Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When does killing an animal constitute murder?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 261 of 352 (595843)
12-10-2010 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Blue Jay
12-09-2010 10:17 AM


Re: Compassion and Abhorrence
Bluejay writes:
So, I suppose I should state my moral views as granting equal "moral worth" to all animals (humans included), with the exceptions of arthropods (the killing of which is acceptable for the sake of research) and livestock (the killing of which is acceptable for food).
So would you consider the breeding of mice or rabbits for purposes of scientific research to be immoral? Chimps? Gorillas?
What about the breeding of humans for the same research purposes?
I suspect that you (like I) will special plead humans as worthy of extra moral consideration in such matters. In which case I would dispute that you really do grant "equal "moral worth" to all animals (humans included)".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Blue Jay, posted 12-09-2010 10:17 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Blue Jay, posted 12-10-2010 5:37 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 263 of 352 (595850)
12-10-2010 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by ringo
12-10-2010 4:45 PM


Specific Individuals (Species Need Not Apply)
Firstly - I note that an example of the sort requested was not forthcoming. Can you give me an example of a specific moral decision you made recently in which no general moral principles were applied?
Ringo writes:
"First, do no harm." (If you want to consider that a general moral principle, go ahead and bray about contradictions.)
Fine. That is a contradiction but we'll let it go with no further ado. See if you can answer the above question by applying that principle alone.
Ringo writes:
In most cases, of course, it's a question of balancing harm but harm can not be measured objectively.
Harm to what or who? I am not asking for any "objective measures". Yet again let me make it very clear that I am still trying to ascertain a consistent and realistic personal moral stance on the relative moral consideration you accord to different species.
Ringo writes:
Generalization by species is futile.
If you personally don't think that breeding mice or fruit flies for the purposes of experimentation is immoral but you do think that breeding and raising humans for the identical purpose is immoral then you are applying morality at the species and not the individual level. Despite asserting that you don't do this.
Ringo writes:
Straggler writes:
Can you clarify? Which specific humans do you consider it morally acceptable to breed and raise in order to be experimented upon?
Be specific.
Whether or not it was morally acceptable to breed humans for experiment would depend on the nature of the breeding and the nature of the experiment.
Maybe so. But that does not answer the question about specific individuals. You have relentlessly insisted in this thread that moral decisions cannot be made at the general human (i.e. species) level but only at the specific individual level.
So I ask again - Which specific individual humans do you consider it morally acceptable to breed and raise in order to be experimented upon in a way that is directly comparable to lab rats and fruit flies?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by ringo, posted 12-10-2010 4:45 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by ringo, posted 12-10-2010 5:36 PM Straggler has 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

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


Message 288 of 352 (596863)
12-17-2010 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by onifre
12-16-2010 5:46 PM


Re: Superficial Morality
In a thread about personal morality can you explain to me how the (persistent) answer "If I were part of a culture where activity X was socially acceptable I would not consider activity X to be immoral" has any relevance? As obviously true as it is does it not apply to any moral question?
Oni writes:
You're comparing forcing yourself on someone sexually with being able to select free range meat or vegatables instead of meat?
I am asking how the luxury of living in a civilised society where your views on rape are shared by society are fundamentally different in principle to the "luxury" of being able to choose what you will or won't eat on moral grounds which you have described as "bullshit".
What makes one moral stance "bullshit" and another not? Be specific.
Oni writes:
I said I didn't have a problem with humans being farmed for food, which is the question you asked me. Now what?
Now I ask you if you have a moral problem with the infamous Nazi experiments on humans?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by onifre, posted 12-16-2010 5:46 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by xongsmith, posted 12-17-2010 2:33 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 289 of 352 (596871)
12-17-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by ringo
12-16-2010 4:42 PM


Re: Breeding for Experiment
Stop evading the question.
Would you breed and use humans for genetic experiments where mice or fruit fly will suffice?
Given your position so far in this thread there is no reason for you to consider such experiments conducted on bred-for purpose-humans as any more immoral than those conducted on fruit fly.
I, like many other humans, would consider the breeding of humans for experimental purposes akin to those served by mice and fruit fly to be morally unacceptable and to be avoided in all but the most nightmarish of sci-fi scenarios.
Ringo writes:
How do you know they'll work "just as well" unless you do the experiment?
So then why not conduct our genetic experiments on humans bred for the purpose rather than fruit fly?
Why not? Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by ringo, posted 12-16-2010 4:42 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by ringo, posted 12-17-2010 1:27 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 292 of 352 (596878)
12-17-2010 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by ringo
12-17-2010 1:27 PM


Re: Breeding for Experiment
Straggler writes:
Given your position so far in this thread there is no reason for you to consider such experiments conducted on bred-for purpose-humans as any more immoral than those conducted on fruit fly.
Ringo writes:
Since that is my "given" position, why do you keep asking what my position is?
Because I don't believe that you really think that genetic experiments of the sort carried out on bred-for-purpose fruit fly and mice are morally no different to the same experiments carried out on humans.
If you genuinely see no difference between conducting such experiments on humans as you do fruit fly or mice then just unequivocally say so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by ringo, posted 12-17-2010 1:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by ringo, posted 12-17-2010 2:55 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 300 of 352 (597691)
12-23-2010 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by xongsmith
12-17-2010 2:33 PM


Re: Superficial Morality
X writes:
Straggler - you are trying to draw an absolute line and I commend you for the effort.
No. I have persistently made it very clear I am not seeking absolute moral lines of any sort.
What I am trying to do is understand the personal morality of the other participants in this thread.
Oni would apparently have given the moral thumbs up if Nazis had been farming people for sausage meat. I wondered what his personal moral take was with regard to Nazi experiments on people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by xongsmith, posted 12-17-2010 2:33 PM xongsmith has not replied

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


Message 301 of 352 (597692)
12-23-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Blue Jay
12-17-2010 4:40 PM


Re: Compassion and Abhorrence
Bluejay writes:
So, there is no reason to continue discussing the breeding of things for research purposes, right?
This thread is about the moral worth we accord to different species. If there are things you have no moral objection to doing to one species but do another - then yes it is very definitely on topic.
I would personally morally object to the breeding and raising of human beings for the purposes of eating or experimentation in all but the most extreme end-of-the world-if we-don't-do-it nightmare sci-fi scenarios.
I have no such moral qualms about mice or cows or fruit fly. Primates come somewhere in-between for me. I do have a moral problem with using these creatures for eating unless absolutely necessary and I would limit experimentation on primates to the less frivolous things that can be demonstrated to have genuine benefits to humanity.
Bluejay writes:
Can "all other things" actually be equal, Straggler?
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.
As a general moral principle I consider human life as of more moral worth than bacteria, fruit fly, mice etc. I have never said that this was the only moral principle at play in any specific scenrio. In fact I have said the opposite. But it is a general moral principle that I advocate
I had no idea this was going to be quite so controversial given that it seems to be the attitude taken in mainstream Western society as a whole.
Bluejay writes:
I special plead humans because I don't want to risk other humans not special pleading me in a similar situation.
I object to Nazi style experimentation on humans for the same reason I object to vaginal rape. Because I personally think it is morally reprehensible.
The fact that I could in theory be the victim of the first whilst (as a man) it would be impossible for me to be subjected to the second has very little bearing on my stance on either.
Call me a wild eyed idealist if you will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Blue Jay, posted 12-17-2010 4:40 PM Blue Jay has not replied

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


Message 304 of 352 (599768)
01-10-2011 1:58 PM


Human Rights For Apes?
The campaign to accord some basic human rights to apes seems relevant to this thread.
Link writes:
Great apes should have the right to life and freedom, according to a resolution passed in the Spanish parliament, in what could become landmark legislation to enshrine human rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos.
The environmental committee in the Spanish parliament has approved resolutions urging the country to comply with the Great Apes Project, founded in 1993, which argues that "non-human hominids" should enjoy the right to life, freedom and not to be tortured.
The project was started by the philosophers Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri, who argued that the ape is the closest genetic relative to humans — that it displays emotions such as love, fear, anxiety and jealousy — and should be protected by similar laws.
I personally (in an admittedly rather impractical and apathetic way) would broadly support these sorts of measures.
What do others think?
ringo writes:
What do laws have to do with what is morally acceptable? Message 209
ringo writes:
Morality is applied in specific instances and the specific humans or cockroaches are vital to the application. Message 201
Presumably those who deny that moral considerations are ever applied to anything other than specific individuals (of whatever species) are utterly mystified, baffled and confounded as to what this campaign could possibly be seeking to achieve.

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by ringo, posted 01-10-2011 2:17 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 313 of 352 (599886)
01-11-2011 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by ringo
01-10-2011 2:17 PM


Re: Human Rights For Apes?
ringo writes:
What do laws have to do with what is morally acceptable? Message 209
ringo writes:
Do you understand the difference between moral and legal?
So which of those, moral or legal, do you think my above 'ape rights' example is concerned with?
Do you understand that in many cases the two things are not wholly unrelated and that this specific example exemplifies how the shifting moral outlook of a society operates in tandem with changing legislation?
Or are you going to talk about jaywalking again?
ringo writes:
Morality is applied in specific instances and the specific humans or cockroaches are vital to the application. Message 201
Given that the 'individual only' position you have espoused in this thread makes it impossible for you to make a moral distinction between a mass murderer and a roach exterminator it would seem rather inconsistent for you to start understanding those who do accord moral consideration along speciesistic lines pertaining to such factors as sentience.
ringo writes:
Straggler writes:
I am asking you for your personal moral position on the relative worth of different species as per the thread topic.
And I'm telling you I don't have one.
Then I guess the reasons, which seem very legitimate and obvious to me, for Spain implementing theses laws for apes but not for fruit fly must be very very perplexing to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by ringo, posted 01-10-2011 2:17 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by ringo, posted 01-11-2011 7:13 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 317 of 352 (600178)
01-13-2011 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by ringo
01-11-2011 7:13 PM


Re: Human Rights For Apes?
ringo writes:
Since it's about legislation, I'm going to say legal.
Who or what we do or do not confer rights upon, and the factors on which such judgements are derived, are at the heart of any moral stance. The great ape project (and indeed animal rights as a whole) is indisputably a moral matter.
Your assertion that these issues are exclusively legal concerns rather than significantly moral ones is just silly.
ringo writes:
My objection is to the way you tend to use the concepts of moral, legal and socially acceptable as if they were interchangeable.
Specifically with regard to the moral consideration accorded to different species in Western society there is a strong (albeit imperfect) correlation.
Straggler writes:
Given that the 'individual only' position you have espoused in this thread makes it impossible for you to make a moral distinction between a mass murderer and a roach exterminator it would seem rather inconsistent for you to start understanding those who do accord moral consideration along speciesistic lines pertaining to such factors as sentience.
ringo writes:
On the contrary, I do make a distinction - an individual distinction.
You make an individual distinction along speciesistic lines? Huh?
Do you now make a moral distinction between a mass murderer and a roach exterminator? If so on what basis?
ringo writes:
Human rights for non-humans supports my case.
How the hell does the accordance of rights on the basis of species support your argument against the accordance of moral consideration along speciesistic lines?
ringo writes:
Generalization by species is futile.
And yet here is the generalised-by-species accordance of moral rights that "supports" your anti-by-species stance on moral consideration.
From human rights to apes
"Great apes should have the right to life and freedom, according to a resolution passed in the Spanish parliament, in what could become landmark legislation to enshrine human rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos."
So I'll ask again - What is your personal moral position on the relative moral consideration to be accorded to different species? (as per the thread topic)
ringo previoulsy answers writes:
And I'm telling you I don't have one.
Yet you think the accordance of moral rights to chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos supports your stance? Bizzarre.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by ringo, posted 01-11-2011 7:13 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by ringo, posted 01-13-2011 10:45 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 319 of 352 (600201)
01-13-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by ringo
01-13-2011 10:45 AM


Re: Human Rights For Apes?
Do you personally accord greater moral consideration to chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos than (for example) fruit fly? (I do BTW).
Do you understand that the aim of the great ape project is to achieve moral status for great apes that is closer to that generally accorded to humans than creatures such as fruit-fly or mice?
These are not rhetorical questions. Will you give straight answers?
ringo writes:
Your claim is that humans are held in higher regard than other species. If several other species are being given "human" rights, then your claim is clearly false.
Not quite. My main claim is that I personally accord different moral consideration to different species. I have also pointed out that this is a very far from unique position given that it is widespread in Western society and reasonably well reflected in our laws.
If you want to know my personal position on special pleading humans specifically for additional moral consideration then you should have a look at Message 108 and upthread from that.
ringo writes:
Generalization by species is futile.
You on the other hand have consistently claimed that don't accord moral consideration along speciesistic lines, that there is no moral reason to (for example) prefer the breeding and raising of fruit fly for purposes of experimentation over humans (and thus presumably great apes) and you have generally derided any notion of applying morality along speciesistic lines as futile and simplistic.
You have taken a very strong 'individual-only' stance.
ringo writes:
Morality is applied in specific instances and the specific humans or cockroaches are vital to the application.
Then presumably you cannot agree with the aims of the great ape project on the basis that it's futile and simplistic speciesistic generalisations fail to ask why a particular fruit fly should be accorded less moral worth than a specific chimp.
At least this would be the case if you had a consistent argument (which is looking increasingly unlikely).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by ringo, posted 01-13-2011 10:45 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by ringo, posted 01-13-2011 12:14 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 321 of 352 (600457)
01-14-2011 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by ringo
01-13-2011 12:14 PM


Human Rights For Fruit Fly?
It seems you have abandoned your 'individual-only' stance but continue to insist that you don't accord moral consideration differently to different species.
You will be campaigning for insect rights I assume?
ringo writes:
I agree with the great ape project on the basis that it takes one step away from distinctions based on species.
Given that the great ape project advocates that some species be given more moral consideration than others this is impossible to reconcile with your insistence that species level moral stances are "futile".
ringo writes:
Your claim is that humans are held in higher regard than other species. If several other species are being given "human" rights, then your claim is clearly false.
If society did not accord humans greater moral worth than other species there wouldn’t be a campaign for the moral status of apes to be elevated into closer alignment with that of humans.
ringo writes:
I understand that the distinction between species is being decreased, not increased.
It is good to see that you now accept that there is effectively a collective moral position in terms of pervading social attitudes and the laws that these (often) eventually result in. Because you have previously derided this as an "illusion".
The great ape project is seeking to have basic ‘human’ rights conferred upon great apes rather than give them full moral equivalence to humans. This is entirely consistent with absolutely everything I have said throughout this thread regarding my own personal moral position.
ringo writes:
Your main effort in this thread seems to be to browbeat me into agreeing with you.
My main aim in this thread is to advocate the position that I have taken consistently throughout. Namely that according moral consideration to different species on the broad basis of sentience is a wholly legitimate personal stance and indeed one that is highly prevalent in Western society and increasingly reflected in national and international laws.
ringo writes:
I agree with the great ape project on the basis that it takes one step away from distinctions based on species.
So we should abandon any speciesistic distinctions? You would advocate equal rights for fruit fly then? Once again your position makes it impossible to make a moral distinction between a mass murderer and a roach exterminator.
I find that position hard to take seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by ringo, posted 01-13-2011 12:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by ringo, posted 01-14-2011 5:21 PM Straggler 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