100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Rights to life. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
What is the difference between a cow and a man. What makes it right for a man to eat a cow, but makes it wrong for a cow to eat a man? How do we determine if a being deserves a right to life? What makes humans responsible for anything, themselves, others? Why do dogs have rights in America? Why do cats? Why not squirrels? If we discovered aliens on Neptune that where essentially a multi cellular puddle would humanity care if it where intelligent? How intelligent would it have to be to have a right to life? How intelligent to be responsible for Neptune, and its sovereignty? Would they need to be powerful to be respected, wise, knowledgeable? What characteristics determine these rights? If your response is god, then please let me know how he decides. But the cow can't tell us why it is doing these things, we think that the cow doesn't know why either and we label this "instinct". So we feel in the end that it is just an animal, driven on by its DNA set to survive and propogate. And the cow WANTS to do these things, still it can not "rise above" these basic drives. Also, a cow can't comprehend the structure of light, but on some level it understands light. So what makes it right for a man to eat a cow? Well, they're good toe eat  , we and all lifeforms on Earth need to consume. The cows get the water and grass and grains we supply them, they get the medicines that we give them so they're healthy and we get the cows. So basically, we need to eat and in the end, the cow really doesn't care that you are feeding it just to eat it, it is simply happy that IT has something to eat. Do we have a right to do this? A shockingly simple answer: Who's gonna stop us, in the thousands of years that we have bred cattle, who has ever stopped us? We have the right to eat them simply because we CAN. And what makes it wrong for a cow to eat a man? HEY, cows aren't supposed to be thinking about that kind of stuff!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Bushi, a terrible legacy indeed. But any time we look at another animal as an object we are either choosing to ignore the pain and suffering we cause, or we do so without a critical thought process, and accept what society has taught us.
Most of my family have been great fishermen and when my father was teaching me how to fish he swore the fish had no nerve endings around their mouth. then the first fish he caught swollowed the hook, a new hook and my father wanted it back. After gutting the fish he threw it back, it was too small. I wanted to be with my family so I fished (secretly dropping the bait in the water) which was usually a live worm or minnow securely hooked through and fished with a bare hook. Then one day the shiney hook caught the attention of a snapping turtle. I cried myself to sleep that night and never fished again. Oddly I developed an aversion to eating fish!!! Did you know you can bread or batter small pieces of couliflower, deep fry them and people will think its shrimp. I had a lot of people fooled. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 08/15/09 03:02 PM
|
|
Hi Redy. Good to 'see' you.
 Hi Everyone, Good philosophical topic Bushi. We might stop to consider what differences exist between humans and other animals. And then we might consider the interconnectedness of all living creatures to each other and the environment which we must all share. Traditionally the moral aspect of ethics was concerned with the rights of humans. Specifically, what are the basic needs of humans to survive, and if all humans by their intrinsic nature (as human) are equal what can they expect of this life. This narrow thinking stems directly from some religious beliefs which invariably set humanity in a place of superiority over all other life. This way of thinking has been a tradition for thousands of years. Further philosophical thought has expanded the morals of basic human needs and legitimate expectations to all life because all life is actually interconnected regardless of the nature of our being. Consider the fact that not all humans have the same intellectual ability, not all humans have the same athletic ability, and some face other extreme handicaps, yet we do not “de-humanize” them, they are still others with an intrinsic value that makes their basic human needs and expectations of life equal to all others. So why would humans, in all their diversity, still be superior to animals? In this thread it has been stated that we raise animals for the purpose of providing food, as work animals, enjoyment, and for all types of invasive experimentation. In other words, just because we allow animals to breed in accordance to our wishes we have the right to mistreat them, to deny their basic needs and their particular life’s expectations. This is not an acceptable answer for many reasons. Kant says we cannot use others as objects and be in the moral right, in other words we cannot use another as a means to an end. When we do this we are denying others inherent value, the same value that is inherently (equal) in all humans as persons. Once again, we have to question why are the basic needs and expectations of humans any greater than that of any other animal life? After all, humans can not live without the rest of the environment, including other animals. But humans can live without eating other animals so the question remains why shouldn’t we? Because according to Kant we are using others as a means to our end, we are objectifying animals making them things for our pleasure. This is why we don’t keep slaves, they are people/persons not things to serve our desires. Neither are animals, but if you think they are just objects to be used as a means to our ends, explain why their rights should be any different than our own? I’m going to tackle that last question, just for the sake of argument/discussion. The simplistic answer is “Because they are not me.” But of course that needs some explanation. Assuming you accept the definitions I quoted in an earlier post, your argument is based on the “natural rights”, or “those things due to one by nature”. With “survival” being the single lowest common denominator in all of nature (as regards ‘life’ – it obviously does not apply to inanimate objects), then in any case where my survival is in conflict with the survival of another, my rights would “naturally” have to supercede the rights the other – from my viewpoint. This is why I don’t agree with any type of absolute “rights”. Rights are, and must always be relative to a specific viewpoint and set of circumstances. As the viewpoints and circumstances change, so do the rights. The slippery area is in delineating what exactly constitutes “survival”. In my opinion, survival is a gradient scale that includes a myriad of relationships between entities. For example, using a horse to pull a plow. That has a higher survival value than tilling a field by human muscle power alone. It also has survival value for the horse because of the care given to it by the farmer. But if the crop is destroyed by locusts and there is no other source of food, killing and eating the horse would have a much higher survival value for the farmer than letting the horse live and dying of starvation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Might makes right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 08/15/09 03:44 PM
|
|
I think "Might is Right" would be more accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Sky,
With “survival” being the single lowest common denominator in all of nature (as regards ‘life’ – it obviously does not apply to inanimate objects), then in any case where my survival is in conflict with the survival of another, my rights would “naturally” have to supercede the rights the other – from my viewpoint. If you are out in the woods and bear takes chase, you will do whatever you need to survive, if you have a weapon you will use it. No one, not even ethics can argue with that. For example, using a horse to pull a plow. That has a higher survival value than tilling a field by human muscle power alone. It also has survival value for the horse because of the care given to it by the farmer. But if the crop is destroyed by locusts and there is no other source of food, killing and eating the horse would have a much higher survival value for the farmer than letting the horse live and dying of starvation. Work animals throughout history have generally been treated more than fair, often being fed before their owners. About the other part, let me present a scenario. Plane crash, frozen mountain, injured person. Does might make right? Do you cannibalize to survive, without knowing if you will survive? Can you live happily with yourself if you are rescued within hours of having your meal? Why is that different than the poor horse in your story? The injured person needed care, the horse could be turned loose to live – perhaps a note written and attached to the horse, any number of ideas come to mind. Perhaps if there was a small child in the family, they might make a meal of that child and spare the horse for more labor—to get to other people for help maybe????? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fusion99
To answer the first question, we think a cow can't say or comprehend " I AM", whereas a man, can. So the difference we place upon a cow and ourselves is that a cow can't "initiate" more complex thought patterns. True it can see and interact with other cows and animals, it can feed itself, clean itself and take care of its young, i.e. nurturing, teaching, feeding and protection from threats from recognized carnivores. So if some superior life form visits our planet and they happen to be vampires, they are definitely within their rights to enslave us, breed us, use us for their pleasure, experiment with us, and ultimately use us as food? Or another example: Another group of humans invents a weapon that can serve to enslave every other human. They have the right to do so, simply because they can. Is what you really believe, that everyone is just out for themselves and the strongest, bravest and most intelligent deserve to take power and do with the rest of us what they please? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Sky, With “survival” being the single lowest common denominator in all of nature (as regards ‘life’ – it obviously does not apply to inanimate objects), then in any case where my survival is in conflict with the survival of another, my rights would “naturally” have to supercede the rights the other – from my viewpoint. If you are out in the woods and bear takes chase, you will do whatever you need to survive, if you have a weapon you will use it. No one, not even ethics can argue with that. For example, using a horse to pull a plow. That has a higher survival value than tilling a field by human muscle power alone. It also has survival value for the horse because of the care given to it by the farmer. But if the crop is destroyed by locusts and there is no other source of food, killing and eating the horse would have a much higher survival value for the farmer than letting the horse live and dying of starvation. Work animals throughout history have generally been treated more than fair, often being fed before their owners. About the other part, let me present a scenario. Plane crash, frozen mountain, injured person. Does might make right? Do you cannibalize to survive, without knowing if you will survive? Can you live happily with yourself if you are rescued within hours of having your meal? Why is that different than the poor horse in your story? The injured person needed care, the horse could be turned loose to live – perhaps a note written and attached to the horse, any number of ideas come to mind. Perhaps if there was a small child in the family, they might make a meal of that child and spare the horse for more labor—to get to other people for help maybe????? Well it would be sheer idiocy for me to attempt to give a definitive answer to a complex and highly emotionally charged ethical situation, based on the information given by a single, six-word sentence. So I’m going to interpret that whole post as being completely rhetorical, with the single exception of the question “How is that different than the poor horse?” Now since this has now become centered around ethics, all I can say is that the difference is in the circumstances of the situation. If you’re asking for the general rules that I would use in making the decisions, I guess they would be… 1. All else being equal, I would be more inclined to choose the survival of a human over the survival of a horse. 2. All else being equal, I would be more inclined to choose the survival of myself over the survival of someone else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know a couple of Buddhist monks that would disagree with you on that. I don't doubt that. But can Buddhist monks truly be said to always be practical? Religious leaders often say things that simply aren't practicle. For example, Jesus taught to turn the other cheek and that if a theif steals from you give him your cloke also. But is that kind of pacifism truly practical? If the world would have turned the other cheek to men like Hitler we'd all be slaves of the Nazi Germans. Those kinds of philosophies and religious teachings seem to only make any sense if there is some afterlife where the oppressed people are then later rewarded for their pacifism.. Even many of the Buddhists believe in reincarnation and that what they do in this life will have an affect on their next life, etc. Nature herself created a dog-eat-dog world. If humans respect all living things and have compassion for them, then humans have actually become the moral suprerior of the very nature that created them. Because nature sure as hell doesn't give a hoot. Nature would swallow up those Buddhists monks in a typhone tsunami in a hearbeat. They might think they are doing something that is morally lofty, but if it's nothing more than just their own opinion then what value does it truly have in the end? Where does nature herself give us any such moral examples? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morals and ethics are man-made concepts.
Nature has neither. The collective conscience. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morals and ethics are man-made concepts. Nature has neither. The collective conscience. I understand and agree with the first two statements, but not the last. Can you expound on that? What is "collective conscience" and how does it relate to the topic? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I don't doubt that. But can Buddhist monks truly be said to always be practical? "
My point was that practical means to be put into practice; to be used in day to day situations. They demonstrate that their beliefs can be practiced. Had I agreed with them then I would be a Buddhist monk as well. I must admit that I feel a bit daunted in this discussion on morals because there are so many different view points and so many primary positions that must be established before any higher level conclusions can be reached. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They might think they are doing something that is morally lofty, but if it's nothing more than just their own opinion then what value does it truly have in the end? Seriously? If they believe that a particular perspective is correct (specifically, believing that you have a measure of control over the universe is an expression of ego and protecting that ego will lead you to pain) then translating that belief into physical action is integrity -- a state in which one's beliefs and one's actions are in harmony. I think most people find integrity to be a virtue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand and agree with the first two statements, but not the last. Can you expound on that? What is "collective conscience" and how does it relate to the topic? Morals and ethics are a product of man which measure right and wrong and provide laws to preserve what we believe to be our inalienable rights. Transference of those rights to non-human animals are a product of the collective conscience. The morals and ethics which most of society agree upon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fusion99 To answer the first question, we think a cow can't say or comprehend " I AM", whereas a man, can. So the difference we place upon a cow and ourselves is that a cow can't "initiate" more complex thought patterns. True it can see and interact with other cows and animals, it can feed itself, clean itself and take care of its young, i.e. nurturing, teaching, feeding and protection from threats from recognized carnivores. So if some superior life form visits our planet and they happen to be vampires, they are definitely within their rights to enslave us, breed us, use us for their pleasure, experiment with us, and ultimately use us as food? Or another example: Another group of humans invents a weapon that can serve to enslave every other human. They have the right to do so, simply because they can. Is what you really believe, that everyone is just out for themselves and the strongest, bravest and most intelligent deserve to take power and do with the rest of us what they please? One of my favorite quotes is from William S. Burroughs: "NOTHING IS ALLOWED. EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED." This is what I was trying to convey, there are limits to our power, limits to the cows. You want to eat that animal, go ahead, it's within your power. And this isn't an arguemnt for power is might...you already have the power. And since we have the power, we eat the cows simply because we can. We do all the things we have done for that same reason. We can look back in hindsight and attach the morals,ethics,virtues and vices simply because you can. So with that in mind, if your Scenario 1 were to take place, then yes, that advanced vampire race can do all those things simply because they can, it's within their power....the question is how much is in our power to stop it? In the end it is still the same game of Nature: Eat or be Eaten. As for the Scenario 2, I can't attach the morals, etc. to my belief because the arguemnt is still the same. Besides the rules we impose upon ourselves, I still say "Nothing is allowed. Everything is Permitted." Of course I'm not advocating cruelty to animals or painfull death, but the only way to eat the cow is to kill it. Eat or Be Eaten. Look forward to your response! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand and agree with the first two statements, but not the last. Can you expound on that? What is "collective conscience" and how does it relate to the topic? Morals and ethics are a product of man which measure right and wrong and provide laws to preserve what we believe to be our inalienable rights. Transference of those rights to non-human animals are a product of the collective conscience. The morals and ethics which most of society agree upon. Very concise argument for the "might makes right" viewpoint. Well done. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lions eat cows, and tigers, and wolves, and bears. and they eat rabbits, and deer, and mice, and sheep, and sometimes people
why does no one try to attach morality to them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hear a lot of justification....of 'rights', of 'might'...
I guess for me, I sit with those who feel a responsibility, as a participant on this planet, to all life. Call it buddhism, collective consciousness, higher consciousness, or lefty weirdo hippy greeny, tree hugging, patchouli wearing, extremeist... the labels make no difference to how I feel... Cause no harm. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 08/15/09 06:57 PM
|
|
I hear a lot of justification....of 'rights', of 'might'... I guess for me, I sit with those who feel a responsibility, as a participant on this planet, to all life. Call it buddhism, collective consciousness, higher consciousness, or lefty weirdo hippy greeny, tree hugging, patchouli wearing, extremeist... the labels make no difference to how I feel... Cause no harm. It's a shame that everyone in the world doesn't share the exact same same viewpoint as everyone else in the world. Then we would all be in agreement as to what rights should and should not be offered to whom. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 08/15/09 08:09 PM
|
|
What is the difference between a cow and a man. What makes it right for a man to eat a cow, but makes it wrong for a cow to eat a man? A cow is a vegetarian. A cow is stupid. How do we determine if a being deserves a right to life? The stupid have to die!  We may as well eat them.  What makes humans responsible for anything, themselves, others? If you want dominion over others you have to take responsibility. If you take responsibility, you are responsible. Why do dogs have rights in America? Why do cats? Why not squirrels? Being put in a chamber and having the life sucked out of you until you die is not "having rights." Cats have no rights. You cannot even own a cat. If your cat is stolen, you cannot charge anyone with theft. If your cat is kidnapped and held for ransom it is not a crime. You have to sue for personal mental pain and suffering. Squirrels are protected in some cities. In Pueblo, it was a tort that came with a fine for running over a squirrel with your car. Yet you could run over a cat or dog with no repercussions. If we discovered aliens on Neptune that where essentially a multi cellular puddle would humanity care if it where intelligent? How intelligent would it have to be to have a right to life? How intelligent to be responsible for Neptune, and its sovereignty? Would they need to be powerful to be respected, wise, knowledgeable? Yes. Even on this earth a country apparently has no right to sovereignty unless it has a formidable army. Look what we did to the Native Americans and look what we are still doing to them here and in Canada. Genocide. Is it wrong? Personally I think it is, but I live on land where native Americans once lived and were driven off by starvation. Is it a fact? Yes. We eat cows because they taste good and they have no army. What characteristics determine these rights? If your response is god, then please let me know how he decides. The big fish eats the little fish. This is the way of the physical universe. The entire universal body is all about energy. It is a grab for energy. Food is energy in the lower density. It is a world where you either eat or are eaten. Is it right? It does not matter. It is the way it is. |
|
|
|
|
