Morality from the ground up

[The Grand Nudger]

Let's see if it sticks.  What if you killed a cow in such a way as it didn't suffer, Benny?  Then it's okay and moral, yes?  I mean..if you think that it;s okay and rationally moral in the case of a human being, gonna be the same for Bessie, surely?  

Now, let's ask ourselves a question.....is a society in which a cow can be killed humanely and ethically likely to lead to nazis?

If it's okay to kill an animal without causing suffering, then I'd say that Bessie, immigrants, and my Mom would all fall under that umbrella.  If there is something special about people which makes killing them extra wrong, then Bessie might be killed, but immigrants and my Mom should not be.  I don't think the capacity for suffering matters, though, because it's possible to bypass that capacity in humans (like foreknowledge of their impending death or whatever) simply by drugging them.

I'm not asking you if it's okay to kill animals, I'm asking you whether or not the example you offered, being rational..in your estimation, made it okay to kill Bessie, and wondering whether..since it doesn't lead to nazis as it does in the case of people, you're willing to stick with it and declare the killing of animals a-okay.

I know you aren't, and so the question is more to do with what you thought was rational and whether or not, if it were, you'd be consistent with it. Or at least consistently rational, and maybe decide that your example wasn't really that compelling of a counterargument to why being able to drug and kill a person isn't moral. Similarly, can we entertain the absurd claim that by drugging someone you've somehow bypassed all suffering that must be taken into account? We don;t even make such an absurd claim with regards to our livestock. Yes, we kill them as humanely as possible, but an ethical model also seeks to provide them with a healthy environment in life. Failure to do so would render any claim as regards a humane model moot. It doesn't matter whether or not you kill your victims humanely, if you provide for a torturous and terrifying existence on account of it. Further, in the case of livestock, we have a compelling reason to even engage in any of this, but forgive me for suggesting that a persons racist and nationalist tendencies don't exactly rise to the level of agricultural necessity....?

In the example you offered, it wasn't that there was anything particularly special about people, simply that killing them causes immense suffering in ways that killing cattle does not - in both the best and worst of cases.

It seems, in this, like you're digging in your heels on a plainly silly point rather than having a rational discussion. I understand that you want to find some obvious issue with such a moral system, but this isn't one of them. It's consistent and straightforward in the area in which you've attempted to manufacture ambiguity and special pleading.

Further, if the capacity for suffering doesn;t matter...why, again, did killing the caribou bother you? Why does eating meat bother you? Why does kicking a dog bother you? Why would hurting someone -wthout- drugging them bother you?