(March 27, 2014 at 7:09 am)enrico Wrote:

(March 26, 2014 at 1:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote: We have animal cruelty laws in place to prevent abuses, and in fact organizations in place that will take animals away from abusive owners.

I have to apologize.
As you guys know i always find a bit difficult to understand philosophical
concepts.
Are these ORGANIZATIONS that Esquilax talk about the abattoirs?
I think they are, do they?

I think he's talking about charities like the RSPCA/RSPCB, the Dian Fossey foundation and ultimately the police and the judiciary.

I struggle to read where Esq mentioned any philosophical concepts in his post.

(March 27, 2014 at 7:17 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(March 27, 2014 at 7:09 am)enrico Wrote: I have to apologize.
As you guys know i always find a bit difficult to understand philosophical
concepts.
Are these ORGANIZATIONS that Esquilax talk about the abattoirs?
I think they are, do they?

I think he's talking about charities like the RSPCA/RSPCB, the Dian Fossey foundation and ultimately the police and the judiciary.

I struggle to read where Esq mentioned any philosophical concepts in his post.

You are not getting do you?

(March 26, 2014 at 6:50 pm)sven Wrote: That depends on what you mean by right. Before the slaves were emancipated in the USA, I believe slave holders had a legal right to own people as property. Do I believe that this was good from my etichal viewpont?

I'm speaking of morality or ethics.

Quote:No, not at all. I am a secular humanist, so I believe that we as human beings have to decide together what is acceptable human behavior. What I am trying to say is that humanity treats animals the way it does because it is able to. The opposition isn't strong enough to prevent it, and the animals obviously lack the ability. Those who are for animal rights must face a fait accompli type of situation that has been in place since human history began -- long before that, even.
Having a right and being right isn't always the same thing.

So, in your opinion, is human treatment of animals ethical?

---

(March 27, 2014 at 6:20 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: So they've got to quote it before I can point out the inconsistency?

Meh, I think I'll just carry on.

So, John, could you clear up the confusion?

I can try. What exactly is your question?

BTW, note that the OP asked questions, and I've tried to keep my responses in that form as well. I'm exploring the issue. For the record I own pets and eat meat, eggs, and dairy products, so if such use of animals is slavery, I too am a slaver both directly and indirectly.

---

(March 26, 2014 at 7:26 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: You know, I've mentioned this twice now, and he just keeps ignoring it...

I ignore you because I dislike you and you're not necessary for this discussion. Same reason I ignored Minimalist.

(March 27, 2014 at 7:27 am)enrico Wrote:

(March 27, 2014 at 7:17 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: I think he's talking about charities like the RSPCA/RSPCB, the Dian Fossey foundation and ultimately the police and the judiciary.

I struggle to read where Esq mentioned any philosophical concepts in his post.

You are not getting do you?

I are no getting possibly. Brain kafuzzled bad information with insane you? You're like the gift that keeps on giving, Rick. Carry on you crazy diamond, just don't put anyone in danger ok? I worry for you sometimes.

---

(March 27, 2014 at 7:28 am)alpha male Wrote:

(March 27, 2014 at 6:20 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: So they've got to quote it before I can point out the inconsistency?

Meh, I think I'll just carry on.

So, John, could you clear up the confusion?

I can try. What exactly is your question?

BTW, note that the OP asked questions, and I've tried to keep my responses in that form as well. I'm exploring the issue. For the record I own pets and eat meat, eggs, and dairy products, so if such use of animals is slavery, I too am a slaver both directly and indirectly.

That's fair enough John, thanks.

(March 27, 2014 at 7:28 am)alpha male Wrote:

(March 26, 2014 at 6:50 pm)sven Wrote: That depends on what you mean by right. Before the slaves were emancipated in the USA, I believe slave holders had a legal right to own people as property. Do I believe that this was good from my etichal viewpont?

I'm speaking of morality or ethics.

Quote:No, not at all. I am a secular humanist, so I believe that we as human beings have to decide together what is acceptable human behavior. What I am trying to say is that humanity treats animals the way it does because it is able to. The opposition isn't strong enough to prevent it, and the animals obviously lack the ability. Those who are for animal rights must face a fait accompli type of situation that has been in place since human history began -- long before that, even.
Having a right and being right isn't always the same thing.

So, in your opinion, is human treatment of animals ethical?

In some cases: no. I'm not going to delve too deeply here, but one example is animal experiments in research that isn't necessary enough to humanity. (In my opinion, that is)
One example is in vitro fertilization research. I don't believe that it is a human right to have biological children of your own. It is more of a possibility. A lot of animals are experimented on and killed during this research -- I know this for a fact.
Empathy is a very important human trait. I believe the reason we think kittens are cute, for example, is that they remind us of our own young and defenceless. Being over-empathic can lead to problems, but lacking empathy is much worse.
I believe one of the causes of human suffering in the world today is that the leading 1% of the worlds population are empathically stunted, isolated and/or have psychopatic tendencies. Ironically, it is probably also these traits that have allowed them to reach the position they are in. (There are other people who suffer similarly, of course. Pedophiles come to mind).
Caring about the well being of animals is important, because it prevents us from becoming like those who cause much misery in the world, or have the power to improve life for all but choose not to. I do not believe that we should empathize so much with animals that we place their lives and well being over our own, however.

Hmm... username 'alpha male'...

NOPE...

Still not sexy!

LOL!

Now for Part II:

We do as we please with animals. Some we kill. Some we imprison and use for our purposes. Some we show favor to. Some we ignore. We do this merely because we can, or we justify it by our greater mental capacity.

How, then, do we justify criticism of God for his treatment of us? Cannot he use the same justifications that we use regarding animals?

OMG THERE IS A PART 2 TO THIS THREAD?! WHHHHHHHHHHHHHY?!

(March 28, 2014 at 7:14 am)alpha male Wrote: Now for Part II:

We do as we please with animals. Some we kill. Some we imprison and use for our purposes. Some we show favor to. Some we ignore. We do this merely because we can, or we justify it by our greater mental capacity.

How, then, do we justify criticism of God for his treatment of us? Cannot he use the same justifications that we use regarding animals?

Not the christian god certainly. He's directly responsible for our existence and made us in his image supposedly. As humans we just take advantage of and try to control the animals we are stuck with.

(March 28, 2014 at 7:14 am)alpha male Wrote: How, then, do we justify criticism of God for his treatment of us? Cannot he use the same justifications that we use regarding animals?

We can go one further with a being like god, using the 'might makes right' principle. He can justify his actions by pointing out that no one can force him to answer for them. He is supreme, and therefore the issue is not about right and wrong or good and evil, but whether or not we can do anything other than criticize him or try to reason with him.

I think that this is why the story of Job should be unsettling for Christians. If god is above human justice in the most literal sense, and if god's actions are good/moral/just by definition, then nothing stops him from making completely arbitrary decisions. We have the option, for example, of making Michael Vick pay for his horrific mistreatment of animals (putting aside the question of whether the price he paid was sufficient). Not only do we not have the option of making god pay for his treatment of humankind, we are told that we cannot even label his actions as evil or wicked.

I have no qualms about swatting a gnat. I feel no shame or remorse over it, it's something that usually doesn't even register. If we are as gnats to god, then we have no cause to judge him for his actions. But we should be utterly terrified of him.