I'm not saying I agree / disagree with you, but what grounds do you base this statement on?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hunting for sport alone is evil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I mean, that is a pretty black/white statement in an industry full of grey.
First example to come to mind: Buffalo hunting, compare US settlers vs. Native Americans
Perhaps I shouldn't say it's always evil but it's almost always. I'll go edit that. (an example would be when I hunt the Covenant in Halo for fun, but there are no consequences when a virtual entity is destroyed unlike in real life) There are many, many examples, but just going arround and shooting everything just because you can kill is highly disrespectful because in real life there are consquences for your actions.
Please undertand Pepe I don't oppose hunting or the meat industry. In fact I'm sorta defending them here. Hunting is an enjoyable sport, but you have to remember to show respect by using what you kill. Human are omnivores so I see absolutely nothing wrong with eating meat. In fact I'd love a good steak anyday. The issue of slaughter house employees torturing the animal before slaughter is a different, internal problem. It doesn't mean you shouldn't eat meat because of it, but it is something that needs to be worked on because torture is an evil.
Here is an interesting article that I found pertinant to the discussion. Should we show respect to fish when we kill them? What about other lower life forms - spiders, mosquitoes?
Please don't take this as a flame-bait. I just want to follow the reasoning to its logical conclusion.
What about sport hunting as a means to cull overlarge populations?
For me respect of the lifeform has much to do with it's level of sentience, intelligence, soul, number of cells, good or evil, etc. It's a combination of varibles.
Yes you show respect for all but when considering a few of the varible I listed above it makes it clear to me that some lifeforms deserve more respect. Not really that the other deserve less but that some deserve more. Killing a human is much different than killing a deer is much different than killing a fish is much different than killing a weed in your yard is much different than killing a pathogen. Yes their is also a point when killing becomes necessary. But even when killing overpopulation you should show respect and use what you kill. You can still sell the meat or at least put teh whole deer (if it's diseased for instance) into a grinder to prep it for thermal depolymerization to give you oil to run your car and methane to run your stove. That's still using the animal. If you kill an over popualtion and then used the remains as fertilizer fo your crops so you can feed hungry people that is also showing respect by using what you killed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For me respect of the lifeform has much to do with it's level of sentience, intelligence, soul, number of cells, good or evil, etc. It's a combination of varibles. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Help me understand this a little more. All these seem rather arbitrary. I mean, from a biological stand-point, we are all guests on this planet. Just because I evolved more doesn't mean I have more soul than an earth worm.
As for goodness and evilness - those are labels we put on things we either like or dislike. Snakes, rats, spiders, most insects are "bad" - deer, wolves, guinea pigs, sheep are "good". Cows and pigs inhabit a neutral ground.
As for intelligence - some spiders display advanced hunting strategies, commando style tactics - extrordinary for something whos brain is the size of the head of a nail.
I guess that I am trying to point this out because it looks like situational ethics. I think that a proper world view needs to be able to establish consistant codes of action that have a stronger base than the sum of arbitrary values. (I am bad at math...j/k).
Just so you understand where I am coming from - I have no problem with people trying to be nice to animals - even while killing them. I just want to get past the action as to WHY someone should be nice to animals.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Nov 17 2004, 09:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Nov 17 2004, 09:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I guess that I am trying to point this out because it looks like situational ethics. I think that a proper world view needs to be able to establish consistant codes of action that have a stronger base than the sum of arbitrary values. (I am bad at math...j/k). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure why his belief wouldn't be consistant. Arbitrariness (word!?) aside, his cut-off line would have to be consistant for him to be comfortable with it. Even the fluffy bunny argument against hunting is consistant.
And as far as arbitrary values - that's really quite a loaded phrase, but whatever - why would hunting humans be against the rules when hunting animals isn't? Supposing God says that was so, God's judgement is nothing but arbitrary. I don't think that just because an ethic is arbitrary it is a good reason to toss it.
Fish are tasty. That's all I need to know really. At least they WOULD be if I could get any fresh fish around here. As it stands, the only way to get fresh fish (and thus the only way to get tasty fish) is to "hunt" for them, i.e. go fishing myself.
I don't know whether cats are tasty, I've never tried cat. But I know that cats make for better pets: They're fluffly, they can breathe air (and are thus not bound to an aquarium), and they're mammals like me - somehow, I feel closer to them. So I'll keep cats as pets and eat fish, instead of doing it the other way around. What do I care that they're equally smart?
I don't take it as flamebait that you're posting that article here. But we're talking about PETA here. PETA does nothing but flamebait.
Heh. "Once people start to understand that fish, although they come in different packaging, are just as intelligent, they'll stop eating them." You willing to bet on that, PETA? I'll take any bet. Make it a big one. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hunting for sport alone is evil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I mean, that is a pretty black/white statement in an industry full of grey.
Perhaps I shouldn't say it's always evil but it's almost always. I'll go edit that. (an example would be when I hunt the Covenant in Halo for fun, but there are no consequences when a virtual entity is destroyed unlike in real life) There are many, many examples, but just going arround and shooting everything just because you can kill is highly disrespectful because in real life there are consquences for your actions.
Please undertand Pepe I don't oppose hunting or the meat industry. In fact I'm sorta defending them here. Hunting is an enjoyable sport, but you have to remember to show respect by using what you kill. Human are omnivores so I see absolutely nothing wrong with eating meat. In fact I'd love a good steak anyday. The issue of slaughter house employees torturing the animal before slaughter is a different, internal problem. It doesn't mean you shouldn't eat meat because of it, but it is something that needs to be worked on because torture is an evil.
make sense?
Here is an interesting article that I found pertinant to the discussion. Should we show respect to fish when we kill them? What about other lower life forms - spiders, mosquitoes?
Please don't take this as a flame-bait. I just want to follow the reasoning to its logical conclusion.
What about sport hunting as a means to cull overlarge populations?
For me respect of the lifeform has much to do with it's level of sentience, intelligence, soul, number of cells, good or evil, etc. It's a combination of varibles.
Yes you show respect for all but when considering a few of the varible I listed above it makes it clear to me that some lifeforms deserve more respect. Not really that the other deserve less but that some deserve more. Killing a human is much different than killing a deer is much different than killing a fish is much different than killing a weed in your yard is much different than killing a pathogen. Yes their is also a point when killing becomes necessary. But even when killing overpopulation you should show respect and use what you kill. You can still sell the meat or at least put teh whole deer (if it's diseased for instance) into a grinder to prep it for thermal depolymerization to give you oil to run your car and methane to run your stove. That's still using the animal. If you kill an over popualtion and then used the remains as fertilizer fo your crops so you can feed hungry people that is also showing respect by using what you killed.
Help me understand this a little more. All these seem rather arbitrary. I mean, from a biological stand-point, we are all guests on this planet. Just because I evolved more doesn't mean I have more soul than an earth worm.
As for goodness and evilness - those are labels we put on things we either like or dislike. Snakes, rats, spiders, most insects are "bad" - deer, wolves, guinea pigs, sheep are "good". Cows and pigs inhabit a neutral ground.
As for intelligence - some spiders display advanced hunting strategies, commando style tactics - extrordinary for something whos brain is the size of the head of a nail.
I guess that I am trying to point this out because it looks like situational ethics. I think that a proper world view needs to be able to establish consistant codes of action that have a stronger base than the sum of arbitrary values. (I am bad at math...j/k).
Just so you understand where I am coming from - I have no problem with people trying to be nice to animals - even while killing them. I just want to get past the action as to WHY someone should be nice to animals.
I'm not sure why his belief wouldn't be consistant. Arbitrariness (word!?) aside, his cut-off line would have to be consistant for him to be comfortable with it. Even the fluffy bunny argument against hunting is consistant.
And as far as arbitrary values - that's really quite a loaded phrase, but whatever - why would hunting humans be against the rules when hunting animals isn't? Supposing God says that was so, God's judgement is nothing but arbitrary. I don't think that just because an ethic is arbitrary it is a good reason to toss it.
I don't know whether cats are tasty, I've never tried cat. But I know that cats make for better pets: They're fluffly, they can breathe air (and are thus not bound to an aquarium), and they're mammals like me - somehow, I feel closer to them. So I'll keep cats as pets and eat fish, instead of doing it the other way around. What do I care that they're equally smart?
I don't take it as flamebait that you're posting that article here. But we're talking about PETA here. PETA does nothing but flamebait.
Heh. "Once people start to understand that fish, although they come in different packaging, are just as intelligent, they'll stop eating them." You willing to bet on that, PETA? I'll take any bet. Make it a big one. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->