Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Imaginary Mark · 07-25-2005, 09:34 PM

The bestiality question has been answered by Loren and jbc so I'll take another look at the meat-eater thing.

I eat meat but would never kill a cow myself unless my life depended on it. Or unless I would be nutritionally deprived without the meat. Why is this? First there is definitely the yuck factor of the blood and guts. But more importantly, it bothers my moral sensibilities to cause the animal to suffer needlessly.

So basically, I regularly engage in an activity that seems (slightly) immoral to me when I think about it. But I don't plan to stop.

Why do I hold this internally inconsistent position? I'm not sure. Perhaps I tell myself that I'll be healthier if I eat a bit of meat now and then. Perhaps it isn't something I care about enough to make me change.

I think there are probably other things I do regularly that are not really morally justified as well.

epepke · 07-25-2005, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imaginary Mark

I eat meat but would never kill a cow myself unless my life depended on it. Or unless I would be nutritionally deprived without the meat. Why is this? First there is definitely the yuck factor of the blood and guts. But more importantly, it bothers my moral sensibilities to cause the animal to suffer needlessly.

I'd kill a cow to eat. However, I'd do it to minimize the suffering, preferably with a bolt to the brain that destroys the ability to feel pain faster than the pain signals can get there.

His Noodly Appendage · 07-25-2005, 10:19 PM

I think meat eating is justified - vegetarian diets can suffice, but I don't think the hassle involved is justifiable to impose on people. So long as all due care is taken to ensure that the killing is as humane as possible, I think it's reasonable.

We all have to kill to live - even if it's just plants and bacteria and insects and parasites and vermin and the animls that would otherwise be living in the space you inhabit.

So it's a compromise no matter what; the only question is where you want to draw the line. I draw it at people.

The Terrible sweal · 07-26-2005, 06:08 AM

The ethical distinction between humans and animals lies in the characteristic of sapience and mere sentience. Beings which are not sapient do not conceive of being a unique self, and so they cannot value the 'rights' humans claim for ourselves.

Still, they can suffer and they can value pleasure, so ethically we are bound to not inflict the former and not deny the latter.

Based on the forgoing, killing animals humanely, after a decent existence, is ethically acceptable.

fast · 07-26-2005, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_v_h

I have repeatedly read the opinion that bestiality is wrong because the nonhuman participant cannot consent. So I am curious: where does the concept of consent fit with the other behaviors we exhibit toward nonhumans? Why is it permissible to slaughter a sheep and eat it but wrong to screw it?

Hmmm, what are the options:

1) okay to kill with reason; okay to eat with reason; okay to tango with reason
2) okay to kill with reason; okay to eat with reason; okay to tango without reason
3)okay to kill with reason; okay to eat with reason; not okay to tango with reason
4)okay to kill with reason; okay to eat with reason; not okay to tango without reason

5)okay to kill with reason; okay to eat without reason; okay to tango with reason
6)okay to kill with reason; okay to eat without reason; okay to tango without reason
7)okay to kill with reason; okay to eat without reason; not okay to tango with reason
8)okay to kill with reason; okay to eat without reason; not okay to tango without reason

This is taking too long; gotta to be an easier way.

Okay to kill (or not) with reason (or not); okay to eat (or not) with reason (or not); okay to tango (or not) with reason (or not)

I'd say it's okay to kill (but the reasons for it well, that can get sticky.)

I'd say it's okay to eat (I can imagine a few crazy reasons why it wouldn't be okay, with the reason being a well, crazy one)

I'd say (reluctantly) that it's okay to screw, but would it be wrong if the only reason to do it was if you knew it would be televised on a children's television network. --- hmmm, and would THAT matter to anyone?

Context does seem to matter, but I wonder who wonders why.

<anyhow, just some garbled thoughts>

arkirk · 08-12-2005, 12:11 AM

This whole business of killing and eating and tangoing with or without reason are expressly regulated by every known religion. In some regions, this religious tyranny is enforced on pain of death, while other regions only reserve ostracism and perhap prescription for these violators of empty tautological morals from god or dog. Thus we have a queer in texas hung on barbed wire, and a young lady in the middle east beheaded. The same people telling us we cannot screw sheep are murdering people.
Do we take ANYTHING (even condemnation of bestiality) from these people and this mode of thought (religion) just because somebody says it over and over? I think we owe it to ourselves to think out these issues for ourselves. I am confident we can figure out for ourselves without LEVITICUS how much and of what kind of meat we can eat or kill or screw.

I believe the problem with this issue is that it seems obvious to all but a few of us that a sheep is a mighty unattractive animal and quite dirty. But what about the plastic vulva sold at the adult toy store? Leviticus never looked into this one, so even if you are a Christian or Jew, there is no law relating to plastic vaginas. Consensuality is not a factor... Now God saw Onan and arranged for his punishing death. That's what the "good" book says. It just shows you what an olde stick in the mud god is!

David Vestal · 08-12-2005, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damo

I don't know... actually, stumbling around with this question recently was part of the reason I went veggie...

It was also the reason I started porking cows.

I keed, I keed

kaelcarp · 08-12-2005, 07:26 AM

Has anyone here read about the recent bestiality issue in Washington State?

-RRH- · 08-12-2005, 08:08 AM

From that article:

Quote:

"This is just disgusting," Roach said yesterday. "It's against the law to harm children; it should be against the law to violate an animal."

It's also against the law to slaughter and eat children. So if you're going to ban bestiality, that's a pretty weak reason.

At least try to scare us with health risks or something. "A wave of perforated colons is sweeping America, what should be done? AIDS came from people who were porking monkeys, don't you know. We can't allow horse-AIDS to cross into the human population!"

arkirk · 08-14-2005, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RRH

From that article:

It's also against the law to slaughter and eat children. So if you're going to ban bestiality, that's a pretty weak reason.

At least try to scare us with health risks or something. "A wave of perforated colons is sweeping America, what should be done? AIDS came from people who were porking monkeys, don't you know. We can't allow horse-AIDS to cross into the human population!"

We don't appear to be creatures with overriding passions for having sex with animals. They are not "attractive" as sex objects to a wide majority of the human population. This is not much more than codification of a general human tendency (disinterest and actual disgust) at the proposition of having sex with sheep, horses and monkeys. Of course, the church put the stamp of God on it. God or not, humans generally eschew sexual contact with animals.

In what sort of life would it be an issue whether or not we should eat children or vandalize a work of art, or so many other things that God has had to talk to HIS CHILDREN about? Why is that so? Is that because his flock seems to be the genesis of so much of this type of controversy? :huh:

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

07-25-2005, 09:34 PM	#21
Imaginary Mark Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: rantsnraves.org Posts: 2,273	The bestiality question has been answered by Loren and jbc so I'll take another look at the meat-eater thing. I eat meat but would never kill a cow myself unless my life depended on it. Or unless I would be nutritionally deprived without the meat. Why is this? First there is definitely the yuck factor of the blood and guts. But more importantly, it bothers my moral sensibilities to cause the animal to suffer needlessly. So basically, I regularly engage in an activity that seems (slightly) immoral to me when I think about it. But I don't plan to stop. Why do I hold this internally inconsistent position? I'm not sure. Perhaps I tell myself that I'll be healthier if I eat a bit of meat now and then. Perhaps it isn't something I care about enough to make me change. I think there are probably other things I do regularly that are not really morally justified as well.

07-25-2005, 10:19 PM	#23
His Noodly Appendage Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 6,513	I think meat eating is justified - vegetarian diets can suffice, but I don't think the hassle involved is justifiable to impose on people. So long as all due care is taken to ensure that the killing is as humane as possible, I think it's reasonable. We all have to kill to live - even if it's just plants and bacteria and insects and parasites and vermin and the animls that would otherwise be living in the space you inhabit. So it's a compromise no matter what; the only question is where you want to draw the line. I draw it at people.

07-26-2005, 06:08 AM	#24
The Terrible sweal Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 118	The ethical distinction between humans and animals lies in the characteristic of sapience and mere sentience. Beings which are not sapient do not conceive of being a unique self, and so they cannot value the 'rights' humans claim for ourselves. Still, they can suffer and they can value pleasure, so ethically we are bound to not inflict the former and not deny the latter. Based on the forgoing, killing animals humanely, after a decent existence, is ethically acceptable.

08-12-2005, 12:11 AM	#26
arkirk Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: North Hollywood, CA 91601 Posts: 7,698	This whole business of killing and eating and tangoing with or without reason are expressly regulated by every known religion. In some regions, this religious tyranny is enforced on pain of death, while other regions only reserve ostracism and perhap prescription for these violators of empty tautological morals from god or dog. Thus we have a queer in texas hung on barbed wire, and a young lady in the middle east beheaded. The same people telling us we cannot screw sheep are murdering people. Do we take ANYTHING (even condemnation of bestiality) from these people and this mode of thought (religion) just because somebody says it over and over? I think we owe it to ourselves to think out these issues for ourselves. I am confident we can figure out for ourselves without LEVITICUS how much and of what kind of meat we can eat or kill or screw. I believe the problem with this issue is that it seems obvious to all but a few of us that a sheep is a mighty unattractive animal and quite dirty. But what about the plastic vulva sold at the adult toy store? Leviticus never looked into this one, so even if you are a Christian or Jew, there is no law relating to plastic vaginas. Consensuality is not a factor... Now God saw Onan and arranged for his punishing death. That's what the "good" book says. It just shows you what an olde stick in the mud god is!

08-12-2005, 07:26 AM	#28
kaelcarp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Providence, RI Posts: 1,031	Has anyone here read about the recent bestiality issue in Washington State?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.