With permission from a friend, I'm posting up a discussion I had with her about the A&E class
Animals & Ethics is the class title
it's all about the evolution of morality, and whether or not animals can be moral creatures, or if its merely humanity that has that ability
ghost: wow
ghost: a bit mind-blowing
Yes. but the reading sometimes makes my brain want to explode.
it has so very many philosophy jargon and such that I'm constantly flipping through dictionaries
ghost: well morality is an odd word, hard to define, is it an agreement between two
ghost: as in morals about not killing eachother so a community can exist
ghost: kinda hard to live side by side if we are always injuring eachother in different ways
It's all of it. sociality as a moral construct, the argument for vegetarianism..
ghost: ahh, but i have eye teeth that are sharp
ghost: though i do adore animals
ghost: and eat very few
Yes, humans are omnivorous by physiology. That is one of the arguments against vegetarianism
ghost: no bunnies
But that's where morals come in. If it's wrong to kill, is it wrong to kill animals? or just SOME animals?
ghost:we kiss bunnies
Which ones? how can you choose? Is one more valuable than another because it's cute? That's the stuff this class discusses
ghost: ahh, i think its the domestic thing
ghost: livestock, and farms
ghost: um, is it wrong to kill animals? Animals kill animals, but being humane in the killing, that is a human issue.
ghost: this is great stuff ally
What about whales and fish and wolves and wild horses. birds?
It's not just about killing for consumption:
Animal testing for human products, circuses, zoos
ghost: definitely.
Why is it ok to boil a live lobster, but not something else?
ghost: does make the head spin
ghost: my sister is an ultra vegan
ghost:I know where her thoughts lay
ghost: meat = murder
ghost: I'm not as hard on that
ghost: but humane killing, is an issue
I eat meat, but now i'm developing a guilt complex from this class, haha.
It's like..I want to apologize every time I have chicken
ghost: me too actually
ghost: cause
oh, and things like puppy and exotic animal mills and such are also discussed in this class. breeding animals just for aesthetic value in fur farms and exotics black market sales.
The whole phenom of the white tiger, for instance..inbreeding. Most that are born are so disabled or disfigured that no circus will show them, and they are either killed or used for the fur trade. It's sad. I've done research.
ghost: see, thats why I'd end up like Rena (my sister)
ghost: i do eat cheese 24/7
You really do. I've noticed. Ah, but cheese comes from milk which comes from cows. Is it morally right to steal from cows?
ghost: yes it is, or you might ask, killing plants for salad, or microbes in water, is it time for me to die than hmm, what is left ? see
Exactly. almost everything a person does kills something. It's a tricky issue
ghost: yes
Even Vegans.
ghost:yes
They kill stuff all the time by breathing.
ghost: brown rice kills the rice plant.
ghost: and tofu kills the soy plant
ghost: so back to
ghost: raising livestock for food
Yeah.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I enjoyed the transcript. Hume famously says "ought implies can." Accordingly, we are only morally obliged to do what we can. If we can't live without killing something (microbes, etc.), then an "ethic" based on an abolute ban on harming others is senseless. Ethics must rationally be based on some other less inclusive and workable criterion; say, sentience. We can, some might say, live (and live quite well!) without killing large mammals, fish, and birds for food, and, therefore, in the absense of some overriding reason to kill these innocent and conscious others, we ought to.
I suppose you could always resort to Jainism... They tried very hard to not kill anything, and so would sweep sidewalks before taking a step, eat, drink, even breath as little as possible. And they were dead serious about it... to the point that they willingly started and dehydrated themselves to death. (okay, bad pun...)
I'm reminded of the Cherokee Native Americans, who believed that plants were to be revered the same as anything else... The example given was ginseng -- they'd leave the first 3 ginseng plants they found, and then pick the fourth, but not before offering a prayer of thanks and leaving a small token.
Seems that there is (almost) an inherent guilt in taking life, no matter whether it's in plant or animal form.
It all comes down to how spiritual you want to be about it... My aunt is almost reverential in regards to her plants, always talking to them, mentally/spiritually melding with them, leaving them tokens, et cetera. While *I* appreciate her efforts, I'm never sure if the plants really do.
Thinking of it, there's a study going on in Japan about water and how feelings and (projected) thoughts affect its quality - the evidence seen after they freeze the water, and watch the ice crystals form, and then melt... It's interesting, and seriously makes me wonder. (Of course, lots of things make me wonder... I embraced Curious George as a child.)
If projected feelings and thoughts play a role in water, then what else are we harming?
(It all depends on just how far you want to carry the guilt of killing/harming...)
"If projected feelings and thoughts play a role in water, then what else are we harming?"
That's some if! I strongly suspect they don't, and that nothing of any import follows from this (silly) research.
it seems that every new avenue of research has at least somebody calling it silly, so who are we to judge?
Post a Comment