10 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's just speciesism, not to mention a flagrant abdication of thought.
OK! Looks like the participants in this thread are clear that dolphins are NOT people and do not have inalienable rights. Killing them is not murder etc.
Glad you were able to get an answer that satisifies you so quickly!
Why is it fine for people to kill animals merely because they are not people? 'Tradition'. OK. Got anything better -- less irrational -- than that?
Besides, we've already established that natural rights theory is irrelevant to this discussion, so this thread can just die.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell you can say animals kill animals, mainly for food, sometimes not.
That's just speciesism, not to mention a flagrant abdication of thought.
Why is it fine for people to kill animals merely because they are not people? 'Tradition'. OK. Got anything better -- less irrational -- than that?
Besides, we've already established that natural rights theory is irrelevant to this discussion, so this thread can just die.
We are also animals, being in exactly the same environ, so we would be on exactly the same moral level if we kill animals for food and for pleasure which some animals do also, although it may be a stretch to use the word 'pleasure' in animals. Personally I think animals perceive the emotion of pleasure just as we do so it sounds to me like there is no difference between the two concepts of killing for pleasure in humans and killing for pleasure in animals.
So in that sense, we can kill whatever we want, as reprehensible as that sounds.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by sonhouseThat argument could be stretch to include murder of humans.
Well you can say animals kill animals, mainly for food, sometimes not.
We are also animals, being in exactly the same environ, so we would be on exactly the same moral level if we kill animals for food and for pleasure which some animals do also, although it may be a stretch to use the word 'pleasure' in animals. Personally I think animals perceive the emo ...[text shortened]... in animals.
So in that sense, we can kill whatever we want, as reprehensible as that sounds.
The real question is that morality has very little to do with natural order. It's simply an expression of preferences. Do you prefer a world where killing animals for pleasure is accepted or not? If the former, do you prefer some or no limitations to that killing?
There is no a-priori correct response for any of these questions. This becomes especially clear to me when I view morality as preference (my non-cognitivist view).
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by PalynkaWe would have to live in a permanently 100% monitored world to stop such a thing and since that is not going to happen any time soon, it seems a moot point, nobody can stop it, and it will go on despite our objections (mine included).
That argument could be stretch to include murder of humans.
The real question is that morality has very little to do with natural order. It's simply an expression of preferences. Do you prefer a world where killing animals for pleasure is accepted or not? If the former, do you prefer some or no limitations to that killing?
There is no a-priori correct ...[text shortened]... is becomes especially clear to me when I view morality as preference (my non-cognitivist view).
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by sonhouseLOL, that's just ridiculous, sorry.
We would have to live in a permanently 100% monitored world to stop such a thing and since that is not going to happen any time soon, it seems a moot point, nobody can stop it, and it will go on despite our objections (mine included).
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm not the one who decided only Homo sapiens can be people. In fact I disagree with that assertion. Why is it fine for people to kill animals because they are not people? Because they have no Right to Life. Is this irrational? Maybe, but it's how we do things in the American and international legal systems.
That's just speciesism, not to mention a flagrant abdication of thought.
Why is it fine for people to kill animals merely because they are not people? 'Tradition'. OK. Got anything better -- less irrational -- than that?
Besides, we've already established that natural rights theory is irrelevant to this discussion, so this thread can just die.
We have not established natural rights theory is irrelevant to this discussion. I've chosen to take a break because I wanted to give myself time to relax and reflect. This topic feels like it's heating up and I don't like that sort of tone, so I'm taking a break.
11 Feb 10
Originally posted by sonhouseNon-person predators are incapable of comprehending that other beings are suffering. Therefore they cannot have evil motives, while people can. People know exactly what they're doing when they cause pain.
Well you can say animals kill animals, mainly for food, sometimes not.
We are also animals, being in exactly the same environ, so we would be on exactly the same moral level if we kill animals for food and for pleasure which some animals do also, although it may be a stretch to use the word 'pleasure' in animals. Personally I think animals perceive the emo ...[text shortened]... in animals.
So in that sense, we can kill whatever we want, as reprehensible as that sounds.
12 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFantastic, the irrationality of the legal system justifies cruelty.
I'm not the one who decided only Homo sapiens can be people. In fact I disagree with that assertion. Why is it fine for people to kill animals because they are not people? Because they have no Right to Life. Is this irrational? Maybe, but it's how we do things in the American and international legal systems.
We have not established natura ...[text shortened]... opic feels like it's heating up and I don't like that sort of tone, so I'm taking a break.
What if you wanted to change the legal system -- make it a little more rational?
13 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's natural rights theory. I didn't make it up. I'm willing to accept it has weaknesses. Once again, I choose to use it because it's the moral concept that my nation and the international community have agreed on as the system that will inform the law.
Interesting assumptions.
It's also the logic the scientists and ethicist in the article are using to justify the idea of dolphins having rights and being persons.