S
spencelo
Guest
The problem is you apparently lack the moral imagination to consider things from the animal’s perspective.
- Status
S
spencelo
Guest
I’m glad. I hope you do so, and perhaps eventually even vegan.
N
nickybr38
Guest
Because it’s an animal? I can never, ever see anything from the animal’s perspective. We don’t truly know how they think or feel. We can never know these things. We can only project our humanity onto them. That’s the best we can do.
C
Crescentinus
Guest
Question, can you?
N
nickybr38
Guest
We are all immoral if we do not think as Spencelo does. And as has been insinuated time and again, we are all clearly uninformed. If we had the information HE has, we would think just as he does. 
S
spencelo
Guest
But we do know a great deal about how they think and feel, so it’s not mere projection on our part.
S
spencelo
Guest
Not so. My statement is relevant to the comment she made.
S
spencelo
Guest
I certainly try, and where I fail, I give the animal every benefit of the doubt – for all I know, animals in some ways can suffer more than humans.
S
spencelo
Guest
Not just information, but more compassion and empathy, which I admit is hard.We are all immoral if we do not think as Spencelo does. And as has been insinuated time and again, we are all clearly uninformed. If we had the information HE has, we would think just as he does.
N
nickybr38
Guest
I disagree. I think a good deal of projection goes on.
What I do know for certain is that certain animals have no qualms about making their peers suffer. I know that they are willing to eat each other. I know this is natural and something they expect, something they KNOW, something that is natural to them.
It is instinctual and not morally incorrect for a wolf to tear apart a cow. Often causing the animal great suffering in the process.
The cow is doing it’s part in the great cycle of life.
The wolf is doing it’s part as well.
That death is far more terrible then any death a human could inflict. Because we are human we do our best to kill an animal with speed. A quick kill is the goal. So we are acting within morality even while giving in to a more natural way of existing.
Furthermore, I would just like to point out, that mass farming harms the PLANET. Far more then hunting harms animals. So if we remove all meat eating we’ll end up with a planet that is completely and totally decimated by mass farming. How is that a better solution? How is that acceptable?
Animals have their purpose but without the planet itself we have nothing.
I’d really suggest you do some research as to the effects of massive agricultural practices on the planet itself. I think you’d be surprised.
S
spencelo
Guest
I posted several links showing the contrary, but you refuse to look at them and study them. Hence I can’t take your disagreement seriously.
Irrelevant. The fact that animals don’t act wrongly when they kill others for food doesn’t mean we don’t act wrongly when we kill them for food.
I haven’t researched this question, so my knowledge on this issue is more limited. I do know that many serious scholars say your claim is false. In any case, your comments here are irrelevant to the current issues being discussed.
S
spencelo
Guest
I realize it may have come across that way, but I meant no offense - just the truth as I see it. Imagine someone kicked a dog in front of you, causing him or her to whine, yelp, and cower into a corner. If you objected to the behavior, and perpetrator told you that you’re just projecting human feelings (after all, dogs are just animals), I think you could rightly say that he lacked moral imagination.
J
JaKael02
Guest
That is a good point. I’d hate to see any animal abused for any reason, humans included.
I must ask, why must we listen to our conscious or morals regarding animal abuse? If no higher power govern’s our conscious and our morality is just an evolutionary process. What is the point is listening to our morality? Why make laws at all if it doesn’t directly benefit myself? Listening to my own morals would just slow down our success and distract us from obtaining greater wealth, power, honor, or pleasure in this lifetime.
S
spencelo
Guest
That’s an entirely separate issue. Catholic or not, if you agree that animal suffering and well-being matters, then you ought to be motivated to seriously consider the ethics of how we treat animals.
N
nickybr38
Guest
I looked at them. I was not convinced by them. Hence, I cannot take your links seriously.
Why? If we are equal to them shouldn’t we weight our actions against their actions?
Ah, I see. Only serious scholars are taken seriously in regards to this subject? No point continuing the discussion then. I’m no scholar. Anything I say will always be disregarded and not taken seriously. Thank you for making that clear so I can stop wasting my time.
That sounds dangerously elitist in nature, by the way. Good for you.
J
JaKael02
Guest
Spenc, Spenc, Spenc…
You are dodging my question. We have agreed that animal suffering & well-being matters. But you said you stand for “animal rights” and not just “animal welfare”. You also stated you stand for “moral consider-ability”.
Yet no God govern’s our conscious or morals. I’m stating that why should a society give “moral consider-ability” to any other human OR animal if morals are just an evolutionary process. Why not do only those actions that which benefits ourselves? Why should I listen to my morals when I see an animal get beat or experimented on?
S
spencelo
Guest
Obviously, you’re the only one who knows how seriously you looked at those links, how carefully and systematically you tried to absorb the information in an unbiased manner. If you say you did, who am I to know differently?
Our equivalent interests are to be weighed equally, but unlike most animals (and some humans), we can evaluate actions ethically.
Not what I said. I said I know of serious scholars who disagree with your conclusion, and that my knowledge on this matter is limited. I’m professing ignorance, not elitism.
S
spencelo
Guest
I can’t help but see your question as a debate tactic to change the subject. After all, you believe there is a God, and since **you **believe animal suffering and well-being matters, that ought to be enough for you to re-evaluate our treatment and attitudes towards animals. The truth of theism or atheism is irrelevant.Spenc, Spenc, Spenc…
You are dodging my question. We have agreed that animal suffering & well-being matters. But you said you stand for “animal rights” and not just “animal welfare”. You also stated you stand for “moral consider-ability”.
Yet no God govern’s our conscious or morals. I’m stating that why should a society give “moral consider-ability” to any other human OR animal if morals are just an evolutionary process. Why not do only those actions that which benefits ourselves? Why should I listen to my morals when I see an animal get beat or experimented on?
J
JaKael02
Guest
I apologize. It can be viewed as a tactic as I have steered from the core thread. Ultimately, I was trying to pick up from our last discussion regarding this issue in which you quit the dialogue.
Regarding myself & my treatment - I have done this. This is why I support animal welfare. You still cannot answer the core question I proposed. If you did so, maybe you could better understand the Church’s position and why it doesn’t support “rights” but “welfare”. In doing so, you will find yourself NOT at odds with your love for animals and their well-being.
Remember I used to be an avid supporter of animal rights. Kindly - James
J
JaKael02
Guest
In my humble opinion, this is the core issue at stake. Every other thread is a derivative of this. All issues of welfare, rights, morality, etc. Unless this is addressed, nothing else can ever be laid to rest.
- Status