Philosophy Now Forum

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 5:17 pm

Eudaimonia23 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 4:12 pm Plants are living organisms, but they don't have a central nervous system, so they don't experience any pain.

This is kind of basic lol shouldn't even have to explain this.

It's perfectly ethical to eat carrots. They don't experience any anxiety or pain when consumed.

Slaughtering animals, on the other hand, is a whole different ball game.

Veganism is about minimizing pain and suffering.

A philosophical discussion of animal's status must distinguish between wild animals and human created domesticated animals whose entire reason for existing at all is to be culled for their contribution to humans.

If there is no need for animal contribution, say horses for transportation, their numbers drop dramatically due to economic forces without any particular plea or mandate. It is erroneous to suppose that it is "unnatural" to kill and eat animals specifically invented for that purpose (as opposed to hunting wild animals for the same thing).

As a separate and in my opinion, more important issue, improving the conditions of the segment of the ranching industry that occupies the lowest portion of the spectrum is where the most actual improvements in animal welfare will occur.

I never stated that it's unnatural to kill animals.

On the contrary, it is actually natural to kill animals.

But just because something is natural, that doesn't necessarily make it morally right.

Rape, for example, is natural. But any civilized person would say it's morally reprehensible.

You also need to remember that those animals that have been culled and created a certain way are still living, breathing beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering.

I don't know if you are lacking the ability to experience empathy and compassion, but yeah, having your throat slit open doesn't feel good, even for culled and specifically created animals.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2024 2:37 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2024 8:56 amAnimals are placed here for HQ's use and entertainment.

You're not wrong...

Why is the opposite not true, that the caveman was placed here for the animals's use and entertainment?

Surely the sabertooth cat would like to play around a little with the caveman before eating him?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 6:01 pm

You're not wrong either.

If I march out onto the Savanah unarmed, and I tun across a *pride, I ought to expect to get et (and played with beforehand).




*lions, not da gheys

Hm maybe the caveman doesn't limit empathy to thinking beings or beings with souls. Maybe the caveman exists in a primitive state prior to empathy altogether.

I think life in general is sadistic, cruel, and barbaric. We are stuck in this world of natural evil. Animals and nature are innately evil, in fact they need to be in order to live. We as higher functioning beings have a responsibility to rise above that evil and protect nature.

Atla,

Let's see, we have 5 cats -- Socks, Tigs, Foots, BW, Big O -- and an ever changing cast of squirrels and possums. I like 'em all. But they ain't people. Age, Harbal, Flash, etc., I don't like 'em at all. But they are people.

Push comes to shove: who you think I'm gonna pull out of the burning building, animals I like or people I don't?

It ain't about empathy: it's about right and wrong. Morality. In a sense, I owe sumthin' to the people, that I don't owe the animals.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 6:42 pm Atla,

Let's see, we have 5 cats -- Socks, Tigs, Foots, BW, Big O -- and an ever changing cast of squirrels and possums. I like 'em all. But they ain't people. Age, Harbal, Flash, etc., I don't like 'em at all. But they are people.

Push comes to shove: who you think I'm gonna pull out of the burning building, animals I like or people I don't?

It ain't about empathy: it's about right and wrong. Morality. In a sense, I owe sumthin' to the people, that I don't owe the animals.

But that's not morality, that's not right and wrong, it's something less. There is no morality without empathy.

I had some Soy Nuggets that were pretty good, fried them with some onions and mushrooms.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 6:49 pmThere is no morality without empathy.

Can't agree with you. I don't have to like you or feel for you to recognize and respect your personhood. And that -- recognizing and respecting you as person -- is what morality is all about.

Osric wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 6:55 pm I had some Soy Nuggets that were pretty good, fried them with some onions and mushrooms.

Eat a steak. Real cow, not reshaped veg. Have it rare. Enjoy it.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 6:57 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 6:49 pmThere is no morality without empathy.

Can't agree with you. I don't have to like you or feel for you to recognize and respect your personhood. And that -- recognizing and respecting you as person -- is what morality is all about.

No, that's a conceptual imitation of morality without the actual morality. It's not so rare.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 6:59 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 6:57 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 6:49 pmThere is no morality without empathy.

Can't agree with you. I don't have to like you or feel for you to recognize and respect your personhood. And that -- recognizing and respecting you as person -- is what morality is all about.

No, that's a conceptual imitation of morality without the actual morality. It's not so rare.

Tell me what you think morality is please.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 7:01 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 6:59 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 6:57 pm

Can't agree with you. I don't have to like you or feel for you to recognize and respect your personhood. And that -- recognizing and respecting you as person -- is what morality is all about.

No, that's a conceptual imitation of morality without the actual morality. It's not so rare.

Tell me what you think morality is please.

impossible

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 7:03 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 7:01 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 6:59 pm

No, that's a conceptual imitation of morality without the actual morality. It's not so rare.

Tell me what you think morality is please.

impossible

Why?

So the purpose of my question was to show that the liberty, freedom and rights that humans inherently have (somehow H. Quirk just knows this) does not extend to animals, apparently, and yet there is no way to derive any theory of animal rights from the deist philosophy.

Most religions tell u what animals are for and what to do with em, and part of that is that they don't have the same rights as humans.

So when H. Quirk says that he's a life form with a soul and natural rights, extended to him by his creator, how is he sure those rights aren't extended to all living things (with nervous systems let's say) by that creator?

One thing he can do is attempt a technical argument where he tries to show that there is a special kind of difference between humans and other animals that gives the humans certain rights that other animals don't get. He'll say things like self-awareness, complex language, and opposable thumbs is the evidence that the creator meant only for them to have freedom, liberty and a right to life. But that's just guessing. U can't possibly KNOW know this.

Then he'll play this card; if humans have'ta eat meat, and the universe was intelligently designed, then eating meat is an intelligent thing that humans do.

Yeah but u can't KNOW know this either. Plus we don't gotta eat meat.

Anywho i find it interesting how a deist as adamant as Henry Q is about being free as a bird and all that, could so easily strip a lesser creature of its freedom and right to live.

The excuse other religious people have is 'god said I could'... but Henry Q don't got no god havin truck with em I don't reckon.