|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4809 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When does killing an animal constitute murder? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
"First, do no harm." (If you want to consider that a general moral principle, go ahead and bray about contradictions.) 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? 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:
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. Which specific humans you think it morally acceptable to breed and raise for purposes of experimentation is "mysterious" to me. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
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.
Can you give me an example of a specific moral decision you made recently in which no general moral principles were applied? Straggler writes:
That's because you're asking the wrong question. Ask me under what circumstances it might be acceptable to breed humans for experimentation. ringo writes:
Maybe so. But that does not answer the question about specific individuals. 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. (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!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Hint: How do you know they'll work "just as well" unless you do the experiment? Would you use humans where mice or fruit fly can just as well be used in such experiments? "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Since that is my "given" position, why do you keep asking what my position is?
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. Straggler writes:
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. So then why not conduct our genetic experiments on humans bred for the purpose rather than fruit fly? 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!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
My whole point in this thread is that an unequivocal position is inappropriate. If you genuinely see no difference between conducting such experiments on humans as you do fruit fly or mice then just unequivocally say so. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Do you understand the difference between moral and legal? Presumably those who deny that moral considerations are ever applied to anything other than specific individuals (of whatever species).... "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Since it's about legislation, I'm going to say legal.
So which of those, moral or legal, do you think my above 'ape rights' example is concerned with? Straggler writes:
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.
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? Straggler writes:
On the contrary, I do make a distinction - an individual distinction. I gave the example of the ant colony and the wasp colony.
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.... Straggler writes:
Not at all. Human rights for non-humans supports my case. 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. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I make individual distinctions in individual circumstances, as I've said all along.
You make an individual distinction along speciesistic lines? Straggler 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. 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? "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I understand that the distinction between species is being decreased, not increased.
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? Straggler writes:
Your main effort in this thread seems to be to browbeat me into agreeing with you.
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. Straggler writes:
I agree with the great ape project on the basis that it takes one step away from distinctions based on species. 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'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Individual situations.
It seems you have abandoned your 'individual-only' stance but continue to insist that you don't accord moral consideration differently to different species. Straggler writes:
My "stance" is that moral considerations do not automatically place humans above all other 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". Straggler writes:
You keep ignoring the fact that society does value some insects above the mass murderer. Your contrived example doesn't negate that fact.
Once again your position makes it impossible to make a moral distinction between a mass murderer and a roach exterminator. Straggler writes:
It's your strawman. Take it any way you like. I find that position hard to take seriously. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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:
Which is it? Moral status or legal rights?
Now you proclaim your support for a moral campaign whose primary practical aim is to bestow legal rights on certain species. Straggler writes:
I proclaim support for a legal campaign.
You are the one who proclaims support for a moral campaign.... Straggler writes:
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.
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? Straggler writes:
The OP asks:
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. quote: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!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I support removing distinctions based on species. I don't see how that can be misconstrued as making distinctions based on species. 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'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
The founders of the great ape project don't dictate my reasons for supporting it.
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. 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!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024