Idiocy, Compulsion, Gratitude, Nobility or Deception?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by KUMAR5, Dec 25, 2017.

  1. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Hello,
    Merry Christmas!!

    Just observed:

    Many animals & birds(Bovine, sheep, goat, pigs, poultry etc.) domesticated & slaughtered for food or subject to other violence, return to their owner's place even after set free.

    Many such animals are adopted, nursed, loved and liked initially but suddenly on one black day, slaughtered without any mercy or love.

    Is it Idiocy, Compulsion, Gratitude or Nobility on part of such animals and a Deception on part of their owners? Deception how? Animals treated/impressed by owners as their god-father initially but treated otherwise later.

    Yes, we can argue those animals were adopted, loved & nursed like "Business Animals not like Child. But still, what ethics, morality, justice and logic suggest about it in truth by looking also from animals POV?

    Best wishes.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    It looks, in it, there is nothing odd from the side of animals, since they do not run away. But life should has more value than any obligation so should not equal repayment to any obligation and ha too with intention of self interest.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Thales Registered Member

    Messages:
    36
    "In it"? What is "it" implying, KUMAR5?

    Thanks a bunch.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Sorry, I could not understand.
     
  8. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,444
    Not exactly sure what you are looking for but maybe consider this...
    The animals see the owner as their meal ticket and dont realise that the owner is a threat.
    And so the animals trust the owner who actually has only his interests in mind long term which means the animals come off second best.
    If you believe in a God one must wonder if mans lot is much the same as the animals...the owner says he loves the animal and he probably does...roasted.
    If there is a God I wonder what awaits trusting humans.
    Alex
     
  9. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Thanks. If so, will it not be treated at a deception by owners towards those animals? God is not involved in it.
     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,444
    Well it is deception and someone should tell the animals.

    And if there is a God he must be involved either by setting up such a situation...and I think it is written that man shall have dominion over the animals...or by letting the deception go without itervention.
    If you have a God you must accept everything that happens is because he commands it or allows it...you cant just call him in now and then or say he has no control.
    So perhaps ask God why he allows the humans to deceive the animals and whilst you are asking about the animals see if you can find out what he teally is going to do with all the humans...
    Alex
     
  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,444
    And a merry xmas and happy new year to you also.
    Alex
     
  12. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,859
    Tame or semi-tame livestock are easier to manage or handle, especially if they acquire health problems and need to be personally tended to. (OTOH, they still need to fear wolves, coyotes, hawks, racoons, etc). And old agrarian traditions for avoiding starvation die hard. Especially when the Star Trek food replicators / synthesizers are still in short supply for third world areas to compensate for bad harvest seasons.

    What point of view? (As such a purely intellectual perspective rather than the literal "range of eyesight".)

    The behavior is conditioning and habit, with no concept or formal scheme available for the animal to understand and reflect upon its past, present, and future circumstances as any particular abstract meaning. There is only the "now" of a current state and feeling. With its next action prodded by stimulus or bodily urges/routines in accordance with innate programming, acquired training, and patterns molded by affection, mistreatment, indifference, etc from the human owners; and its adaptation to an artificial environment.

    The animal can't grasp a culturally invented moral status for itself or anything else. Evolution instilled a template for social interactions with its own kind -- but the blind watchmaker way minus deliberate intent, civilized concerns, and directed passion. Implemented by the trial and error of whatever eventually worked for individual and group success (not necessarily the most ideal setup, merely what minimally got the job done).

    Ironically, the robot given citizenship in Saudi Arabia might have more of a POV if it can handle ideas and symbolic systems. Though the animal would far surpass the robot on experiencing / manifesting the world and itself as anything at all.

    We could attribute a speculative, fictional "as if" POV to the animal. But that seems like the land of talking quadrupeds in a cartoon or movies like Babe. Produced for the guilt, amusement, or sentiment of people. Not the delivery of a cognitive enlightenment to real critters. "Idiocy, nobility...." and rest would be language constructs transfered imaginatively by people into the nature of the beast.

    It's certainly not completely akin to worshipers projecting psychological properties onto a wooden totem or idol. But the implication seems to be that by engaging in these make-believe exercises (the earliest examples of augmented reality), that the animal thereby qualifies for rights of personhood. We can still protect it or shield it from suffering out of sympathy that it is something that actually feels pleasure or pain internally (in contrast to a robot only mimicking the outer expressions and sounds corresponding to that). But not because it is another agent that has the capacity to engage in abstract reflections and examinations of "what's going on" and devise prescriptions or "oughts" for itself and judgment of others.

    - - -
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  13. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
     
  14. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Yes, animals can be either innocent or idiots that they believe their owners as their godfather and tend to stay with them without knowing their ultimate. But owners know it very well and initially give them all which parent or guardian give to their children. But?? Since it is vested self interest based mistaken nursing which should be causing misunderstanding in animals, why it can not be taken as a deception? When a lion kill its prey, he do not create such false impression in them. But owners do create, so a deception.
     
  15. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    By terms in topic subject, I mean:
    Idiocy: Since those animals meant for food consider their owners as parent, guardian, god father or friend and come back to home even set free.
    Compulsion: No alternative available with those animals, if kept in captivity. Farming of animals can come within its scope.
    Gratitude: If animals repay to the obligations of their owners. It appears bit odd.
    Nobility: if those animals are so much innocent that they do not know, what will be their ultimate fate.
    Deception: an impression of parent, guardian, godfather or friend like emotion is first created by the owners in the animals, but selfish commercial interest in mind previously, which is encased, later. Animals have to pay uncomparable big price of it.
     
  16. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    In short, such animals are being treated as a thing not as a being.
     
  17. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    52,887
    So what?
     
  18. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,584
    I find this ... implausible.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    They're animals.

    They are incapable of the motives you ascribed to them in your OP.
     
  20. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Animals should be considering us as beings--somewhat like god father, parent like guardian or companion but we may be considering those like things which we can use anyway we like.
     
  21. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Why can't those animals take their owners as beings--somewhat like their god father, parent like guardian or companion? It is not their incapability to understand but they just get deception. Humans should just be considering them like things not like beings.
     
  22. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    :} It should be more painful and odd, when anyone is emotionally killed than just killed
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,630
    ?? Animals have a limited understanding of the concept of "guardians" or "companions." Wolves understand pack dynamics, including having a leader. Apes understand having companions; they have mates, friends and enemies. However, asking whether they feel deceived, or noble, or betrayed, is projecting human feelings onto an animal. While many animals have emotions that are similar to ours, it is a mistake to say "well, I would feel X if someone did Y to me, so therefore animals feel X too." Animals are different than people.

    Most farmers do consider animals to be things - specifically, livestock.
     

Share This Page