Grey Issues

I read another book called “debator’s handbook” in which contains detailed pros and cons of almost 50 arguments across the board. The pros and cons are most persuasive! And everyone pro and con has some truth in them. The fact that all issues, including animal rights have a pro and con re-enforces my belief that our belief system is found on psychological basis and not rational basis. Because if it is, how come we don’t have a clear cut rational conclusion to the issues? I believe that all issues are psychological in nature.

To demonstrate, I am prepared to argue on the issue of “animal rights”, “persecution of old war-criminals”, “private education”, “virtues of racial hatred”…

Just name your topic and I’ll take your opposition.

“animal rights”, “persecution of old war-criminals”, “private education”, “virtues of racial hatred”…

yes, animals should have the right to educate old war criminals on the virtues of racial hatred before persecuting them…

and in portugese no less…

-Imp

Dear Pinnacle,

I’ll take - ‘animal rights’ as in ‘Human benefits overrule animal rights.’

I used to be a Terratologist - so I know the dance-steps off by heart.

Fire away.

when did they cure that one?

-Imp

It wasn’t easy - I can tell ya… I underwent severe fiscal-therapy, and suffered awful trauma to my remuneration system. But it was worth it.

Hi Pinnacle of Reason,
What do you mean by all issues are psychological? Do you mean that all issues are somewhat influenced by emotions? All ideas and thoughs stem from the mind, which is influenced by experiences and beliefs. Hence, everything we argue about is a reflection of how we feel about an issue or maybe an indirect approach to satisfy one’s own ego. In a sense science becomes a belief, just as much as religion is a belief, and it becomes an expression of emotions in arguments/debates.

Peace

PoR…We all know we can count on you to make yourself look like ILP’s premier horse’s ass. I still wonder why you have not rid yourself of that cross.

Tabula Rasa

Animals are our cousins in the animal kingdom, we should for the sake of morality protect their interest, for they are just another version of our primitive state.

Animals resemble humans in many ways, they have intelligence, emotions, they are socialable, they are close to humans and we should look after the anmials as we look after ourselves, for it is only just and ethical if we do onto others as we do onto ourselves.

Genetically speaking, the animals are closer to us than you may think. Studies have shown that we share 98% common DNA with chimps. In fact, there is more genetic difference between a man and a woman than between a man and a chimp.

Given the similarities between animals and us, it would only be logical to treat them similarly to us. Humans are in a position of power over the animals, and thus should take greater responsibility in taking care of the animals whom are our close cousins in the animal kingdom. With great power comes great responsibility, or so says LoTR.

Humans currently benefit from the carcuses of dead animal bodies. It would be much healthier and cleaner, conscience wise to eat non-organic food than to eat carcuses like primative savages. Human progresses has made the consumption of carcuses unneccesary. We should give up our practice and pursue a healtier alternative.

to sum up, human benefit should not overrull animals rights because the act is selfish and unncessary. Our benefit does not have to come at a cost of suffering to the animals. We should not build our pleasure on the saddistic suffering of our close cousins. We are similar to animals, and we should afford them simliar rights. There is no justice in inflicting suffering on our close cousins all in the name of meger benefits to humans.

Join the debate everyone.

curious_rina

you got it! our approach to issues are determined by our psychological make up.

Sagesound

why I haven’t rid myself of that cross? BECAUSE I AM A CHRISTIAN!

EDIT: and good Christians wear crosses, you should know that.

So - Dear Pinnacle, how does my Psychology shape up…? Something between non-empathic sociopath and generic pond-scum I shouldn’t wonder. :smiley:

Would you like me to point out all of the things YOU have said that dictate otherwise??

Tabula Rasa

Keep in mind the original question, ‘Human benefits overrule animal rights.’

Animals may not be covered by our morality, but we are. We have the responsibility and moral obligation to cease causing suffering on other creatures of God. It is important to realise that animals are also created by God and are not simply inanimate objectes, but creatures with consciousness, capable of experiencing suffering. God has given us authority over the creatures, but not the right to exploiting them merely to satisfy our selfishness. The Holy Father has made it clear that abortion is wrong and just because you Godless athiests “have little qualms” with an act of murder, does not imply we Christians “have little qualms”. Abortion is murder, pure and simple. Abortion is even worse than animal cruelty, in one case you are causing intolerable suffering on our cousins and in the other, you are denying the basic right to live to your fellow human beings.

We as enlightened human beings should be showing moral leadership not stoop down to the level of the unenlightened savages and wait for the savages to lead us! It is widely know among psychologicsts that it is possible to condition the animals. When you know what’s right and have the ability to impose thoughts of rightousness, what are you waiting for?

The chair on which you are sitting does not experience consciousness, at least you do not know it does. In either case, principles of morality which apply to living creatures are exempt from inanimated objects. The fundamental law regarding living creatures is to leave them alone if they are not interfering with you.

Since you agree eating non-organic food equates to an ethical life, why don’t you take the available steps now to reduce unethical practices? While patience is a virtue, inaction is an action.

Are you conceding the debate so earler in its progress? :slight_smile: We should be fixing Africa and the conditions of the animals whom are our cousins by virtue of the fact they are creatures of God with consciousness. But I do not believe you are correct in your chronological approach. We have the economical, physical capacity and the moral resolve to fix all the problems of injustice and suffering simultaneously, right now? So why solve them in a discriminatory order? The animals have been looking after themselves for THOUSANDS of years without us, but the fact is, we have changed their environment, and now it is up to us to fix the problems which we are all guilty to have caused them.

Sagesound

why don’t you once and for all, detail your accusations against me in another post. I with the blessing of God and the Holy Father will be able to refute you EASILY. I have NEVER said anything unChristian. I deny your insinuation that I haven’t been a GOOD Christian strenuously.

EDIT: I have foreseen my vindication, which will forever stand as a testimony of my faith.

I’ll just get the funnies out of the way first so I can clear my head…

Er…? :astonished:

That sounds like an insult for the split second until you realize it’s absolutely true… Mind you - if you’re a Christian and belive in God - but call me a Godless Athiest aren’t you implying in the same breath that God does not exist…? ie:

*God exists for Christians.
*All christians are human.
→ God exists for humans.
*Atheists are Godless.
*All Atheists are human.
→ God does not exist for humans.

Shouldn’t you have said: “You for whom God is there, but you deny this fact, Atheists”

Though I’ll admit it doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.

Anyway, onto more serious stuff:

In moral philosophy, deontology is the view that morality either forbids or permits actions, which is done through moral norms. For example, a deontological moral theory might hold that lying is wrong, even if it produces good consequences. Historically, the most influential deontological theory of morality was developed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who introduced the idea of the categorical imperative. (from answers.com - keyword “deontology”)

So - regarding deontological morality, the are no get out of jail free-cards, either a moral rule applies universally, (ie: to All God’s creatures, in this case) or it is not a rule. There are no little wrongs that can be morally undertaken to achieve a consequence of greater good. The end never justifies the means.

“Hey Tab - what’s this got to do with animal rights…?” I hear you ask…

Well if we universalize “Do not cause suffering to creatures of God”…

Thou shalt not - take medicine when thou art ill - lest thee strike down God’s little bacteria and viruses. Indeed - thou must disable thine immune-system, for it is unclean in the eyes of the universal moral codex.
Thou shalt not - Fumigate your home - lest thee kill God’s little creepy-crawlies.
Thou shalt not - defend yourself, your children or loved ones from attacks - lest thee harm thine attacker.
Thou shalt not - always tell the truth - lest you cause emotional suffering in your fellow man.
Thou shalt not - Make condomless hanky-panky with your wife - lest thee impregnate her, causing 9 months of discomfort and the suffering of the birth.

Okay - you could say that some of these creatures have no consciousness/concept of pain - but you’d have a hard time proving it in many cases, until then, you’d have to err on the side of righteousness because, ignorance would be no mitigation against breaking a universal moral law.

So - until you’re willing to universalize your rule, and take the consequences…

…It is cannot be absolutely wrong to cause suffering in another of God’s ceatures.

Here you modify your rule a little. But now it’s too full of loopholes to function…

[b]interfere /b
-To be or create a hindrance or obstacle.
-To intervene or intrude in the affairs of others.

So - according to your new rule, I can:

-run down people/animals in the street - they are obstructing my path.
-Shoot my wife if she butts her damned nose into my business one more time.
-Any cow that gets between me and a nice bit of scenary - obstructing my view - BLAM…!
-That damn Guinea-Pigs squeaking is interferring with my sleep-patterns, it’s blender-time Mr. Squeaky…

So, at best, not harming animals and arbritrarily giving them rights, remains a personal choice, and you can not reasonably expexct to impose your choice on others…

[size=75][This post was brought to you with the aid of my favourite building-sized-antique-computer Beep-boop.][/size]

Tabula Rasa

hahah, please, you make me laugh!

Let me get the real funnies out of the way.

This is a response to patience is a virtue. It shows that patience is not always a virtue, when you see someone getting beaten, you would according to your doctrine, wait Patiently for the beating to cease then help the victim. But your Inaction during the beating is in itself an action condoning the beating!

The phrase means you athiests who do not believe in God. Also, hahahhahah, your logic is FAULTY!!!

lmao, don’t do it, you are killing me!!! :laughing:

Get a grip on the definition of sets and SUBSETS!!! Have you no mathematical grounding???

*God exists for Christians (Set B).
*All christians are human (Set A).
→ God exists for humans.
*Atheists (Set C) are Godless.
*All Atheists are human.
→ God does not exist for humans.

By your same faulty logic, you can prove Christians are Athiests! hahha
Set B is a subset of Set A. Set C is a subset of Set A. That does not mean Set B equals Set C!!

Also, Athiests are Godless does not mean God does not exist for Athiests, but that athiests do not believe in God.

Kant’s moral and ethical codes are problematic. Kant says stealing is wrong because it is wrong if everyone steals. But is it correct if not everyone steals?

If something is wrong, it must be wrong in all situations. I am not convinced unless you can list ALL situations. Also, moral obligations arise when you are aware of the consequences of your action or when things are not interfering with you.

You are under no moral obligation as long as you are not aware, or have no reason to suspect your actions cause suffering to others.

Bacteria - cause suffering to you, all’s fair in love and war
creepy-crawlies - see Buddist monks, they kill no living things.
attacker - causing suffering and probably death to you.
truth - done with the best intention, or delay the telling of truth but do not lie.
the last, I will not reply to.

Remember, no law should apply retrospectively. It is absolutely wrong to cause suffering except when you are unaware or things are interfering with you.

  • run down people/animals, they are unaware of the fact, and it is your duty to make them aware.
  • let your wife know how much distress she’s causing you, I suggest temporary seperation until things can work out.
  • again, cow may not be aware.
  • again, gunea-pig may not be aware.

I have overturned all your special cases, my universal law that

“Cause not harm upon your fellow creatures, lest ye be unaware, or they harm thee”

Stands unrefuted.

I may have just been pissing about… I don’t know, I’ll have to ask me to make sure.

I said you should say what you said after I had said you should say it, if you had said it before I had said you should say it I wouldn’t have had to have said you should have said it in the first place. No…?

No, I’d say - “Could you hurry up with the beating already - I’m on a tight schedule here…”

And my personal favourite:

:smiley:

Anyway - back to the fray.

okay - let’s take your statement: “inaction is an action.”

And your rule: “Cause not harm upon your fellow creatures, lest ye be unaware [size=75](that your actions will result in harm to said creatures)[/size] , or they harm thee

Say - you’re ill, there are drugs for your illness - but they haven’t been tested. There are a bunch of rats over there, doing nothing. Inaction is an action, they are condoning your illness - they are causing you harm by selfishly not volunteering to help you out. So, shucking off the strait-jacket of moral law, you can now happily bop them on the head with a clean conscience and jack them up with a needle of your wannabe medicine.

A child walks into burger king, and says - “Double Whopper menu please, my good sir.” - gets his burger, starts munching. Someone leans over and says “Psst…! Kid - you do know that’s a cow your eating there, don’t you sonny-boy…?” The kid peeks carefully into his bap, and breathes a sigh of relief. “Hey Mr. - stop telling fibs…! It don’t look nuffing LIKE a cow…!”

No - I think the whole thrust of the deontological theory of morality is that the consequences have no bearing on the morality/immorality of an action (or inaction if you wish). If an action is wrong - it is wrong, there are no mitigating circumstances.

We agree it seems.

“Cause not harm upon your fellow creatures, lest ye be unaware, or they harm thee”

We cause harm simply by existing. Clear some land - build a house, how much suffering have you caused…? How many delicate eco-systems have you disrupted…? How many creatures have you squashed.

Eat some salad. Did you share it with the poor starving rabbit way over there…? You knew it had to be there somewhere. Inaction is an action - you are condoning its condition. Harming it.

The list goes on - you’re an imagnative chap… Make some up yourself.

But here’s the kicker - if we cause them harm by existing - and in doing so breaking an inviolate self-imposed moral law, condemning us to eternal suffering of conscience - then they cause us harm by existing too.

So - there you go - carte-blanche (or Tabula Rasa) to break your rule with impunity…

[size=75][you must admit the irony - in simply proposing your moral law - you give us leave to break it.][/size]

Stop disputing the point, that Godless athiests means athiests who do not have God in their heart (not literally of course).

The rats can not be condoning my illness because they are not morally aware and therefore is exempt from my rule. “lest ye be unaware”

p.s where can I find old English translations?

The child is indirectly causing suffering to the cows for being a consumer.

all situations is an inclusive term!

but who struck the first blow? hehe, clearly, you are the one with free will and the first to cause harm, so you are the one to blame. If you hadn’t harmed the animals, you wouldn’t be imprisioned by your own guilty conscience.

In making the abortive attempt at breaking my rule, Tabula Rasa fell and landed on his arse.

Hi Pinnacle - we seem to be having trouble understanding one another…

Me not understanding you:

So - if you’re saying that all animals are unaware morally - ie: just following their instinctive hardwiring… Why do we damn them for doing something that harms us, when by our own admittance - such and such animal in such and such a situation cannot help but cause us harm.

Your rule as it stands says basically - if an animal harms us (through direct action… as we seem to have given up on the ‘inaction as action’ shtick with respect to animals apparently :wink: ) - ie: simply obeying their innate nature - then that gives us the moral right to blow them out of their metaphorical socks.

A baby is not morally aware - so if my baby gets angry because I say “NO!” at some point, and I don’t know, bites me or something intentionally because at that point - he knows no better, I can quite happily pull out the Colt45 and blow his little ass right out of his diaper…? :astonished:

And - let me anticipate your answer to save you some brain cells - you reply:

“Tabula, you ‘non-God-appreciating-even-though-he’s-there-waiting-for-you-to-let-him-into-your-souless-little-atheist-heart’ Atheist, you shouldn’t blow your baby out of his diaper, you should educate him…”

To which I reply - “fine then by your reasoning - we must also attempt to educate every other living thing on the planet from ameobas to chimpanzees to not harm us, before we start taking pot-shots at them…”

I don’t know - but the “or they harm thee” clause in your rule stands on some shaky ground I think.

I mean fine - defend yourself from a human attacker, because they have consciously chosen to attack you. But your poor wittle animal - they’re just organic robots - they do not choose to harm you.

And you not understanding me:

My whole point was the child escapes your rule because they are not aware of the link between cow and burger… Beging the question - when do you tell them…?

“Look son - no more burgers for you…”
“But Dad… Why…?”
“Well - it’s like this… By consuming burgers you have become the inadvertant dupe of the immoral mass-slaughter condoning evil corporate empire and are indirectly causing untold suffering to millions of our fluffy fellow creatures…”
“???”
“Dad…?”
“Yes Son…”
“Can I have a hotdog instead then…?”

And just for the hell of it:

Ah - so you believe in free-will as action without cause then…? Hmm… How wonderful for you.

[size=75][Tab may have fallen - but luckily he was wearing his extra-bouncey pants…][/size]

Tabula Rasa

omg. I said before it is possible to condition the animals and it is possible to educate humans. When I say not harm them unless they harm you means if they bite you try to back off. Humans are the ones with moral consciousness and should take greater responsibility in the affairs of the lesser moral conscious. Human beings should be showing moral leadership.

My golden rule applies to the ones who are morally aware and thus morally responsible.

My golden rule stands. What I have suggested is reasonable. It is about human beings taking the responsibility of being a human being, and not being a manchild.

on free will, please read Satre.

I love you Pinnacle: :smiley:

Okay, nice sentiment… One question:

To who…? The Chimps…? The Lions…? The Hamsters…?

“…Yes, so you see, my fluffy little friend, we humans are moral…!”
“Squeak” [size=75][Scratch balls, drink a bit of water][/size]

You know… I just knew you were going to say that…

So now your Rule stands as:

“In order to not cause harm upon your fellow creatures, ye must makest sure thou art informed of all avenues of harmful linkage (and quickly educate thine children of such), train all manner of beasties, bugs and single cell lifeforms lest they, through lack of conditioning, cause us harm, or flee the lowliest worm lest its wrigglings offend thee”

So - Rather than injure, or run the risk of any conflict in which an animal might harm us - we must back off…?

Where to…?

Imagines a huge group of humans squashed together on an island, squealing everytime they see a bird fly over…

Your rule is unworkable, absurd, non-universal, and not worth the pixels it perverts to render it on the screen.

The important thing is my rule is workable, be patient my friend. Remember, as you said, patience is a virtue!