Declawing Cats

[Anomalocaris]

An obvious difference is allowing women to work or vote, while resisted because it is threatening to established male social privilege, materially enriches the society by enlisting more of those capable to actually contribute the capability, and, as demonstrated during the two world wars, makes the society more robust and capable of dealing with extreme stress.   So even the selfish who would protect male privilege knowns it is not all a net loss to them if women were to work and vote.

Not so with the ability to ignore animal suffering to adopt animals to our needs.

You have a very strange moral philosophy and an even stranger commitment to it. Right and wrong isn’t determined by its benefit to humanity.

Right or wrong is a human concept, so it can only have any effect over the long run if enough humans have skin in its game.  Ultimately, no concepts of right or wrong, however strongly felt by some at some time, can be sustained and accepted over long periods unless it can plausibly be represented as being beneficial or harmful to humanity.

So What is right or wrong is less salient than why there should be right or wrong.  Why there should be right and wrong is determined by benefit to humanity.

[Shell B]

I’m not picking up the torch when you want to flame anymore. I do sometimes wonder if you get a kick out of it enough to justify the use of your limited time. If you do, all the more power to you. Life’s too short to deny yourself the simple pleasures. 😜

You always bitch about people who don't agree with you. Your problem, not ours.

Don’t try harder, man. I’m still really not going to do it.

[Shell B]

You have a very strange moral philosophy and an even stranger commitment to it. Right and wrong isn’t determined by its benefit to humanity.

Right or wrong is a human concept, so it can only have any effect over the long run if enough humans have skin in its game.  Ultimately, no concepts of right or wrong, however strongly felt by some at some time, can be sustained and accepted over long periods unless it can plausibly be represented as being beneficial or harmful to humanity.

So What is right or wrong is less salient than why there should be right or wrong.  Why there should be right and wrong is determined by benefit to humanity.

Is it, though? Certain animals have compassion and potentially a concept of right and wrong. It’s my belief that we think we are more important than we are. If we’re going to have morals, certainly inflicting pain and suffering on weaker creatures for anything short of survival should be prohibited.

[The Grand Nudger]

Cats are pretty nasty on birds. Domesticated cats don’t need to defend themselves.

It’s a ridiculous procedure, imo, but there’s more than one way to rationalize the decision.

[Shell B]

Cats should be indoors and the feral population controlled. That’s how you deal with the bird problem.

[Anomalocaris]

Right or wrong is a human concept, so it can only have any effect over the long run if enough humans have skin in its game.  Ultimately, no concepts of right or wrong, however strongly felt by some at some time, can be sustained and accepted over long periods unless it can plausibly be represented as being beneficial or harmful to humanity.

So What is right or wrong is less salient than why there should be right or wrong.  Why there should be right and wrong is determined by benefit to humanity.

Is it, though? Certain animals have compassion and potentially a concept of right and wrong. It’s my belief that we think we are more important than we are. If we’re going to have morals, certainly inflicting pain and suffering on weaker creatures for anything short of survival should be prohibited.

It certainly seems to be.  Animals may have affinity and revulsions, but do the adopt and circulate rules of right and wrong?

Importance is value judgement without a standard. 

We’ve had morals during all the time when inflicting pain and suffering on weaker creatures were not prohibited.  So having morals were clearly not incompatible with inflicting pain and suffering on weaker creatures.   What you would like to do is to adjust morality until such is generally prohibited.   What, besides momentary impulse, would making this adjustment acceptable to enough people, and what would make this acceptability last?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You always bitch about people who don't agree with you. Your problem, not ours.

Don’t try harder, man. I’m still really not going to do it.

Don't really care.

---

Cats should be indoors and the feral population controlled. That’s how you deal with the bird problem.

The bird problem is that we've killed off the natural predators on birds.

[Shell B]

Is it, though? Certain animals have compassion and potentially a concept of right and wrong. It’s my belief that we think we are more important than we are. If we’re going to have morals, certainly inflicting pain and suffering on weaker creatures for anything short of survival should be prohibited.

It certainly seems to be.  Animals may have affinity and revulsions, but do the adopt and circulate rules of right and wrong?

Importance is value judgement without a standard. 

We’ve had morals during all the time when inflicting pain and suffering on weaker creatures were not prohibited.  So having morals were clearly not incompatible with inflicting pain and suffering on weaker creatures.   What you would like to do is to adjust morality until such is generally prohibited.   What, besides momentary impulse, would making this adjustment acceptable to enough people, and what would make this acceptability last?

There have always, in civilized society, been standards by which animals are treated. We’ve had pets for as long as we know. There have always been morals regarding animals. What I’d like to see is less survival of the cutest and less abuse of convenience.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Spaying and neutering are conveniences.

[Anomalocaris]

It certainly seems to be.  Animals may have affinity and revulsions, but do the adopt and circulate rules of right and wrong?

Importance is value judgement without a standard. 

We’ve had morals during all the time when inflicting pain and suffering on weaker creatures were not prohibited.  So having morals were clearly not incompatible with inflicting pain and suffering on weaker creatures.   What you would like to do is to adjust morality until such is generally prohibited.   What, besides momentary impulse, would making this adjustment acceptable to enough people, and what would make this acceptability last?

There have always, in civilized society, been standards by which animals are treated. We’ve had pets for as long as we know. There have always been morals regarding animals. What I’d like to see is less survival of the cutest and less abuse of convenience.

Which has always been a hypocrisy given how we treat animals that were not considered pets.  It becomes even more of a hypocrisy when we insist others people according some animals particular consideration we mandated merely because we adopted some animals as pets.