Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bill Snedden · 03-14-2002, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SallySmith:
<strong>Forgive me if this next bit too can be found in your previous post(s), but I am curious as to what rights you personally are willing to extend to non-human animals and why. I'm just interested in hearing how other people view animals.</strong>

Actually, that bit you posted was my attempt to elucidate contractarian theory for spin.

If I could put my own position into fifty words or less, it would be that any animal with the ability to understand the concept of ethics (ie, possessing self-awareness and capable of complex abstract thought) possesses the right of self-determination.

That said, however, I do believe that humans have a responsibility to treat non-human animals (and indeed, all of nature) in an ethical manner, simply out of enlightened self-interest (which necessarily includes empathy and compassion).

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Bill Snedden · 03-14-2002, 12:59 PM

/begin moderator mode

To all:

I'm not sure how much longer this thread is going to run, but please, please, please, stop the personal attacks!

Name calling and flamboyant hyperbole are no substitute for passionate debate. I still think it's odd that people can respond so hotly to the issue of animal rights and barely get riled up when Rev. Bob preaches hellfire.

If this issue just makes you so mad that you can't refrain from calling names or wild, overblown rants, please do refrain from posting.

Thanking you all in advance for your cooperation.

Bill Snedden

/end moderator mode

tronvillain · 03-14-2002, 01:44 PM

Bill Snedden:

I was just going to mention that animals could have rights under contract theory, but I just realized that you said "Non-human animals do not possess the ability to enter into social contracts and therefore have only such rights as those who engage in contracts are willing to extend to them." Of course, we do extend non-human animals some rights in our society, but apparently spin wants us to extend more.

spin · 03-14-2002, 01:55 PM

Mad Kally,

You must be kidding me. If you care to look into the medical research field there are many doctors who say that results from animal research is often totally useless, being inappropriate for the human situation and is ultimately both a waste of time and simply cruel to animals.

Arguments against animal research have been voiced for so long it's a wonder that you haven't noticed them.

I also said that if there are any benefits from them people will use them. You don't condone the method as you don't condone the method of Nazi doctors. The analogy is a reasonable one to me. Both groups cannot/coud not justify the use of their guinea pigs. When you have data there is no reason not to use it. I will fight for people to stop performing tess on animals. The animal cannot choose not to be a guinea pig. Someone with human responsibility should be responsible and stop the animal abuse.

So, you too are an avoider of dealing with the topic, by changing the topic. You don't give your views on the ethics of eating our fellow animals. Please, give me your views on the ethics.

Mageth · 03-14-2002, 01:58 PM

Bill Snedden [edited to add: and all others]:

I apologize for my contributions to the rantin' and ragin'. I'll cease and desist immediately.

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

spin · 03-14-2002, 01:58 PM

Koy:
--------------------
I see no qualitative difference--morally speaking--from eating any form of matter. I believe all matter is conscious and all matter is self-aware, including the electrons which are right now quivering on your screen.
--------------------

If you eat meat, you are wilfully talking rubbish for argumentative purposes.

tronvillain · 03-14-2002, 02:02 PM

spin:

Quote:

This is merely a repetition of the palate argument with no responsibility. There is no ethical content in the argument at all.

Well, this confirms my suspicion that we have entirely different conceptions of what morality is. All of my ethical arguments are somewhat similar to this one. What exactly were you hoping for?

Quote:

If you can choose not to eat fellow animals why not do so rather than gratuitously feeding your taste buds?

I refer you to the argument above - it would be completely irrational of me to make that choice. Now, if I could choose not to eat fellow animals while gratuitously feeding my taste buds for a comparable price, I probably would.

spin · 03-14-2002, 02:08 PM

Bill Sneddon:
-----------------------
I'm not actually arguing for the application of contract theory... simply pointing out to spin that he has so far failed to rebut PB's actual argument
-----------------------

Bill, I think you are simply wrong and should attempt to understand what the aim of this contract theory was. The aim in another century was to argue a defence for aiding the most people possible. It was a more barbaric era and people needed to be given moral support. Here we are in a later century and we find PB attempting to abuse it (ie to go against the logic of including the many). It is no longer appropriate because our moral situation has changed, I think, for the better: we no longer have public executions for the entertainment of the masses; we no longer accept slavery; and so on. PB is making a sham out of the original concept. I don't think you can take it out of its context and use it meaningfully unless you attempt to enter into the spirit of its development. You don't, you seem to want to use it in the abstract and ignore the current morality problems which should be considered, which are different from the original developments.

spin · 03-14-2002, 02:19 PM

spin:
------------------------------
This is merely a repetition of the palate argument with no responsibility. There is no ethical content in the argument at all.
------------------------------

tronvillain:
------------------------------
Well, this confirms my suspicion that we have entirely different conceptions of what morality is. All of my ethical arguments are somewhat similar to this one.
------------------------------

Perhaps it's better that you include your previous comment so that one can know what you're referring back to. If I remember correctly you were letting your palate do the arguing and I got nothing from you.

tronvillain:
------------------------------
What exactly were you hoping for?
------------------------------

A justification for eating dead animals which is based on some morality, otherwise I see no reason to make the distinction between your argument and that which I would think Jeffrey Dahmer might have imagined. "I do it because I can."

spin:
------------------------------
If you can choose not to eat fellow animals why not do so rather than gratuitously feeding your taste buds?
------------------------------

tronvillain:
------------------------------
I refer you to the argument above - it would be completely irrational of me to make that choice.
------------------------------

This makes no sense to me, although I understand all the words. You are using the word irrational with a meaning that doesn't compute. Rationality involves logical structure leading to logical conclusions based on clear and reasonable premises. If you can choose not to eat meat, as many vegetarians have shown possible, it would seem that there is nothing necessarily irrational about such a choice. If you can make the choice and it is not irrational per se, what the hell are you trying to say?

------------------------------
Now, if I could choose not to eat fellow animals while gratuitously feeding my taste buds for a comparable price, I probably would.
------------------------------

Meat is relatively expensive. What are you talking about? Is this a matter of "pleasant taste" is sufficient reason for killing animals? You would then, it seems to me, be simply hedonistic and without morality.

Detached9 · 03-14-2002, 02:20 PM

"Who is 'you' referring to"

Incase this wasn't a joke, I'm not sure, I'll re-word my last few sentences.

Not everyone who argues for vegetarianism here is trying to convert you. Unless you (the readers of this thread) think the point of debate is to convert people?

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

03-14-2002, 12:59 PM	#342
Bill Snedden Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,597	/begin moderator mode To all: I'm not sure how much longer this thread is going to run, but please, please, please, stop the personal attacks! Name calling and flamboyant hyperbole are no substitute for passionate debate. I still think it's odd that people can respond so hotly to the issue of animal rights and barely get riled up when Rev. Bob preaches hellfire. If this issue just makes you so mad that you can't refrain from calling names or wild, overblown rants, please do refrain from posting. Thanking you all in advance for your cooperation. Bill Snedden /end moderator mode

03-14-2002, 01:44 PM	#343
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Bill Snedden: I was just going to mention that animals could have rights under contract theory, but I just realized that you said "Non-human animals do not possess the ability to enter into social contracts and therefore have only such rights as those who engage in contracts are willing to extend to them." Of course, we do extend non-human animals some rights in our society, but apparently spin wants us to extend more.

03-14-2002, 01:55 PM	#344
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Mad Kally, You must be kidding me. If you care to look into the medical research field there are many doctors who say that results from animal research is often totally useless, being inappropriate for the human situation and is ultimately both a waste of time and simply cruel to animals. Arguments against animal research have been voiced for so long it's a wonder that you haven't noticed them. I also said that if there are any benefits from them people will use them. You don't condone the method as you don't condone the method of Nazi doctors. The analogy is a reasonable one to me. Both groups cannot/coud not justify the use of their guinea pigs. When you have data there is no reason not to use it. I will fight for people to stop performing tess on animals. The animal cannot choose not to be a guinea pig. Someone with human responsibility should be responsible and stop the animal abuse. So, you too are an avoider of dealing with the topic, by changing the topic. You don't give your views on the ethics of eating our fellow animals. Please, give me your views on the ethics.

03-14-2002, 01:58 PM	#345
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Bill Snedden [edited to add: and all others]: I apologize for my contributions to the rantin' and ragin'. I'll cease and desist immediately. [ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

03-14-2002, 01:58 PM	#346
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Koy: -------------------- I see no qualitative difference--morally speaking--from eating any form of matter. I believe all matter is conscious and all matter is self-aware, including the electrons which are right now quivering on your screen. -------------------- If you eat meat, you are wilfully talking rubbish for argumentative purposes.

03-14-2002, 02:08 PM	#348
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Bill Sneddon: ----------------------- I'm not actually arguing for the application of contract theory... simply pointing out to spin that he has so far failed to rebut PB's actual argument ----------------------- Bill, I think you are simply wrong and should attempt to understand what the aim of this contract theory was. The aim in another century was to argue a defence for aiding the most people possible. It was a more barbaric era and people needed to be given moral support. Here we are in a later century and we find PB attempting to abuse it (ie to go against the logic of including the many). It is no longer appropriate because our moral situation has changed, I think, for the better: we no longer have public executions for the entertainment of the masses; we no longer accept slavery; and so on. PB is making a sham out of the original concept. I don't think you can take it out of its context and use it meaningfully unless you attempt to enter into the spirit of its development. You don't, you seem to want to use it in the abstract and ignore the current morality problems which should be considered, which are different from the original developments.

03-14-2002, 02:19 PM	#349
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	spin: ------------------------------ This is merely a repetition of the palate argument with no responsibility. There is no ethical content in the argument at all. ------------------------------ tronvillain: ------------------------------ Well, this confirms my suspicion that we have entirely different conceptions of what morality is. All of my ethical arguments are somewhat similar to this one. ------------------------------ Perhaps it's better that you include your previous comment so that one can know what you're referring back to. If I remember correctly you were letting your palate do the arguing and I got nothing from you. tronvillain: ------------------------------ What exactly were you hoping for? ------------------------------ A justification for eating dead animals which is based on some morality, otherwise I see no reason to make the distinction between your argument and that which I would think Jeffrey Dahmer might have imagined. "I do it because I can." spin: ------------------------------ If you can choose not to eat fellow animals why not do so rather than gratuitously feeding your taste buds? ------------------------------ tronvillain: ------------------------------ I refer you to the argument above - it would be completely irrational of me to make that choice. ------------------------------ This makes no sense to me, although I understand all the words. You are using the word irrational with a meaning that doesn't compute. Rationality involves logical structure leading to logical conclusions based on clear and reasonable premises. If you can choose not to eat meat, as many vegetarians have shown possible, it would seem that there is nothing necessarily irrational about such a choice. If you can make the choice and it is not irrational per se, what the hell are you trying to say? ------------------------------ Now, if I could choose not to eat fellow animals while gratuitously feeding my taste buds for a comparable price, I probably would. ------------------------------ Meat is relatively expensive. What are you talking about? Is this a matter of "pleasant taste" is sufficient reason for killing animals? You would then, it seems to me, be simply hedonistic and without morality.

03-14-2002, 02:20 PM	#350
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	"Who is 'you' referring to" Incase this wasn't a joke, I'm not sure, I'll re-word my last few sentences. Not everyone who argues for vegetarianism here is trying to convert you. Unless you (the readers of this thread) think the point of debate is to convert people?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.