Why is 'human life' so important?
So if you had your way and forced the carnivorous animals to consume plants (unlikely and almost impossible but bear with me) and thus caused them to go extinct, that would be a better example morality? If you outlawed the consumption of meat and caused impaired physical and mental development in children, wouldn't that too be immoral? Necessity is justification for many actions in the world. If someone is trying to brutally murder you, would you rather him or you be the one who survives?
Last edited by timeisdead on 30 Dec 2008, 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Killing for food= Good. Yes, even the vampires you speak of. Are they to starve because other people die? Survival of the fittest.
But, humans kill for the unnatural abomination of clothing, among other things. Not just food.
Anyway, this has gone offtopic-- The question is/was, why do people consider humans above other animals. This has been answered a few times, but I've not found them satisfying.
This is a total non sequitur. If it would be wrong for me to make lions eat salad, that wouldn't make it right by default for lions to eat antelope.
Not necessarily. Again, I have not presumed that people obtain the right to do something simply because it is necessary. If children have no right to eat my dog, for example, than preventing them from eating my dog isn't me harming children, it's me protecting my dog. I am preserving the rights of my dog against an unjustified infringement by another party.
But this is a totally different case, because we might argue that someone trying to actively murder me has therefore forfeited his right to not be killed; his initial action creates an injustice which earns him a good whoop ass.
But then we're back to the question of what "survival of the fittest" could possibly mean in an ethical context.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
The ones who survive, are the fittest. Although this has lost its meaning regarding humans, due to our absurd 'morality', the need to make every ret*d, cripple etc. live. If they'd have died off, like they should have, the human race would be better. If someone attacks you, for whatever reason, you fight back. The survivor was better. Although, one should not attack things just to be better. It should only be done when needed. Otherwise, you waste energy, time, and potential food. ( If you kill something(one ) today, and leave it to rot, you can not kill it and eat it tomorrow. )
Doing the former would cause the lions to go extinct, the latter would not cause the antelope to go extinct. When herbivores are in environments where there are few predators, they often reproduce rates far too rapid to sustain themselves. Many would die of starvation due to lack of food resources caused by overpopulation. In the end, you would simply be choosing a different death sentence for them. You would be doubly immoral if you had caused lions to go extinct via dietary restrictions and allowed the antelope to overpopulate, only to starve and destroy much of the fauna of the ecosystem.
Normally, children, however needy, wouldn't need to eat your dog in order to survive. Are you speaking of an extreme crisis such as that of the Donner Party?
But you're both completely dodging the central issue here, which is why utility implies "right".
Why should the survival of the species matter to me? My morals may be concerned with the rights of individuals; groups have no rights.
See above comment on utility. I may reject the idea that an immoral action is permissible if it is necessary to preserve the species.
The point is they *might*, but that doesn't give them the right to eat my dog.
You made a nonsense jump from fitter to better. Fitter simply describes how something relates to its environment. Better is a judgment; it doesn't answer anything to say we should favor the fitter, it only begs the question of *why* we should favor the fitter.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
Would you not be impeding upon an individual lion's right to survive and thrive in his natural habitat?
According to you, what is the point of morality if it can result in negative consequences to society as a whole?
They would in an extreme scenario as faced by the Donner Party and had no other options. You would also have the right to protect your dog from any form of harm. However, if they had other options that action would be inexcusable.
Would you not be impeding upon an individual lion's right to survive and thrive in his natural habitat?
No, because the animal has no right to an end, only to a means. The point of morality is to delineate what actions are permissible, whether or not the remaining set of permissible actions can accomplish one's goals or needs.
I regard morality as irreducible.
If I recall correctly, the Donner Party ate people who had already died.
_________________
* here for the nachos.
As a consequentialist I disagree. If your version of morality is counterproductive to my survival, I have no use for it. You wouldn't truly be protecting the antelope to begin with, they would eventually overpopulate the ecosystem and destroy the native fauna. This would also impede on the rights of other herbivores to survive (they too would also likely overpopulate). The herbivores would die due to starvation. Causing a carnivorous species to go extinct to protect the so-called rights of the individual antelope is not exactly what I consider moral. You would in essence be killing the lions on a massive scale (and unlike when a lion hunts an antelope, you wouldn't have the necessity to do so in order to survive). What standards do you use when deciding upon whether or not an action is permissible?
Then why does society need morality according to your standards?
They also killed and ate a dog in order to survive.
But, humans kill for the unnatural abomination of clothing, among other things. Not just food.
Why is killing for food different than killing for another reason? Killing is killing, and the fittest survive for their own reasons. I mean, what about clothing to protect humans from cold? How is this unnatural? How is this an abomination? The divide between natural and unnatural itself seems unnatural, unless we are to say that chips using twigs and leaves is also unnatural.
Because, we like other humans more than we like animals. We can appeal to evolution for that tendency, we can appeal to economics for that tendency, but I don't see what qualities will satisfy you. It seems as if you have accepted a system for how the world should work, and are now trying to get us to disprove something you've accepted as fundamental.
Killing for food is diametrically different because it is necessary for the survival or development of the species. As for clothing, using animal furs would be justified if it were a necessity to survive, like it was for many of our ancestors. Today, the vast majority of those who wear animal furs do it as a fashion statement and it couldn't be compared to using animal furs for survival purposes.
Lohan doesn't need this fur coat to survive. In this case, the animals died in vain for a fashion statement.
It can be considered moral if we objectively evaluate all options and take the option that causes the least amount of long-term damage.
Good question. The consequences that are considered good are either those that control or prevent damage, those that promote justice, and those that create a benefit to either society or the individual.
Consequentialism, like any other theory, can be used to promote either good or evil. One must remember that we must use rationalization when coming to a moral conclusion. Another key word is prioritization. If someone shoots a person to take his sneakers, this action is wrong. Whether or not the perpetrator thinks the ends justify the means, in reality they do not in this particular scenario. A person's life is of greater value than a murderous thug's desire for shoes. However, if a mother's daughter was dying of an illness and was told by her doctor that she couldn't afford the treatment, she would be justified in stealing it from the doctor's office. A doctor can always be repaid but a dead child can never be brought back to life. If you understand how to prioritize, consequentialism is quite simple.
Lohan doesn't need this fur coat to survive. In this case, the animals died in vain for a fashion statement.
That difference has no objective meaning. Killing is killing. Why is one set of killing *better* than another. Sure you can say it is different, one is survival, the other isn't so much so, but that does not make a moral distinction, and I don't see a reason to agree with your moral distinction.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Very important question. |
29 Jan 2024, 2:41 am |
First human implanted with neuralink |
03 Feb 2024, 6:55 pm |
Scientists Discover The Human Brain Is Even More Powerful |
05 Mar 2024, 3:38 am |
Grotesque Human Rights Scandal Happening To Autistic People |
26 Mar 2024, 1:35 pm |