Post Reply
Page 44 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Redneck A-holes with guns
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 6:07PM #431
arielg
Posts: 9,114

I don't think it violates moral principles either -- when properly done.


 


There is no way to kill properly. Killing is the most basic violation of  any moral principle. All other  principles are elaborations of the most fundametal one.  You cannot make up your own morality.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 6:16PM #432
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,776

May 29, 2012 -- 6:07PM, arielg wrote:


I don't think it violates moral principles either -- when properly done.


 


There is no way to kill properly. Killing is the most basic violation of  any moral principle. All other  principles are elaborations of the most fundametal one.  You cannot make up your own morality.




Only if you place animals in the same moral category as human beings. Killing an animal does not carry the same moral weight. Any more than killing a plant carries the same moral weight as killing an animal.


Furthermore, numerous animals are killed to make room for and/or protect the vegetable and fruit crops from which your food comes.


Also, there is no wrong in killing something to obtain food. Or to cull the population to serve a larger program of managment and conservation. 


It's hypocritical for vegans to berate others for killing to obtain food, when animals are killed so that they might eat.


This is especially true for vegans who live in cities and suburbs, and grow none of their own food. 


It is doubly hypocritcal when one considers the numbers of animals that were displaced or killed to make way for urban/suburban housing developments said vegans might live in.


If one lived as a vegan in the simplest possible hut -- and made sure beforehand not to displace any animals on his home site -- and grew all his own food -- making sure to not kill a single creature in his farming process --


Then said vegan might have a leg to stand on with the "killing" argument.



Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 6:29PM #433
solfeggio
Posts: 8,536

Actually, I do place nonhuman animals in the same moral category as humans.  We all evolved from the same common ancestor, and we all contain some of the same DNA.  We're all animals.


As for vegans living in cities:


The cities were there before I was around, and they'll continue to be there when I'm gone.  I have no moral objection to living in a city.  And where I or anybody else lives has no bearing whatsoever on what I choose to eat.


As for comparing nonhuman carnivores or obligate omnivores with humans where diet is concerned:


As I've repeatedly said, they have to kill in order to survive - and we don't!


There is nothing immoral about a lioness killing a gazelle.  She sees the gazelle as food, and nothing more.  (The gazelle would prefer not to be killed, naturally, but since the natural order of things says that she is going to be a food item, she has no choice.  This is the Christians' so-called 'loving god' in action.)


Humans, on the other hand, do not have to kill the gazelle, because we have many, many other food options available to us.  And, once we understand this, killing the gazelle does become a moral issue.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 29, 2012 - 6:40PM #434
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,776

May 29, 2012 -- 6:29PM, solfeggio wrote:


Actually, I do place nonhuman animals in the same moral category as humans.  We all evolved from the same common ancestor, and we all contain some of the same DNA.  We're all animals.


As for vegans living in cities:


The cities were there before I was around, and they'll continue to be there when I'm gone.  I have no moral objection to living in a city.  And where I or anybody else lives has no bearing whatsoever on what I choose to eat.


As for comparing nonhuman carnivores or obligate omnivores with humans where diet is concerned:


As I've repeatedly said, they have to kill in order to survive - and we don't!


There is nothing immoral about a lioness killing a gazelle.  She sees the gazelle as food, and nothing more.  (The gazelle would prefer not to be killed, naturally, but since the natural order of things says that she is going to be a food item, she has no choice.  This is the Christians' so-called 'loving god' in action.)


Humans, on the other hand, do not have to kill the gazelle, because we have many, many other food options available to us.  And, once we understand this, killing the gazelle does become a moral issue.


 




Solf, plants come from much the same DNA too.


That said, if you wish to place animals in the same category as human beings -- or to regard us as merely another animal species, and nothing more, feel free. 


I simply don't agree, because I can't, because I see no rationality or reality in those views. 


Also by your reasoning, hunting and killing animals for food were here long before I was. 


True, I don't need to. But I have the capacity to, and said animals are readily available for hunting close to my home.


And my hunting does no harm to the greater balance of nature here. In fact, it plays right into it. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 31, 2012 - 4:51PM #435
headhuntersix
Posts: 63

May 29, 2012 -- 5:57PM, solfeggio wrote:

Unlike carnivores and obligate omnivores, however, humans do not need to hunt or eat other animals in order to survive. 





Nobody is saying that the consumption of meat is necessary for the survival of the human species.  You, however, seem to be saying that unnecessary=immoral.  I don't buy that.  Besides that, MANY species kill for reasons other than to eat.  Is that immoral?  Need we establish peacekeeping forces to prevent that sort of killing?


In other words, you seem to be saying that nonhuman animals are not merely our equals in terms of natual rights, but actually have more rights than us.  They have the right to kill in order to eliminate competition for resources.  We don't.  They have the right to kill to eat, we don't.  They have the right to kill their own species to enforce territorial boundaries.  We don't.  They have the right to kill for sport, we don't.  And that's just your manifesto conerning the relative rights of man versus other creatures on the topic of killing.  Man may not take a life for any reason, other creatures may take life for any reason of which they can conceive. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 31, 2012 - 5:25PM #436
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,776

May 31, 2012 -- 4:51PM, headhuntersix wrote:


May 29, 2012 -- 5:57PM, solfeggio wrote:

Unlike carnivores and obligate omnivores, however, humans do not need to hunt or eat other animals in order to survive. 





Nobody is saying that the consumption of meat is necessary for the survival of the human species.  You, however, seem to be saying that unnecessary=immoral.  I don't buy that.  Besides that, MANY species kill for reasons other than to eat.  Is that immoral?  Need we establish peacekeeping forces to prevent that sort of killing?


In other words, you seem to be saying that nonhuman animals are not merely our equals in terms of natual rights, but actually have more rights than us.  They have the right to kill in order to eliminate competition for resources.  We don't.  They have the right to kill to eat, we don't.  They have the right to kill their own species to enforce territorial boundaries.  We don't.  They have the right to kill for sport, we don't.  And that's just your manifesto conerning the relative rights of man versus other creatures on the topic of killing.  Man may not take a life for any reason, other creatures may take life for any reason of which they can conceive. 




I've noted that same disjointed reasoning in animal rights in general. 


We're no better, supposedly, than any other animal. But we're expected to be held to a higher standard. And an almost completely pacifist one at that. 


For example, some strident vegans will acknowledge it's okay to kill bacteria, or an attacking bear, purely for self defense.


But apparently defending our turf, by culling some wolves, is a huge moral travesty... even though every living creature on Mother Earth defends its turf. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 31, 2012 - 9:30PM #437
solfeggio
Posts: 8,536

Yeah, except that it's not your 'turf,' Mouse.  the wolves were there before you were.  The land is theirs and you are the interloper.


And yes, we're all animals, and we all have conditioned responses based on positive and negative reinforcement, but whether other animals act out of instinct or genetic memory or simple survival has nothing to do with us.  As animals ourselves, humans are supposed to have a higher order of sentience, and we've found ways to rationalise our instincts.  Unlike many other species, we humans have created an environment for ourselves that offers many choices.


And one of those choices is whether or not to kill other sentient beings.


Humans kill and eat other animals on an apathetic whim, a general lack of interest in exploring ethical issues, or finding their desire for a taste or a cultural acceptance more important than the ethical or even health issues associated with this behaviour.


And statements like: 'Other animals kill and eat each other, so it's OK for us to do so, too' make no sense at all.  Since we're all animals, then it must follow that it would be OK for us to kill our fellow humans, too, if we felt like it.


Why should humans have empathy for other animals?  Because it makes us better humans.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 01, 2012 - 5:02AM #438
arielg
Posts: 9,114

And statements like: 'Other animals kill and eat each other, so it's OK for us to do so, too' make no sense at all.  Since we're all animals, then it must follow that it would be OK for us to kill our fellow humans, too, if we felt like it.


Why should humans have empathy for other animals?  Because it makes us better humans.



Sad to see people using their intelligence  to remain animals, rather than to keep evolving.


"Build thee more stately mansions, O my soul,
As the swift seasons roll!
Leave thy low-vaulted past!
Let each new temple, nobler than the last,
Shut thee from heaven with a dome more vast,
Till thou at length art free,
Leaving thine outgrown shell by life's unresting sea!" 
Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.



 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 02, 2012 - 1:46PM #439
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,776

May 31, 2012 -- 9:30PM, solfeggio wrote:


Yeah, except that it's not your 'turf,' Mouse.  the wolves were there before you were.  The land is theirs and you are the interloper.


And yes, we're all animals, and we all have conditioned responses based on positive and negative reinforcement, but whether other animals act out of instinct or genetic memory or simple survival has nothing to do with us.  As animals ourselves, humans are supposed to have a higher order of sentience, and we've found ways to rationalise our instincts.  Unlike many other species, we humans have created an environment for ourselves that offers many choices.


And one of those choices is whether or not to kill other sentient beings.


Humans kill and eat other animals on an apathetic whim, a general lack of interest in exploring ethical issues, or finding their desire for a taste or a cultural acceptance more important than the ethical or even health issues associated with this behaviour.


And statements like: 'Other animals kill and eat each other, so it's OK for us to do so, too' make no sense at all.  Since we're all animals, then it must follow that it would be OK for us to kill our fellow humans, too, if we felt like it.


Why should humans have empathy for other animals?  Because it makes us better humans.





Solf -- wrong.


The wolves in question were re-introduced into this area after significant human settlement. In 1995-1996. I was here before they were, as were most people living in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.


Also, it's sort of a moot point. Many other creatures, including wolves, move around and pioneer new territory, and defend said territory.


So, again, why is it okay for every other creature, but not human beings?


I have plenty of empathy for animals, Solf. There's no discrepect toward wild things in recognizing the fact that some of them might have to be shot if they cause too much ruckus with human civilization.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 02, 2012 - 1:48PM #440
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,776

Jun 1, 2012 -- 5:02AM, arielg wrote:


And statements like: 'Other animals kill and eat each other, so it's OK for us to do so, too' make no sense at all.  Since we're all animals, then it must follow that it would be OK for us to kill our fellow humans, too, if we felt like it.


Why should humans have empathy for other animals?  Because it makes us better humans.



Sad to see people using their intelligence  to remain animals, rather than to keep evolving.


"Build thee more stately mansions, O my soul,
As the swift seasons roll!
Leave thy low-vaulted past!
Let each new temple, nobler than the last,
Shut thee from heaven with a dome more vast,
Till thou at length art free,
Leaving thine outgrown shell by life's unresting sea!" 
Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.



 





Humans have asendency over animals. We're "animals" only biologically.


Becoming advanced, civilized and reaching the potential of our maturity as a human race does not mean we simply sit around and never touch or alter anything.


If grizzly bears and wolves encroach on human interests and human settlement, some of 'em are going to get shot.


Note, I did not say all. Not all should be culled, only some.


Apex predators, such as wolves, griz and cougars fufill a vital role in a healthy ecosystem. So, damn skippy I support having them here in viable numbers, nor do I care how much that annoys anti-predator zealots -- who are apparently willfully ignorant about how nature actually works, despite an abundance of readily available information.


On the flip side of the coin, I'm not sorry if it offends you or other supposed "nature lovers" who live nowhere near the Yellowstone eocsystem,  that some people here have a vested interest in protecting their pets, livestock, property, hunting interests, children or themselves from large predators.  Feel free to stay nestled away in a distant city or suburb, where the dangerous predators move around on two feet.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 44 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook