Interesting response. You and I clearly live on different planets when it comes to morality.It would be wrong because of the emotional attachments other humans (the only creatures human morality applies too) have to this severly mentally subnormal human. Like killing and eating someones pet.
Other than that, nothing. It seems pretty distastful to me but not immoral. — DingoJones
Are you saying that it's morally wrong to eat any member of the species homo sapiens, but morally okay to eat a member of any other species? — Herg
I see. Now supposing Neanderthals were still around, would it be okay to eat them? How about homo habilis, or australopithecines? I infer from what you say that you'd be okay eating a gorilla, chimpanzee or orang-utan, but in terms of our direct ancestors, where exactly would you draw the line?Are you saying that it's morally wrong to eat any member of the species homo sapiens, but morally okay to eat a member of any other species?
— Herg
Yes. — Terrapin Station
Interesting response. You and I clearly live on different planets when it comes to morality. — Herg
I see. Now supposing Neanderthals were still around, would it be okay to eat them? How about homo habilis, or australopithecines? I infer from what you say that you'd be okay eating a gorilla, chimpanzee or orang-utan, but in terms of our direct ancestors, where exactly would you draw the line? — Herg
Actually I was just trying to find out how you see things.You were trying to make an emotional appeal by using humans in example rather than an actual argument, and now you are trying to pretend Im some kinda crazy person with otherworldly moral sensibilities so you once again do not have to make an actual argument. — DingoJones
So you think it 'makes sense' to say that the suffering of humans is a moral consideration, but it doesn't 'make sense' to say that it's wrong to eat animals. Now to me, 'making sense' is a matter either of language or of logic, but I don't think you're using the phrase to mean that. I suspect that by 'makes sense' you actually mean 'conforms to my moral views'. In which case, all you are doing is offering me a moral intuition; so you're not advancing an argument either.Not really. The suffering of the humans if I ate their kid or sibling is real, and a moral consideration. Likewise with the pet. You just think that in addition, its wrong to eat a pet cuz its wrong to eat animals. I dont add that, because it doesnt make sense. — DingoJones
What I was seeking, from both you and Terrapin, was some rational justification for your belief that it's okay to eat animals but not humans. — Herg
What makes an action immoral, in the end, is that it adversely affects the interests of a being that is capable of having interests, which means any sentient being. So there is no line between humans and other sentient beings, e.g. other animals — Herg
What makes an action immoral, in the end, is that it adversely affects the interests of a being that is capable of having interests — Herg
What I was seeking, from both you and Terrapin, was some rational justification for your belief that it's okay to eat animals but not humans. I'm not getting one, so I assume neither of you has one to offer. — Herg
Once you have some foundational stance (which can be one of many), you can reason from there--so, for example, if it's a foundational stance for you that "one shouldn't nonconsensually initiate violence" it would likely follow for you that "one shouldn't murder," but the foundational stance can't be anything other than a way that you feel. — Terrapin Station
Firstly, why would it be necessary to torture the dog? And secondly, if it was the same thing happening in each scenario, then there would be torture in the second scenario as there was in the first, but, for some reason, you left that out of the second scenario. So no, on the face of it, it's not the same thing. (Did you just forget to mention it the second time around or did you leave it out intentionally?). — S
But to answer your question, judging by our actions, we, for the most part, think that it is. (Again, as you probably already know). In a sense, it doesn't really matter what you or I think about the morality of it. There'll be mixed views, and it'll fill pages of discussion with a back-and-forth exchange of views consisting of those in favour and those against, because it's just one of those hot topics, like abortion, but it won't be as productive as focusing on what is, in my opinion, a better question: what, realistically, can be done about that? What actions, with the greatest chance of success, do you propose in order to rectify this situation? — S
These questions ought to be put into an appropriate context. If there was a mass demand for turning cats, dogs, and severely mentally disabled humans into produce for consumption, as there is for the animal produce already on the market, then who knows what we'd find acceptable enough to put up with? But that's another reality, a hypothetical reality. It's a counterfactual. So it's difficult to judge.
If chickens were a man's best friend and dog burgers tasted good...
If pigs could fly...
Who knows? But, minimally, I predict that if things were different, then we'd probably view things differently. — S
All I'm saying is, before you label people as ethical/moral or unethical/immoral, you might want to take a moment and understand them first. If not, you might find you're the immoral one for degrading humans to the level of animals and for denying them a source of nutrition which is rightfully theirs. — BrianW
Instead of wanting humans to stop mistreating animals, you should want them to learn what mistreatment is and why it is. This means the information should be given in such a way that it is acceptable. In that way, they act out of knowledge not coercion.
Currently, it is too early for humans to cease mistreating animals completely. But, considerable efforts have been exerted to diminish the cruelty that has been realised as such. So, it stands to reason that there will come a time, in the future, when all such mistreatment will be a thing of the past. As it stands, presently, there isn't enough justification for it. So the best we can have is some people being vegans while the rest persist with the carnivorism. — BrianW
What is it necessary for and why is it necessary? — Πετροκότσυφας
The vast majority of humans already know what mistreatment is. We have put up laws against animal cruelty, especially regarding dogs or cats. There's a massive sense of cognitive dissonance here, where you can understand why a dog needs love and affection, but not why a pig would need the same thing. — chatterbears
That is the point I'm trying to make. The laws we enact are dependent upon our interaction but not on some fundamental equality for all animals. We decide according to what suits us and that makes it just as selfish and inconsiderate as can be. I am yet to see comprehensive impartial efforts for animal justice. — BrianW
You, again, keep answering for society. Answer for yourself. Do you believe that laws should be based on equality, fairness and justness? — chatterbears
Your opinions are decent but society isn't waiting for an individual to make decisions for them. Animals will have equality when enough of the individuals in the society are capable of perceiving them as equals. So, the question becomes, "how do we develop that capacity in others?"Give a man fish and you'll feed him for a day; teach a man how to fish and he'll never go hungry.
The relevant distinction is the ability to feel pleasure or pain. If plants can feel pleasure or pain, then, other things being equal, we should not eat them.why stop your slippery slope at animals? Why are we morally justified eating/exploiting plants? Maybe we shouldn't be eating anything and just letting ourselves starve to death.
In other words, if there are no relevant distinctions anywhere among these species, then there will be no grounds for basing any morality, positive or negative. — Mentalusion
Appealing to intuition is copping out. Much as if you claimed that God had told you something was right or wrong.Re early precursor hominids, I'd have to meet them. It would simply be an intuitive matter. — Terrapin Station
Not true. I take my dog to the vet to be inoculated because it's in his best interests. Having interests is nothing to do with having self-awareness.1. The equation of being capable of forming "interests" with sentience is totally unjustified and probably unjustifiable. Having an interest requires not only sentience but self-awareness. — Mentalusion
The foundation for morality is that, other things being equal, pleasure is by its nature good, and pain is by its nature bad. This is why almost everyone seeks pleasure and tried to avoid pain; if subjectivism were true, attachment of the labels 'good' and 'bad' to pleasant experiences and painful experiences would be random, and people and animals wouldn't care whether they experience pleasure or pain; but this isn't the case.What makes an action immoral, in the end, is that it adversely affects the interests of a being that is capable of having interests
— Herg
Is not a fact.
If it's a foundational moral stance for you, no rational justification of it is possible. — Terrapin Station
Of course they could say this, but that wouldn't mean that they weren't making a mistake in saying it. I could say either, "The sun is larger than the moon" or "The moon is larger than the sun", but the fact that I can say either of these doesn't mean that neither of them is factually correct.Someone could just as easily say, "What makes an action moral, in the end, is that it adversely affects the interests of a being that is capable of having interests." — Terrapin Station
You don't get to choose what to base morality on. That's the subjectivist error again - see my answer to Terrapin above.It is because generally speaking animals are not ethical creatures, they are not moral agents.
You are basing morality off of suffering, rather than moral agency. I do not. — DingoJones
Appealing to intuition is copping out. — Herg
The foundation for morality is that, other things being equal, pleasure is by its nature good, and pain is by its nature bad. This is why almost everyone seeks pleasure and tried to avoid pain; if subjectivism were true, attachment of the labels 'good' and 'bad' to pleasant experiences and painful experiences would be random, and people and animals wouldn't care whether they experience pleasure or pain; but this isn't the case. — Herg
You don't get to choose what to base morality on. That's the subjectivist error again - see my answer to Terrapin above. — Herg
That's the point I am making. It is not necessary to torture or kill a dog, just as it is not necessary to torture or kill a pig. — chatterbears
Also, I did said both scenarios have torture within them. — chatterbears
The same thing happens within the animal industry. You (the consumer) pays (demands) for an animal (the supply) to be killed, whether that is for food, clothing, etc... — chatterbears
Did you not read? — chatterbears
Scenario 1: I torture and kill the dog. (animal slaughter house workers)
Scenario 2: I pay somebody else to torture and kill the dog. (consumers who pay the animal slaughter house workers to do their dirty work) — chatterbears
I didn't ask about what 'we' as a society think about it. I am ask you directly. It seems many people on this thread do not want to answer for themselves, but instead answer on behalf of the society/world they live in. I want to know if pleasure and convenience is worth the torture and death of innocent sentient beings? (From your personal perspective) — chatterbears
I've already given you my personal views. As to society, is there individual/personal equality? Equality is for the collective whole. What does it matter if I'm the most compassionate/cruel being within a society of people contrary to myself? It's not just about being right as an individual, it's about helping others develop the capacity to be right. — BrianW
Your opinions are decent but society isn't waiting for an individual to make decisions for them. Animals will have equality when the enough of the individuals in the society are capable of perceiving them as equals. So, the question becomes, "how do we develop that capacity in others?" — BrianW
As investigations into the nature of animals advance, we realise more and more how much they are like humans in terms of social needs and capacities. In this way, we learn that we can give them more consideration in terms of compassion, comfort, discipline/training, etc. This is why domestic animals which are primarily kept for companionship get the first taste of decent treatment. Because of their proximity to humans, their nature is more readily evident than that of others. Unfortunately, as a human collective, we're still slow to progress and not even one sincere man's appeal for expedition will change that. — BrianW
Okay, so you've clarified. Now you just need to explain why torture would be necessary as a means to the end. My suspicion is that it isn't necessary in that respect, and in fact you know that it isn't necessary in that respect, but as it's a thing that happens in some places, you use torture as part of your argument in order to bolster it, even though it's actually quite misleading to do that. The truth is, if I want dog skin shoes, I could just shoot a Bingo in the head and turn him into a lovely pair of loafers, without needing to subject him to waterboarding or lock him in a room with Justin Bieber playing on repeat. — S
Then we're at cross purposes. I know exactly what you asked, and I told you my opinion that what you or I think doesn't really matter compared to the bigger picture, which I believe is better addressed with the kind of questions I put to you. — S
You actually have not given me your personal views, at all. — chatterbears
personally, I think all animals should be under partial or complete domestication. This means that, even wild animals should be regulated through family planning methods until their numbers are greatly reduced and manageable. Also, we should tag all animals (if possible) so that we know where and how they are at all times for the sake of regulating their activities, like in times of natural crises or to protect them from human activities that may harm them. — BrianW
Personally, I think causing harm to animals is wrong. — BrianW
Personally, I agree that it's cruel to kill animals for food. — BrianW
How I determine ethics/morality is a combination of:
1. Precedence.
2. Personal analysis.
3. Reciprocity.
This doesn't mean I follow any precedence, just that I take it into consideration. — BrianW
For example, stealing. There's previous precedence that makes stealing a unanimous no no. Also, personally, I'm against it due to the negative effects it has. And, since I would not like to be stolen from, I think it would be wrong to steal from others. — BrianW
You conform to the social norm. — chatterbears
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.