shamon

Why not if you don’t need to consume animals? Or do you? Are you saying you NEED to kill animals for YOUR own consumption and therefore killing animals for the purpose of consumption is OK?

Bill Snedden

Yes, I am.

Again, your definition of NEED appears to be based on a value judgement you have made that restricts it to physical necessities only.

However, this is not the definition most people would use. For instance, would you disagree that Man needs art? I would think not. Things that enrich the soul can be just as necessary as those that sustain physical existence.

It is also clear that most people do not define "life" as "mere physical existence." Therefore it is just as clear that most people will not restrict their definition of NEED to "that which is required to sustain mere physical existence." If it were to come down to it, all that we really NEED is water, food, and enough space to lie in. What a great existence that would be.

No, we NEED more than that required by physical existence in order to survive, find meaning in our lives, and prosper. Therefore, I do not find your restrictive definition of NEED compelling.

If you want to justify your stance, you must provide the value underlying your definition and defend it.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

shamon

Psychopaths are not included in any intersubjective morality b/c they’re psychopaths, and hence not capable of discerning our innate morality.

This is exaggerated. We don’t have the right to micromanager other species. We only have the right to control something other than ourselves when our own lives are in danger. I agree but the criterion is as simple as that – self-preservation or that which is needed. If any of the above actions killed an animal needlessly then it would be wrong. None of the examples killed anything but I see you point.
Carnivores’ activities in the wild don’t require human intervention b/c they’re not about self-preservation. If it’s your life or theirs then controlling other species is justified. I’m obviously not exaggerating my point so much that it excludes self-defense in favor of non-violence.

The reason is b/c there are infinite hypothetical situations. Hypothetical situations are brought up as a mental exercise in finding exceptions. I feel the same way 99% of the humans on this earth feel about the hypotheticals. I’m talking about REAL life here. What we actually think about real situations. Bringing up a possible hypothetical exception (that probably does really exist somewhere) doesn’t help any discussion b/c we’re talking about real situations not hypothetical ones.

shamon

We DO know what need means. Need means that which is required. Without that which we need, our lives would be a hardship. Does meat provide “more than that required by physical existence in order to survive, find meaning in our lives, and prosper.”

It can be physical or mental.

Humans don’t need art. Surviving without it would not be a hardship nor would humans die. Humans probably need artistic expression though, individually, but there’s no ethical reason to restrict this.

It WOULD be horrible but there’s nothing that meat provides that is NEEDED nor that would be a hardship for you to do without.

Since no one knows what need is: Need is that which is either required for your physical existence (meaning you’ll die without it) or your psychological existence (meaning to do without would mean a hardship). OK?

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: shamon ]

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: shamon ]</p>

vixstile

shamon

You have an innate NEED to live that translates into a want or desire. The NEED always comes before the want. You NEED to live. Your want is based solely on your needs.

Need is the more primitive drive.

free12thinker

But what if you need to eat but don't necessarily want to eat. Plenty of people don't enjoy eating, they don't want to eat, but they want to live. But just because they want to live, doesn't mean they want to eat. Because they want to live, they need to eat. So in this example, just because you need something (food) does not mean you want it.

vixstile

We have no innate NEED. We have evolved instinctual
desires involving food,sex,and general self preservation,but there is no out side force declaring these desires necessary.

vixstile

You have given no example of NEED existing without WANT.
The point i was trying to make is that there is no NEED without WANT

shamon

Everything that we MUST do as humans to just survive is a need. Anything that humans MUST have so that their life is not a hardship is a need. Instinct is NEED.

Are you seriously arguing that animals had wants that were originally totally unrelated to any needs they had? What animal has wants that aren’t related to biological/physiological needs?