Moral dilemma

Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
- J4m3z
- Ex-Muslim
- طالب الفلسفة
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #30 - June 06, 2009, 01:09 AM

Quote from: Q-Man on June 06, 2009, 12:52 AM
I know, not particularly satisfying is it? But for me, pork chops tasting good and leather jackets looking fly have always been sufficient justification.

So are you saying there are no underlying moral principles? What about the view that all moral justifications are subjective?

The unlived life is not worth examining.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #31 - June 06, 2009, 08:09 AM

So Bob, as a result of trying to do good you ended up killing an innocent crow that was just trying to survive as crows do and may well have had chicks to feed. Interesting, is it not?

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- Saif Rahman
- Ex-Muslim
- Je suis Haram
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #32 - June 06, 2009, 08:24 AM

the crow was collateral damage

My Book
My Blog
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #33 - June 06, 2009, 08:29 AM

Ah. So the forces of good prevailed then. Cool.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- sojournerlumus
- Pub Regular
- Belief beggars reason.
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #34 - June 06, 2009, 08:48 AM

Quote from: J4m3z on June 05, 2009, 08:39 PM
what about killing animals for food?

Perfectly OK providing the creature is killed as swiftly and as painlessly as possible. I don't think halal killing is humane at all and I think it was a retrograde step to allow it here in the UK when we had just devised a more humane method of dispatch. Religion should not come between a quick, clean, painfree death.

Humans are evolved omnivores. The fossil record tells us that generation upon generation of evolving anthropoid popns relied almost exclusively on meat at times, as they still do today, in places. Our brains, optical arrangement , dentition, jaws, stomach enzymes, relative length of the different intestinal parts and many other evolved features fit us to feed on a wide range of plants and animals . It's one of the things that's made humans so successful.
Lettuce is for slugs and snails, speaking of which - snails in garlic butter, yum yum.

Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
- J4m3z
- Ex-Muslim
- طالب الفلسفة
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #35 - June 06, 2009, 01:45 PM

Quote from: sojournerlumus on June 06, 2009, 08:48 AM
Perfectly OK providing the creature is killed as swiftly and as painlessly as possible. I don't think halal killing is humane at all and I think it was a retrograde step to allow it here in the UK when we had just devised a more humane method of dispatch. Religion should not come between a quick, clean, painfree death.

But what I am trying to get at is an underlying moral principle behind all this. Why is it OK to kill a creature for food as long as it does not suffer any pain in the process?

Would you be willing to accept somebody wanting to kill a dog for food?

Quote
Humans are evolved omnivores. The fossil record tells us that generation upon generation of evolving anthropoid popns relied almost exclusively on meat at times, as they still do today, in places. Our brains, optical arrangement , dentition, jaws, stomach enzymes, relative length of the different intestinal parts and many other evolved features fit us to feed on a wide range of plants and animals . It's one of the things that's made humans so successful.
Lettuce is for slugs and snails, speaking of which - snails in garlic butter, yum yum.

So is the underlying moral principle that what is natural is good?

The unlived life is not worth examining.
- Colonel Q-Daffi
- White Trash Sand Wigga
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #36 - June 06, 2009, 06:30 PM

Quote from: J4m3z on June 06, 2009, 01:09 AM
So are you saying there are no underlying moral principles? What about the view that all moral justifications are subjective?

No, in fact, I tend to take the opposite view. What I'm saying is that meat tastes good and leather looks/feels good, and beyond not harming animals for fun and treating well those I keep as pets, I really don't have a place in my personal moral code for animals-- how to treat and interact with people is enough of a bother. So I'm saying that, regardless of what the universal morality of eating or wearing animal flesh is, I'm not going to bother investigating it.

fuck you
- RIBS
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #37 - June 06, 2009, 06:53 PM

OK BOB Here is your story illustrated!

+ + =

...
- sojournerlumus
- Pub Regular
- Belief beggars reason.
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #38 - June 06, 2009, 09:08 PM

Quote from: J4m3z on June 06, 2009, 01:45 PM
But what I am trying to get at is an underlying moral principle behind all this. Why is it OK to kill a creature for food as long as it does not suffer any pain in the process?

Would you be willing to accept somebody wanting to kill a dog for food?

So is the underlying moral principle that what is natural is good?

Yes, even as a dog owner, I would do what humans have always done in extremis; I'd eat dog meat. I see no difference between the validities of any living organisms and accept all as being equal. Just think, if there were no bacteria or fungi at the most basic levels of life, the rest would just not have evolved. So, the biosphere needs bacteria more than anything else.
I don't think that the idea of evolution should impose any straight-jacket of hierarchy or order of importance in which any one species or group of spp is 'higher' than another; we are plainly interdependent.

At this time in the history of the biosphere we seem to be realising too late that, for the continued well being of human popns, everything depends on everything else for survival and if we destroy and outbreed everything else on the planet , then we reduce the likelihood of our own successful continuance. We need to find a way of reducing human popns to planetary sustainable levels and to stop treating the world as a giant chemistry set.
This sounds a bit or-else apocalyptic, I know, but it might form the basis for the underlying 'natural' morality you seem to crave.
I don't think it will matter one jot though: we're not smart enough to think our way out of it; 6.6 billion and still rising - Soylent Green here we come!
Sorry this post rambles on a bit, I'm nearly ready for my bo bos, but I hope you can see what I mean.

Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
- Submissive Bob
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #39 - June 07, 2009, 07:03 PM

Quote from: RIBS on June 06, 2009, 06:53 PM
OK BOB Here is your story illustrated!

+ + =

BB

My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable and I'm just ferocious. I want your heart. I want to eat your children. Praise be to Allah." -- Mike Tyson
- J4m3z
- Ex-Muslim
- طالب الفلسفة
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #40 - June 08, 2009, 07:10 PM

Quote from: sojournerlumus on June 06, 2009, 09:08 PM
Yes, even as a dog owner, I would do what humans have always done in extremis; I'd eat dog meat. I see no difference between the validities of any living organisms and accept all as being equal. Just think, if there were no bacteria or fungi at the most basic levels of life, the rest would just not have evolved. So, the biosphere needs bacteria more than anything else.
I don't think that the idea of evolution should impose any straight-jacket of hierarchy or order of importance in which any one species or group of spp is 'higher' than another; we are plainly interdependent.

So why are we allowed to eat non-human animal meat?

And why is it wrong (I assume you think this is wrong) to farm humans and produce human animal meat for consumption?

The unlived life is not worth examining.
- onlyme
- Satan Himself
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #41 - June 08, 2009, 08:45 PM

Quote from: Cheetah on June 05, 2009, 05:11 PM
I'd stop and pick up the bunny and take it to the vet.

same here dont even need to think

You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do
- Johnmuslim
- Member
- Nicht Ein Muslim
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #42 - June 08, 2009, 10:32 PM

think of it this way, you help the bunny out and 5 minutes later its eaten by a fox.

fate is fate, cant do shit to stop it.

Watch the time machine for a better clue as to how fate works.

I hear what you're saying. You're spinning my head around.
- J4m3z
- Ex-Muslim
- طالب الفلسفة
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #43 - June 08, 2009, 11:02 PM

Quote from: Johnmuslim on June 08, 2009, 10:32 PM
think of it this way, you help the bunny out and 5 minutes later its eaten by a fox.

fate is fate, cant do shit to stop it.

Watch the time machine for a better clue as to how fate works.

Do you believe humans and animals have free will?

The unlived life is not worth examining.
- Johnmuslim
- Member
- Nicht Ein Muslim
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #44 - June 08, 2009, 11:08 PM

Quote from: J4m3z on June 08, 2009, 11:02 PM
Do you believe humans and animals have free will?

Humans yes

Animals dont have this capacity me thinks not. Not in true sense of the word, for me free will means having the ability to make decisions based on long term consequences as well as short term

animals can make decisions based on short term consequences (run otherwise I'll be eaten) but they cant make any based on long term consequences

for me an action is only worth doing if it has some desirable effect or if it stops a negative effect, thats why I described it in the way I did above, if you stop it now it may only prolong the life for 5 minutes so whats the point?

I hear what you're saying. You're spinning my head around.
- J4m3z
- Ex-Muslim
- طالب الفلسفة
- offline
Re: Moral dilemma
Reply #45 - June 09, 2009, 12:00 AM

Quote from: Johnmuslim on June 08, 2009, 11:08 PM
Humans yes

Animals dont have this capacity me thinks not. Not in true sense of the word, for me free will means having the ability to make decisions based on long term consequences as well as short term

What about people who are quite unintelligent and can't make decisions for consequential reasons, long-term or short-term, but they simply follow their immediate desire? This kind of behaviour would be better described as "instinctual" which is perhaps what the non-human animals have. But shouldn't such human people still be viewed as having "free will"?

And what ultimately is free will? Isn't it simply "the ability to intend"? If that is the case, would it be right to say that instinct contains the ability to intend? And if so, doesn't everything then that has instinct also have free will? And then wouldn't all animals, human and non-human be viewed as having free will?

The unlived life is not worth examining.
Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »