sweep

(are you taking the mickey?)

What is morality? - a way of life and living.

How do I decide what is Good and what is not? - try blowing someones leg off at the knee, and see them frown.

Why be moral in the first place? - so we can co-exist peacefully without lapsing into feudal wars.

Once I've decided what morality is how do I decide if a particular decision is moral? - by watching what everyone else does.

Here is some land. It doesn't have a farm. You choose to farm it. (tropical rainforest)

You clear the land to farm it. (chopping down the trees, wiping out entire colonies)

Rusting Car Bumper

I don't see these as serious inquiries into these questions so I guess I'll bow out here.

DC

tudal

But just because he frowned, it doesn't mean it was inherently bad!

sweep

http://www.autosportsltd.com/lm-finger.html

chanoc

Remembering a time when I was a young child, the family was going to church one Sunday morning. The cat must have been sleeping under the car, as we backed out the driveway there was kitty-kitty hypervenelating and dieing on the concrete. My dad got out and went in the house, came out with a .22 rifle and shot it. At least the poor kitty was out of its misery.

ashe

DigitalChicken:

I think you may be underestimating my question.

As you astutely observed, I am not capable of solving all occurrences of evil. I don't think I was claiming this.

As you also pointed out, there are some cases where we cannot prevent evil or we must choose between two evils.

Clearly in those situations, there is a limit on my ability to prevent said evil from happening. This does not conflict with or dismiss my original question because that is part and parcel of my lack of omnipotence.

For example, in the case of growing vegetables versus growing cattle, in both cases animals will be harmed. However, if one feels that less evil has occurred in clearing the field, should one clear the field instead of growing cattle?

I am certain you can equally concoct a situation where I have more ability to freely choose. Such situations are the situations in which I am most interested.

Besides, in clearing a field, I suspect the animals could be dealt with as humanely as possible.

pariah

Ok...well I'm not quite sure what you are asking. I will give you my take on animal rights though.

No one has intrinsic rights. Society gives you rights, however these are not something that you are born with. Also, different societies give different people different rights (think caste system in India...the "untouchables" who, my understanding is, have no rights).

So rights are something that humans have created. As are morals. Society has extended SOME rights to animals, but not all. And why should they extend all? Can you think of a good reason? People who claim that animals have the same rights as humans (PETA) are WRONG. They assume that everyone is born into inherent rights...which they are not. You get what rights society gives you.

It seems that any rights we have given animals extend from human empathy...not very many people want to see some guy torturing kittens for no reason. But that is a psycological problem with an individual...that he enjoys the suffering and pain of another creature.

Im ok with food. Animals don't have the right to live. Medical testing, is A-okay too. So is cosmetics--animals may suffer but it is not for the purpose of suffering so it is not morally reprehensible.

The needs of the humans outweigh the needs of the animals in our society. And why not? I assume as an atheist you don't think that "right" and "wrong" exist intrinsicly. Or do you? You seem to beleive something called "evil" exists...how can it? Or is evil simply anything against what society considers moral?

Pyrrho

You are being inconsistent. You first say, "No one has intrinsic rights", and then you say, "People who claim that animals have the same rights as humans (PETA) are WRONG." If no one has any intrinsic rights, then animals have just as many intrinsic rights as humans.

Furthermore, what you are suggesting is that "rights" are completely arbitrary, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with being a Nazi or torturing other people. After all, if they have no rights, then people's rights cannot be violated no matter what one does. And, according to what you have said, slavery is fine, too.



By the same reasoning, you must think it is okay to run a sweatshop with virtual slave labor and no concern for safety. After all, it is not for the purpose of suffering, no matter how much suffering is created by it.



Since you have asserted that humans have no intrinsic rights, you are not justified in saying that "The needs of the humans outweigh the needs of the animals in our society". You could just as well say: 'The needs of the nonhuman animals outweigh the needs of the humans". According to what you have said, there is absolutely no justification for saying that anything is better than anything else; you have only a completely arbitrary designation by "society". In which case, the PETA people you criticize, according to what you have claimed about morality, are no more wrong than anyone else who takes a position that is not endorsed by the mainstream. They are no more wrong than the abolitionists in the U.S. in 1860.