In response to Justine - full post here
Sometimes we forget that war is two sided. We think about war with the mindset that only Americans participate in war and that the opposition is shrouded in darkness or something. We think about our poor American soldiers and their poor American families. We think about how sad it would be if our poor American soldiers die. We neglect, however, to think about the opposition. We neglect to think that our poor American soldiers are killing their alleged enemies. Enemies who also have families and children, families and children who believe that their loved ones are fighting for the right cause.
To answer your question about how I would feel if someone I loved went off to fight overseas, I would feel terrible that they thought joining the army was a good option, or feel terrible that they were misled into thinking that it would be fighting for freedom, when instead they were simply killing others because they were told to. I would miss them, and I would want with all of my heart to rewind time so that I could tell them not to be so foolish. I would always support them as people, but not as soldiers, unless there was a seriously justified cause.
30 March 2012
Response (Patriotism)
In response to Rachel - full post here
So, I have a few things to say about this subject. Firstly, you said that patriotism is fighting for a countries theories, beliefs, and morals. I do not think that fighting in the name of those things is a good idea. This is almost circular because wars are fought due to ideological differences, fighting for ideological difference is fighting for war. Additionally, it;s not appropriate to say you are fighting for such things as freedom, if you aren't actually fighting for freedom. Also, the point of freedom is not the ability to give opinions in favor of the common view, you are free when you can give dissenting opinions. American's have none of that. If you tell an American that you don't support the troops, you will be told that soldiers died for your freedom so you shouldn't say that. In reality, saying that is using your freedom.
Fighting for a flawed country is not great because fighting for a flawed country never fixes a flaw. Fixing a flawed country is fixing a flaw. Fighting and fixing are not the same thing.
Also, I think that maybe you are confusing a different country for America. In America people who protest wars, policies, and decisions are put in prison, sometimes indefinitely. I recommend you look into the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. It essentially prohibits protest on any area that the government labels as restricted. You could look up the Patriot Act and tell me what you think of it and the people who are put on terrorist watch-lists for being vegan, atheist, or having a middle eastern sounding name. You could also look into how the US attempted to force John Lennon out of the country for protesting war.
Pride is something that you earn after accomplishing something. You can be proud after you play a piece on piano for the first time. You cannot, however, be proud based on the pure chance of your birth location. It's like saying I'm proud to be born or I'm proud to have a beating heart. There was no work that you put in to these things. Therefore, there is nothing to be proud of. Additionally, we also try to force our values onto other countries. We also have a difficult time changing ourselves, and we shouldn't fight, physically, those who try to change us. We should instead rationally argue with them. Patriotism does a good job at hindering this sort of rational conversation.
So, I have a few things to say about this subject. Firstly, you said that patriotism is fighting for a countries theories, beliefs, and morals. I do not think that fighting in the name of those things is a good idea. This is almost circular because wars are fought due to ideological differences, fighting for ideological difference is fighting for war. Additionally, it;s not appropriate to say you are fighting for such things as freedom, if you aren't actually fighting for freedom. Also, the point of freedom is not the ability to give opinions in favor of the common view, you are free when you can give dissenting opinions. American's have none of that. If you tell an American that you don't support the troops, you will be told that soldiers died for your freedom so you shouldn't say that. In reality, saying that is using your freedom.
Fighting for a flawed country is not great because fighting for a flawed country never fixes a flaw. Fixing a flawed country is fixing a flaw. Fighting and fixing are not the same thing.
Also, I think that maybe you are confusing a different country for America. In America people who protest wars, policies, and decisions are put in prison, sometimes indefinitely. I recommend you look into the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. It essentially prohibits protest on any area that the government labels as restricted. You could look up the Patriot Act and tell me what you think of it and the people who are put on terrorist watch-lists for being vegan, atheist, or having a middle eastern sounding name. You could also look into how the US attempted to force John Lennon out of the country for protesting war.
Pride is something that you earn after accomplishing something. You can be proud after you play a piece on piano for the first time. You cannot, however, be proud based on the pure chance of your birth location. It's like saying I'm proud to be born or I'm proud to have a beating heart. There was no work that you put in to these things. Therefore, there is nothing to be proud of. Additionally, we also try to force our values onto other countries. We also have a difficult time changing ourselves, and we shouldn't fight, physically, those who try to change us. We should instead rationally argue with them. Patriotism does a good job at hindering this sort of rational conversation.
More on Vegetarianism 2
In response to Jake - full post here
Most animals, in fact, are social species. Therefore the same reason that you would choose to kill a plant would apply to them. Also, I am not quite sure what you meant by your second point (outside of the social grouping aspect of evolution).
Regarding your hypothetically being a cow, if you would choose that, that is fine, that does not however mean anything for the rest of the population. On the other hand, in terms of how it actually is, would you rather have a long life and be afraid of predators occasionally, or would you rather have a short life? Mind you, the short life is actually filled with being fed genetically enhanced foods which caused you to grow so fast that your legs break, rendering you unable to stand, because they cannot handle all of your weight. It is filled with constantly being prodded and branded by humans and having your horns ripped from your skull. Filled with being constantly impregnated so that you produce 10 times the milk that you would normally produce in nature, so much, in fact, that your stomach is filled with pus. Filled with being in such close confined quarters that you quite literally cannot turn around or move in any direction. I'm not sure many people would take that short life over a long one filled with fear occasionally.
Yes, I did know that actually - and interestingly, every time you consume a piece of meat you are supporting that activity by giving them money to do so. I, personally, would be much happier to return to the days when cows grazed freely until it was time to give milk. They could give milk, and then never have to suffer from being killed prematurely. There is no need to ever eat animal flesh, to kill an animal prematurely, if we do not need to. It's better for the cow, the environment, and the individual person. Also, as another side note, the economy and the individual worker would never benefit from that. There would be obscene job loss and the entire beef industry (worth $74,000,000,000) would be crippled.
Most animals, in fact, are social species. Therefore the same reason that you would choose to kill a plant would apply to them. Also, I am not quite sure what you meant by your second point (outside of the social grouping aspect of evolution).
Regarding your hypothetically being a cow, if you would choose that, that is fine, that does not however mean anything for the rest of the population. On the other hand, in terms of how it actually is, would you rather have a long life and be afraid of predators occasionally, or would you rather have a short life? Mind you, the short life is actually filled with being fed genetically enhanced foods which caused you to grow so fast that your legs break, rendering you unable to stand, because they cannot handle all of your weight. It is filled with constantly being prodded and branded by humans and having your horns ripped from your skull. Filled with being constantly impregnated so that you produce 10 times the milk that you would normally produce in nature, so much, in fact, that your stomach is filled with pus. Filled with being in such close confined quarters that you quite literally cannot turn around or move in any direction. I'm not sure many people would take that short life over a long one filled with fear occasionally.
Yes, I did know that actually - and interestingly, every time you consume a piece of meat you are supporting that activity by giving them money to do so. I, personally, would be much happier to return to the days when cows grazed freely until it was time to give milk. They could give milk, and then never have to suffer from being killed prematurely. There is no need to ever eat animal flesh, to kill an animal prematurely, if we do not need to. It's better for the cow, the environment, and the individual person. Also, as another side note, the economy and the individual worker would never benefit from that. There would be obscene job loss and the entire beef industry (worth $74,000,000,000) would be crippled.
28 March 2012
Natural Order and Stuff
In response to Jake - full post here
To your third point, though I'll prioritize it: I would like to make this question explicit and ask for an answer: If you were forced to kill one, would you kill a potato plant or a human?
To your second point, to address hypothetically killing cows, I have an answer. I had not realized that we had switched the conversation is this manner. Killing the cow would still be immoral because even though the cow would not feel anything if you killed it during its sleep, you would still be depriving it of a future, the future of feeling things. Plants do not feel things. Saying that you could ethically kill cows in their sleep, would be similar to saying that you could ethically kill people in their sleep. Sleep is simply a suspension of activities, animals still have worth while they sleep.
To your fourth point, I would have to argue otherwise. Living in houses, sheltered from the natural conditions of the world is not part of the biological hierarchy. Nowhere in the biological hierarchy, besides with humans, do you see the systematic breeding of animals (to the point where such a population could never exist in nature) to be systematically slaughtered for the masses. Nowhere is it in the biological hierarchy to use 16 pounds of grain to create 1 pound of meat only to throw away more than a third of the food we have. We have, in all effects, removed ourselves from the natural order of things; we hide in our houses until others do work to produce food for us.
Finally, to your fifth point, I am not suggesting we let all the animals go. We could take care of those animals but stop them from reproducing. Of as you suggested, we could systematically kill this generation and not create any additional animals to be killed.
To your third point, though I'll prioritize it: I would like to make this question explicit and ask for an answer: If you were forced to kill one, would you kill a potato plant or a human?
To your second point, to address hypothetically killing cows, I have an answer. I had not realized that we had switched the conversation is this manner. Killing the cow would still be immoral because even though the cow would not feel anything if you killed it during its sleep, you would still be depriving it of a future, the future of feeling things. Plants do not feel things. Saying that you could ethically kill cows in their sleep, would be similar to saying that you could ethically kill people in their sleep. Sleep is simply a suspension of activities, animals still have worth while they sleep.
To your fourth point, I would have to argue otherwise. Living in houses, sheltered from the natural conditions of the world is not part of the biological hierarchy. Nowhere in the biological hierarchy, besides with humans, do you see the systematic breeding of animals (to the point where such a population could never exist in nature) to be systematically slaughtered for the masses. Nowhere is it in the biological hierarchy to use 16 pounds of grain to create 1 pound of meat only to throw away more than a third of the food we have. We have, in all effects, removed ourselves from the natural order of things; we hide in our houses until others do work to produce food for us.
Finally, to your fifth point, I am not suggesting we let all the animals go. We could take care of those animals but stop them from reproducing. Of as you suggested, we could systematically kill this generation and not create any additional animals to be killed.
26 March 2012
More On Vegetarianism
In response to Jake's response to me - full post here
Foremost, you never actually answered any of the questions that I asked. If you could do that, it my help us to better understand your position on the issue. Would you have chosen to kill one over the other, for any of those options?
Secondly, putting a creature to sleep with chloroform or otherwise does not prevent them from experiencing pain; it only prevents them from screaming in agony because they are rendered unable to do so. However, if we chose to accept the possibility that putting creatures to sleep made it more ethical to eat them, we would still have a problem with eating meat because even if it worked in theory, it would not work practically. The fact that we don't use chloroform on cows before we kill them makes that hypothesis invalid.
Thirdly, it's not in anyone's best interest to confuse the ethics of a term with the definition of the term. The philosophy is still a vegetarian one because it involves only eating non-animal foods. Even if it only slightly less barbaric, it is still vegetarianism. Because there is a large difference in the central nervous system and the intelligence of animals compared to plants, I think that vegetarianism is substantially less barbaric than meat-eating. Even if you do not agree that it is substantially different, you have already stated that you agree that it is slightly less barbaric, and thereby, presumably, better. Based on that, you ought to become vegetarian given that it is the best option; the lesser of two evils, if you view it such a light. Still I think people are hard-pressed to hold potatoes at the same moral worth, or even similar moral worth to humans, dolphins, parrots, chimpanzees, and so on.
This is just a note, I'm not really using it in defence of any of my points. Interestingly, there are plants that, despite lack of nervous system, have developed the ability to defend themselves by using semiochemicals to attract the higher trophic predators of the herbivores that are feeding on them. A fairly cool ability, I must say. Additionally, many plants have thorns or are poisonous.
Foremost, you never actually answered any of the questions that I asked. If you could do that, it my help us to better understand your position on the issue. Would you have chosen to kill one over the other, for any of those options?
Secondly, putting a creature to sleep with chloroform or otherwise does not prevent them from experiencing pain; it only prevents them from screaming in agony because they are rendered unable to do so. However, if we chose to accept the possibility that putting creatures to sleep made it more ethical to eat them, we would still have a problem with eating meat because even if it worked in theory, it would not work practically. The fact that we don't use chloroform on cows before we kill them makes that hypothesis invalid.
Thirdly, it's not in anyone's best interest to confuse the ethics of a term with the definition of the term. The philosophy is still a vegetarian one because it involves only eating non-animal foods. Even if it only slightly less barbaric, it is still vegetarianism. Because there is a large difference in the central nervous system and the intelligence of animals compared to plants, I think that vegetarianism is substantially less barbaric than meat-eating. Even if you do not agree that it is substantially different, you have already stated that you agree that it is slightly less barbaric, and thereby, presumably, better. Based on that, you ought to become vegetarian given that it is the best option; the lesser of two evils, if you view it such a light. Still I think people are hard-pressed to hold potatoes at the same moral worth, or even similar moral worth to humans, dolphins, parrots, chimpanzees, and so on.
This is just a note, I'm not really using it in defence of any of my points. Interestingly, there are plants that, despite lack of nervous system, have developed the ability to defend themselves by using semiochemicals to attract the higher trophic predators of the herbivores that are feeding on them. A fairly cool ability, I must say. Additionally, many plants have thorns or are poisonous.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)