I was replying to a post that stated that NO foxes were ever killed, why didn't you answer that post as well? We don't know how many were killed for records are not kept by those who hunt the foxes so I'd be lying to make a number up. Instead I was just trying to bring about the truth that there are deaths that occur during the hunt, the numbers aren't useful.
Nowhere, that is an unwritten law. As many laws are. Including the constitution of the United Kingdom. Philosophers, lawyers, people who care. Since around the time of Nero. Most people no, that's the problem. I've nothing against if people need animal meat to survive, that's for them to decide. I'm against a cruelty, torture and brutal slaughter of them. Of course. In fact Latvian tradition discourages the killing of spiders, because they are said to be the blessing of the house. And the vast majority of latvians I know don't kill spiders. We have very many sacred animal species. In our tradition (and most traditions of the far east) man is not superior to beast, but a part of nature like everything else. No line. I even don't pick flowers - prefer epiphany over pornography. I'm a part of this planet and take no pleasure in hurting myself.
Yeah, that was a very annoying conclusion that they came to. They saw that everyone lives, and concluded that everyone has a right to life. When will humans observe themselves properly? We enjoy killing and bettering ourselves at the expence of others. Where there's right to life, there's also right to death; and where there's a right to death, there's also a natural right to inflict death (as we and other animals exercise it so often).
Yeah, c'est la vie, but there is no need to torture anyone (like these foxes) or kill without a need to survive.
No need, I agree. And since there's no need, I, personally, find it unethical. But other people have other morals. We need to preserve cultural differences, since there's no real correct answer to moral issues.
Well, if you put priority to the continuation of tradition over a continuation of life it's your choice. And it's my to do it otherwise. By the way, according to the doctrine of Critical thinking appeal to tradition is one of the classic errors in an argument.
I'm not saying we should preserve traditions because they're right. It's simply so that we are the ones who establish moral rules for ourselves. We may decide one thing is right today and wrong tomorrow. However, if we set the entire world to the same set of rules, it may become impossible to establish that this set of rules is wrong. The world will become stagnant. Besides, cultural homogenuity is boring.
Cultural homogenuity is impractical, too. If you say fox hunting is wrong, you may live in the country that doesn't allow it; if I say fox hunting is ok, I may live in the country that does allow it; we both are happy and neither of us is right/wrong. However, if the whole world condemns fox hunting, people who do enjoy it are oppressed; and they're not morally wrong, according to their own set of morals.
Write indeed Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But it only works if you border your world with the borders of the country you live in. I see your point though and as I said - it's a personal choice. Karma yoga. Each does best to its own ability. Those who can't do it better - worse for them, really.
Thanks for pointing out the typo Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I forwarded you something about the fallacy of apeal to tradition. I'd post it, but it's a bit too long.
Ah, a side note. This is an odd statement to me, since "better" and "worse" are subjective. I've wanted to ask you this for the longest time: how do you know what's best for the world?
Yes, I'm fully aware of that. Here is only my presumption that life is worth more than ancestral cultural vestiges. Of course you have the right to disagree. At least they don't slaughter animals in circus anymore. I know what's best for myself. :m: Really, that is all the answer I can give, to the best of my ability.
Yes, but even that knowledge is limited. How do you know what's best for yourself? A child begs his mother for ice cream on the street in winter; the mother knows he will get sick and doesn't buy it for him, but the child doesn't understand.
I can't really answer this. You'd have to become me to know the answer. A child begs, because he wants and he needs.
Because culture affects more than one life, it is more important than my moral life. My morals stretch only as far as my authority, and my authority ends at my toes Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, I'm speaking not of life as about an individual, but life in general. All life. Plagues and pop-music affect whole cultures too.
M? Explain to me how a child needs something that will make him ill. Culture is something more long-term. And what is the true importance of life, particularly here on Earth? What will happen to the universe if Earth ceises to exist? What will happen to the universe if all life ends?
Subjectivly he needs it. How long term? There are some 5000 year old trees around and 10000 year old giant underground fungi. A silly argument and I don't stand on it, but I thought you should know. A culture is valuable, but if that includes causing long term suffering of other lifeforms, I don't think it's that precios. Long term does not equal fantastic. To experience life I guess. The old "if tree fell in the forest and nobody heard that - did it fall at all" argument. Nothing important will happen, it will continue to exist, just as that fallen tree, just nobody will be there to behold it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think the experience is worth it, and I don't wish to take that experience away from fox, just as I don't want to take it away from myself. I like myself in all names and forms, and all is without a self. The rest is just projections created by psyche - things that don't really exist. Do your dreams exist or someones wish to chat or that same need of the child for icecream, does law of the conservation of energy apply to it? That all is illusion and experience is all that matters. Of course you can go by an argument that those hunters want to experience the sight of foxes being ripped apart, true and correct. Here my instinct of survival comes into play which says that killing a part of yourself is not a good idea. Suicidal behaviour is considered a psychic illness. Of course that killing doesn't really destroy anything, but it limits the total ammount of the experience that universe can have of itself. One fox experience less, two, three, thousand.. etc.
No, parent thinks he shouldn't. Need is an urge (as I mean it here), oppinion (such as that of the parent) is a more or less a thoughtful decision. And because parent is in a power position he prefers his decision over the need of the child. Parent simply has other priorities, i.e. the health of his child. The child has other priorities. Which one has more value? Duno. I think that that of the parent, because it prolongs the life of the child (more healthy and so and so). So in this case a decision for healthy life was a priority over the satisfaction of an immediate urge. And.. isn't that an urge for the hunters to see a suffering fox and lick the process of it like an ice-cream?
