Truth and morality

[mnbvcxz87]

Yes, it is, sorry. This has been discussed elsewhere. Unless you plan to make all animals (a) tame/domesticated and (b) vegetarians, suffering is inevitable.

And neither (a) nor (b) is possible.

We can make as many animals as possible tame - brought up without having to develop wild / survival instincts.

And who's to say we couldn't produce through science a synthetic meat substitute for carnivores, to feed either the ones we could bring up with us, or to feed in the wild, wild feeding programmes or whatever.

There are so many possibilites of what good we could do.

Yet all our species has done in it's history is fight eachother, torture eachother, manipulate eachother, and massacre eachother and animals.

These are the only truly important issues.

 

[TheBellman]

We can make as many animals as possible tame - brought up without having to develop wild / survival instincts.

Yes, we can. And that number (the number we can possibly make tame) is very small - only animals of species we've already domesticated. Predominantly wild species such as the big cats, bears, etc., can't be tamed/domesticated. It's been tried. Many, many times. It fails, because instincts aren't something developed, they're inborn. That's why we call them instincts.

And who's to say we couldn't produce through science a synthetic meat substitute for carnivores, to feed either the ones we could bring up with us, or to feed in the wild, wild feeding programmes or whatever.

And who's to say we could? And who's to say that if we could, it would be a good idea?

There are so many possibilites of what good we could do.

Indeed there are. However, 'rescuing' animals from their natural environment is not part of that good.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Changing an animal to make ourselves feel better is not anything I could ever define as "good".

 

[Vylo]

Actually, you can tame any animal. But there is a difference between a tamed and a domesticated animal. Tamed animals are still wild and undomesticated animals, and as such, their instincts are still lodged in their mind and can get the better of them.

The usual distinction between tamed and domesticated animals is if they can survive in the wild, although it is possible for many domesticated animals to still do so with limited success.

A tamed animal is one simply taken from the wild or born from a recently wild generation into a domestic environment. It takes generations of breeding to fully domestic a species.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Consider the following. Concepts derived from language are not true.

Wait--there are concepts not derived from language? :o

The only truth other than our existence, is our actions. Actions speak louder than words, and so the only moral truths are the actions leading from compassion, altruism and empathy.

Hmm. That's a pretty nebulous definition of truth. Cannot people act falsely?

Empathy, to feel for the wellbeing of others (animals and human equally) and to therefore act in such a way as to ease their suffering and improve their wellbeing.

Altruism, to put the wellbeing of others (animals and human equally) above your own, to act in such a way as to benefit them at a cost to yourself.

Compassion, to want for the positive wellbeing of others (animal and human equally) and so to act in such a way as to improve it for them. (In an extreme case this could be euthanasia).

I think this is a definite virtue--and I wish more people gave two shakes about non-human animals--but "equally" is a loaded word. If you value each animal equally in a quantitative measure, it will preferably favor the smallest of the small, because they are the most numerous. If the life of a cat becomes less important than that of a flea, it would be inhumane to give your cat a flea dip. Yet cats are likely more able to suffer than fleas. You'd also be hard pressed to not take antibiotics. Kill millions of animals to save yourself from infection, hm? So I don't think "equal" is exactly the most ethical method, necessarily.

Religion tells you treat others as you would have them treat you, so do that. Do that for animals and for humans. Do that for anything which can suffer. Act in their wellbeing above your own.

I think this is generally a good plan, but I don't think that all animals have equal capacity to suffer; humans also have additional capacity to provide for animals, as evidenced by our ability to care for pets. Also, I have a fear of new foods, so I can't eat much else but meat. I'd be dead if I couldn't eat meat, in a matter of months. I'd probably go veg if I could, though; not because I believe that eating meat is wrong (the cows can live a good life) but because I have some issues with the manner in which the meat-packing industry is run.

Trickster

 

[Ave Maria]

I disagree, animals and humans are totally different. Animals have a material soul that ceases to exist when they die and humans have a spiritual soul that continues on for eternity after they die. Therefore, the way we treat humans animals is going to differ in a way.

 

[TricksterWolf]

I disagree, animals and humans are totally different. Animals have a material soul that ceases to exist when they die and humans have a spiritual soul that continues on for eternity after they die. Therefore, the way we treat humans animals is going to differ in a way.

For anyone who has loved a pet, the idea that animal souls are annihilated at death while people souls survive is a horrific suggestion, one that with my Mother (who is a Christian and loves animals) would no doubt disagree. That's for another thread, though.

Trickster

 

[mnbvcxz87]

Wait--there are concepts not derived from language?

I don't think so, you could act in these ways without language or words.

Oh I misread, I'm referring to behaviour such as acting in a way to benefit someone or something else, now with language we may call it empathy. Ways of behaving which are now defined, acting in ways so as to benefit someone or something else is according to a moral truth. An act of positivity, morality which endures with or without language.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Duplicate post, and I don't know how to delete a post. Please ignore.

 

[TricksterWolf]

I don't think so, you could act in these ways without language or words.

Oh I misread, I'm referring to behaviour such as acting in a way to benefit someone or something else, now with language we may call it empathy. Ways of behaving which are now defined, acting in ways so as to benefit someone or something else is according to a moral truth. An act of positivity, morality which endures with or without language.

Hmm. We may agree on a point; I think the best ways of acting are generally those not derived from conceptual thinking and reinforced by moral reasoning, but those derived from a natural wellspring of morality. Like the soldier who jumps on the grenade without a moment's thought for his own needs; he does it because it's right.

Trickster

 

[elman]

Hmm. We may agree on a point; I think the best ways of acting are generally those not derived from conceptual thinking and reinforced by moral reasoning, but those derived from a natural wellspring of morality. Like the soldier who jumps on the grenade without a moment's thought for his own needs; he does it because it's right.

Trickster

Do you believe we all have this knowledge of what is right? And if so where do you think we got this knowledge?

 

[TricksterWolf]

Do you believe we all have this knowledge of what is right? And if so where do you think we got this knowledge?

No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying...it isn't knowledge at all. I mean that some actions are more natural than others, this varies by person, and each person must listen to her own moral center.

Trickster