You may not want to read this

#80
#80
VolsSportsFan said:
Humans are just animals so I don't see why I should care if some are slaughtered or not.
Click to expand...

Are they? Do you often refer to animal actions as "immoral"? Do you not think that the rational capacity to act morally is a significant qualitative distinction? A distinction that is absolutely alien to the rest of the lifeforms that have ever been discovered and/or encountered on our planet seems like a pretty important distinction. The fact that intrinsic worth is also tied to moral capacity (we see this explicitly codified in almost every single religion, judicial system, and philosophical system) also points to the notion that the worth of human life is distinct from that of the rest of the lifeforms.

Punishing someone for being cruel to animals is not raising the value of the life of animals so much as it is devaluing human life (in which liberty and property are entailed and essential).
 
#81
#81
therealUT said:
Are they? Do you often refer to animal actions as "immoral"? Do you not think that the rational capacity to act morally is a significant qualitative distinction? A distinction that is absolutely alien to the rest of the lifeforms that have ever been discovered and/or encountered on our planet seems like a pretty important distinction. The fact that intrinsic worth is also tied to moral capacity (we see this explicitly codified in almost every single religion, judicial system, and philosophical system) also points to the notion that the worth of human life is distinct from that of the rest of the lifeforms.

Punishing someone for being cruel to animals is not raising the value of the life of animals so much as it is devaluing human life (in which liberty and property are entailed and essential).
Click to expand...

The definition of "morals" is highly subjective.
 
#82
#82
VolsSportsFan said:
The definition of "morals" is highly subjective.
Click to expand...

As subjective as it is, it does not apply in any way, shape, or form to animals, as they are determined beings (unless you want to argue with Pavlov, in which case you are arguing for the free-will of animals and then it is cruel to have animals as pets, to keep them in holding pens for long periods of time before killing them to eat them, etc.) If you pick determined, then you admit the fundamentally significant distinction between humans and beasts; if you pick free-will, then while this would be a case of animal cruelty, every meat eater on the planet would be at best complicit in a conspiracy to enslave, torture, and kill beings with free-will. Either way, you are going to have a tough time singling out principled moral outrage for this one incident.
 
#83
#83
therealUT said:
As subjective as it is, it does not apply in any way, shape, or form to animals, as they are determined beings (unless you want to argue with Pavlov, in which case you are arguing for the free-will of animals and then it is cruel to have animals as pets, to keep them in holding pens for long periods of time before killing them to eat them, etc.) If you pick determined, then you admit the fundamentally significant distinction between humans and beasts; if you pick free-will, then while this would be a case of animal cruelty, every meat eater on the planet would be at best complicit in a conspiracy to enslave, torture, and kill beings with free-will. Either way, you are going to have a tough time singling out principled moral outrage for this one incident.
Click to expand...

Not really.
 
#84
#84
I am absolutely blown away by some of the over the top reactions in this thread.

Horrible thing he did, but beaten to death? Jailed for life? Probation for life?

Have a hard time believing that the people who made those statements even believe them.

If so, it must agonizing to be you, as much worse things happen on a daily basis to humans.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't be sadened or disturbed by his actions but pull the reigns back a bit.
 
Last edited:
#85
#85
I'm blown away by people that don't seem to grasp there's a difference between a domesticated pet and a chicken raised for food.

I don't think the guy should be jailed for life or put to death, that's overblowing it, but I wouldn't mind punching the guy a few times. It's very disturbing to me that a person can make anything suffer like that and not feel any remorse at all.
 
#86
#86
therealUT said:
Are they? Do you often refer to animal actions as "immoral"? Do you not think that the rational capacity to act morally is a significant qualitative distinction? A distinction that is absolutely alien to the rest of the lifeforms that have ever been discovered and/or encountered on our planet seems like a pretty important distinction. The fact that intrinsic worth is also tied to moral capacity (we see this explicitly codified in almost every single religion, judicial system, and philosophical system) also points to the notion that the worth of human life is distinct from that of the rest of the lifeforms.

Punishing someone for being cruel to animals is not raising the value of the life of animals so much as it is devaluing human life (in which liberty and property are entailed and essential).
Click to expand...

You keep using these weasel words which mean nothing. Man is the animal which talks and uses tools. Man is Chimpanzee 2.0. Please explain exactly what it is about humans that make them categorically different from other mammals. Why is torturing one a victimless crime and the other barbarism? I suffer when tortured; a dog suffers when tortured. What, specifically, makes my suffering important and the dog's meaningless?

If, as you seem to believe, the difference is man's capacity to act "morally," then please define exactly that you mean by that, and differentiate that supposed capacity from the long and bloody human history that has actually happened in the real world. Thanks.
 
#87
#87
Vercingetorix said:
You keep using these weasel words which mean nothing. Man is the animal which talks and uses tools. Man is Chimpanzee 2.0. Please explain exactly what it is about humans that make them categorically different from other mammals. Why is torturing one a victimless crime and the other barbarism? I suffer when tortured; a dog suffers when tortured. What, specifically, makes my suffering important and the dog's meaningless?

If, as you seem to believe, the difference is man's capacity to act "morally," then please define exactly that you mean by that, and differentiate that supposed capacity from the long and bloody human history that has actually happened in the real world. Thanks.
Click to expand...

As I stated, if you want to remove any significant distinction between humans and beasts (free-will vs. determinism; abstract rational thought vs. pure instinct; the capacity to suffer vs. the capacity to only feel pain in moments), then you are enslaving animals simply by domesticating them and the outrage in this single case is based purely on preference, not on principle.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top