Pomp

The AntiChris,

You appear to be saying that you would not give any non-human animal moral consideration.

This is correct, based on my current knowledge about the mental faculties of non-human animals. If it were demonstrated to me tomorrow that, say, chimps or dolphins were indeed capable of contracting, then I would grant moral consideration to those animals.

This presumably means, that for you, animal cruelty is not a moral issue.

Not necessarily. It just means that animal cruelty is not a moral issue for me because non-human animals deserve moral consideration. Animal cruelty could still be a moral issue for me for some other reason, as I'll describe below.

Can you explain to me then, bearing in mind that the almost universal empathy we have for animals (intersubjective value?) results in laws protecting animals from malicious cruelty, what animal cruelty is if it's not a moral issue?

Basically, the fact that so many people find animal cruelty so repugnant means that respecting the interests of other humans generally involves refraining from animal cruelty. I'ts not a moral issue because of the animal's interests, it's a moral issue because of the interests of those moral agents (humans) who are repelled by it.

A common rejoinder is that, by this logic, things like homosexuality ought to be considered wrong as well. So many people find homosexual behavior repugnant that respecting the interests of others ought to involve refraining from homosexual behavior. The short response to this is that, if one values the benefits of a homosexual relationship more than one devalues the social stigma, then one ought to go ahead and have the relationship, and possibly try to change the opinions of others to lessen the stigma. This, in fact, is exactly what most open homosexuals I have known do. Likewise, if one values the benefits (whatever those may be) of torturing animals more than one devalues the social stigma, than one ought to go ahead and torture animals, and possibly try to change the opinions of others to lessen the stigma.

For what it's worth, animal cruelty doesn't bother me enough, personally, that I'd coerce others not to engage in it. I just don't want to watch.

I hope that makes some degree of sense.

Edited for typo's.

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

YHWH666

Why shouldn't vegetarianism be a personal choice?
For the same reason cannibalism shouldn't. Then next time some one tries to kill some one else, and another person tries to stop them I’ll just say "hey! Don’t you know that you should respect the murderers right to eat whom ever he chooses!"

Pompous bastard.
Let’s say I did prove to you that dolphins had the ability to return your respect. Would you start buying dolphin safe tuna? Why? When was the last time you had a social interaction with a dolphin, one that would allow you to benefit from this respect? How would buying dolphin safe tuna help you personally?

Come to think of it, by your logic you shouldn't eat meat.
Let’s say you walk by a farm with cows on it. If you don't bother the cows, and just walk on, they'll leave you alone. But if you where to tease the cows, moo at them and throw sticks and pebbles at them, it's likely that they would break the fence and start to run after you, trying to trample you (this actually happened to me when I was nine years old, the farmer came out yelling "WHAT DID YOU DO TO MY COWS!?" LOL ). If you respect them they'll return that respect. You might say it wasn't a conscious decision on their part to respect you it’s just that they had no motivation. But how could we know? We’re not telepaths. What evidence is there for this? Psychology is a difficult science to prove. And it seems to me that the burden of proof would be on you.

Tom Piper

Variations on the Peter Singer/Tom Regan argument against discrimination against non-human inhabitants of this planet have emerged in these discussions. This line of argument is a matter of maintaining that there is no relevant difference between humans and non-humans that warrants such different treatment.

As far as I can tell, no one has done anything that undermines this line of argumentation. Have I missed something? If so, what?

Tom

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]</p>

brighid

YHWH666 -

The whole cannibalism BS has been done to death in other threads, so please let's NOT rehash it here. The eating of non-human animals is by definition NOT cannibalism, or equivalent to it.

Brighid

The AntiChris

Pompous Bastard

Thanks for the reply. I think I understand the distinction you make.

I can understand this.

It would be interesting to know if you've attempted to rationalise this aversion.

I suspect it's similar to my aversion to seeing human cruelty. Like most people, I really don't want to see upsetting scenes of human cruelty and, although I'm aware that acts of extreme cruelty are occurring every minute somewhere in the world, I am, to all intents and purposes, oblivious to them - I can go days without this human misery even crossing my mind. However, despite the remoteness of the cruelty, most of us would actively support coercion to stop others "engaging in it". I'd always thought that it was this ability we have to "imagine" potential suffering, rather than merely react to what we see, that was one of the attributes of a moral society.

I'd be interested to know if you felt human cruelty was a moral issue because of the interests of people repelled by it or because of the suffering experienced by the objects of it (or both)?

Chris

YHWH666

YHWH666 -
The whole cannibalism BS has been done to death in other threads, so please let's NOT rehash it here. The eating of non-human animals is by definition NOT cannibalism, or equivalent to it.
Brighid
__________________________________________________ _

The argument was that it was immoral to push your belief system on others. This argument (at least when applied in this situation) is self-contradictory. First off it in itself is doing what it says not to do. Secondly if we where to apply this logic consistently then we shouldn’t have forced slave owners to relinquish their control of their slaves. To be consistent with this logic you must allow murder. I’m sure most people who murder others believe that there is nothing wrong with murderer. And so by employing a police force we are being immoral.
If someone breaks into your house and begins loading your computer into his van, don’t call the cops; he believes that it is OK. To call the cops would be pushing your views on someone else---and that’s immoral.


YHWH omni-galactic-lord of the universe.

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: YHWH666 ]</p>

brighid

Murder - The crime of taking another human's life.

Homicide Any killing of a human being at the hand of another is a homicide. The killing may be a crime, such as murder if the killing is intentional, or manslaughter, if the killing is reckless or negligent. Other homicides, such as in self-defense or in war, are not considered criminal acts.

Malice aforethought changes homicide to murder. So it your claim that meat eaters are malicious because they purchase meat in the stores to eat, or just that the slaughterhouse worker is malicious? If I didn't kill the animal I can not thereby be guilty of MURDER, or even KILLING of the animal, therefore you cannot equate the EATING of flesh of a non-human animal with cannibalism OR Murder! So, LET's USE LOGIC and enough of the appeal to emotion and hyperbole!

<a href="http://www.legal-forms-kit.com/legal-dictionary/m.html" target="_blank">http://www.legal-forms-kit.com/legal-dictionary/m.html</a>

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

YHWH666

When people steal cars they do because others will buy it from them. so if you buy a stolen car you are essentially hiring some one to steal a car for you. similarly, if you buy a side of beef you are basically hiring some one to kill a cow for you.



it seems to me that to murder a cow is to "2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances."

MEAT IS MURDER.
end of story

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: YHWH666 ]</p>

Mageth

I hate to bring this up, but according to the above:

POTATOES ARE MURDER
CELERY IS MURDER
CARROTS ARE MURDER

YHWH666

Yes but is it immoral to "murder" vegetables? i think not. vegatables cannot be happy. vegetables cannot suffer. vegeatables cannot have intentions.

the term "murder" is usually applied when destroying something is considered to be immoral.As such it is appropriately used in refrence to taking an animal's life.
Now, the word murder could be used with some artistic license E.G. "Going to my Great Aunt Ruth's house each christmas is terrible. my relatives constant bickering is murder on my nerves."
I suppose one could corrupt the words meaning and apply it to vegetables, but it would strip it of it's meaning.

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: YHWH666 ]</p>