Meat Morality and Human/Animal/Alien Rights

Hi, Taq. No fair! You didn't quote my whole sentence: Even in the case of a person being found morally incompetent, we take the necessary measures to stop them from repeat offenses, don't we? We certainly don't let them go out and kill, rob or rape again.So, doesn't it make sense to take the necessary measures to stop animals from killing other animals?----- I'm not really asking about whether it's moral for an asteroid to hit the planet: I'm asking about whether it's immoral for somebody to not try to help when they have the means to help.I guess I need to ask this a little differently:Does morality dictate that we seek to not cause harm ourselves?
Or does it dictate that we seek to prevent harm in all its forms?In other words, do we define something as immoral based on who do it, or based on what happens to the victim?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Greyseal. I wasn't condoning capital punishment for amoral beings, and I think I'm generally against it philosophically.My original contention was in response to genetic engineering: if aliens have the ability to alter themselves or their diet to avoid eating meat, then do they or do they not have the moral imperative to alter other organisms that eat meat so that no organism need be killed for meat?My basic position is that morality is the obligation to prevent suffering. To clarify, I'm not sure this really is my philosophical position: but, in this discussion, this is the stance I'm taking.The alternative position is that morality is the obligation to avoid causing suffering.They differ in that the first includes the moral imperative for moral agents to actively prevent suffering that is caused by amoral agents.It seems to me that Taq is taking the latter position (that morality only deals with the actions of moral agents). I'm not sure if I'm right about that, so I'll wait for Taq to either confirm, deny or clarify; but, that's the basic discussion between the two of us up to this point.You're welcome to jump in at anytime.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Taq.Sorry it's taken so long: I was at a family wedding this weekend. Oh. Then, in that case, I retract my outrage.----- I think I'm confused most by why there are "right" and "wrong" for our actions, but not for other organisms' actions. I understand that we shouldn't expect sub-sentient organisms to grasp the concept of morality and adjust their behaviors accordingly, but that's not the point.The standards can be different for different beings for one of two reasons: (1) morality is subjective, as are the criteria for determining what is and isn't to be considered a moral agent; (2) morality is objective, and an amoral entity is one that is not expected to act morally due to some logical, objective criterion (e.g. sentience or competence).We're obviously not talking about the first situation here, and, if we were, this whole discussion would be pointless.So, let's focus on the second situation. In this case, the actions of amoral beings are still right or wrong, but are simply excused or forgiven because there is no expectation of morality from them. But, they are still objectively right or wrong. And, since we are expected to act morally, aren't we also expected to stop something "wrong" from happening if we have the means?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, AZPaul3. That was the assumption, as I understood it, that Taq proposed in Message 111.I don't know how we could have a meaningful conversation about the morality of carnivory if we began with the premise the morality is subjective.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Taq. I agree that an amoral being shouldn't be held responsible for actions that ought not be done.But, those actions still ought not be done, right? Isn't that the implication of objective morality: that "wrong" is not determined by the perpetrator's awareness or acceptance of its "wrongness"?Doesn't it fall on a moral agent to see that what ought not be does not come to pass?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Taq. I agree: there is an important distinction there.I'm going to back off now: it seems like your argument doesn't really include the points I was trying to attack, so my attack is misdirected.At least some clarity of our respective positions came out of it.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Straggler.So, I didn't comment right away because I wanted to avoid draggin the discussion off-topic. Then I realized that we're in the Coffee House.Congratulations on the baby! I hope he decides to be a conservative omphalist when he grows up, so you'll have plenty of opportunities to have aggravatingly unproductive philosophical debates, and, each time you do, you'll think of me and our good ol' days on EvC, and get a major headache.It'll probably all lead to a pub somewhere.That is, if it's still legal to torture and kill barley plants when your son's old enough to debate. For your sake, I hope the enlightenment is slow (and the aliens' ships are slower).

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.