Red
OK, I see the message behind your words. I've seen the videos and fliers that expose the horrors of raising livestock. Are these truly the conditions of ALL livestock and fowls? There are laws in place that have already considered the "morality" of raising food.

It appears the videos and fliers are in contradiction with these laws.....

Research can be done in many ways, and not to sound glib, but the byproducts you mentioned do not all stem from our current advancements in farming. Many of them deal with morals of quite another kind.

OK, I have read your points 3 times but I am not really sure how you got them from what I wrote.



The human species cannot survive without the survival of individuals. Conversely, if humans cannot survive neither can individuals. So I would have to say, yes. It would be wise to plan for the future, both short and long term.



I am missing the link between "animal rights" and microwave ovens. But to your later point, yes again. There are issues like pollution and disease that effect humanity as a whole. We will only find the solution to these problems by applying our intellect to solve the puzzles and our time (i.e., money) to apply the solutions. This holds for all cases: individuals, societies, short term and long.



I never suggested that we need each other. I said that working together is beneficial, but not required. Yes, an individual can exist on his own and in doing so will require his intellect to solve problems and plan for the future. If you are on your own, you must think or you will die.

There was also a time before we needed animals for labor that we didn't need them at all. My point is, we domesticated animals to harness the things that they had that we did not. They had strength, we caught them, trained them, harnessed them to a plow (and later used gears to enhance their power) to make our farming more efficient. Today, we use tractors instead of mules. They are more reliable, more powerful and more efficient.

I am sorry but I have missed the link once more. How does the fact that historically man has harnessed the power of animals for labor relate to "animal rights"?



Depending on your criteria of comparison, I do not necessarily believe that all men are created equal. However, I believe the exact opposite of what you have paraphrased. I give people a great deal of credit and I believe that all people should provide for themselves. Yes, we are all connected (again, the level of connection depends on your criteria), but connection does not mean either dependent or responsible.

Yes, providing opportunities is a very good thing, but providing opportunities is vastly different than providing basic needs. True, in cases of extreme circumstances (i.e., natural disasters) people often need food, clothing and shelter to sustain them until they can produce their own requirements. However, this is a limited situation. I have nothing against charity and believe it to be a highly noble endeavor. However, forced charity has another name: theft.



The issue that is usually being obfuscated is that one group is attempting to attain power over another group. I do not agree with Rush very often, but he is absolutely correct when he says "the smallest minority in the world is the individual". When a group believes that it should have "rights" that are denied to individuals outside their group then something shady is at work. If any person is allowed to marry, then all people should be allowed to marry (in my previous post this would be the idea of freedom).

Nothing against what you have written, but I am having trouble linking these ideas to the debate on animal rights. Perhaps you would be able to tell me what rights all animals should have and who is to provide for those rights?

In response to this, these issues have nothing to do with moral issues of other life but with (in some cases) a disregard of future outcomes.

But in all fairness, even you must appreciate the fact that modern agriculture produces more food than it ever has in the past. Enough food to feed the population of the world. Without these advances, human population would have been suppressed through starvation and disease to a level that could be been sustained by a lower production level.

In a very real sense, many of us would not be here today without these advancements.

Um, maybe convienence, and the fact we all would be at risk, so possibly safety.


In many species I think it is instinctual that they dont eat their own.


Im not positive, but I think this is true.

In a situation where there are two entities (individuals or groups) vying for limited resources (by “limited” I mean “insufficient to support both entities”), who has “rights” to the resources?

All other things being equal, there is no answer to that question other than “if there are any rights to be had, then both have rights to it”.

Now granted, that is an extreme, cut-and-dried example. And many of the things that Redy has brought up are much more complex.

But the fundamental basis for them is the same as for “beauty” – in the eye of the beholder.

I am not so sure that morality is subjective. Morality governs a persons actions and their choices may be based on subjective decisions, but does that make their choices moral?

I tend to believe that there is a right and wrong in the world. If your actions and decisions are based on a rational approach to a situation, then your morality will be more objective than subjective.

Consider this, taking a human life. As a society we have all decided that we will avoid taking another's life if possible. But the if possible does not cover dying yourself. If your life is threatened by another you are allowed to defend yourself using the minimum force necessary but up to and including killing your assailant. This is not a subjective response. It is based on the rational observation that your life is your greatest value and you are allowed to protect it.

Does that make sense the way I wrote it???

Morals and ethics are entirely subject to who is on power at the time and how they wield that might.

History shows this quite clearly.

Again we get into the ethics.vs.morals quagmire.

Unfortunately, every dictionary I've seen defines each in terms of the other. So here's how I personally differentiate between them:

Morals are, quite simply, agreed upon rules of conduct. Ethics on the other hand are the personal choices one makes vis-a-vis the best interests of himself and all his symbiotes. Thus, Ethics would include the choices one makes as to which set(s) of morals to abide by.

By those definitions, Morals are the product of group agreements and Ethics are the product of personal choices.

Neither of which could be considered "absolute" in any sense of the word.

And although some Morals may seem universal (e.g. It’s a bad thing to destroy the planet) there really aren’t any that cannot be viewed from a different perspective: The Drconians decide that Earth is interfering with the galactic shipping lanes and must be removed. From the perspective of the Draconians, the existence of earth is contrary to their best interests.

ok. I can follow that. Since rights are a social expression of morality.

But, can morality be objective?

If it cannot, then what happens to the individual whose morality is counter to the societies? There is no hope for an individual. Additionally, the best relationship that countries can hope would be a level of tolerance; the only way to alter it would be through conquest or proselytizing.

But would it be possible to develop a morality based on being human instead of being a member of a group? Would there be a way to evaluate a method of conduct that will objectively define what is good for all people?

I think it is possible if "less is more". If you minimize the rules to be the least restrictive necessary to protect the interests of everyone. But, I don't expect a lot of people to agree with me.

Sky,

So there are no morals without a group? An individual cannot be moral on his own unless he is being judged so by others? That would mean that we rely on others to define us, to tell us what to do and how to do it. That would mean that each of us is a simple brute that must be tamed and domesticated by society. That without society, we are lost and can NEVER be good.

I can't accept that. I think it is possible for an individual man to be both good and moral outside a group.

Not by the definitions I use, no.

Yeah, I’d say that’s pretty accurate.

Personally, I consider “the human race” to constitute a group. So although the parameters would not be the same for “the Kiwanis Club” and “the human race”, the same reasoning would apply – i.e. “what is in the best interests of the group?”

I totally agree. The problem centers around the difficulty of evaluating the bests interests of all concerned and choosing the optimum solution. Our current society seems to be bent on maximizing the rules instead of minimizing them. And it is interesting to note that this trend can become counter productive. A group in which everything is either mandatory or forbidden leaves no room for creativity. And creativity is probably the single most potent force for advancement of any group. So the society ends up shooting itself in the foot.

From the looks of it, gals like this type of questions. (Sorry. You gave me the perfect set-up and I could not resist the temptation.)

Don't skip over the Ethics.

Ethics are what give rise to the morals.

Someone must first make a personal choice as to what they believe to be the optimum conduct that will serve the best interests of something. That is Ethics. It is after that that morals come into play. Another person looks at whatever the first person has determined is optimum conduct and makes their own personal decision as to whether they agree or not. If they agree, then that activity becomes "moral" from the viewpoint of that group.

And particularly, don't mistake ethics for morals or vice versa (as you seem to have done in this post). Morals are simply rules of conduct. Ethics are the choices (including the reasoning behind those choices) as to which rules one will follow.

So technically (i.e. per the definition) a person on his own could not be “moral”. But that’s really a moot point. I can’t think of any situation where that would apply. A person always has some sort of relationship with something outside himself.

Now that is all based on my own prsonal definitions for Morals and Ethics. You can agree with those definitions or come up with your own.

But be warned, if you disagree with my definitions, you are immoral

I think your observation is very important.

I also think that much as non-human mammals can think on some very basic level, to varying degrees of complexity from one species to the next, I strongly believe that they have corresponding emotions. And furthermore, recently I've expanded the sphere of "primitive human psychology and neurobiology" as applied to other animals to morality as well.

I mean that if a female cat saves her kitties, she's acting out of some hazy semi-conscious moral convictions, and we, humans, call it "instinct" because we haven't happened to think that perhaps, just perhaps, that cool cat has positive emotional reactions to her own heroic moral sacrifice of risking her life to continue passing on her DNA.

If you say that I don't and can't know what is on the mind of a cat, and that imagining that she is capable of purely moral acts, and as an animal, sub-developed if compared to humans, is only capable of insticts, then I say that you ain't never been inside a cat's head for a visit, either, and you don't have any rights to assume to know how a cat has no feelings or morals. Etc.

Much like I believe that the painful, highly pointed and vividly sad cries of a parent-bird who cries over a freshly emptied nest of eggs or young offspring by a ferret or by a squirrel, is induced not only by an urge to communicate to his or her own species and understood by other species as well that "there is a baby-eater in our neighbourhood", but by personal grief and sadness and despair as well. I meat to say that I believe that birds are capable of feelings, and they don't just "act" it.

Well Sky, looks like I am immoral. I agree that morality is a code of conduct, but I believe that it is fashioned and maintained by the individual and not the group.

Wux,

I might have agreed with you if the mother cat had a choice in the matter. But if every cat reacts the same way to a particular circumstance, I am going to have to side with instinct. This happens when a male lion takes control of a pride. He systematically destroys every cub present so the females will go into heat and his genes will be passed along. The lionesses watch.

That's totally fine. I think workability is much more important than definitions. So as long as your definitions work for you, then I'm happy.

I wish I could take credit for this...

It is called actuality.

Why is it morally/ethically acceptable for one Being killing another?
...Aside from all of the valid reasons indicated, the crux of the matter lies in the MANIFESTATIONS Level (ML):

Humans manifest themselves through... (limitation of the disk space prevents me from listing all of the aspects...) -- Ultimate ML!

Cows manifest themselves ONLY through eating/drinking, sleeping, breeding, and... (thanks god -- cows don't fly!!!) -- Low ML!

* That fact -- in addition to the ease of domestication -- affords the carnivous humans the right of sustaining themselves at the expense of the other kinds of beings with Low ML...

P.S. Unless aliens can manifest their prence somehow, they aren't much different from the cows!!!

I might be off on another subject here but some veterinarians are playing God and throwing ethics out the window when you take your sick or injured pet to them and if you don't have $5,000 for an MRI, panel of blood tests, catheterization, pain meds, I'Vs. etc the only other choice is euthanasia. The vet who is supposed to care about animals will gladly kill your pet if you can't pay.