Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-26-2002, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Spin? We'd all love to see it.

P.B.,

Forget it. He talks the talk, but that's all he does; a poseur.

Jeff

x-member · 03-26-2002, 05:28 PM

NPH:

In 2 (and now 3) threads it is clear that Spin is a one trick poney.

Queen of Swords · 03-26-2002, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by spin:
<strong>You may rail and rant </strong>

May I also make more delicious puns while chomping down on a big juicy hamburger?

Brian63 · 03-26-2002, 06:13 PM

MtY,

If you are really interested in a more sophisticated debate, you may try sending out an email to various vegetarian organizations, such as PETA, ASPCA(?), E Magazine, etc. and invite someone there to a formal debate. I don't know if anyone there would be up to it, but on the off chance that they are, it would be worthwhile, IMO.

If you are not interested in composing such an email, I'd be happy to do it and pass along the invitation. If so, it would be helpful if you provided just a very brief (<=4 sentences) of your position on the issue.

Any way you want to do it, or not at all, is ok by me.

Brian

Detached9 · 03-26-2002, 06:14 PM

So, to convince me of your position, you need to explain how I get from the fact that I don�t like what I don�t like to the conclusion that I morally ought to avoid causing suffering in others.

I see the flaw already. Perhaps if you adopted the golden rule here? I'm not saying I personally use the golden rule often, but if you did accept the golden rule as a way of solving moral dilemmas, you wouldn't want to cause suffering on others, for you wouldn't enjoy it yourself.

99Percent · 03-26-2002, 06:48 PM

Perhaps if you adopted the golden rule here?

I find it hard, if not outright ridiculous to adopt the golden rule to those who can't reciprocate this same golden rule to me, whether they are animals that don't understand the rule or humans who have shown to violate it.

Tom Piper · 03-27-2002, 03:13 AM

Has there ever been, on this site, a discussion of the animal rights arguments of Peter Singer or Tom Regan?

Tom

pug846 · 03-27-2002, 08:07 AM

Detached said:

Quote:

Perhaps if you adopted the golden rule here? I'm not saying I personally use the golden rule often, but if you did accept the golden rule as a way of solving moral dilemmas, you wouldn't want to cause suffering on others, for you wouldn't enjoy it yourself.

The first question that would come to my mind is why adopt the golden rule? Further, should I treat a dog the same way I want the dog to treat me? And why ought I really treat some asshole with a great amount of respect knowing that he won�t and will never reciprocate?

Tom: I don�t think we have specifically discussed Peter Singer, but Utilitarianism and the arguments Singer uses to support his vegetarianism have been discussed.

Detached9 · 03-27-2002, 08:24 AM

The first question that would come to my mind is why adopt the golden rule? Further, should I treat a dog the same way I want the dog to treat me? And why ought I really treat some asshole with a great amount of respect knowing that he won�t and will never reciprocate?

As I said, I personally don't solely follow the golden rule. I am arguing this as a possibility for someone who accepts the golden rule.

I don't think reciprocration has much to do with the golden rule, rather you should treat others the way you wish to be treated. The golden rule is not: "Well, he hasn't done anything for me, why should I do anything for him?". If you follow that spin-off, would you apply it to all situations?

I tend to adopt the Negative Utilitarianism principle when dealing with moral dilemmas. Negative Utilitarianism states that you should do the outcome that results in the least amount of suffering. The problem with this is, suffering is highly relative, sometimes you can't really know if someone will suffer or how much they will suffer from your action(s). If I'm not sure, then I usually adopt the golden rule and hope for the best.

Perhaps you could share how you deal with moral dilemmas?

This is going on a slight tangent, but really, I don't think anyone will be arguing for the ethical necessity of vegetarianism.

Corwin · 03-27-2002, 08:32 AM

Come on people.....

PETA fanatics only come out and argue for this sort of thing when people aren't expecting it. When you ASK them to they know you're ready for it, and they wisely hide like little wusses. If they can't come out of left field and hit you with the argument in a completely unrelated topic, you won't reel like a man being mugged in a meadow, and so they can't win.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-26-2002, 05:28 PM	#62
x-member Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: free Posts: 123	NPH: In 2 (and now 3) threads it is clear that Spin is a one trick poney.

03-26-2002, 05:54 PM	#63
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by spin: <strong>You may rail and rant </strong> May I also make more delicious puns while chomping down on a big juicy hamburger?

03-26-2002, 06:13 PM	#64
Brian63 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: My own little fantasy world Posts: 8,911	MtY, If you are really interested in a more sophisticated debate, you may try sending out an email to various vegetarian organizations, such as PETA, ASPCA(?), E Magazine, etc. and invite someone there to a formal debate. I don't know if anyone there would be up to it, but on the off chance that they are, it would be worthwhile, IMO. If you are not interested in composing such an email, I'd be happy to do it and pass along the invitation. If so, it would be helpful if you provided just a very brief (<=4 sentences) of your position on the issue. Any way you want to do it, or not at all, is ok by me. Brian

03-26-2002, 06:14 PM	#65
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	So, to convince me of your position, you need to explain how I get from the fact that I don�t like what I don�t like to the conclusion that I morally ought to avoid causing suffering in others. I see the flaw already. Perhaps if you adopted the golden rule here? I'm not saying I personally use the golden rule often, but if you did accept the golden rule as a way of solving moral dilemmas, you wouldn't want to cause suffering on others, for you wouldn't enjoy it yourself.

03-26-2002, 06:48 PM	#66
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	Perhaps if you adopted the golden rule here? I find it hard, if not outright ridiculous to adopt the golden rule to those who can't reciprocate this same golden rule to me, whether they are animals that don't understand the rule or humans who have shown to violate it.

03-27-2002, 03:13 AM	#67
Tom Piper Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 78	Has there ever been, on this site, a discussion of the animal rights arguments of Peter Singer or Tom Regan? Tom

03-27-2002, 08:24 AM	#69
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	The first question that would come to my mind is why adopt the golden rule? Further, should I treat a dog the same way I want the dog to treat me? And why ought I really treat some asshole with a great amount of respect knowing that he won�t and will never reciprocate? As I said, I personally don't solely follow the golden rule. I am arguing this as a possibility for someone who accepts the golden rule. I don't think reciprocration has much to do with the golden rule, rather you should treat others the way you wish to be treated. The golden rule is not: "Well, he hasn't done anything for me, why should I do anything for him?". If you follow that spin-off, would you apply it to all situations? I tend to adopt the Negative Utilitarianism principle when dealing with moral dilemmas. Negative Utilitarianism states that you should do the outcome that results in the least amount of suffering. The problem with this is, suffering is highly relative, sometimes you can't really know if someone will suffer or how much they will suffer from your action(s). If I'm not sure, then I usually adopt the golden rule and hope for the best. Perhaps you could share how you deal with moral dilemmas? This is going on a slight tangent, but really, I don't think anyone will be arguing for the ethical necessity of vegetarianism.

03-27-2002, 08:32 AM	#70
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Come on people..... PETA fanatics only come out and argue for this sort of thing when people aren't expecting it. When you ASK them to they know you're ready for it, and they wisely hide like little wusses. If they can't come out of left field and hit you with the argument in a completely unrelated topic, you won't reel like a man being mugged in a meadow, and so they can't win.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.