Eating animals that can display affection?

[Bronzeage]

Morality is based on emotions not ideas.

Why should any human care that they have deliberately caused harm to some other animal?

There is no rule to appeal to.

All that can be appealed to is some sense of empathy.

You really have no understanding of morality at all or the purpose of morality. Morality is a cold hard bitch and thinking that empathy will soften her heart is a great mistake.

 

[untermensche]

Morality is based on emotions not ideas.

Why should any human care that they have deliberately caused harm to some other animal?

There is no rule to appeal to.

All that can be appealed to is some sense of empathy.

You really have no understanding of morality at all or the purpose of morality. Morality is a cold hard bitch and thinking that empathy will soften her heart is a great mistake.

What is the basis of your morality?

Why should I care if I harmed somebody very badly and nobody found out?

So as a cold hard bitch I am very moral?

 

[Malintent]

Chimpanzees, our closest relatives, eat monkeys. Monkeys are far more capable of affection and self-awareness than a cow. I don't know that the ethics of this is so clear cut.

Naturalistic Fallacy.

It is a smart thing to look at how other species accomplishes goals. We look how birds soar and copied it to make airplanes, as one example. It is not a smart thing to look at how other species behave, and use that as justification for how our species should behave. That is a logical fallacy.

 

[Malintent]

With most consumed meat in the US the animal was tortured for a long time before it was killed.

source, please. This seems to be hyperbolae on its face.

 

[Malintent]

No, it's just a commitment to the correct use of language. The definition of torture includes intentionality; Unintentional cruelty to animals, while deplorable and to be avoided where possible, nevertheless is not torture, and your misuse of the word is hyperbolic and counterproductive - as indeed are most of your political arguments.

You might be surprised to find that I agree with many of your political positions (you poor grasp of logic notwithstanding - You are an excellent example of the fact that the emotional heuristic actually reaches correct conclusions more often than would be expected by chance, even though it bypasses logic almost entirely). But you are such an incredible arse about everything that I prefer to argue against the things you get wrong, rather than to support the few things you get right. So you are, as usual, driving people away form the positions you overtly wish them to adopt.

You should probably stop doing that, if you actually believe the things you say you believe. But perhaps you prefer to be the solitary crusader for what is right, and having other people on your side would make you feel less special?

Torture is something that happens to an animal.

A person could be trapped outside and tortured by the cold.

The cold did not intend to do it.

Ah, good'ol argumentum ad Webster. "Evolution is Just a theory". Theory N. - a thought. Scientific Theory N. - a well evidenced explanation of causes.

Torture N.- painful. "I got orange juice in my paper cut and it was torture!" Torture V. - to intentionally cause pain. "The debate about torture was reignited by Guantanamo Bay inmates".

You don't like something, can't find logical reasoning, so you launch the Fake News wagon.

 

[Malintent]

So here's another thing I've been thinking about. Does anyone think it is wrong or at least dubious to kill and consume the flesh of an animal capable of expressing its affection for you? Typically this applies to household pets but why stop there? Cows can love people on a level comparable to your household pets, can't they? So if that's not the hang up, then what is? How do you personally reconcile this with your decision to eat what you do assuming you do eat animals capable of such? If you do find this to be distasteful then that just creates more questions! What does it mean for an animal to display affection and how can this be possibly graded or qualified? Are there animals capable of processing such emotions but not showing it outwardly?

I regularly consume the flesh of said animals but have lately considered changing this.

The question is phrased a bit incorrectly - doesn't matter whether they display affection to us or anyone - all fish feel pain equally, not just Dolphins. Cows, pigs, chickens all feel pain the same way as dogs and cats do. The point is that we need to reduce pain and suffering - we as humans can do that by reducing our consumption of meat products - understand that i used the word reduce not eliminate though hopefully in the future we can do that

As someone posted if some alien intelligence were to treat us humans as food and treated us the same way that we treat cows, pigs and chicken, we would call them cruel and evil but somehow it is ok when we do it to dumb animals

We could start with stopping hunting - unless one hunts for food, hunting for pleasure sounds horrible to me - esp the likes of bird-hunting - lie in wait, let loose a bunch of bullets, the "lucky" birds get hit in the heart and die right away, the unlucky ones get hit in the wing or leg, drop down and unless the hunter finds him and puts him out of his misery, that bird gets to die a slow & painful death. And if it has young back in the nest, they get to die a slow starvation death as well

We don't need to do this - there is no pleasure and no need for hunting or fishing

I took this post, replaced "meat, fishing, etc.." with "football, sports, etc.." and I went from not agreeing to agreeing.

there is no pleasure and no need for hunting or fishing - Disagree
there is no pleasure and no need for watching sports - Agree.

What this tells me is that your argument boils down to personal preference, and can therefore apply to only one person. you.

 

[Malintent]

Morality is based on emotions not ideas.

Why should any human care that they have deliberately caused harm to some other animal?

There is no rule to appeal to.

All that can be appealed to is some sense of empathy.

You really have no understanding of morality at all or the purpose of morality. Morality is a cold hard bitch and thinking that empathy will soften her heart is a great mistake.

What is the basis of your morality?

Altruism.

Why should I care if I harmed somebody very badly and nobody found out?

Empathy.

 

[Bronzeage]

Morality is based on emotions not ideas.

Why should any human care that they have deliberately caused harm to some other animal?

There is no rule to appeal to.

All that can be appealed to is some sense of empathy.

You really have no understanding of morality at all or the purpose of morality. Morality is a cold hard bitch and thinking that empathy will soften her heart is a great mistake.

What is the basis of your morality?

Why should I care if I harmed somebody very badly and nobody found out?

So as a cold hard bitch I am very moral?

The basis of my morality is the moral code of all human societies, which can be summarized as "Don't kill your friends and don't steal your friend's stuff."

Moral codes do not exist to make you be a nice person, even when no one is looking, but that is a common misconception.

The problem always comes in the definitions, such as, "Who is my friend?" and "What is his stuff?"

If you want other people to accept your particular version of morality, you'll need to explain how animals fit into the group labeled friends.

 

[untermensche]

With most consumed meat in the US the animal was tortured for a long time before it was killed.

source, please. This seems to be hyperbolae on its face.

Is not being able to move around torture?

Is not having you injuries or illnesses addressed torture?

Is not having any mental stimulation torture?

 

[untermensche]

What is the basis of your morality?

Why should I care if I harmed somebody very badly and nobody found out?

So as a cold hard bitch I am very moral?

The basis of my morality is the moral code of all human societies, which can be summarized as "Don't kill your friends and don't steal your friend's stuff."

But why should you do that?

What is moral about not killing your friend and taking their stuff?

You could get a lot of stuff that way.

 

[Bronzeage]

What is the basis of your morality?

Why should I care if I harmed somebody very badly and nobody found out?

So as a cold hard bitch I am very moral?

The basis of my morality is the moral code of all human societies, which can be summarized as "Don't kill your friends and don't steal your friend's stuff."

But why should you do that?

What is moral about not killing your friend and taking their stuff?

You could get a lot of stuff that way.

As I said, you do not understand this and at the age of 61, I'm not sure I have enough time to explain it to you. It is true, one can get a lot of stuff by killing a friend, but this kind of behavior is rather rare among humans.

To put it in the simplest terms, moral codes exist in human society, so that humans can live in close proximity to one another and cooperate. This means an easier life, in general, for all. A moral code defines how one is to deal with other members of the group, and most importantly, how the group will deal with those who violate the code. The person who kills their friend may well find themselves in danger of being killed.

Please note my earlier comment about definitions. The code applies only to friends, which means enemies are specifically included. You can kill as many enemies as possible, provided one doesn't kill you first.

It gets complicated when the group gets very large, which is to say, more than 150 people. It gets very complicated when the group is all of mankind. This means there are no enemies who can be killed and robbed with impunity. When one remembers that the reason for all of this is to facilitate cooperation among humans, it is certainly even more complicated for anyone who wants to extend group protection to animals. The truly bizarre element of this is that the main reason we even needed cooperation in the first place was to protect humans from the animals.

I hope this helps.

 

[untermensche]

But why should you do that?

What is moral about not killing your friend and taking their stuff?

You could get a lot of stuff that way.

As I said, you do not understand this and at the age of 61, I'm not sure I have enough time to explain it to you. It is true, one can get a lot of stuff by killing a friend, but this kind of behavior is rather rare among humans.

To put it in the simplest terms, moral codes exist in human society, so that humans can live in close proximity to one another and cooperate.

Moral codes exist for many reasons but these two statements contradict one another.

If problems are rare why are "codes" needed?

And is your reason you do not take your friends stuff because you adhere to some code? If we took away the code you would have no problem?

 

[bilby]

But why should you do that?

What is moral about not killing your friend and taking their stuff?

You could get a lot of stuff that way.

As I said, you do not understand this and at the age of 61, I'm not sure I have enough time to explain it to you. It is true, one can get a lot of stuff by killing a friend, but this kind of behavior is rather rare among humans.

To put it in the simplest terms, moral codes exist in human society, so that humans can live in close proximity to one another and cooperate.

Moral codes exist for many reasons but these two statements contradict one another.

If problems are rare why are "codes" needed?

If most people drive at less than the speed limit, why do we need speed limits?

 

[untermensche]

Moral codes exist for many reasons but these two statements contradict one another.

If problems are rare why are "codes" needed?

If most people drive at less than the speed limit, why do we need speed limits?

Speeders are not rare.

And of course it is not a moral issue. It is a safety issue.

 

[bilby]

Moral codes exist for many reasons but these two statements contradict one another.

If problems are rare why are "codes" needed?

If most people drive at less than the speed limit, why do we need speed limits?

Speeders are not rare.

And of course it is not a moral issue. It is a safety issue.

Thinking. It's apparently not for everyone.

 

[untermensche]

Speeders are not rare.

And of course it is not a moral issue. It is a safety issue.

Thinking. It's apparently not for everyone.

That's true.

Comparing a safety issue to a moral issue is not thinking.

 

[bilby]

Speeders are not rare.

And of course it is not a moral issue. It is a safety issue.

Thinking. It's apparently not for everyone.

That's true.

Comparing a safety issue to a moral issue is not thinking.

 

[untermensche]

That's true.

Comparing a safety issue to a moral issue is not thinking.

Another example of not thinking.

Some seem to be very good at it.

Some "think" a prohibition against speeding is part of a moral code.

I ask why are moral codes necessary and he talks about safety codes. Not an example of thinking.

 

[Bronzeage]

But why should you do that?

What is moral about not killing your friend and taking their stuff?

You could get a lot of stuff that way.

As I said, you do not understand this and at the age of 61, I'm not sure I have enough time to explain it to you. It is true, one can get a lot of stuff by killing a friend, but this kind of behavior is rather rare among humans.

To put it in the simplest terms, moral codes exist in human society, so that humans can live in close proximity to one another and cooperate.

Moral codes exist for many reasons but these two statements contradict one another.

If problems are rare why are "codes" needed?

And is your reason you do not take your friends stuff because you adhere to some code? If we took away the code you would have no problem?

No, you are quite wrong. Moral codes exist for the reason I gave. There is no other reason for them.

I can see you are having trouble with this concept, and I blame the industrial age. Life is simply too easy for you. You've caught me at a good time, and I'll give it a try. I'm probably wasting my time, but I am a river to my people, and as with any river, most of the water goes by without notice.

Try this: Take a look around and consider everything you can see that was somehow touched by a human hand, other than yours. This will be practically everything in your home. It has to go. You have to leave your home, which was constructed by humans, and go to someplace where there are no humans, and nothing touched by humans. There are still a few places like this. You are now naked and alone, and soon you will be hungry. If you are fortunate, there maybe some edible plants nearby, and some fresh water. Help yourself to as much as you need. In any case, you are probably going to die of either thirst, starvation, or exposure. Humans do not function well when left alone. Your teeth are flat, your claws are soft, you don't climb very well, and any other animal in the forest can run faster than you, which means you can't catch the ones you want to eat, and you can't outrun the ones which want to eat you.

You need help. You need other people. In order for you to have any friends, you'll need to behave in way which makes you useful to have around. You need a moral code. The first rule is don't kill your friends. You can't keep a group together if one person can kill another one at any time. No one would dare go to sleep while someone else is around. When everyone sees the value of not killing friends, everyone can sleep well.

The second rule is don't steal your friends stuff. Within the obvious limits, humans are the only animals who collect stuff for future use. This includes food and most importantly, tools. Once again, the problem is falling asleep. When everyone sees the value of keeping their hands off other people's stuff, everyone can sleep with the confidence of waking up alive, with all your stuff.

The person who follows these rules is allowed to stay in the group, which greatly reduces the odds of dying of thirst or starvation. The harsher the environment, the more critical it is to live in a group. A person who kills and steals will be driven out and forced to live alone. That is a death sentence, if they don't all get together and decide to kill you.

Adhering to a moral code is at its roots, a selfish act of self preservation. You may think the particular details of your moral code make you a better person, but they don't. You are just doing your best to survive.

 

[fromderinside]

I agree with Bronzeage untermenche. It's to our advantage to have reminders sometimes to keep from doing to those what is disgusting to many others. We got tempers laddie. Plus we need those with tempers to protect us when other tribes fall on us.