No I’m stating the fact that natural inclinations in and of themselves do not make up human nature. We also have the ability to reason which we are currently exercising. Looking at human nature and trying to ignore the fact that we have the ability to reason is intellectually dishonest.
It should be obvious given my support for animal rights that I do not believe it’s in any way right to beat anyone up – follows from my stance of nonviolence. I was merely subjecting your views to criticism. To me, it doesn’t seem like your Catholic beliefs can avoid the moral absurdity that it’s okay to torture a puppy for fun, which is the point of my op.
Being a moral relativist sounds like a lot of fun. You never lose argumentsI’ve been engaged in a prolonged debate with him in another thread. He won’t attack the legitimacy of using it; he’ll just insist that he doesn’t need to do so to prove his arguments.
You only recently brought up “the ability to reason,” so it’s a modification of your previous explanation for why torturing the dog is wrong. But your modification still doesn’t explain why torturing the dog is wrong. How do you reach the conclusion that torturing the dog is wrong given a) our ability to reason and b) natural inclinations for compassion?
Such a person does not get the pleasure from the scratches, but from the rock climbing. That is the difference between them and your puppy torturer.
It’s equally fruitless to talk about something that is psychologically and factually impossible as about something that is logically impossible - and this cannot be envisioned as something that potentially in future will become psychologically or factually possible, humans and dogs don’t change that much.
Why wouldn’t it indeed? I can’t see any reason why it would be right! I’ve already answered this anyway - the end (subjective feelings of pleasure) is not a sufficient good to justify the means (the infliction harm or pain to the level and extent described).
So? What is your reasoning behind it being wrong? That animals have an inherent value that is transgressed by their torture? Well we believe that too! For us their inherent value comes of their being fellow creatures of God. Being creatures who were NOT made in His image and likeness, their inherent value is less than that of humans, but not so low as to permit us to torture them for fun.
Allow me to answer that for you (based on my previous debate with him):
@prodigalson2011
Ha! I just finally saw your Fulton Sheen quote in your signature. Great minds think alike
Archbishop Sheen is the man (I’ve got Life is Worth Living on “pause” as I type this.) I wish I could find a shirt with him on it; I’d rep him everywhere. A rock-climber climbs because climbing is a pleasurable experience for the rock climber. A tortures because torturing is a pleasurable experience for A.
We can imagine that advances of genetics allow us to breed dogs that make the scenario psychologically possible
So would it be wrong under my scenario? Yes or no? Every answer you gave is unsatisfactory. You say torturing is wrong because of the psychological effect on the torturer, but if there were no negative psychological effects, the act would still be wrong. Why? You said it’s because God requires us to provide “minimal care,” but again if we provided such care, A could still torture the puppy and that would be wrong. So why? It doesn’t seem like there are resources in your worldview that would allow you to adequately answer this question.
…if you find one send me the link…I wish I could find a shirt with him on it; I’d rep him everywhere.
But don’t you also believe that humans have infinitely greater value than animals? If you believe that, then you can’t avoid permitting the torture of dogs for fun.
On my view, value derives from certain states of well-being, and morality is about promoting good states and alleviating bad ones.
This is irrelevant to the point that the pain and damage is accidental for the rock climber, whereas it is intentional for the torturer.
I can imagine taking a vacation on Pluto; doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. These kinds of speculative arguments are useless.
I’ve provided you with numerous answers based on the Catholic view that you have yet to address. You seem to be ignoring my replies now, which I can only assume is because you can’t think of anything to say to them.
Yes, you can, because value as defined by those who believe this does not equate to “having fun.” I thoroughly did away with this idea in the very beginning of this thread.
On my view, intelligence derives from one’s total percentage of body fat, and education is about eating a lot of food and gaining a lot of weight.
Sorry, but you really haven’t.
Yes - but from any pov not all pleasures are created equal, nor do all equally justify the infliction of pain either on self or another.
No - there is no reason to think that dog psychology can be so fundamentally altered by breeding or anything else that can be devised. Avoidance of pain is a fundamental in all animals - a necessity for survival of the species. It is as necessary, and therefore as hardwired into dogkind, as the urges to eat when hungry, sleep when tired and mate when opportunity presents to do so.
I never said God required minimal care. The contrary, I said God requires ‘care’, not just at a minimal level. I said even a NON-religious point of view can accept that a certain level of care for the needs of other species as a necessity for the survival of our own. Clearly you’re hung up on that word ‘minimal’ - consider it a poor choice of wording and leave it at that.
You still haven’t explained why it would be contrary to my torturer’s interests to torture his dog.