Should animals be treated as property?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by hug-a-tree, Sep 23, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,093
    Pandaemoni:

    If you have something useful to add to the wiki, you are very welcome.

    If you think I am in error regarding, say, [enc]Hobbesian contractarianism[/enc], then please let me know.

    I do not think that.

    Which is why I am attempting to influence people in this very thread!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Where do you think these rules come from? Are they just there? Or are they emotional? Or instinctual? Or contractual? Or what?

    Do you really think the rules are arbitrarily chosen?

    If my labelling you as a Hobbesian contractarian is incorrect, then please tell me which theory of moral philosophy is closest to your actual views.

    From all you have said, I think I've made an accurate assessment of your opinions. You have even agreed that many of the points I made in analysing your position are a fair representation of what you think.

    If in some respects I have mistaken your position, then tell me what your actual position is, and how it fits into a coherent and self-consistent system of morals.

    Well, it goes without saying that my position must be a subjective one, just as yours is. And you're not telling me anything new by saying you find my position unconvincing. I find yours unconvincing. So.

    Exactly as I said. The value of another being to you lies in its value for you. All beings are means to ends, and not ends in themselves, for you.

    Am I wrong?

    That's fine. I don't disagree with you, as far as you go.

    Where you and I differ is that I value other beings for themselves, rather than for what they can do for me.

    I know this probably makes no sense to you. It is a whole different way of thinking that you probably find unfamiliar. Perhaps if you have children at some point you might start to get an inkling (but not necessarily).

    Hmmm... I can't think of any examples. What did you have in mind?

    If it comes down to a choice between eating a plant or dying, then I'd eat the plant. Hell, if came to a choice between eating an animal and dying, then I'd most likely eat the animal. But my daily choice about eating meat is not such a life-or-death choice.

    Moreover, I have articulated clearly as to why I do not regard plants as having equal moral status with animals such as cows and pigs.

    I apologise for the impertinence of daring to question your morality, your Highness.

    Still, I seem to have hit some kind of nerve. Strangely, I find this often happens with meat eaters. It's as if, somewhere, deep down inside...

    I'm under no illusions that I'll change your mind in this thread. It is possible that at some future time you'll recall our discussion and gradually change your view, but right now you're doing the usual internet thing of digging in your heels and pouting.

    But it's not all about you, you know. As I mentioned before, other people may read my posts and your posts, and start thinking.

    You put yourself out there by expressing your views. Did you want kid gloves?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    James R Do you want an environmental argument against eating meat?

    As long as you admit your moral argument trying to justify abolishing meat eating has failed then I have no problem with environmental arguments because they can never be arguments against meat eating per se. I've no problem with balanced meat consumption and ensuring the environment is healthy.

    James R Eating meat is very bad for the environment

    No. Eating meat is build into the environment. Many of our current approaches to it are out of whack, but at a fundamental level eating meat is inescapably part of the environment.

    James R How is species a morally significant difference?

    Species is a significant difference in choice of prey. Eating meat isn't a moral question in and of itself. Even the Buddha ate meat.

    James R One problem with this argument is that it ignores the intrinsic value of the individual. By the same argument, it would be just fine to kill you for whatever reason.

    Actually its not for "whatever reason" and people, even myself, are not exempt from the realities of life. If I'm not careful I could be killed and eaten just like any meat. And as nifty as I think I am, there is no guarantee that my survival is best for the species. But the reason you are going for the emotions is because the main problems with my position are that it is valid and true.

    James R You ought to read above where I commented on the kind of crowing about your immorality that you have chosen to engage in along with some of your humane fellow meat eaters.

    I did and dude you are so jealous its pathetic! You are the sole reason I'm wanting a thick slab of prime rib now, medium rare, just a touch of blood you know. I normally don't eat much cow.

    James R With your knowledge of evolutionary findings, you must know that this statement is nonsense.

    Name a single universally prohibited act. I'll knock off a few standard ones: murder, cannibalism and incest all have cultures which allow them.

    James R Please provide links so I can verify your claim.

    http://www.naturapet.com/brands/evo.asp
    "uses whole, fresh meat sources such as turkey, chicken and herring meal!"

    If you see the word whole, then it is not diverted by-products. Also by-products are supposed to be labeled as such, if it is labeled as "chicken" instead of as "chicken by-products" then it is meat and could be used for human consumption had it not been diverted. "Chicken meal" is basically the whole chicken ground up. Quality companies distinguish organ meats from non organ meats. Finally "premium" brands often make a point of using "human" quality meats, particularly for cats.

    Oh, the "not for human consumption" is applied after it gets to the pet food company. We have plenty of products which use meat by-products. Potted meat, hot dogs, sausage, the ultra cheap meat in pizza and burritos, etc. There is nothing a cat can eat that a human can't.

    But all that is beside the point. Morally you are partaking in the feast at the corpse and paying the piper. I find it tremendously hypocritical that you make exceptions for your cat while condemning your fellow man. The meat your cat eats is no less a chicken and the money you pay still wends its way back to the slaughter house.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    Extrinsic does not mean "selfishly derived" it does not mean "insofar as I may use you for my purposes." All it means is that the value is not innate to the thing in and of itself, but derived from an external frame of reference. As mu moral system allows for caring for others apart from their ability to be used to meet my short-term selfish ends, that moral system allows me to see them as having a value. That said, the value comes from my ascribing value and is based on my moral system, not some pretend "objective" value that possess innately. "Intrinsic value" means value that derives from the thing in and of itself without reference to external criteria.

    I say that without external criteria nothing has any value, hence you can see all the examples of people treating other people as if they were valueless throughout history. These people were not doing so in contradiction of Nature, or the Universe, or Reason, or God, they were doing so because their ethical and moral system did not ascribe such value, and so it did not exist. Since there is no objective way of proving the existence of value, asserting that it nonetheless has an objective existence is pointless. We might as well argue about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. What can be demonstrated, is that man behaves as if all value were extrinsic. To a rationalist, like me, who views all such unprovable metaphysical concepts designed to explain the insubstantial qualities of things in the world, like value, to be creations of the mind (useful though they may be) such creations simply cease to exist where man determines they do not exist.

    You insist on painting me as some selfish creature who only views others as a means to an end, and that is entirely incorrect. It is also why I refuse to waste any more time educating you.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,985
    Notes for the Redeemer

    The only context that you find acceptable is the one that agrees with your zealous outlook. Consideration of the practical effects of any reasonable, non-arbitrary application of the underlying principle is apparently irrelevant to you. If it presents a problem to your theory, it's irrelevant. What is striking about such appeals is that you would, in nearly any other consideration, reject such evasions as unworthy.

    Social Darwinism is beside the point. On the one hand, the lion doesn't care if other species are "equal" to its own. To the other, the lion is incapable of caring. To yet another, the fact that we can consider the question at all does not automatically prescribe the most convenient answer for your cause. Ducking the point to criticize a separate theory altogether is just a bit problematic for your advocacy, sir.

    Indeed, you have proselytized. And evaded. Indeed, your older response, which I quoted from #1067126/514 is a similar evasion to your social Darwinism distraction above.

    I consider this evasive. After all, your zeal proposes what will, over the long term, weaken the species' functional standing within nature for the sake of aesthetics.

    You want to weaken the species, that's your right to advocate. But come up with something better than mere aesthetics if you expect your zealotry to be taken seriously.
     
  8. Lordznebula5 Registered Member

    Messages:
    45
    "Humanity won't go extinct just because people stop eating meat."

    You think you have the option to view flesh consumption as a slight or trivial act?

    That's one heck of an outrageous claim. Are you the evolutionary all father or something?

    Vegetables take such a long time and huge amounts of water to grow. Vegetables are incapable of watering themselves. How might the forefathers have enough to eat without having consumed their fill of fish so that you are here?

    Don't worry I am otherwise not disagreeable to the other vegetarian claims, the structure of these animal awareness of mind and seeking of karma through these polite to animal and even reverence basis arguments.

    This remains the only argument. The your forefathers would have starved if not ate fish, squirrel, ox, birds, dogs, rabbits, etc.. [The most popular wild animals on earth are the ground squirrel and fish.]

    And a part of that argument then becomes also then if we are not starving someone has to know what goes with what and how to prepare these animals. To be able to do them justice at the table. To do the taste testing and keep that up as a science to assist human decisions when they need to prepare them.

    Industry of animals for profiteer greed does not be proper.
    But keeping up knowledge of the preparation of hungry forefathers as if we are one some day be proper.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,093
    Lordsznebula5:

    Just because something was done in the past, or is "traditional", doesn't mean that it is morally acceptable to keep doing it today.

    Take slavery, for example.
     
  10. Lordznebula5 Registered Member

    Messages:
    45
    James R.:

    Oh please quit trying to say you are not indebted to your fathers and don't need some flesh protein sometimes. You have healthy brain since you received some from within the womb I wager.
    Comparing eating animals to slavery? I disagree that's at all plausible. Have animals ever proven as smart as some Negros had by going to school? No.

    This is not a political issue or external one. This is an internal and or biological one of medical need. The brain of fetus have been proven to be shrunken by ingest regular soy with diet that omits flesh protein.
    The act of consuming flesh does not be only a "traditional” one but a proven biological need for some.

    The majority of animals are not equal to humans with the sense that they are up for the option of being not included with the meal for some of us. There are blood type needs especially type O that needs flesh as a regular meal of they'll get sick.

    Why do vegetarians have to be against ALL flesh consumption? Why can't they just be against the inhumane methods of industry and herding and impatient behavior of fast food and support rather the humane killing of ones own animals that will place serious end to fast food the most. Why does everything have to be all or nothing?
    Vegans seem evil to me these days. They have no respect for Type O blood. If Type O does not be allowed flesh they will be dead sooner and or get anemic.
    Type O’s are not able to go vegan so quickly if that is the "right" thing. I don't think it is. I think someone killing their own animal not from industry can be done humanely.
    No I don't think ruminant animals have the same exact value as human life either. Even though these animals do give humans life; humans should be allowed to own and kill animals that do not live all that long even in captivity or are able to wield knowledge as man does. I support animal ownership for the independence of man from industry. Also for blood type proven needs proven by Dr. D'adamo.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2008
  11. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Animal rights activists pretend that they have reasons for their beliefs, but when they don't get their way they burn down your house, which proves that they don't trust the use of reason. Like any other career criminals they want laws to protect them, like gun laws to protect gangsters from being shot when they try to rob people, but they won't obey laws, like laws that say they aren't allowed to rob people.

    When you know that someone comes to you and pretends to reason with you, but is going to use their fists on you if you don't give them what they want, the right thing to do is to kill them on the spot. They've burned down people's houses. They've gut-shot cattle just to watch them die. People have reasoned with them before and they come back with the same discredited ideas and the more faked videos. Animals do quite well as property, but they cannot survive the animal rights movement. Humans won't do so well either.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,093
    Bullshit. Link me to a single news story about an animal rights activist burning somebody's house down because of animal-related issues. If you can.

    Animal rights activists like to shoot animals to watch them die?

    Give me a break. You're losing touch with reality.
     
  13. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    For God's sake, James, I already posted those links and you've already read them. Here they are anyway:

    Gut-shot cattle

    More on gut-shot cattle


    Anyone who doesn't know about the ARistas burning down houses has been living under a rock:

    Edythe London's house set on fire

    Google search, many hits

    James, I can't believe that you're stupid enough to deny this.
     
  14. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    All that Ruth Downey's conviction means is that Australia itself is beyond redemption. You, James, appear to be one of the people who is destroying it. Fuck them, fuck the RSPCA, and particularly, fuck you.

    The way that you support them you have got to be one of their thugs. I want to know how you can stand promoting their atrocities. First they shoot a woman's cattle when they know very well that she was taking good care of them, then they suck the judge's dick until they get a $300,000 judgment against her and get her convicted of a crime that they know very well that she was not guilty of. EXPLAIN YOURSELF!
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2008
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,093
    MetaKron:

    Your personal insults are unwelcome. If you cannot converse without insulting, please don't bother posting at all.
     
  16. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Your lies to support animal rights activism are unwelcome. So is your baiting.

    At best you are defending a philosophy that is meant to undermine and severely damage humanity, and a court system that is too obviously corrupt. This isn't good.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2008
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,093
    What lies?
     
  18. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Let's just say that you make statements that you should know are untrue.
     
  19. Lordznebula5 Registered Member

    Messages:
    45
    Well I am only for the right to eat them. I am not for experimenting on them since I see that as an extra.
     
  20. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    I'm glad you came to see things from my point of view James.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,093
    Not sure what you're talking about, swarm.
     
  22. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
  23. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    I consider the "eating meat is bad for the environment" to be an AR lie. This lie is also used by the UN to undermine prosperous nations which actually use scientific knowledge to produce more and better food.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page