wait i thought bacon made this threaddafox wrote:Same thing genius.prince0gotham wrote:someone make an excremented animals memorial thread
The Consumed Animals Memorial Thread
I brought up the responsibility point to show that just because lesser animals can cause harm without moral blame it doesn't mean we can do the same. If you think causing pain is bad then you have to apply that to animals to some extent. Our species used to be a lesser species and we're both flesh and blood. Which again sounds awfully like might is right (the powerful decide whats right and wrong for the sake of their own interest). You could appeal to the soul hypothesis Bacon mentioned but we don't know that souls exist and there is no positive argument for the existence of souls. Religious people (and other moral skeptics) often condemn utilitarian morality (greatest good for the greatest number) because we don't know what can be the best means of attaining the greatest good but at the same time they don't know that souls exist yet they presuppose it anyway since its their faith.Cilogy wrote:Well, not to pull a Vader here, but I'm not so sure that just because we have the ability to do something means we have the responsibility to do it, at least not 100% of the time. As far as I'm concerned I still consider humans part of the "circle of life", and I still think there are legitimate arguments to be made in favor of nature and all that good stuff. I mean, it works according to my own philosophy and I'm sure it does for many others, but I can also understand the other side. Kinda branching off what you said, maybe we will eventually get to a point where we can operate with a more uniform moral justification.
@ Bacon, please just stop man.
There's a reason why God gave us the Bible and not panda bears. But seriously, even if I wasn't a Christian, I would still eat meat. I see the animals on this planet as living beings and when I go to restaurants or eat meat, I try to eat as much of the meat as I can instead of veggies or sides, because the animal had to die for me to receive it. I understand your point, but I don't really see it as our "responsibility" to not eat animals because we have morality.
Addressed this in the previous post.Bacon wrote:There's a reason why God gave us the Bible and not panda bears.
If you believe physical suffering has something to do with morality then theres good reason to believe its our responsibility to minimize it.I understand your point, but I don't really see it as our "responsibility" to not eat animals because we have morality.
Crazy Eight wrote:I bet Bacon has velcro shoe laces.
If we don't kill them, they're gonna be killed anyway. It's perfectly natural for man to eat animals, even if we have a consciousness. Suffering is an interesting topic when it comes to the difference between suffering of animals and suffering of humans. We prevent causing each other suffering because we have morality, so why not do the same to animals? Because animals will suffer either way. If they're not eaten by us, they're eaten by some other being. It's a part of nature and you can't decide you're going against nature because you think something's "wrong". We can't stop dogs from licking it's poo since we see it as wrong/disgusting, because it's its nature. You can't fight nature and no amount of "minimizing" you do is really gonna help. If you don't eat the animal, something else will. That's how the world is and you can't change it. Animals are our natural food, and while the process to getting the food (poultry industry) is not the most humane [speaking of which I hate a lot of the way animals are TREATED in order to give us food but thats beyond the point], it's perfectly natural and correct for us to eat other animals. That's why they're there. Religion plays a big part in this, so I can see where you wouldn't see it as I see it. I probably rambled on and on and there's probably a crapton of stuff I didn't explain well, but I don't care. Animals are here for us to eat.dafox wrote:Addressed this in the previous post.Bacon wrote:There's a reason why God gave us the Bible and not panda bears.
If you believe physical suffering has something to do with morality then theres good reason to believe its our responsibility to minimize it.I understand your point, but I don't really see it as our "responsibility" to not eat animals because we have morality.
Okay, so ...
I don't know what Bacon's on, and even though we seem to be on the same side of this issue, I still think his reasoning is ridiculous and hilarious. The religious argument is the wrong way to go, often because it's an argument out of convenience:
I eat meat for my own reasons, and other people don't for their reasons, condemning either on moral grounds just doesn't seem to get us anywhere. I still think it's more a matter of personal belief, at least for now, and maybe the jury's still out on that.
I don't know what Bacon's on, and even though we seem to be on the same side of this issue, I still think his reasoning is ridiculous and hilarious. The religious argument is the wrong way to go, often because it's an argument out of convenience:
If we don't kill them, they're gonna be killed anyway.
It's a part of nature and you can't decide you're going against nature because you think something's "wrong".
These statements make me feel like a complete idiot now for bringing up "nature". I will say, however, regardless of whether people are in favor of eating meat or not, we definitely consume too much meat as a society, which has unfortunately led to a lot of terrible things in the food production industry.Animals are here for us to eat.
I eat meat for my own reasons, and other people don't for their reasons, condemning either on moral grounds just doesn't seem to get us anywhere. I still think it's more a matter of personal belief, at least for now, and maybe the jury's still out on that.
Bacon wrote
If we don't kill them, they're gonna be killed anyway. It's perfectly natural for man to eat animals, even if we have a consciousness. Suffering is an interesting topic when it comes to the difference between suffering of animals and suffering of humans. We prevent causing each other suffering because we have morality, so why not do the same to animals? Because animals will suffer either way. If they're not eaten by us, they're eaten by some other being.If you don't eat the animal, something else will. That's how the world is and you can't change it.
I don't think I need to explain how our involvement in the lives of the animals eaten the most by our species dwarfs the suffering caused by their natural nonhuman predators. Especially when those consumed animals are being mass produced at a rate of our own will for the sole reason of killing for consumption. Again we have moral responsibility and other animals do not.
By that logic we shouldn't treat anyone's fatal/painful illness because its a part of nature. You do think its morally wrong to let someone die of a treatable disease don't you?Bacon wrote
It's a part of nature and you can't decide you're going against nature because you think something's "wrong". We can't stop dogs from licking it's poo since we see it as wrong/disgusting, because it's its nature.
To some extent we can. Thats only if you presuppose that suffering doesn't matter.Bacon wrote
You can't fight nature and no amount of "minimizing" you do is really gonna help.
Bacon wrote
Religion plays a big part in this, so I can see where you wouldn't see it as I see it.
dafox wrote
You could appeal to the soul hypothesis Bacon mentioned but we don't know that souls exist and there is no positive argument for the existence of souls. Religious people (and other moral skeptics) often condemn utilitarian morality (greatest good for the greatest number) because we don't know what can be the best means of attaining the greatest good but at the same time they don't know that souls exist yet they presuppose it anyway since its their faith.
so
god created man then created the universe all around him so that it'd be there for man to use it
it's almost like god worships man and not the opposite
god created man then created the universe all around him so that it'd be there for man to use it
it's almost like god worships man and not the opposite
