(February 1, 2014 at 6:31 am)jg2014 Wrote:(January 31, 2014 at 4:44 pm)KUSA Wrote: I keep shaking my head at the things you say.
I know you realize the predators are just going to eat the animals. I can't understand why you are good with that but are against humans eating them. You make no sense at all. You really don't. You come up with some bullshit concocted explanation that is just down right dumb. Amoral vs moral.
So if I share a meal of meat that my dog and I hunted together I am doing something wrong but my dog is good to go. Stupid!
I dont think it is stupid to only apply ethics to those capable of ethical behavior. It's why very young children or the mentally disabled are not held criminally responsible for crimes, but for example merely put into care for their own and others protection, and not put in jail as a punishment.
Here's another way to think about it. If lighting were to kill a person, would you say that the lightening was wrong to kill them? Do you agree that a lightening strike could not be said to be unethical because it is not an entity to which ethics apply? We might say we should try to avoid it etc but it would not make sense it say the lightening was being unethical when it had no ability to make ethical choices or not. Its the same with animals.
The ethics you speak of are yours and not mine or for that matter most of the world's. You compare things that are absurd to be compared. Nothing you have said makes sense to me. I see the world different than you and find your arguments bizarre.
