Animal life vs Human life

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Blank

Well.. Vegetables as a agricultural product do indirectly kill loads of animals.

As many as are killed by fast food industries every day?

Quote:

Farmland destroys the natural habitat of wildlife leading to extinctions of species. Not to mention other enviromental issues with farming.

Do we need more farmland?

Pastures and mass factories also destroy natural habitats of wildlife. They also have environmental issues. Mass meat factories have created extreme environmental issues.

You can also grow more crops than you can grow livestock, per person fed. One cow takes up a decent amount of space (if you aren't dealing with mass factories) of pasture, and take years to grow. Crops take far less time, and fill up far more space per-capita.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Lonewolf,

Please note the beginning of my post.

"Some thoughts (not meant to be a rock solid argument)."

I read that. I just posted up some quick thoughts on the premises.

Quote:

I said that because such an argument for morality doesn't exist. Never will.

1.) There are NO moral absolutes. Repeat that 5 times.

I understand that.

Quote:

2.) You won't find any argument that will objectively justify any moral behavior because you must take into account subjective criteria including A.) The human innate sense of morality B.) Emotion. It just is not possible to derive objective truths from subjective criteria.

Yeah, I know that. But there are undoubtedly some ways that we could reach some sort of an agreement on an issue, assuredly.

Anyways, I seem to be stepping on a lot of toes here, so I think that I'll just bow out now.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Wow, you guys and gals went crazy on this topic overnight. As far as eating meat goes, I am an omnivore. I eat a wide variety of things. I make no distinction between farm raised animals and ones I hunt. They both have to die for me to eat them. The quality of life for wild vs. domestic animals can be debated but at the end of the day I'm still going to eat one of them.

I mentioned earlier that I am inclined to be less humane to animals and humans that I consider parasites or nuisances. One of the things that makes us human is our ability to empathize. The deer that I hunt must certainly consider me a parasite or nuisance. They do their best to thwart my efforts. I don't blame them for it. In a way, it's one of the things I respect and admire them for. This cycle of conflict and competition has been the nature of life on Earth for millions of years. I think that to suddenly become morally opposed to it is self defeating. You can decide to stop killing animals but that doesn't mean they'll stop trying to kill you. We are all food for worms.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

I think that to suddenly become morally opposed to it is self defeating. You can decide to stop killing animals but that doesn't mean they'll stop trying to kill you. We are all food for worms.

Who's "suddenly" becoming morally opposed? Buddhist monks have been morally opposed to killing animals (with exceptions) for a very long time. Henry David Thoreau would probably have agreed with many of my ideas, and he existed before I was born. Einstein was a vegetarian, and he's not around with us anymore.

Vegetarianism, and arguments that are similarly along those lines, are not new concepts that are being put forth out of the blue. Evolutionarily speaking, it may be a "new" concept, but so is the ability to create computers, or breach through the atmosphere to fly to the moon. We're a radically different species, with a radically different way of looking at the world.

I mean, don't get me wrong: I see your viewpoint and I respect it. But I think that we should recognize that we are radically different; and we're the only species that act as custodians of the animals we own, or of the world that we live in. We affect the world in tremendous ways; we create factories that pollute the air, we dump toxic waste into the rivers and oceans. But, unlike animals that might do something similarly (if they could), we can also choose to accept that it's wrong to pollute the world around us.

Domesticated animals, furthermore, are something new, just as the human race is new. And as has been mentioned earlier in the thread, some animals grown on farms are so weak and pathetic, they're useless for anything else. We've radically changed them. Personally, I see why we domesticated animals. There was a good reason to do it: For survival. But I do not see why it is necessary to keep the system that we have, for all time. As we adapt, and as we adapt technology to suit us, there will be changes to be made along the way. And I, personally, agree with Einstein that we will move towards a more vegetarian outlook as society moves along.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Originally Posted by Taffer

It's good to see Dunstin is a bigot here, too.

Just to pipe in my two cents: Of the question over whether we are morally obligated to protect animals, etc, then no, I cannot see how we can be. Of the question of if I think killing animals is wrong, then it depends. But my personal feelings on killing of animals is an aside from the OP's question. We are not morally obligated to be nice to animals.

Some are morally obligated, just not legally. I killed a mouse the other day, and it still bothers me. I tell myself that I was right because of what it was doing, so I know I would not have done it if I could have avoided it. I morally don't think it is right to kill anything for no reason, and I am sure others feel the same way. As for being nice to them, not killing them without a good reason is nice.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by RandFan

If I had been raised in a culture that saw dogs and cats as food I might kill them and eat them. You might have also.

As it is I find the idea repulsive but that is a cultural bias on my part.

Dustin, there are no absolute morals. Right and wrong are relative standards. I know that it is hard to understand but that is just the way it is and you have no argument otherwise.

Nonsense. I live in a society that eats pork and I don't eat pork.

Moreover, What right do you have to say that "Hitler was wrong" in killing 6 million people of "right and wrong" are just relative and have no absolute meaning? You can't have it both ways.

Either Hitler was wrong or he wasn't.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Originally Posted by RenaissanceBiker

Wow, you guys and gals went crazy on this topic overnight. As far as eating meat goes, I am an omnivore. I eat a wide variety of things. I make no distinction between farm raised animals and ones I hunt. They both have to die for me to eat them. The quality of life for wild vs. domestic animals can be debated but at the end of the day I'm still going to eat one of them.

I mentioned earlier that I am inclined to be less humane to animals and humans that I consider parasites or nuisances. One of the things that makes us human is our ability to empathize. The deer that I hunt must certainly consider me a parasite or nuisance. They do their best to thwart my efforts. I don't blame them for it. In a way, it's one of the things I respect and admire them for. This cycle of conflict and competition has been the nature of life on Earth for millions of years. I think that to suddenly become morally opposed to it is self defeating. You can decide to stop killing animals but that doesn't mean they'll stop trying to kill you. We are all food for worms.

But the cycle of conflict isn't so intense anymore. The average person is not threatened by animals anymore, and those who go hunting them undertake the risk. I think the fact that steak is delivered to the table (and I am glad for it) lessens the conflict.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Heh. I've missed a lot. Y'all were supposed to have this sorted by now.


Here is the crucial difference between the severely mentally handicapped and the family pet on one side and the yummy cows on the other. Typically, the former are valued by someone, someone who would suffer grief were they killed. The cows (again typically) are not valued by anyone, individually.

There are people in the world who don't wish cows slaughtered in general, but there aren't many that are attached to any particular cow. It is the suffering of the survivors that makes me favor not killing the retarded and pets. It is the lack of suffering survivors that makes me not care when a cow gets offed.

So if a homeless mentally ill man with no family or anyone who cares if fair game, but a mentally ill man with a loving family isn't?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

And I, personally, agree with Einstein that we will move towards a more vegetarian outlook as society moves along.

I think you're right. If (and, most likely, when) we can produce fake meat that is indistinguishable from the real thing for similar cost, we will likely stop killing animals for food, as a society. The killing will cease to have any utility. I don't think, however, that this will make it a better world, or a worse one. It will just be different.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Taffer

It's good to see Dunstin is a bigot here, too.

Just to pipe in my two cents: Of the question over whether we are morally obligated to protect animals, etc, then no, I cannot see how we can be. Of the question of if I think killing animals is wrong, then it depends. But my personal feelings on killing of animals is an aside from the OP's question. We are not morally obligated to be nice to animals.

If you want to insult someone you might want to try spelling their name correctly.

And actually understanding the word you refer to them as.

That always helps.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Moreover, What right do you have to say that "Hitler was wrong" in killing 6 million people of "right and wrong" are just relative and have no absolute meaning? You can't have it both ways.

Because "relative" does not now, nor has it ever, in this context meant "all positions are equal". It means that morality is relative to who and what we are as beings. Morality does not exist as an objective reality independent of us.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

I thought I settled all this before I left last night?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by Dustin

So if a homeless mentally ill man with no family or anyone who cares if fair game, but a mentally ill man with a loving family isn't?

Well, since you didn't bother to note my reply to this very question already, I'll play along.

Why shouldn't the former be fair game?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

Because "relative" does not now, nor has it ever, in this context meant "all positions are equal". It means that morality is relative to who and what we are as beings. Morality does not exist as an objective reality independent of us.

You must not know what the word "relative" means. "Relative" means every position has it's own justification for claiming to be the "true" position. (Think Einsteins relativity) If morality is "relative" then who's to say that Hitler was wrong? You? What makes you right? Can you prove he was wrong in murdering 6 million people? If morality is relative then you can't. This means that Hitler has every right to say he was right then you do to say he's wrong.

These are just the conclusions of your failed logic.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Well, since you didn't bother to note my reply to this very question already, I'll play along.

Why shouldn't the former be fair game?

Do you really believe it's OK to kill mentally ill homeless people?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Do you really believe it's OK to kill mentally ill homeless people?

Maybe. Why isn't it?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

For the record, I see nothing wrong with cannibalism.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by lightcreatedlife@hom

Some are morally obligated, just not legally. I killed a mouse the other day, and it still bothers me. I tell myself that I was right because of what it was doing, so I know I would not have done it if I could have avoided it. I morally don't think it is right to kill anything for no reason, and I am sure others feel the same way. As for being nice to them, not killing them without a good reason is nice.

Perhaps I should elaborate. I do not think we are morally obligated to treat animals with the same moral set which we treat other humans with.

I am not saying whether killing animals is wrong or not, as that wasn't the intention (IMHO) of the OP. Dealing specifically with morals, I think we are not obligated to use the same moral set on animals as we are on ourselves.

I also believe this is 'hardwired' into our brains as an evolutionary survival trait. Our morals have evolved to help us survive.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Originally Posted by Dustin

You must not know what the word "relative" means. "Relative" means every position has it's own justification for claiming to be the "true" position. (Think Einsteins relativity) If morality is "relative" then who's to say that Hitler was wrong? You? What makes you right? Can you prove he was wrong in murdering 6 million people? If morality is relative then you can't. This means that Hitler has every right to say he was right then you do to say he's wrong.

These are just the conclusions of your failed logic.

Um, no. "Relative" means "comparative", "related to something else". "Having its own justification as the 'true' position" is a creation of your own. It is not necessary for a relativist to claim that any position is the absolute 'true' position. It does not follow, however, that if there is no absolute 'true' position that all positions are equal. Some positions are better than others.

How is it decided? The same we decide everything. We are built in a certain way. We have tendencies toward certain actions and certain beliefs. Almost all of us share those same tendencies (there are always exceptions), so we agree as a species, in general, what is right and what is wrong. Virtually everyone agrees that Hitler was wrong on the principle that we believe that murder is wrong. We believe that murder is wrong because of our biological underpinning and mutual consent.

Relative means that our morality is relative to who and what we are It is related to us). I stand by my previous statement.

If morality is objective, then tell me precisely how you are using the word objective (there are at least three meanings of that word), and if you mean one of them in particular, then show me where this objective morality is right now. Point to it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Maybe.

Yes or No?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

Um, no. "Relative" means "comparative", "related to something else". "Having its own justification as the 'true' position" is a creation of your own. It is not necessary for a relativist to claim that any position is the absolute 'true' position. It does not follow, however, that if there is no absolute 'true' position that all positions are equal. Some positions are better than others.

Wrong.

Quote:

3 : not absolute or independent :

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

How is it decided? The same we decide everything. We are built in a certain way. We have tendencies toward certain actions and certain beliefs. Almost all of us share those same tendencies (there are always exceptions), so we agree as a species, in general, what is right and what is wrong. Virtually everyone agrees that Hitler was wrong on the principle that we believe that murder is wrong. We believe that murder is wrong because of our biological underpinning and mutual consent.

Appeal to popular opinion. Fallacy.

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

If morality is objective, then tell me precisely how you are using the word objective (there are at least three meanings of that word), and if you mean one of them in particular, then show me where this objective morality is right now. Point to it.

I never said it was objective.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Who's "suddenly" becoming morally opposed? Buddhist monks have been morally opposed to killing animals (with exceptions) for a very long time. Henry David Thoreau would probably have agreed with many of my ideas, and he existed before I was born. Einstein was a vegetarian, and he's not around with us anymore.

I used the term "suddenly" with respect to the amount of time life has existed on this planet. Even the amount of time Buddhists have been around is sudden on that scale.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Vegetarianism, and arguments that are similarly along those lines, are not new concepts that are being put forth out of the blue. Evolutionarily speaking, it may be a "new" concept, but so is the ability to create computers, or breach through the atmosphere to fly to the moon. We're a radically different species, with a radically different way of looking at the world.

I mean, don't get me wrong: I see your viewpoint and I respect it. But I think that we should recognize that we are radically different; and we're the only species that act as custodians of the animals we own, or of the world that we live in. We affect the world in tremendous ways; we create factories that pollute the air, we dump toxic waste into the rivers and oceans. But, unlike animals that might do something similarly (if they could), we can also choose to accept that it's wrong to pollute the world around us.

Domesticated animals, furthermore, are something new, just as the human race is new. And as has been mentioned earlier in the thread, some animals grown on farms are so weak and pathetic, they're useless for anything else. We've radically changed them. Personally, I see why we domesticated animals. There was a good reason to do it: For survival. But I do not see why it is necessary to keep the system that we have, for all time. As we adapt, and as we adapt technology to suit us, there will be changes to be made along the way. And I, personally, agree with Einstein that we will move towards a more vegetarian outlook as society moves along.

I agree that as the dominant species of our time we need to be good stewards of our planet. I'm a civil engineer and I have dedicated my career to cleaning up our nation's water resources. Destroying the habitats of the diverse life forms on Earth is also self-defeating. Killing for the sake of killing is also self defeating. All I'm saying is, taking the "no killing" philosophy to the extreme is foolish. I respect you for not wanting to harm creatures you empathize with. Maybe we are saying the same thing different ways. I think it would be foolish to refuse antibiotics because you are morally opposed to killing the bacteria that are trying to kill you. I think it would be foolish to be morally opposed to killing the cougar that is trying to kill you. I would argue that you are morally compelled to do your best in that individual struggle. At the same time we are morally compelled to save the cougar's habitat. It is a fine balancing act.

We can't create a world where we live in perfect harmony with the rest of the life forms on Earth. We can't end the conflict that has been going on since life began. We can create a world where humans don't rely on animals for food, but those animals will be constantly trying to usurp our position as the dominant species. That's just nature.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Yes or No?

Yes.

Why not?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Wrong.


http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary



Appeal to popular opinion. Fallacy.



I never said it was objective.

Since you just demonstrated to me that you completely misunderstood what I wrote, I will wait for you to read it properly and get back to me. Or not. It's up to you.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Yes.

Why not?

So you believe it's OK to murder a mentally ill homeless man with no friends or family?


And you expect me to try to explain how you're wrong? If you truly believe that then you have some inherent emotional or mental problems and my attempting to explain how you're wrong would be like trying to explain to Charles Manson what he did was wrong and expect him to comprehend it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

Since you just demonstrated to me that you completely misunderstood what I wrote, I will wait for you to read it properly and get back to me. Or not. It's up to you.

Copout.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by Dustin

So you believe it's OK to murder a mentally ill homeless man with no friends or family?

And you expect me to try to explain how you're wrong? If you truly believe that then you have some inherent emotional or mental problems and my attempting to explain how you're wrong would be like trying to explain to Charles Manson what he did was wrong and expect him to comprehend it.

So, you can't explain why it's wrong, then?

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by Dustin

So you believe it's OK to murder a mentally ill homeless man with no friends or family?


And you expect me to try to explain how you're wrong? If you truly believe that then you have some inherent emotional or mental problems and my attempting to explain how you're wrong would be like trying to explain to Charles Manson what he did was wrong and expect him to comprehend it.

How do you know he is perfectly sane, and it's you who has "inherent emotional or mental problems"?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Copout.

Nope. It's all there in black and white for you to read. I can't help that you mix absolute and relative and objective willy-nilly in the assumptions underlying your questions. If you wish to show that you understand the viewpoint, then fine, we can discuss it. If you want to be a *****, then fine, you can act however you like.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

So, you can't explain why it's wrong, then?

Sure I can. But I don't see the point in bothering since it'd be a waste of time if you're so confused that you believe it's ok to murder a mentally ill homeless man with no friends or family.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Taffer

How do you know he is perfectly sane, and it's you who has "inherent emotional or mental problems"?

Because I don't believe it's ok to murder a mentally ill homeless man with no friends or family.

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Originally Posted by Taffer

Perhaps I should elaborate. I do not think we are morally obligated to treat animals with the same moral set which we treat other humans with.

I am not saying whether killing animals is wrong or not, as that wasn't the intention (IMHO) of the OP. Dealing specifically with morals, I think we are not obligated to use the same moral set on animals as we are on ourselves.

I think I follow you. Using my example, I killed the mouse after it entered the house, but I had no obligation to wait till then.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Sure I can. But I don't see the point in bothering since it'd be a waste of time if you're so confused that you believe it's ok to murder a mentally ill homeless man with no friends or family.

Put up or shut up, Dustin. In the time you've spent explaining why you won't defend your position, you likely could have done so, or at least made a reasonable start. I am forced to conclude that you don't have any good reasons not to kill mentally ill homeless people. And, since you lack such a reason, I do fear for the safety of those mentally ill homeless persons in your vicinity. It seems there is nothing stopping you from going on a rampage, slaughtering them all in a drunken orgy of bloodlust.

You know, sorta like I fantasized doing myself last night.

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by lightcreatedlife@hom

I think I follow you. Using my example, I killed the mouse after it entered the house, but I had no obligation to wait till then.

Yes, exactly. That doesn't mean you don't have to feel bad, and it doesn't mean you might not want to kill animals. Those are personal opinions, and modifications of the "evolutionary moral set" we have evolved with. If you follow (it's getting late, and words are beginning to not mean quite what they should anymore... ).

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Because I don't believe it's ok to murder a mentally ill homeless man with no friends or family.

So, let me get this straight. You claim that anyone who thinks it's ok to murder a mentally ill homless man with no friends or family is in need of mental help, and the reason why you know that you are correct and not in need of mental help is because you don't think it's ok to murder a mentally ill homless man with no friends or family? Fallacy. Begging the Question^WP.

[slingblade]

Statements of challenge, phrased in the most ludicrous ways and starting off with "So," really honk me off.

[Blank]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

As many as are killed by fast food industries every day?

So.. It isn't a question of killing animals that matters, but rather a question of quantity?

Moral absolutes are always tricky. Gotta give it to the Earth first folk, they usually have pretty consistant moral views. Insane, but somewhat consistant.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Do we need more farmland?

In case everyone went vegetarian, yes. Cattle feed is easy to farm and gives way bigger yields than agricultural products aimed for human consumption. Animals can eat pretty much the entire plant, while humans usually pick and choose the best parts.

Producing feeds is also a good thing to do in the crop rotation cycles and is possible on less that ideal farmland.

Somewhat offtopic, but producing animal feed is also possible with fertilizers not really suitable for food production.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Pastures and mass factories also destroy natural habitats of wildlife. They also have environmental issues. Mass meat factories have created extreme environmental issues.

Everything humans eat will at somepoint cause some effects on nature. Don't like mass produced meat? Go vegetarian or buy only free ranged meat. There really is no moral high ground on either side of the fence.

Like disgussing, what form of involuntary manslaughter is justifiable.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Taffer

So, let me get this straight. You claim that anyone who thinks it's ok to murder a mentally ill homless man with no friends or family is in need of mental help, and the reason why you know that you are correct and not in need of mental help is because you don't think it's ok to murder a mentally ill homless man with no friends or family? Fallacy. Begging the Question^WP.

If you're asking for proof that people who murder strangers for no reaosn are mentally ill then I suggest you do some research.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal...ogy/index.html

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal...ogy/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

[Yahweh]

Jesus Christ! I intended to reply to posts when I got home from work today, and there are 10 new pages of posts. I know that people had some questions for me, but I won't bother to answer them. I hope I can be forgiven for neglecting to reply to the last 400+ posts accumulated over the past 12 hours.

[Darth Rotor]

This is rich, your dismissing another poster's intellect, and reasoning, out of hand. Irony, thy name is Dustin.

Originally Posted by Dustin to RandFan about thaiboxerken's line taken

I'm sorry, But anyone who is that thick is simply stupid.

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Why is it wrong to kill animals?

Originally Posted by Dustin

Are you really that stupid?

The answer to that is no, he's not "that stupid" and hardly stupid. He's challenging a philosophical position. This is a discussion. It's OK to do that, and doing so is not an indication of stupidity.

DR