My "moral sense" is telling me precisely the same things as your own. Nevertheless, I still don't feel a compulsion towards vegetarianism in the way that you do.

I was rereading the thread and caught something which really made me think-

Quote:And are these deaths really so compassionate and pain-free as we say? If so, why doesn't the US have bolt-gun-to-the-head as one of its death-sentence options?

Perhaps we don't have that option because we shouldn't have any options, really? Maybe the few ways that have decided to knock each other off /w the arm of the state are all bad ideas as well, all exceptions to an otherwise good rule. You can see why this doesn't really apply to agriculture, yes?

(July 1, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: My "moral sense" is telling me precisely the same things as your own. Nevertheless, I still don't feel a compulsion towards vegetarianism in the way that you do.

The distance a person draws that line of empathy varies greatly. Some are only capable of caring about their own feelings. Some are so horrified about the idea of the suffering of others that they wear masks to avoid hurting flying bugs.

I think very many people find animals, especially mammals, sufficiently similar in their makeup and behavior that their suffering evokes a moral response.

Quote:I was rereading the thread and caught something which really made me think-

Quote:And are these deaths really so compassionate and pain-free as we say? If so, why doesn't the US have bolt-gun-to-the-head as one of its death-sentence options?

Perhaps we don't have that option because we shouldn't have any options, really? Maybe the few ways that have decided to knock each other off /w the arm of the state are all bad ideas as well, all exceptions to an otherwise good rule. You can see why this doesn't really apply to agriculture, yes?

Given a child rapist and a placid cow, I'd prefer to apply the bolt gun to the first, and the state-sponsored sustained existence to the other. It seems to me irrational that people who are not productive members of society, or who have brought harm to society, have any protection at all, while animals which have done no harm are kept in inhumane conditions with little liberty or hope of pleasure, then slaughtered to feed a population that is already grossly overfed.

Quote:Given a child rapist and a placid cow, I'd prefer to apply the bolt gun to the first, and the state-sponsored sustained existence to the other. It seems to me irrational that people who are not productive members of society, or who have brought harm to society, have any protection at all, while animals which have done no harm are kept in inhumane conditions with little liberty or hope of pleasure, then slaughtered to feed a population that is already grossly overfed.

The difference is you can't eat the child rapist since cannibalism is illegal, you can eat the cow so there goes a big difference. If you support capital punishment or not, that's up to your ideas, but the reason both get killed are difference, cows are killed for feeding and utility, humans are killed as a last resource because they are dangerous to society. You make a big mistake in your argue, you are justifying animals protection by comparing them to humans, it's ok to justify both pulling the trigger on the rapist and not pulling it on the cow, but do it trough sustainable arguments and not trough comparing humans (as rational animals) with other species, since there is a huge difference between us and them, starting with our intelligence and reason, skills and the fact humans are the only animal that cannot survive in the wild if left alone (you'll notice all newborns from animals possess basic survival skills)

(July 1, 2014 at 3:02 pm)blackout94 Wrote:

Quote:Given a child rapist and a placid cow, I'd prefer to apply the bolt gun to the first, and the state-sponsored sustained existence to the other. It seems to me irrational that people who are not productive members of society, or who have brought harm to society, have any protection at all, while animals which have done no harm are kept in inhumane conditions with little liberty or hope of pleasure, then slaughtered to feed a population that is already grossly overfed.

The difference is you can't eat the child rapist since cannibalism is illegal, you can eat the cow so there goes a big difference. If you support capital punishment or not, that's up to your ideas, but the reason both get killed are difference, cows are killed for feeding and utility, humans are killed as a last resource because they are dangerous to society. You make a big mistake in your argue, you are justifying animals protection by comparing them to humans, it's ok to justify both pulling the trigger on the rapist and not pulling it on the cow, but do it trough sustainable arguments and not trough comparing humans (as rational animals) with other species, since there is a huge difference between us and them, starting with our intelligence and reason, skills and the fact humans are the only animal that cannot survive in the wild if left alone (you'll notice all newborns from animals possess basic survival skills)

I'm not comparing animals to humans. I'm saying there's no magi-special quality about humans that makes them more deserving of moral consideration than other animals. In fact, the idea that humans are morally unique is a Biblical idea-- God put all the animals here and placed Mankind over all.

The cases you've listed-- intelligence and survival-- are irrelevant. Who cares if a baby can survive on its own? I'm talking about killing criminals. As for intelligence-- so what? Can we establish an IQ line by which a human should or shouldn't be protected? Are we free to kill severely retarded people?

Your argument has been used with people-- specifically that white people are intrinsically better than others because _______ (they have souls, they are more intelligent, might makes right, etc.) We do not accept this magi-special uniqueness of white people, because it's clearly defined by the party in power for them to justify acts that benefit them.

How confident are you that we aren't just abusing moral definitions because including animals in our moral treatment would be inconvenient?

(July 1, 2014 at 6:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 3:02 pm)blackout94 Wrote: The difference is you can't eat the child rapist since cannibalism is illegal, you can eat the cow so there goes a big difference. If you support capital punishment or not, that's up to your ideas, but the reason both get killed are difference, cows are killed for feeding and utility, humans are killed as a last resource because they are dangerous to society. You make a big mistake in your argue, you are justifying animals protection by comparing them to humans, it's ok to justify both pulling the trigger on the rapist and not pulling it on the cow, but do it trough sustainable arguments and not trough comparing humans (as rational animals) with other species, since there is a huge difference between us and them, starting with our intelligence and reason, skills and the fact humans are the only animal that cannot survive in the wild if left alone (you'll notice all newborns from animals possess basic survival skills)

I'm not comparing animals to humans. I'm saying there's no magi-special quality about humans that makes them more deserving of moral consideration than other animals. In fact, the idea that humans are morally unique is a Biblical idea-- God put all the animals here and placed Mankind over all.

The cases you've listed-- intelligence and survival-- are irrelevant. Who cares if a baby can survive on its own? I'm talking about killing criminals. As for intelligence-- so what? Can we establish an IQ line by which a human should or shouldn't be protected? Are we free to kill severely retarded people?

Your argument has been used with people-- specifically that white people are intrinsically better than others because _______ (they have souls, they are more intelligent, might makes right, etc.) We do not accept this magi-special uniqueness of white people, because it's clearly defined by the party in power for them to justify acts that benefit them.

How confident are you that we aren't just abusing moral definitions because including animals in our moral treatment would be inconvenient?

Inconvenient and impossible. Most people treat animals with morals. If I have a pet I will treat it well with love. But why do you think murder only encompasses killing another human being and not an animal? Why do you think there are Human Rights but no animal rights (It is a myth that animals have rights, to have a right you need to have duties, since animals are irrational they can't possess rights or duties because they act mostly based on instinct. What we call 'rights' for animals is actually protection using the correct terminology)?

I am not here defending race superiority, please don't put such words in my mouth again. It would be impossible to treat animals equally to humans, not only because animals are not humans but because we need them for food, clothes and other purposes.

-Would rather not kill criminals anyway. Seems pointless. The difference in the two is that in the one case we have a choice, in the other, we do not.

(July 1, 2014 at 7:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -Would rather not kill criminals anyway. Seems pointless. The difference in the two is that in the one case we have a choice, in the other, we do not.

What two are you talking about?

The choice, as to who gets the bolt gun (if we're going to be giving anything the bolt gun)- between a cow and a criminal.

(July 1, 2014 at 7:54 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The choice, as to who gets the bolt gun (if we're going to be giving anything the bolt gun)- between a cow and a criminal.

We could simply not kill both. I'm against capital punishment and have always been. A cow will be killed out of necessity for feeding and nothing else. Is the bolt gun less painful? If so, then we can use it.

Pretty much where I stand as well.