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

In article >,
"Rubystars" > wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> <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.

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?