As I (like you Baboon) haven't read the entire thread I apologise if anything has been said before The areas where it is better to have sheep's/goats or whatever instead of crops are so small that it won't make any significant difference. but the areas that would not have to be cultivated in order to feed the animal would be huge. Meat is an inefficient source of energy if you consider the amount of wheat used to produce one kilo of meat. I see NO problem with killing animals in order to get meat, animals aren't humans, one thing way too many people seem to forget. That said we have to kill the animals in the fastest way possible. I am a hunter, and actually was out hunting as late as yesterday and I have no problem with killing, however I also train in order to decrease the chance of just wounding an animal, I see all animals as equal. I do not kill spiders, as there is really no reason to, I do shoot deer for the trophy, but also regulate, I shoot any old/ill animal even if the bigger trophy is a different animal, and I let all young animals go, simply because I see no reason to shoot them (unless we have no more meat in the freezer). I shoot only what we can eat, and I only shoot what is sustainable. If this was not done the number of deer in my area would exceed that is sustainable, the result: disease and hunger. too many deer in an area may cause damage to the nature, when they no longer have sufficient food they will eat the bark off the trees killing especially young trees in the process. I can see a animal die from a shot with no problem, but seeing it die from disease or hunger is just an unpleasant and sad thing to see.
That statement is incorrect. In Scotland and other hilly regions of the UK there is vast areas of land only suitable for animal grazing. I would imagine this is the same in hilly and mountainous regions around the world. Why feed animals wheat? Sheep and cattle are designed to eat grass. Your should read the article posted by memeroot, it addresses these issues. Our farming practices are fubar. Grow wheat for us and let the animals eat what they have evolved to eat and lets not forget crop rotation either. You need to let the arable land rest and that's the perfect time to get some grazing animals in to leave a nice pile of poop as fertiliser.
Bombshell: Who says it has to be morally justifiable? What if I'm fine with doing it (and having it done for me) and I don't believe in a universe where right and wrong are absolutes that need to be argued over? It's not right or wrong, it's just an action that you either choose or choose not to do. Both are fine as long as we're not hurting each other (purely because that's the easiest, most pleasant road for everyone). Objects in space, and all that.
well you haven't really outlined much of a moral code given on each case you put one forward on being presented with a counter example you placed it under 'justified' In summary your moral code amounts to..... killing= bad except when it is justified and chopping up peoples privates except when that's justified so if I generalise A is bad unless A results in good. the converse A is good unless A results in bad is equivalent so A is neither good or bad unless A results in good or bad which bv my reading puts you somewhat far from moral absolutism. @CardJoe "Who says it has to be morally justifiable?" then "Both are fine as long as we're not hurting each other" = introduction of morality "purely because that's the easiest, most pleasant road for everyone" =justification of morality
If you claim there is something wrong with my claim, then you prove that. You can't just say there's something wrong with no factual basis, just on the off chance. Why qualify it? Why not just do what we want when we want regardless of the consequences? That qualification is a moral one in the first place. Morality is not about some abstract "right", it is about finding out the best, most positive, way to live and make decisions. We discuss (argue over) these issues precisely so that we can find the best way, rather than just making something up and forcing it on everybody
I'm sure you'd change that tune if the discussion was about a recent ban on videogames citing harmful effects on youth as the moral justification Besides, it's just a p*ssing contest...
@eddtox "Morality is not about some abstract "right", it is about finding out the best, most positive, way to live and make decisions. We discuss (argue over) these issues precisely so that we can find the best way, rather than just making something up and forcing it on everybody" how does that tie in with "Right and Wrong (morally speaking) exist independently of any social or environmental constructs." and "The idea that all morality is relative and up to the individual or society is a fabrication designed to excuse us from asking difficult and uncomfortable questions." or are 2 people posting as eddtox?
I finally see where you are coming from, but you misunderstand my position. A is inherently positive B is inherently negative If, in a given situation, net result of B is more positive than net result of A, or net result of [nothing] then, B is morally justifiable in that particular situation, but B does not change and become positive for all situations, A does not change and become negative for all situations, and [nothing] does not change. If A is impossible, A does not become any more or any less morally positive.
@eddtox I think I must be missing something because your logic seems to result in A is never inherently positive B is never inherently negative it depends on the situation
While that is true in Scotland, seen on a global scale it's but a small fraction of the land used to grow crops. I use wheat because that is what is usually used in statistics calculating food units, and wheat IS a sort of grass. on top of that you would be surprised how much cattle never get to eat normal grass, I just have to look over to our neighbour to have 500 examples (no joke). crop rotation does not mean that you have to have normal grass, just change between wheat-corn-peas is more that enough. and guess what all these are used for... cattle of cause. Using the poop as fertilizer, well yes but is pumped from the stables to a tank from where it is spread using machines.
(This thread is so filled with awesomeness!) Probably we should qualify that the response should be more than reflexive. A reflexive response is one that cannot be modulated. Same stimulus --> Same response, every time. There may be extinction or sensitisation over time, but it is the same response. A response testifying of some conscious awareness on the other hand is flexible and changeable. What is human is what makes baby humans?
sadly I think the definiton of human was rather taken over by arts students (wasnt it burke with symbolic man).... Perhaps better to discuss Homo sapiens then we can discuss genes and speciation.... though lets face it a species is a bit of a construct also.
How do you work that out? Just because A is not always the best choice for the highest net positive outcome, that does not mean that it is never the best choice. I would argue that being helpful is always a morally positive stance even though it might be situationally shown to lead to a negative outcome if you help someone procure a weapon for a murder. Being helpful remains a positive stance, but situationally (i.e: in that particular situation) the highest net positive outcome is obtained by not adopting that stance. A moral frame of reference cannot, and indeed must not, be applied without considering the particulars of the situation.
I just saw the film on one of the other pages and I have to admit that it is a looong time since I have seen so many false accusations in such a short time. while some of the things may be true in other parts of the world (cutting the throat still being used in the middle east) and some still in Europe, (don't know about the US/Canada/Australia) most of it is pure BS. yes cattle is packed tightly, one advantage of that is that the chances of them falling during transport is decreased. an animal that has been stamped to death has also major damages on the meat itself, and thus making some of it useless.
@eddtox by "A is never inherently positive" I mean that for any moral axiom there will exist a circumstance that, given an action according to that moral axiom, will result in an outcome that is immoral with respect to the axiom. now it is useful to have a 'moral framework' in the same way as we don't consider every action from first principals, but this is far from moral absolutism - its just a set of guidelines that society has developed to cope... These guidelines are far from absolute and certainly 'Slavery is bad' has no meaning. Slavery of many forms exists in nature and it is difficult to call a bug immoral. Polyergus breviceps
