RE: Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?
January 19, 2014 at 2:17 pm
(This post was last modified: January 19, 2014 at 2:43 pm by James2014.)
(January 19, 2014 at 1:44 pm)Chuck Wrote:(January 19, 2014 at 1:37 pm)jg2014 Wrote: I don't think we should keep carnivores in captivity.
And why does our "long term chances of survival" matter. Because we are conscious feel beings, just like animals.
No, because I am we. I need to have absolutely no moral justification to rank our long term survival infinitely above any kind of welfare for anything else whatsoever.
Any system of morality which does not stop short of trying to ensnare this foundational reason d'être of any mode of behavior, including a tendency towards morality, is again ultimately self defeating.
It would be a virus that kills the host when the survival of the host is the necessary condition for furtherance of its own purported goals.
Our survival does not require eating meat, and while survival may be an important part of an ethical system there is no reason to suggest it should be the only consideration.
(January 19, 2014 at 1:44 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:Quote:I don't think we should keep carnivores in captivity.
Not even if they would be endangered in the wild? Ok, fair nuff.
Try this one. I saw a puma savaging a baby, I would attempt to stop it. I suspect you would too. How, if we have similar rights, would you prevent carnivores from eating cute fluffy herbivores in the wild?
Put it another way. A gator finds its way into a city where it starts eating people. Is it ethical to kill it, or transplant it to the swamps where it will eat equally right'd animals?
(January 19, 2014 at 1:44 pm)Chuck Wrote: [quote='jg2014' pid='586676' dateline='1390153077']
It would be a virus that kills the host.
Good point.
How about bacteria? Do they have rights? I mean they can't reason but we're not basing the rights on the ability to reason are we.
As I explained, if something can experience suffering, then it is deserved of ethical consideration. Do you believe bacteria can experience suffering?
The killing of herbivorous by carnivores animals is amoral since it is an interaction between two amoral creatures which cannot hold values. Animals do not have the right not to be eat by other animals, because carnivores cant change their behaviour. So no, I would not save the herbivore. I would however stop the animal eating the baby, primarily because on a utilitarian judgement the babies life is worth more than the relatively small amount of nutrition the animal would get. I would not kill the animal however unless it posed a significant threat in the future, in which case it would be justified on the basis of self defence.
Don't get me wrong, although humans and animals should have similar rights, I do value the suffering of humans more. Why? Because humans have a range of cognitive abilities which make our suffering much more vivid including our increased capacity for episodic memory and language. But these only have importance as far as the effect our capacity to suffer, and as we both share the same basic ability to suffer, it stands to reason we should share the same basic right not to be subject to cruelty. The fact is eating meat is cruel, and the moral dilemmas you pose, which are all ethical systems have to deal with, does not change the fact that it is a cause of unnecessary suffering.
