View Single Post
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.


Imagine that. Two different 'moral codes' existing simultaneously. The
vegan who _chooses to believe_ that it is unacceptable to kill some
animals for their food and the meat eaters who _choose to believe_ it is
acceptable to kill some animals for their food.

> >> > 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