(August 24, 2010 at 7:42 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Preaching to the choir, I'm anti death penalty anyway because of the risk of not guilty persons being killed. And I would be in favor of doing it like that too if it really needs to be done.

However, the point was that the existence or the development of the CNS is not relevant, there are many ways to kill without suffering. Nitrogen is just the one I'd advocate as a cheap and viable solution. Close to 80% of the Earths atmosphere is Nitrogen anyway.

Why do you put artificial boundaries up about killing humans? My criteria for what it's wrong to kill are clear and logical: if a being is a person, it is wrong to kill them. A being is a person if they have a sense of themselves existing over time, and can thus make plans for the future. If they can, then to kill them is to prevent them from fulfilling their plans, and hence a violation of their interests, which is wrong from a preference utilitarian viewpoint. This also gives me good reason to permit abortion, while having moral reservations about killing animals like dolphins and chimps, and maybe pigs, which have been demonstrated to have some degree of self-awareness. Killing a person, then, is wrong even if done painlessly.

(August 24, 2010 at 7:52 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote:

(August 24, 2010 at 7:42 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Preaching to the choir, I'm anti death penalty anyway because of the risk of not guilty persons being killed. And I would be in favor of doing it like that too if it really needs to be done.

However, the point was that the existence or the development of the CNS is not relevant, there are many ways to kill without suffering. Nitrogen is just the one I'd advocate as a cheap and viable solution. Close to 80% of the Earths atmosphere is Nitrogen anyway.

Why do you put artificial boundaries up about killing humans?

I'm not, our society does, and I am a part of that. Killing humans is wrong because we as a society came to the agreement it is wrong, hence there is no death penalty here for the protection of the innocent. Other societies do support the death penalty. We do support euthanasia and abortion because it sometimes is the best option, some others don't. One is only more moral than the other from a personal standpoint, not a societal one.

In any case that is not relevant to a personal dietary choice.

Quote:My criteria for what it's wrong to kill are clear and logical: if a being is a person, it is wrong to kill them

Why is that clear and logical?

(August 24, 2010 at 8:43 am)leo-rcc Wrote: I'm not, our society does, and I am a part of that. Killing humans is wrong because we as a society came to the agreement it is wrong, hence there is no death penalty here for the protection of the innocent. Other societies do support the death penalty. We do support euthanasia and abortion because it sometimes is the best option, some others don't. One is only more moral than the other from a personal standpoint, not a societal one.

In any case that is not relevant to a personal dietary choice.

Moral relativism, in my view, is not a tenable position. If half of society agrees with something and the other half doesn't, is it right or wrong? Besides, why is it at all logical to hold what society believes as true?

Quote:Why is that clear and logical?

It is logical from a utilitarian viewpoint, as I explained.

(August 24, 2010 at 9:16 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: Moral relativism, in my view, is not a tenable position.

Noted.

Quote: If half of society agrees with something and the other half doesn't, is it right or wrong?

Then we'd have to make an agreement one way or the other. We do that all the time. That's how we get laws we don't always agree with. Right or wrong is relative in any situation.

Quote: Besides, why is it at all logical to hold what society believes as true?

Who says we have to?

Quote:It is logical from a utilitarian viewpoint, as I explained.

Well I don't hold to that position, is that bad of me then?

(August 24, 2010 at 9:31 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Then we'd have to make an agreement one way or the other. We do that all the time. That's how we get laws we don't always agree with. Right or wrong is relative in any situation.

How would we make an agreement? What principles would we use to decide?

Quote:Who says we have to?

You implied it, when you said that something's wrong if society disagrees with it.

Quote:Well I don't hold to that position, is that bad of me then?

I'd argue that it's the most logical ethical position, if you accept the validity of ethics at all (which I think you do, judging from your posts. For instance, you think it's wrong to kill innocent humans). I'll discuss my reasons for this in greater detail with you if you like.

(August 24, 2010 at 6:00 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote:

(August 24, 2010 at 9:31 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Then we'd have to make an agreement one way or the other. We do that all the time. That's how we get laws we don't always agree with. Right or wrong is relative in any situation.

How would we make an agreement? What principles would we use to decide?

Thats why we vote for representatives for the government of our society. We choose the party who's party manifesto are most in common with your own preferences and leave the legislating to them.

Quote:

Quote:Who says we have to?

You implied it, when you said that something's wrong if society disagrees with it.

I said that if we as a society agree not to do something for the benefit of our society that we make rules for that. Again, right or wrong is relative.

Quote:

Quote:Well I don't hold to that position, is that bad of me then?

I'd argue that it's the most logical ethical position, if you accept the validity of ethics at all (which I think you do, judging from your posts. For instance, you think it's wrong to kill innocent humans).

That also depends on the situation, I think it is wrong to give the death penalty when there is still a risk of that person may be not guilty and therefore could be useful member of society. But I have no problem with the killing of a person when he or she is terminally ill and suffering.

Quote: I'll discuss my reasons for this in greater detail with you if you like.

Not really. I only wanted to know why you made a distinction between eating animals that as far as I can see only have a few physical differences.

Moral absolutism is not a tenable position for someone who does not believe in the supernatural.

Yeah. You've been saying we can tell that some organisms feel pain, but there is nothing you can measure to prove that is wrong. You only label it so.

I don't.

(August 23, 2010 at 5:38 am)AnunZi Wrote:

A Wise Man Wrote:Life without bacon, is not life.

That is all

LOL... my sister is a vegetarian and the smell of Bacon frying is the one thing that can tempt her to eat meat. She once made me some vegetarian bacon (soya based?) and its nothing like the real thing.

Waiter! More pig!

I eat quite regularly together with a vegetarian household and I must say that when I eat there I don't miss meat at all. Also in some foreign countries I went to vegetarian restaurants and the food was so good that if my stomach could contain that much I would have ordered the entire menu twice.

Vegetarians learn to become creative with their dishes to add variety to their diet. And if done right, vegetarian diners are just awesome.

(August 24, 2010 at 7:16 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: Thats why we vote for representatives for the government of our society. We choose the party who's party manifesto are most in common with your own preferences and leave the legislating to them.

Okay, on what principles do they decide?

Quote:I said that if we as a society agree not to do something for the benefit of our society that we make rules for that. Again, right or wrong is relative.

So, you admit that there is a concept of benefit, independent of what society thinks? That's basically utilitarianism, then.

Quote:That also depends on the situation, I think it is wrong to give the death penalty when there is still a risk of that person may be not guilty and therefore could be useful member of society. But I have no problem with the killing of a person when he or she is terminally ill and suffering.

Again, this is utilitarianism. I'm not a moral absolutist. Things are wrong or right depending on whether they maximise people's interests.

Quote:Not really. I only wanted to know why you made a distinction between eating animals that as far as I can see only have a few physical differences.

Their mental differences are what's relevant. As I said, if they can plan for the future, they have greater moral status than those who can't. If you deny that mental differences make a difference, on what basis do you not kill humans?