I think you got your name on a spammer's list. You can probably expect another couple of emails from different addresses saying the same thing.

Embrace the dark side

Other people's pain will keep you warm at night.

Your response agrees with my position. You are suggesting that there is something "wrong" with them as they are and that they can be fixed?repaired?made better? In short, your response has led you to separate judging the actions of the individual from your vision of who the individual could be.

I have no way of knowing who they could be, but more importantly I have no way of knowing who they WANT to be. Their purpose for their own life is their decision. If I find fault with their degradation, abuse and enslavement of others... then yes, I am better than they are.

boy, miss a day, miss a lot.


That seems reasonable. For myself, I tend to make the distinction that Ethics is the evaluation of what is right and wrong while morality is applied ethics and a moral code are the rules by which one pursues "the good". But this definition seems to cover that.


this is loaded language that I don't necessarily agree with.


Men are not equal. In America, in the eyes of the law all men are equal, but to suggest that everyone should be "respected" simply because they are human is a flawed suggestion. When police enter a dwelling where the floors and walls are covered with feces and rotted food, the children are naked and filthy and the parents are in a drug induced stupor; would you say that you "respect" the parents or the choices they have made? Respect is earned through actions not by virtue of birth.

Ethics is a determination of right and wrong. As such it requires an intellectual choice. Only humans make intellectual choices, therefore ethics is only helpful or required for humans. Animals do not have freewill. They do not make choices of right and wrong or good and evil.

This planet does not require everything that nature has created to remain balanced (and I am not even sure if the existing balance is required*). If this planet did require everything, then it would never recover from the mass extinctions of the past (There have been 5 known mass extinctions, one of which 251 million years ago destroyed 95% of all species on earth. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/extinction_sidebar_000907.html).

We, as humans, need certain things in nature for this planet to be habitable, but that is something completely different and leads to a different view of things.

While it is true that all things in nature are interconnected, that does not preclude change. It occurs in nature all the time where there is a shift instigated by one species or event that the surrounding species must adjust to.



I do not think this would lead to any insights or wisdom. First, the law is a strict set of guidelines. Where you were raised, who your parents are, what faith you adhere to are (or should be) completely irrelevant in determining guilt or innocence. Furthermore, to interpret other's moral code based upon their culture is good for an anthropologist but I do not believe it to be helpful here. One quick example: Where I live a man cut his wife's head off with a saw because she said she wanted a divorce. Given your ethical stance above, this would be wrong. However, this man claims that he is a Muslim and it is within his rights. Should we interpret his actions through the lens of his culture and agree with him?



There are no "intrinsic values". There is nothing that you can point to that is "good" just because it is. To be valuable, something must be good "for something". Gold has no intrinsic value. However, we have noticed that it is very stable and does not rust, that makes it good for currency. A tree is not good because it is a tree. It might be good for us because it is a CO2 scrubber or because it will aid in drainage or soil retention or makes good building materials or is an excellent resource for paper (which in itself is invaluable for transmitting information from one generation to another), but a tree is not good or bad.

When you say that something is "good" in and of itself and outside its relationship to other things... that is a religious interpretation for God.



I really agree with this (if I am understanding you correctly). We must move to an ethical understanding of the world that transcends culture, religion and society. In short, we must approach morality from our greatest common factor: being human. We must accept that even though we may have learned right and wrong from a limited cultural view point, that should not keep us from moving beyond that.
-------------------------------

Unfortunately, as much as I enjoy debating ideas, I am quickly running out of time to read and respond in the depth required. Since I will have to limit myself to a part time participant to this thread, please feel free to disregard my above reservations to that you may more easily form a consensus.

------------------------------
* by existing balance I mean that balance is an idea, not a thing, and there are many ways to create equilibrium. If you place your finger half way along a yard stick, you can balance it there. However, you may still achieve equilibrium by moving your finger closer to one end if you compensate with weight on the other. We all know this. What makes one type of balance "better" than another?

Those who say that we must maintain the natural order of things because that is the way it was created are not really answering the question.

It is true that to alter a balance point requires an understanding of all the interacting forces, but is that an argument against the "right or wrong" of changing the balance? To me it sounds more cautionary than a charge of immorality. Change the world all you like, just understand what you are doing.

A case in point would be hydroelectric power. No one can deny that there is a huge impact on the environment when people dam rivers. However, the benefits for both power and agriculture are monumental.

Sorry Bushido, I am not really sure I am following you.

You want us to imagine a perfect world so that we can imagine a perfect morality?

I don't think I can do that since I am the guy who believes our morality is based on our human condition. In essence, the fundamental choice to live or to die.

Every human must make this choice every conscious minute. Do you light a cigarette or not? Do you throw out that tin can or recycle it? Do you blow off work to party with your friends? Do you go to college? Do you accept a high paying but ultimately unfulfilling job? Do you choose to have children?

I think every choice you make ultimately boils down to your life and how you want to live it. By removing the need to make these choices you minimize the most basic question of ethics: is it right or wrong?

Red,

Somehow I get the impression that you think me a cold and uncaring eco-marauder determined to subjugate Mother Nature under the wheels of my SUV.

Not the case. Once again... Yes, I believe that we need to concern ourselves with the future of the planet and our children. Yes, I believe that there are some real tragedies in the world. Yes, I believe there are things that each of us can do to alleviate problems, both locally and globally.

But this paragraph seems to be the crux of our disagreement...



I think that if you knew me you might be surprised at what I know about the 3rd world and what I am personally doing to help. However, SOME countries are undergoing severe difficulties do to situations beyond their control, some from poor planning and leadership, and some from evil governments. Yes, I believe that not all forms of government are created equal and when tyrannical warlords destroy nations, that is evil.

Again... Yes, I believe in charity. Yes, I like to help others. But when you stop asking for help and start to demand it under threat of imprisonment if denied, then I have a problem. When you demand that I must provide for you and for your children and your children's children... I say no.

And when alternatives are provided and disregarded, then I feel no moral compulsion to continue.

As far as the topic at hand... I would still like to know what animal rights you believe every animal should be afforded and how they should be provided for.

I am guessing from your post to fusion you believe that animals should not be considered property, but partners. Except I don't think you are supposed to eat your partner.

I am also guessing that you believe that people should view animals as equals. They are not. This in no way sanctions abuse or unnecessarily painful treatment to animals. However I would never save the life of my dog at the expense of my daughter (or even a stranger) because animals and people are not equal.

So far I have only been able to divine 2 reasons why you believe animals and people should be considered equals:

1) Animals have feelings. Quite frankly, it requires more than that to be my equal. Drug dealers and pimps have feelings, but I think I am better than they are. Warlords and tyrants have feelings, I am better than they are too. We do not live in a world of equality. Nor should we. Excellence, liberty, justice and wisdom should be extolled virtues and not things thrown into the muck of human degradation in an attempt to make us all equal.

2) We are all connected. Again, I have already mentioned that connection does not equal dependence or responsibility. Let me go further and suggest that connection is not equality. A parent is not a partner to their child. A shepard is not a partner to the sheep. In fact, let's look at that particular analogy a bit closer...

The shepard is the owner (or a representative of the owner) of the sheep. His concern is to keep the sheep safe so that they will provide him with what he needs. In no way could they be considered equals. It is in his best interest to do his job because if the sheep become sick or killed by wolves he will lose his investment and his livelihood.

The shepard might be lucky enough to have a dog to help him. The dog represents a substantial investment in training, but that investment pays off because the shepard is able to take care of more sheep. The dog is not a partner. In your view of the world, the dog is a slave. It gives its labor to the shepard for what it needs to live and no more. The dog gets not say in what it is told to do. Again, it is in the shepard's best interest to take care of the dog.

Are the sheep happy? Their happiness isn't a concern one way or the other, they are a resource. Anyone who would try to make a sheep happy would only be guessing anyway.
Is the dog happy? It would seem so. Most dogs like to chase sheep around, it never goes hungry and has a strong pack leader to tell it what to do. however, once more the dog's happiness is irrelevant. It is a piece of property that should be taken care of to that it will remain useful longer.
Is the shepard happy? I would hope so because if he isn't he is wasting his time engaging in an activity that does not fulfill him. However, it is his life and I will give both him and myself enough respect to make their own choices.

I hope I haven't mischaracterized your words and if I have please correct me.

I can see I am going to have to limit my exposure to this thread since I will never have enough time to say everything I want to say...

Wux,

I largely agree with Sky. I think you have latched on to a specific idea and not explored the alternates enough. But Sky, in the case of the doctor he would be blameless. He would have done everything in his power to treat the 5 dying patients and so would not have been negligent. You cannot sue an auto mechanic for not fixing your 1920 Ford if he cannot find the parts.

As for what you believe to be a universal moral code: Since we are talking about morals: As a definition I like to say that a moral choice is one in which one foregoes his own short- or long-term gain in order to aid someone else with relinquishing the resources he himself could use for his own benefit. With the proviso that individuals will give preferential treatment to those who are genetically closer. That is your moral code and one that I personally refuse to live under.

According to your definition, a man who runs into a burning building to save a stranger is immoral because he is risking being lost by his family to save a stranger. If that man dies doing so, that would make him down right evil. Although I somehow get the idea from your writing that a man would be incapable of making that choice.

The idea that ethics?morality? (can't figure out exactly which you mean) are passed down genetically... ummmm.... that is just a baaaad idea.

Think about it this way. If morality is genetic, that means that evil and good will be passed down to offspring. And since you believe that our actions are governed by our genes, there can be no redemption for the wicked... in fact, no freewill (but let's leave the redemption/freewill issue out of it).

You also suggest that our actions and choices are based on sacrificing ourselves to those less fortunate (closer to our DNA first). ummm... yeah, this is a racist belief. If I own a company with one opening, I will offer it to the one who is closest to my genes. I will only allow my daughter to marry someone close to my genetic type (but I don't have to worry about it since she will be attracted to someone close to her genetic type). This idea of genetically hardwired ethics and morals isn't a very cheery picture for homosexuals either. Although, since we are all genetically hardwired to make choices to promote our DNA there probably aren't any homosexuals anyway since that is a dead end development.

I am thinking I probably misunderstood your points...

Another point about our morality is shaped over time by what we witness...

If we make moral choices based upon what we are familiar with (fur trader vs. transplant), then we have only 2 choices...

1) rely on tradition as our moral compass with the understanding that if we break tradition we are evil since: "This is how it works: A moral person is looked up in society. They are revered."

2) allow that society can only progress through immoral (i.e., evil) actions. Since the new by definition breaks tradition, advancements in society can only be performed by the evil.

Conclusion: Since immoral actions will be bred out of society through selective breeding ("so eventually the genes that called for unethically programmed or rather not ethically programmed behaviour were eliminated. If they presented in submissive genes, then they perhaps survive.") we will ultimately reach some form of homogeneous, albeit stagnant, society in which evil has been eliminated.

I don't think I can agree with your conclusions.

From what I have seen, it is a perspective. If it resonates with you, rock 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.

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.

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.

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???

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.

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?

whatever happened to religious tolerance?

LMAO!

dunno, but I have met a few militant vegans who were anything but peaceful.

One berated me because I was buying honey which was further perpetuating the oppression of honey bees -- Whatever the f**k that means.

Yeah Katz...

here is a cheesy little internet story (urban myth) that kind of gives another example...

Girl and guy were speeding over 100 mph on a motorcycle.

Girl: Slow down. I'm scared.
Guy: No this is fun.
Girl: No it's not. Please, it's too scary!
Guy: Then tell me you love me.
Girl: Fine, I love you. Slow down!
Guy: Now give me a BIG hug. (Girl hugs him).
Guy: Can you take my helmet off and put it on? It’s bugging me.

In the paper the next day: A motorcycle had crashed into a building because of break failure. Two people were on the motorcycle, but only one survived.

The truth was that halfway down the road, the guy realized that his breaks broke, but he didn't want to let the girl know. Instead, he had her say she loved him, felt her hug one last time, then had her wear his helmet so she would live even though it meant he would die.


====
I think it all boils down to the intention of the lie.

Yes it is ok to lie to someone you love. In fact, sometimes I think you should avoid the truth at all costs.

Sometimes there are comforts in lies that cannot be found anywhere else. When my father was dying of cancer, he would routinely lie to my mother about how badly he was feeling to spare her the frustration and pain that the truth would have put her through.

Sometimes we need to lie about our feelings to bolster our partner. I remember going through a tough financial patch and telling my wife how it would be alright because I could feel it in my gut. A lie. But it made her feel a little bit better in a dark time. I feel no guilt in that.

I remember times when I was growing up that I did things I shouldn't have done. My father and I talked things out and I really learned my lessons from those talks. If my mother would ask what was going on, my father would tell her that he wasn't sure, but that she should give me the time and the space to work things out on my own. He wanted me to learn what I needed to know while protecting my privacy.

I think we should be careful about making blanket statements. ALWAYS telling the truth means that sometimes you will hurt the ones you love needlessly.

No, animals do not have rights. They don't need them.

I am pretty sure that animals experience pain and pleasure. And I have seen cats toy with field mice before killing them and my dog certainly seems to be brimming with pride when she brings me a dead snake, which by the way she has absolutely no interest in eating only in tearing it to pieces.

Animals do torture and kill other animals, but that isn't really what this is about. The reason they don't need rights is because they don't need to reason.

Man is the only animal which requires intellect to survive. Animals are bigger, stronger or faster; they breed quickly, have sharper senses and a whole host of adaptations that aid their survival. Most importantly they function on instinct.

Man needs to use his mind to survive. He must puzzle out problems and plan for the future. Man has also learned how important it is to work together.

If the most valuable thing a person has is their life (since nothing can be accomplished without it) and therefore survival becomes the supreme goal of each individual. Human rights are those things we have identified to be required for survival, and the list is pretty short.

If you think about it food, clothing and shelter are "things" you need to survive but you really have no "right" to them. Instead, our society guarantees you the right to live you life in a way that you deem best to achieve happiness with the proviso that you do not impinge on the rights of others to make those same choices (i.e., freedom). You have the right to keep the products of your labors since you will require those to live. Additionally, we have made a contract with each other that we will only allow violence to be initiated by an objective authority so that we do not kill each other.

I can't think of a way around this. For example, it might be nice to have a right to shelter and have a living space provided for everyone. But whatever you give to one person must be taken from someone else since things do not simply appear from no where. But if you have a right to keep what you work for, then you can work for your own shelter.

It should also be noted that I do not believe in minority rights, women's rights or gay rights. I think these are simply things that are used to confuse the issues. Since everyone is a human, then they all have human rights. (A little off-topic, I know and I apologize)