The Art of Killing--for Kids

[nickybr38]

The racist is consistent as well: “I draw the line at white because all whites share the same color as me. A white human is a white human regardless of cognitive ability, gender, nationality, religion, etc.”

Mental suffering still requires a nervous system.

Then I would have to evaluate my actions accordingly.

The difference between the racist and the speciest is that I can actually prove through science that all humans are humans, regardless of their color or gender. The racist can be proven wrong through science.

You cannot prove to me that a dog is a human.

I said other forms of suffering, not just mental. How do we know there isn’t a form of suffering that transcends both mental and physical? How do we know plants aren’t far more sophisticated then we are even? When you read the articles I’d be interested to see your response to the claims made in them.

You sure would wouldn’t you? And you’d probably have to go on a diet of sunlight.

 

[nickybr38]

I’m not suggesting what to do in terms of specifics. As an abstract matter, the extinction of predators could be a good thing because the world would have less amounts of suffering in it.

Good grief. Are you serious? So only creatures that do not cause harm to others are worthy of life?

For the death penalty are you?

 

[spencelo]

The difference between the racist and the speciest is that I can actually prove through science that all humans are humans, regardless of their color or gender. The racist can be proven wrong through science.

Why can’t the racist prove that “all whites are white?” Or why can’t the sexist prove that “all men are men?” Or why can’t the heterosexist prove that “all straight people are straight people?”

I said other forms of suffering, not just mental. How do we know there isn’t a form of suffering that transcends both mental and physical?

That doesn’t even make conceptual sense to me: suffering beyond the mental and physical. Suffering is either mental or physical, and if one says there are other “forms” of suffering, he isn’t talking about suffering any longer.

You sure would wouldn’t you? And you’d probably have to go on a diet of sunlight.

What follows practically isn’t clear, but if plants feel real pain, then that ought to be considered and evaluated ethically.

 

[spencelo]

Good grief. Are you serious? So only creatures that do not cause harm to others are worthy of life?

Imagine there were a group of humans who needed to inflict extensive physical pain and death on other humans in order to survive. Would it be wrong to want to cause the (humane) extinction of that group?

For the death penalty are you?

I am not.

 

[nickybr38]

Imagine there were a group of humans who needed to inflict extensive physical pain and death on other humans in order to survive. Would it be wrong to want to cause the (humane) extinction of that group?

This supposition is irrelevant since it has never happened but even if it were to happen it would not be right to wipe out an entire species because they make things difficult.

I am not.

Now who’s being inconsistent? Hint: It’s not me.

 

[nickybr38]

Why can’t the racist prove that “all whites are white?” Or why can’t the sexist prove that “all men are men?” Or why can’t the heterosexist prove that “all straight people are straight people?”

This has nothing to do with my argument. The racist cannot prove that the black man isn’t human, the sexist cannot prove that the woman isn’t human and the heterosexist cannot prove that homosexuals aren’t human.

So prove to me that dogs are humans and I’ll consider not eating them.

 

[spencelo]

This supposition is irrelevant since it has never happened but even if it were to happen it would not be right to wipe out an entire species because they make things difficult.

The hypothetical species wouldn’t just make “things difficult”–its members would all be serial killers. Do we let them continue to kill people in order to survive? The clear answer is ‘no,’ even if that means causing their eventual extinction.

Now who’s being inconsistent? Hint: It’s not me.

I do not detect any inconsistency, but you are free to point out any you think is there.

 

[nickybr38]

The hypothetical species wouldn’t just make “things difficult”–its members would all be serial killers. Do we let them continue to kill people in order to survive? The clear answer is ‘no,’ even if that means causing their eventual extinction.

Such a species has never existed. It would not be moral to kill them simply because they are acting on instinct. How is that correct? Those with higher functioning should find ways to LIVE with such creatures, not just wipe them off the face of the planet. That is true cruelty.

I do not detect any inconsistency, but you are free to point out any you think is there.

Your inconsistency comes in that it is wrong to kill gentle, peaceful animals but okay to wipe out entire species if they are unpleasant. No wait… maybe that’s more naive then inconsistent.

 

[spencelo]

This has nothing to do with my argument.

Yes, it does. What I’ve demonstrated is that the racist or sexist can draw lines as well, and your appeal to “humanity” is dialectically ineffective – it begs the question. The sexist says: “I draw the line at male.” You respond: “females are human too.” His rejoinder: “So what? Only human males matter.” Pointing out that there are humans who don’t fit within the sexist’s preferred group doesn’t demonstrate why the sexist’s line is irrational.

So prove to me that dogs are humans and I’ll consider not eating them.

This assumes that being human is necessary for moral consideration, but again, the racist can make the same assumption about race. You appeal to “being human” is arbitrary. Why not draw the line at mammals?

 

[POJIUJH]

Imagine there were a group of humans who needed to inflict extensive physical pain and death on other humans in order to survive. Would it be wrong to want to cause the (humane) extinction of that group?

Until you realize that humans and animals are different - which you aren’t able to do as an atheist - you aren’t going to understand hunting.

Besides, if there are no predators there is over grazing. Over grazing results in starvation, death and consequent extinction both for the animals and plants = end of the world. I don’t hunt, I wouldn’t want to if I didn’t need to, but, in in a strange paradox, it is necessary for life.

I suggest going beyond this subject though, that you bring it to it’s roots and think more about this objective moral code you are proposing in the first place. Only subjectivity can exist in an atheistic mindset, yet you know the moral code is objective.

 

[spencelo]

Such a species has never existed. It would not be moral to kill them simply because they are acting on instinct. How is that correct? Those with higher functioning should find ways to LIVE with such creatures, not just wipe them off the face of the planet. That is true cruelty.

In my hypothetical, there are only two options: a) allow the species to live and let them routinely kill other human beings, or b) defend other human beings from the serial killers, in which case they will go extinct. Are you telling me (a) is the preferable choice?

Your inconsistency comes in that it is wrong to kill gentle, peaceful animals but okay to wipe out entire species if they are unpleasant. No wait… maybe that’s more naive then inconsistent.

Did I say “if they are unpleasant?” That’s a severe distortion of my position. Moreover, I don’t see how I’m inconsistent in being against the death penalty.

 

[nickybr38]

Yes, it does. What I’ve demonstrated is that the racist or sexist can draw lines as well, and your appeal to “humanity” is dialectically ineffective – it begs the question. The sexist says: “I draw the line at male.” You respond: “females are human too.” His rejoinder: “So what? Only human males matter.” Pointing out that there are humans who don’t fit within the sexist’s preferred group doesn’t demonstrate why the sexist’s line is irrational.

And my response to him would be: Without female humans you wouldn’t exist. Case closed.

This assumes that being human is necessary for moral consideration, but again, the racist can make the same assumption about race. You appeal to “being human” is arbitrary. Why not draw the line at mammals?

I will give you one thing: You’re certainly stubborn.

Explain morality to me. Explain where you decide what is moral and what is not. Tell me who your authority is. Your morality is just as arbitrary as my food chain so why is your morality the superior viewpoint?

 

[spencelo]

Only subjectivity can exist in an atheistic mindset, yet you know the moral code is objective.

I know morality is objective – hence I’m an atheist.

 

[nickybr38]

In my hypothetical, there are only two options: a) allow the species to live and let them routinely kill other human beings, or b) defend other human beings from the serial killers, in which case they will go extinct. Are you telling me (a) is the preferable choice?

I present a third option in your scenario. Take these vicious killers, place them in factory farms and use them for food so that all the peaceful, gentle animals can be free to live their lives in peace.

Did I say “if they are unpleasant?” That’s a severe distortion of my position. Moreover, I don’t see how I’m inconsistent in being against the death penalty.

Human beings DO torment one another. Some humans are exceedingly cruel and go out and behave like predators.

If it’s okay to kill an animal because it causes suffering then how is it NOT okay to kill a human because it has caused suffering?

 

[spencelo]

And my response to him would be: Without female humans you wouldn’t exist. Case closed.

Not case closed. The male sexist acknowledges that women are necessary, so he thinks they should be enslaved and treated as mere property. Again, pointing out that women are human too begs the question against him: what’s so special about being human, as opposed to being a male human?

I will give you one thing: You’re certainly stubborn.

Explain morality to me. Explain where you decide what is moral and what is not. Tell me who your authority is. Your morality is just as arbitrary as my food chain so why is your morality the superior viewpoint?

I think you are trying to move the discussion into a different direction. You say the ethical line is humans, but why not mammals? Why not draw the line at mammals? If you say “because they’re not humans,” then you beg the question.

 

[nickybr38]

Until you realize that humans and animals are different - which you aren’t able to do as an atheist - you aren’t going to understand hunting.

Besides, if there are no predators there is over grazing. Over grazing results in starvation, death and consequent extinction both for the animals and plants = end of the world. I don’t hunt, I wouldn’t want to if I didn’t need to, but, in in a strange paradox, it is necessary for life.

I suggest going beyond this subject though, that you bring it to it’s roots and think more about this objective moral code you are proposing in the first place. Only subjectivity can exist in an atheistic mindset, yet you know the moral code is objective.

That’s just the problem isn’t it? Killing off the predators would in itself be an act of cruelty to all the creatures you’re ‘saving’.

 

[InAllThingsLove]

Another reason why the line is drawn at people: You can end up with the human equivalent of mad cow if you consume nervous tissue of your own species. Even without any moral opposition on the basis that we are all children of God that risk would be pretty persuasive to me.

I believe animals have emotions. My dogs have convinced me of that. I love my dogs, and I think that in their own way they “love” me. But any moral outrage at the death of a dog, is to me due to it being an unnecessary waste, or the harm it causes to the humans who care for it (though I do have sympathy for animals that mate for life). It may turn my stomach that other cultures eat dogs because of the way I personally feel about them, but in the end it’s a personal perception, and the death of the animal does serve a purpose. I would not ask those people to stop eating dogs completely, just to kill them quickly, and to not kill those dogs that are being kept as companions. I cannot consider that immoral, however uncomfortable or unhappy it may make me feel. The moral ill in killing a dog is if you don’t consume it, or if the dog is companion to a human and you cause the human undue suffering and grief. To say that dogs are the same as humans is simply false. I’m consistent, if a dog kills a human it hasn’t committed any moral ill either.

In addition, Spence, your earlier statement about tranquilizing deer and then giving them a lethal injection is actually disrespect in my opinion. In doing so you’re put something into the meat that would render it unfit for consumption, because the drugs from the injection could make people ill, and in that case the death truly is for naught.

On a side note, how do you feel about people who consume roadkill? There are many who will see a dead deer on the side of the road and use the venison in the same manner as those who hunt. Is what they are doing morally wrong as they have no active role in the killing or suffering, or is that a moral neutral?

 

[spencelo]

I present a third option in your scenario. Take these vicious killers, place them in factory farms and use them for food so that all the peaceful, gentle animals can be free to live their lives in peace.

That “third option” isn’t any different than (b): the species will still go extinct.

Human beings DO torment one another. Some humans are exceedingly cruel and go out and behave like predators.

If it’s okay to kill an animal because it causes suffering then how is it NOT okay to kill a human because it has caused suffering?

Because it’s possible to stop human killers without killing them, but it may not possible to stop animal-killers from killing without killing them (are causing their eventual extinction).

 

[nickybr38]

Not case closed. The male sexist acknowledges that women are necessary, so he thinks they should be enslaved and treated as mere property. Again, pointing out that women are human too begs the question against him: what’s so special about being human, as opposed to being a male human?

I think you are trying to move the discussion into a different direction. You say the ethical line is humans, but why not mammals? Why not draw the line at mammals? If you say “because they’re not humans,” then you beg the question.

I am attempting to understand your morality, which is subjective and arbitrary. Clearly my morality says it is not wrong to eat animals. Your morality says things that feel should not be harmed.

And then you turn around and say things that feel but are cruel SHOULD die.

So your morality is mixed up and not consistent and I want to know why your morality should be superior to mine even if yours is messed up.

 

[nickybr38]

That “third option” isn’t any different than (b): the species will still go extinct.

Not at all. Cows aren’t extinct. Chickens aren’t extinct.

Because it’s possible to stop human killers without killing them, but it may not possible to stop animal-killers from killing without killing them (are causing their eventual extinction).

But in your scenario these are human killers. And it’s possible to contain them. So why would it be okay to kill them?