Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When does killing an animal constitute murder?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 352 (596184)
12-13-2010 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Jon
12-09-2010 1:07 PM


Re: A New Explanation
You seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying. Let me try to explain it again:
If Society deems as immoral the mistreatment of things which are clearly non-human, then anyone who accept this viewpoint is less likely to apply criteria for 'human' that may exclude, for example, the mentally deficient, babies, etc. In other words, if someone accepts this morality, then they are less likely to think of babies and mentally deficients (for example) as less than human.
You seem to be misunderstanding me to say:
If someone doesn't accept this morality, then they are more likely to think of babies and mentally deficients (for example) as less than human.
Now, unfortunately, this re-rendering of my position is an illogical one; an example of the inverse error fallacy.
No. If group A is less likely to X than group B, then that means that group B is more likely to X than group A.
Right?
So how is accepting the mistreatment of animals as immoral acting as a safety net at all if we consider that scientists who do experiments on animals aren't worse than people who don't?
Your safety net is uneccessary because it doesn't actually do anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Jon, posted 12-09-2010 1:07 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by xongsmith, posted 12-13-2010 6:55 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 273 by Jon, posted 12-13-2010 7:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 272 of 352 (596195)
12-13-2010 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by New Cat's Eye
12-13-2010 5:34 PM


Re: A New Explanation
CS writes:
If group A is less likely to X than group B, then that means that group B is more likely to X than group A.
except that the clarification is more properly phrased:
If group A is less likely to X, then group A is less likely to Y.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-13-2010 5:34 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Jon, posted 12-13-2010 7:23 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 352 (596200)
12-13-2010 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by New Cat's Eye
12-13-2010 5:34 PM


Re: A New Explanation
If group A is less likely to X than group B, then that means that group B is more likely to X than group A.
Right?
Perhaps, but not related to the statement in question.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-13-2010 5:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2010 12:36 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 352 (596204)
12-13-2010 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by xongsmith
12-13-2010 6:55 PM


Re: A New Explanation
If group A is less likely to X, then group A is less likely to Y
Yes. One can put it that way. When we do, then we see the error, for we now have little more than a simple conditional statement:
Let
p = 'A less likely to X'1
q = 'A less likely to Y'
Thus, p→q does not imply p→q.
Jon
__________
1 Assuming X to be 'view mistreatment of animals as moral', and Y to be 'view h. sapiens whose humanness is questionable as not human'.

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by xongsmith, posted 12-13-2010 6:55 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
God did it
Junior Member (Idle past 4851 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 12-14-2010


Message 275 of 352 (596368)
12-14-2010 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
12-05-2010 10:24 AM


Are you for abortion? Choice is valid reason for some to kill humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 12-05-2010 10:24 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by jar, posted 12-14-2010 4:48 PM God did it has not replied
 Message 291 by xongsmith, posted 12-17-2010 1:58 PM God did it has not replied

  
God did it
Junior Member (Idle past 4851 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 12-14-2010


Message 276 of 352 (596369)
12-14-2010 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by frako
12-05-2010 10:29 AM


Animals have different sounds for different meanings, that doesn't stop them from killing. This conclusion doesn't fly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by frako, posted 12-05-2010 10:29 AM frako has not replied

  
God did it
Junior Member (Idle past 4851 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 12-14-2010


Message 277 of 352 (596370)
12-14-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Straggler
12-05-2010 10:33 AM


I have no problem knowing which to kill animals or humans, or which has more intrinsic value, God did it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 12-05-2010 10:33 AM Straggler has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 278 of 352 (596381)
12-14-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by God did it
12-14-2010 3:25 PM


Way too funny.
I'm sorry but other than comedic relief was there a point to your message?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by God did it, posted 12-14-2010 3:25 PM God did it has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 352 (596668)
12-16-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Jon
12-13-2010 7:13 PM


Re: A New Explanation
Perhaps, but not related to the statement in question.
Here's your claims, Jon:
quote:
When society implants into the minds of the individual the notion that the mistreatment of certain animals is wrong, it helps to assure that these individuals will now include as wrong the mistreatment of less animal-like creatures, even if these creatures (perhaps homo sapiens by decent) are more like these animals and less like an average human.
quote:
If Society deems as immoral the mistreatment of things which are clearly non-human, then anyone who accept this viewpoint is less likely to apply criteria for 'human' that may exclude, for example, the mentally deficient, babies, etc. In other words, if someone accepts this morality, then they are less likely to think of babies and mentally deficients (for example) as less than human.
You talk of these implantations and deemings as a "safety net" for people.
If you're not going to clarify or expound your claims, then they're going to remain as bullshit that stands as refuted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Jon, posted 12-13-2010 7:13 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Jon, posted 12-16-2010 5:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 280 of 352 (596696)
12-16-2010 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Blue Jay
12-10-2010 5:37 PM


Re: Compassion and Abhorrence
Bluejay writes:
Breeding mice/rats for research seems okay with me, but probably just because I've grown up with it:
But nobody is disputing the source of your personal morality. If you had been raised a viking rape and pillage would no doubt be perfectly acceptable. But so what?
How does this detract from, or even have anything to do with, your personal moral stance as being asked for by this thread?
Bluejay writes:
My views about how organisms rank in moral value will probably be different with each moral issue that's raised.
If you think I am disputing this you are mistaken.
But what I am saying is that the circumstance upon which a certain species will be considered worthy of serious moral consideration by you will depend upon the species and not just the situation.
Humans, you seem to agree, get more moral dispensation than other forms of life. Bacteria get little if none. Insects little more. Mammals more. Primates arguably more.
All other things being equal the life of a mouse probably means less to you than that of a human.
That doesn't mean you want every single human life to be held as superior to that of every single mouse. It means that all other things being equal you consider human life as more worthy of your moral consideration than that of mice.
Bluejay writes:
Whenever I think of breeding humans for research, I only think of my family being taken away from me for research, and I don't like that. But, if it were happening on the other side of the planet, I wouldn't really want to be bothered about it.
Do you have any moral opinion at all on the human experimentation conducted in Nazi concentration camps?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Blue Jay, posted 12-10-2010 5:37 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Blue Jay, posted 12-17-2010 4:40 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 281 of 352 (596700)
12-16-2010 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by ringo
12-10-2010 5:36 PM


Breeding for Experiment
Ringo writes:
Straggler writes:
Can you give me an example of a specific moral decision you made recently in which no general moral principles were applied?
I did give you one earlier in the thread. I decided not to destroy an ant colony. I didn't even think of it as a "moral decision" at the time but it does seem to fit your definition. It was based on the principle (moral or not) of doing no harm.
As a general principle it seems you accord greater moral worth to living things than non-living things. All other things being equal you choose life over non-life. This is hardly an unusual moral stance. But it is a general moral stance of exactlythe sort you deny to hold.
Now before you start jumping up and down and blathering on about all the exceptions just stop and consider what it is I am saying rather than the simplistic black and white nonsense you keep attributing me with. The general moral principle in play here is that - All other things being equal life is worthy of more moral consideration than non-life.
In reality there rarely, if ever, is a situation in which all other things are equal. Each situation is unique. A real life situation comprises all sorts of competing and conflicting general moral principles. As well as self interest and a whole host of other factors which make a complex moral web. But it is the subjective weighting we accord to these general principles that makes each such decision not just unique but highly individual.
However in the absence of these competing and conflicting moral principles we have nothing to distinguish one situation from another. Thus your assertion that you adhere to no general moral principles makes no sense.
I put it to you that in general (i.e. NOT without individual exception) you consider human life as of more moral worth than bacteria, fruit fly, mice etc.
Ringo writes:
Ask me under what circumstances it might be acceptable to breed humans for experimentation.
The fact that we can envisage nightmare scenarios where human experimentation of the sort conducted on mice and fruit flies might be necessary does not mean that without such need it is preferable to conduct such experiments on non-humans.
But by the terms of your argument there is no reason not to breed humans for purposes of experimentation where mice, roaches, fruit fly or any other animal will suffice. Because you refuse to say that human life is generally of more moral worth as far as you personally are concerned.
I find this argument untenable unless you are genuinely willing to outright agree that you would see no difference in breeding and using humans for the experiments currently conducted on mice and other animals.
So - Would you use humans where mice or fruit fly can just as well be used in such experiments?
This is not a rhetorical question.
Ringo writes:
It had little or nothing to do with the species involved.
We breed mice and fruit flies and all sorts of other animals for purposes of experimentation all the time. Unless you have no objection to breeding and using humans for the exact same experiments and for the exact same purposes you are just not being truthful here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by ringo, posted 12-10-2010 5:36 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by ringo, posted 12-16-2010 4:42 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 282 of 352 (596701)
12-16-2010 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by onifre
12-10-2010 10:19 PM


Re: Superficial Morality
Oni does the fact that if you were raised as a viking marauder mean that your moral views on rape would be very different to those currently held by you mean that your personal moral stance on rape is "bullshit"?
Or does that fact that your personal moral stance on rape is derived from your culture and other such factors make it any less meaningful as a moral stance?
Because you seem to be suggesting that any moral stance that is taken with the "privilege" of circumstance is "bullshit" whilst ignoring the fact that all moral positions (including those you hold most dear) are the result of such.
Oni writes:
Now, could I do it? No. I couldn't. Not now, not after living so many years in a world where that doesn't exist.
Dude we can imagine "what if" scenarios where raping your own grandmother would be morally fine? Sure we can.
But so what?
How do "But if your circumstance were totally different your personal moral outlook would be completely different" points have any bearing on anything worth talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by onifre, posted 12-10-2010 10:19 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by onifre, posted 12-16-2010 5:46 PM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 283 of 352 (596719)
12-16-2010 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Straggler
12-16-2010 3:27 PM


Re: Breeding for Experiment
Straggler writes:
Would you use humans where mice or fruit fly can just as well be used in such experiments?
Hint: How do you know they'll work "just as well" unless you do the experiment?

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2010 3:27 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2010 12:40 PM ringo has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 352 (596733)
12-16-2010 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2010 12:36 PM


Re: A New Explanation
If you're not going to clarify or expound your claims, then they're going to remain as bullshit that stands as refuted.
I've made multiple attempts to clarify; my statements have probably been rewritten in about a dozen different ways so far. I am not sure there are any more ways I could redo it without fundamentally altering the meaning of what I am trying to say.
Jon

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2010 12:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 285 of 352 (596738)
12-16-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Straggler
12-16-2010 3:37 PM


Re: Superficial Morality
Oni does the fact that if you were raised as a viking marauder mean that your moral views on rape would be very different to those currently held by you mean that your personal moral stance on rape is "bullshit"?
You're comparing forcing yourself on someone sexually with being able to select free range meat or vegatables instead of meat?
But so what?
What you're quoting was just an addition to my position, you should have quoted the actual position. I said I didn't have a problem with humans being farmed for food, which is the question you asked me. Now what?
How do "But if your circumstance were totally different your personal moral outlook would be completely different" points have any bearing on anything worth talking about?
I'll be nice...
You don't have to respond, Strag, if you feel my post doesn't add anything to the debate.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2010 3:37 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2010 12:27 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 294 by xongsmith, posted 12-17-2010 2:41 PM onifre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024