are inherent to us and that this is not subject to interpretation. Plenty of people think we have a right to health care, and some disagree. Plenty of people think we have the right to legally use drugs, and others disagree. You can come up with a list of rights you think we all "should" have, and I can find another person who doesn't agree with your list, and has a list of their own with rights you think AREN'T inherent rights.


and again, why is free will necessary to moral rights? Why are you basing our treatment of animals on what animals are capable of, rather than what we are capable of? All this talk of rights and free will has nothing to do with the amount of pain a living creature can feel.

Haven't you ever had a pet? How can you be so callous?

I've had plenty of pets, and I've treated them well, since, as I already said, I have empathy. I just don't think it would be immoral to hurt them - distasteful, yes, but not immoral.
I'm basing our treatment on animals on what animals are capable of for the same reason I base my treatment of my toaster on what my toaster is capable of. A crime has to have a victim, otherwise it's not a crime.
And of course I disagree with people about what rights should be, which is why we're arguing. I don't understand this urge to say, 'people disagree, therefore there's no right answer.' I think I have the right answer. I'm giving you the reasons why. You think you have the right answer as well (it's impossible, after all, to think you're wrong).

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

You have yet to demonstrate why suffering is immoral.

Morality isn't a real thing either, it's a matter of interpretation, so I cannot "prove" something is immoral anymore than I can prove something has rights. When I use the word "moral" it is how I personally define morality, but my definition is not absolute. Morality is in the eye of beholder, thus when I say something is immoral, it is based on my own personal interpretation. Morality, like rights, is subject to the interpretation of nation states, communities, and individuals.

Animals have the same capacity for pain that humans do. If you accept that it is wrong to needlessly cause a human pain, then I don't see how it is not wrong to needlessly cause an animal pain. Suffering is being caused in either event. A creature's rights or free will (which aren't actually real things, we just define them) do not impact it's capacity to feel physical pain. The ability to feel pain is determined by our central nervous system. If a human has a central nervous system like my own, I know that animal has the capacity for pain that I do. If it is wrong to inflict pain on a human for no reason, then we have established inflicting pain is wrong. If inflicting pain needlessly is wrong, then that is where the argument ends. A paralyzed, uncommunicative, and severely mentally retarded human being has virtually no self determination, nor would they be held legally responsible for a crime (not that they'd be capable of committing one). Is it okay to torture them (we are assuming for this argument of course that they are capable of feeling pain)?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

' I think I have the right answer. I'm giving you the reasons why. You think you have the right answer as well (it's impossible, after all, to think you're wrong).

actually, if you read my posting here on JREF, I am quite capable of admitting I'm wrong. If someone proves me wrong, I don't take it as a personal affront to admit it. I'm wrong about things all the time. Robroy, who you've been debating with, can attest to that. He recently schooled me quite thoroughly in the community section, and I had no problem admitting that he had done so.


But morality is interpretive. There is not an absolute "right" or "wrong"...but as a society, we come together and agree on what we are going to enforce in our societies as being right or wrong. You think it is not wrong to hurt an animal. You are entitled to your opinion. But you live in a society in which the vast majority of other humans disagree with you and do think animals should be afforded some manner of protection because animals have the ability to feel pain. I feel this protection does not go far enough, and I have been involved in legal campaigns to improve the conditions of farm animals because I personally feel that inflicting pain is wrong. Luckily, enough people agreed with me that the laws in the specific campaigns I worked on were passed, and farming conditions were improved. I have explained to you why I disagree...because I think pain is pain and I see no difference why it is okay to cause pain to an animal but not a human if their ability to feel pain and suffer is comparable.

Also, being good to animals is good FOR humans. Abused animals often because vicious and are dangerous to humans, like an abused dog. Also, people who enjoy inflicting pain simply enjoy inflicting pain. People who hurt animals are often just working their way up to people. I have worked with both abused animals and abused children, and in my experience, it's rare that you'll find a man who viciously beats his dog who isn't viciously beating his kids.

I do find it hilarious you decided that I must not agree with you because I am incapable of thinking I'm wrong...which in and of itself shows that you actually are the one who thinks you CAN'T be wrong, because if I don't agree with you, according to you, the only possible reason for that is that there is something wrong with me (i.e. it is impossible for me to admit I am wrong).

I think robroy's right. I think you are a troll, so I'm going to bow out of this thread. There's little point of debating someone who comes in with the mentality of, "you don't instantly agree with me. this must mean you are incapable of admitting you are wrong, because I am such a conversational wizard that anyone who isn't instantly persuaded by my views must be incapable of admitting they are wrong, that is the only possible explanation for our disagreement."

 

[This One Guy]

Yes, you did. So denying it at this point just reflects either you lack of understanding or your lack of integrity.

The structure of a strawman:

1. My opponent's position is X (when opponent's position is really Y).
2. X is wrong because...
3. Therefore, my opponent's position is wrong.

What I said:

"And what is the reason you'd consider it immoral to harm another human under similar circumstances? Just because pain is bad? For me, it's because people have free will, they're sovereign over their own bodies and harming them would be a violation of that. The same doesn't apply to animals, and if it does, killing and eating them must be immoral too."

I ask you a question. I offer a possibility (one which many people believe and which I don't at any point dissect). I then give my own answer to the question, without backing it up with an argument, because, hey, you might have been curious. This is not a strawman. It wouldn't be a strawman even if I had dissected that position - ruling out a position does not mean I'm ruling out your position. As it happens I didn't. Is it just because pain is bad? I still honestly can't find the answer you gave. If I'm overlooking something, fine, but I've looked through all your previous posts and I can't find it. Do you mind repeating it?

I’ve already answered this. Your unwillingness or inability to read my answer seems to be a problem you have with most responses to your posts. This suggests then that you are either unable or unwilling to understand the responses to your questions.

.

As I said, I reread your posts and couldn't find your answer. Does it hurt you to repeat it?

No, you misread. I said that I’d already addressed that issue. I have.

You really did? Now I know you said you thought it was okay for animals to be raised and killed and eaten because it's for survival. And then you warned me against bringing up the killing and eating children argument because you said it had already been covered with the stranded on a hike thought experiment. I thought there were important details missing here so I asked you to clarify: do you think it's okay to kill a children to eat when you're starving. Also, do you think it's okay to farm children with the express interest of eating them. I not, why is it different for cows?

Another strawman.

Can you show me where Kant stated that questions or morality were resolved by argument? Show me where Hume defeated Socrates? Marx defeats Mill? What was the score? Did anyone make the point spread?

Questions of morality can certainly be discussed, debated, argued, but they can't be resolved. Otherwise, we'd have a nice little check-box of the morality issues already figured out, who figured them out, and how. As I said, the best that can be hoped for is education on the sides of an issue and an understanding of those sides. Perhaps you'll change your mind, perhaps you won't (in your case, I'm betting won't).

Clearly you’re not interested in reading what others are writing, but simply in arguing for it’s own sake. Your actions say troll. Enjoy.

Okay, this one was a strawman, but I thought it was your position. Kant believed very strongly that matters of morality could be resolved by argument, and stated so in The Critique of Practical Reason, where his thesis was that we could derive morality by reason alone (resulting in the Categorical Imperative). Hume thought he had defeated Socrates with the phrase, 'You cannot derive an ought from an is' - which may be accurate, but has yet to be demonstrated. Nevertheless, of course, Hume did engage in arguments about morality, and he thought his opponents were wrong (it was in response to Hume that Kant wrote the Critique). Marx and Mills didn't really engage with one another. You're right in saying that these issues are never really resolved. So what? That doesn't make the argument worthless - we make slight adjustments to our positions as we accommodate new objections. And if you really, really don't want to debate, I don't know why you posted in the first place.
For the record (and I don't need you to believe me here), I'm perfectly willing to have my mind changed, and I've read every one of your posts so far, and, to the best of my knowledge, responded to all your points. Let me know if I'm wrong.

 

[This One Guy]

Morality isn't a real thing either, it's a matter of interpretation, so I cannot "prove" something is immoral anymore than I can prove something has rights. When I use the word "moral" it is how I personally define morality, but my definition is not absolute. Morality is in the eye of beholder, thus when I say something is immoral, it is based on my own personal interpretation. Morality, like rights, is subject to the interpretation of nation states, communities, and individuals.

Morality also implies normative force: that you are in the wrong if you violate it. Again, I'll say it, no matter how many people are in favour of it, it's wrong to put a jew in an oven. I thinking the Nazis were actually wrong to do that, and would be if everyone in the world agreed with them.

Animals have the same capacity for pain that humans do. If you accept that it is wrong to needlessly cause a human pain, then I don't see how it is not wrong to needlessly cause an animal pain. Suffering is being caused in either event. A creature's rights or free will (which aren't actually real things, we just define them) do not impact it's capacity to feel physical pain. The ability to feel pain is determined by our central nervous system. If a human has a central nervous system like my own, I know that animal has the capacity for pain that I do. If it is wrong to inflict pain on a human for no reason, then we have established inflicting pain is wrong. If inflicting pain needlessly is wrong, then that is where the argument ends. A paralyzed, uncommunicative, and severely mentally retarded human being has virtually no self determination, nor would they be held legally responsible for a crime (not that they'd be capable of committing one). Is it okay to torture them (we are assuming for this argument of course that they are capable of feeling pain)?

Ah, here is the route of our disagreement: I don't believe it is wrong to cause a human pain. I believe it is wrong to cause a human pain without their consent. I also believe it is wrong to cause a human pleasure without their consent. I apply neither standard to animals, because there is no such thing as consent for animals (no free will means they cannot choose between the two options).
In response to your thought-experiment about the paralysed human being: if they have no self-determination, they're human in name only. What are we talking about here? A passive experience-receptacle. Personhood implies the ability to make choice. Being vaguely man-shaped is not enough. So, no, I don't believe they'd have rights - although like you I'm grossed out by the idea of someone torturing them. But hey, I'm grossed out by lots of stuff (including bestiality). That doesn't make it immoral.

 

[This One Guy]

actually, if you read my posting here on JREF, I am quite capable of admitting I'm wrong. If someone proves me wrong, I don't take it as a personal affront to admit it. I'm wrong about things all the time. Robroy, who you've been debating with, can attest to that. He recently schooled me quite thoroughly in the community section, and I had no problem admitting that he had done so.

I didn't mean it was impossible to admit you were wrong: I meant it's impossible to believe something and simultaneously think you're wrong about that belief. I hope we can all say we're willing to have our minds changed with the right arguments and the right evidence.

But morality is interpretive. There is not an absolute "right" or "wrong"...but as a society, we come together and agree on what we are going to enforce in our societies as being right or wrong. You think it is not wrong to hurt an animal. You are entitled to your opinion. But you live in a society in which the vast majority of other humans disagree with you and do think animals should be afforded some manner of protection because animals have the ability to feel pain. I feel this protection does not go far enough, and I have been involved in legal campaigns to improve the conditions of farm animals because I personally feel that inflicting pain is wrong. Luckily, enough people agreed with me that the laws in the specific campaigns I worked on were passed, and farming conditions were improved. I have explained to you why I disagree...because I think pain is pain and I see no difference why it is okay to cause pain to an animal but not a human if their ability to feel pain and suffer is comparable.

Also, being good to animals is good FOR humans. Abused animals often because vicious and are dangerous to humans, like an abused dog. Also, people who enjoy inflicting pain simply enjoy inflicting pain. People who hurt animals are often just working their way up to people. I have worked with both abused animals and abused children, and in my experience, it's rare that you'll find a man who viciously beats his dog who isn't viciously beating his kids.

Arguing that the majority disagrees with me doesn't defeat my argument: I am not willing to accept that the majority determines what morality is. If I did, I'd have no reason to complain when genocides took place. As it happens, I know I'm in the minority. That's not enough to prove me wrong. If you don't think my arguments are enough to prove me right, that's fine, but I still think your position is inconsistent. Why is it okay to kill and eat animals but not our fellow humans? I have my answer, and I've given it multiple times.
If a man is viciously beating his kids as well as his dog, he should be arrested for beating his kids. If a man's only beating his dog, I think it's wrong to arrest him for what he might do.

I do find it hilarious you decided that I must not agree with you because I am incapable of thinking I'm wrong...which in and of itself shows that you actually are the one who thinks you CAN'T be wrong, because if I don't agree with you, according to you, the only possible reason for that is that there is something wrong with me (i.e. it is impossible for me to admit I am wrong).

I think robroy's right. I think you are a troll, so I'm going to bow out of this thread. There's little point of debating someone who comes in with the mentality of, "you don't instantly agree with me. this must mean you are incapable of admitting you are wrong, because I am such a conversational wizard that anyone who isn't instantly persuaded by my views must be incapable of admitting they are wrong, that is the only possible explanation for our disagreement."

Look, I have my position. You have yours. They're not the same position. Therefore, we disagree. Is that not the case? I think your position is wrong because it's not my position, and you think my position is wrong because it's not yours. I think it's morally acceptable to hurt animals. You don't think it's okay. Therefore, you think I'm wrong. I'd be performing quite the feat of mental acrobatics if I didn't think the same about you. I didn't say I wasn't willing to change my mind. I didn't say you were, either. So yes, I think that because you don't agree with me, your belief must be wrong. You must think the same about me. If we came into this argument thinking each other right, we'd agree, wouldn't we? I didn't say there was 'something wrong with you'. I said you were wrong.

 

[This One Guy]

Also, an important point to both of you: calling a debating opponent a troll is attacking the person, not the argument. As it happens, I'm not one. Yes, I do want to argue my position, but that's because I think argument is the best way to find the truth. It's very convenient that 'troll' is now a recognised term. It allows you to discredit someone's argument just because of the fact they're arguing. A very useful little word.
Oh, and one last thing. Still nobody has shown that bestiality causes the animal pain. For my argument, it's beside the point, but it still needs to be established to legitimise a law banning bestiality. Horse ripping, yes, fine. Definitely causes pain. But tenderly making love to an anteater, using contraception - would it really be so awful? Hey, the anteater might even like it.

 

[Juniversal]

Here's my view. Human Beings are animals. Human beings have no greater intrinsic value in the eye of nature then a fly or bacteria. We could all be wiped out in a moment and the world will keep spinning. So I tend to think about morality it in terms of minimizing unnecessary suffering and pain vs. HUMANS = Better than animals = I have no concern for animals suffering or pain.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Morality is defined by society. Individuals within a society can disagree with the social definitions but they must adhere to them or face consequences. Of course, there can be extenuating circumstances, but society will deal with those as they occur. Our society has defined beastiality as immoral and hunting as moral (within certain guidelines). It really is as simple as that.

Opening day of rifle season is Oct. 11.