"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Rubystars" > wrote:
>>
>> > > <snip>
>> > > > From your final paragraph, I interpret your statements to mean that
>> when
>> > > > others (in this case animals) are vulnerable harm that you feel an
>> > > > obligation to protect them.
>> > >
>> > > It's best to avoid causing as much pain and suffering as is
>> > > practical.
>> > >
>> > > >If you've been following my conversation
>> > > > with Dutch, this can also be argued as the golden rule
>> > > > operationalized
>> > > > in that humans fear being unable to defend themselves and treat
>> > > > others
>> > > > (animals in this case) as they would like to be treated.
>> > >
>> > > I think it's part of being civilized not to cause a lot of pain to
>> animals
>> > > for no good reason.
>> >
>> > This is typically the crux of the matter in any dispute between two or
>> > more parties -- what is deemed as a good reason to do X. The second
>> > condition of your position is a requirement for less pain, not no pain.
>> >
>> > The lack of logic emerges when the inconsistencies emerge. If it is
>> > acceptable to inflict suffering on a cow as a food source then it ought
>> > to be okay to inflict suffering on any animal as a food source. That
>> > would be consistent. Clearly we don't do that so, I tend to view this
>> > argument as being an excuse and not the 'true' reason or motivation for
>> > the behaviour.
>>
>> That does not show a lack of logic. The moralistic approach is to avoid
>> killing or causing pain to animals *unless* there is an arguably valid
>> self-sustaining reason to do so, such as to obtain food. The taboos
>> against
>> using dogs, cats, dolphins, chimps, etc as food are culturally based, not
>> universal.
>
> Subjective morals. Finally, we are in agreement.

My position has not changed. There is a large subjective component to
morality.

>> > My question of you would be what is "a lot of pain"? Your statement is
>> > very subjective and that can be interpreted in many ways. for example,
>> > if we were to be more humane in the killing of animals (read some
>> > animals that are used) as a food source does this satisfy your
>> > requirement for less or minimal infliction of pain?
>>
>> Animal suffering (stress) is measurable and steps can be taken to avert
>> it,
>> see www.grandin.com