Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When does killing an animal constitute murder?
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 262 of 352 (595845)
12-10-2010 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Straggler
12-10-2010 4:10 PM


Re: Breed For Food and Experimentation
Straggler writes:
Without applying general moral principles how do you ever weigh up the competing moral factors that make up a unique situation to come to specific conclusions?
"First, do no harm." (If you want to consider that a general moral principle, go ahead and bray about contradictions.)
In most cases, of course, it's a question of balancing harm but harm can not be measured objectively. That's why harming a murderer is sometimes preferable and harming an ant is sometimes not. Generalization by species is futile.
Straggler writes:
Which specific humans you think it morally acceptable to breed and raise for purposes of experimentation is "mysterious" to me.
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.

"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 259 by Straggler, posted 12-10-2010 4:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Straggler, posted 12-10-2010 5:15 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 264 of 352 (595854)
12-10-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Straggler
12-10-2010 5:15 PM


Re: Specific Individuals (Species Need Not Apply)
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. It had little or nothing to do with the species involved.
Straggler writes:
ringo writes:
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.
That's because you're asking the wrong question. Ask me under what circumstances it might be acceptable to breed humans for experimentation.
(If you continue trying to browbeat me into saying what you want me to say, you're liable to be disappointed.)

"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 263 by Straggler, posted 12-10-2010 5:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2010 3:27 PM ringo 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

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


Message 290 of 352 (596874)
12-17-2010 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Straggler
12-17-2010 12:40 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.
Since that is my "given" position, why do you keep asking what my position is?
Straggler writes:
So then why not conduct our genetic experiments on humans bred for the purpose rather than fruit fly?
There are practical considerations, not necessarily moral ones. "Breeding" is just a matter of controlling mating opportunities. With humans, it's more practical to do that after the fact - i.e. by selecting those subjects who did breed with certain others.
Since it isn't practical to walk from New York to Paris, I don't need to think much about the moral implications of the trip.

"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 289 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2010 12:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2010 2:19 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 295 of 352 (596885)
12-17-2010 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Straggler
12-17-2010 2:19 PM


Re: Breeding for Experiment
Straggler writes:
If you genuinely see no difference between conducting such experiments on humans as you do fruit fly or mice then just unequivocally say so.
My whole point in this thread is that an unequivocal position is inappropriate.

"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 292 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2010 2:19 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 296 of 352 (596887)
12-17-2010 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by xongsmith
12-17-2010 2:33 PM


xongsmith writes:
Anybody here seen "Silent Running" with Bruce Dern as the hero? He grows real tomatoes on the space-born solariums preserving the last remnants of the earth's garden species. His co-astronauts are just up for a temporary tour and cannot grok his viewpoint. Joan Baez does the music. R2D2 was inspired by Huey, Dewey & Luis.
For those who haven't seen it, Bruce Dern kills his human colleagues to save the trees.
I liked it much better than 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Edited by ringo, : Forgeot to include quote.

"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 293 by xongsmith, posted 12-17-2010 2:33 PM xongsmith has not replied

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


Message 305 of 352 (599771)
01-10-2011 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Straggler
01-10-2011 1:58 PM


Re: Human Rights For Apes?
Straggler writes:
Presumably those who deny that moral considerations are ever applied to anything other than specific individuals (of whatever species)....
Do you understand the difference between moral and legal?

"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 304 by Straggler, posted 01-10-2011 1:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by jar, posted 01-10-2011 2:22 PM ringo has replied
 Message 313 by Straggler, posted 01-11-2011 12:29 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 307 of 352 (599776)
01-10-2011 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by jar
01-10-2011 2:22 PM


Re: Human Rights For Apes?
I'd extend the right not to be tortured to cows, cats, rats, etc. I have reservations about extending the right to life to cows and I'm hesitant to grant the freedom of the streets to bears.

"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 306 by jar, posted 01-10-2011 2:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by jar, posted 01-10-2011 2:46 PM ringo has not replied

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


Message 314 of 352 (599975)
01-11-2011 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Straggler
01-11-2011 12:29 PM


Re: Human Rights For Apes?
Straggler writes:
So which of those, moral or legal, do you think my above 'ape rights' example is concerned with?
Since it's about legislation, I'm going to say legal.
Straggler writes:
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?
I've never suggested that they're wholly unrelated. My objection is to the way you tend to use the concepts of moral, legal and socially acceptable as if they were interchangeable.
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....
On the contrary, I do make a distinction - an individual distinction. I gave the example of the ant colony and the wasp colony.
Straggler writes:
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.
Not at all. Human rights for non-humans supports my case.

"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 313 by Straggler, posted 01-11-2011 12:29 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2011 8:39 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 318 of 352 (600189)
01-13-2011 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Straggler
01-13-2011 8:39 AM


Re: Human Rights For Apes?
Straggler writes:
You make an individual distinction along speciesistic lines?
I make individual distinctions in individual circumstances, as I've said all along.
Straggler writes:
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?
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.

"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 317 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2011 8:39 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2011 11:28 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 320 of 352 (600223)
01-13-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Straggler
01-13-2011 11:28 AM


Re: Human Rights For Apes?
Straggler writes:
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?
I understand that the distinction between species is being decreased, not increased.
Straggler writes:
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.
Your main effort in this thread seems to be to browbeat me into agreeing with you.
Straggler writes:
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.
I agree with the great ape project on the basis that it takes one step away from distinctions based on species.

"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 319 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2011 11:28 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Straggler, posted 01-14-2011 2:39 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 322 of 352 (600489)
01-14-2011 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Straggler
01-14-2011 2:39 PM


Re: Human Rights For Fruit Fly?
Straggler writes:
It seems you have abandoned your 'individual-only' stance but continue to insist that you don't accord moral consideration differently to different species.
Individual situations.
Straggler writes:
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".
My "stance" is that moral considerations do not automatically place humans above all other species.
Straggler writes:
Once again your position makes it impossible to make a moral distinction between a mass murderer and a roach exterminator.
You keep ignoring the fact that society does value some insects above the mass murderer. Your contrived example doesn't negate that fact.
Straggler writes:
I find that position hard to take seriously.
It's your strawman. Take it any way you like.

"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 321 by Straggler, posted 01-14-2011 2:39 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Straggler, posted 01-17-2011 2:29 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 324 of 352 (600889)
01-17-2011 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Straggler
01-17-2011 2:29 PM


Re: Inconsistencies
Straggler writes:
Now you proclaim your support for a project which seeks to enhance the moral status of great apes in the eyes of society.
Straggler writes:
Now you proclaim your support for a moral campaign whose primary practical aim is to bestow legal rights on certain species.
Which is it? Moral status or legal rights?
Straggler writes:
You are the one who proclaims support for a moral campaign....
I proclaim support for a legal campaign.
Straggler writes:
If human life wasn't generally held in greater moral esteem there would be no reason to single a mass murderer out as worthy of any less moral value than any other person would there?
We're not comparing humans with other humans. We're comparing humans with other species. It's clear that some other species are sometimes valued higher than some humans.
Straggler writes:
Simply saying "it's individual" and applying the vacuity that is "do no harm" tells us nothing about how you personally come to moral conclusions in this context. Which is supposed to be what this thread is about.
The OP asks:
quote:
Do you believe there is a sharp moral distinction between the killing of one subset of animals and all other animals, and where do you place it?
My answer is, "No."
Is all of your blathering at me based on you not knowing what "no" means?

"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 323 by Straggler, posted 01-17-2011 2:29 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Straggler, posted 01-19-2011 2:23 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 326 of 352 (601286)
01-19-2011 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Straggler
01-19-2011 2:23 PM


Re: The Choice Is Yours.......
Straggler writes:
You claim to support the great ape project. But you also deny making any moral distinctions along speciesistic lines. Can you see why this might seem rather contradictory?
I support removing distinctions based on species. I don't see how that can be misconstrued as making distinctions based on species.

"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 325 by Straggler, posted 01-19-2011 2:23 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2011 12:08 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 328 of 352 (601439)
01-20-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Straggler
01-20-2011 12:08 PM


Re: The Choice Is Yours.......
Straggler writes:
The great ape project seeks to extend the moral distinction already conferred on humans to other great ape species on the basis that they too are self-aware and sentient.
The founders of the great ape project don't dictate my reasons for supporting it.
Straggler writes:
Other than to denounce your position as woefully inhumane and to point out your dangerous lack of personal empathy for your fellow man.
Increasing respect for other species isn't "inhumane" any more than abolishing slavery is "unfair" to slave owners. Empathy doesn't require discrimination.

"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 327 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2011 12:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2011 3:24 PM ringo 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