Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: B@tfinkV on January 03, 2007, 02:46:58 PM
-
despite the inevitable end to an interesting debate i still think there is a topic for valid discussion here.
how is the murder of two different lifeforms a cause to make two seperate laws, or morals.
how is crushing an insect and murdering a human any different?
dont get me wrong, where im looking from one of those doesnt offend me, and the other is the cause of much sadness and offence to many people.
but in the grand story of life they both are an identical act or murder.
how is it we rulers of this planet justify our laws and yet fail to spread our 'human morals' to all lifeforms on this planet?
stealing a ciggarette from your brothers packet when he is not around to ask persmission, and stealing all the possesion from another persons house are both stealing, but how is it that us humans will morally accept one action and instantly damn the other action.
is murder still murder and an equal crime accross the whole spectrum of life?
is stealing still stealing no matter the target or reprocussions of the theft?
who draws the lines under what is acceptable and what is not?
lets try to keep it related to the topic, and far from breaking any forum rules. if you have a personal agenda againt another forum user here i suggest you have no place in this discusion.
-
the day we understand that they are the same is the day there will be "Heaven on Earth"
sadly, we are far from that day
-
Originally posted by Eagler
sadly, we are far from that day
Yes, especially considering I have next Tuesday free. :(
-
or morals.
I think you mean mores, pronounced " morays"
Simply put, individual morals become societal norms or expected behaviors known as mores.
how is crushing an insect and murdering a human any different?
Biblicly speaking, the insect has no soul so there is a difference.
stealing a ciggarette from your brothers packet when he is not around to ask persmission, and stealing all the possesion from another persons house are both stealing, but how is it that us humans will morally accept one action and instantly damn the other action.
This is an awful comparison. First, the values of the two thefts are widely disparate. Second, there is no B&E in the first example, certainly no criminal trespass, little or no potential of violence. Are you being deliberately obtuse or just using such wildly different examples, then positing them as to be similar, to make a point I cannot see?
-
The fact that the human being can have the representation "I" raises him infinitely above all the other beings on earth. By this he is a person....that is, a being altogether different in rank and dignity from things, such as irrational animals, with which one may deal and dispose at one's discretion." (Kant, Lectures on Anthropology, 7, 127)
A lower animal's attention is fixed on the world. Its perceptions are its beliefs and its desires are its will. It is engaged in conscious activities, but it is not conscious of them. That is, they are not the objects of its attention. But we human animals turn our attention on to our perceptions and desires themselves, on to our own mental activities, and we are conscious ofthem. That is why we can think about them…
And this sets us a problem that no other animal has. It is the problem of the normative.... The reflective mind cannot settle for perception and desire, not just as such. It needs a reason. (Korsgaard, 1996, 93)
If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, for the dog cannot judge, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. (Kant, Lectures on Ethics, 240)
Other animals, which, on account of their interests having been neglected by the insensibility of the ancient jurists, stand degraded into the class of things. [original emphasis] ... The day has been, I grieve it to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated ... upon the same footing as ... animals are still. The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? (Bentham 1781)
couple interesting views here.
<----was married to a philosopher for over 10years.
-
Well, I don't really get what you're driving at but, nature has no morals, it survival of the fittest for all living creatures. Human laws & morality seldom converge even when they are morality laws, go figure.
Even in the world of the human animal it's survival of the fittest, sure society has social programs that prop up the weak but to what end? In a few years there won't be any of the fittest left & the only ones that are left will be the ones that need propped up. Then in the natural order of things what happens? They die out, then the ones that were faking it will get busy making their way or get busy dieing & we'll have to do it all again because as we all know, history repeats itself.
Just look at the corrupt govt. of Louisiana & it's welfare population. The big hurricane hit & even though they knew for decades the levees wouldn't hold that much storm surge & they knew for a week the storm was coming they still waited for the govt. to come & give them a free air conditioned ride out of the path of it.
Amid all the cries of racism & failure on the federal level, it was the local govt. that was responsible, they told the people at the federal level the levees had held some 6 hours after they had breached...but the propped up welfare populace of the city re-elected those same local politicians & continue to blame the federal govt. & not only that; now those same people are claiming the federal govt. blew up the levees with explosives to cause the damage!
No, I say there are no morals in nature & survival of the fittest should be the only way any of us get by & laws are only obeyed by good people who don't need laws in the first place. The ones who break the laws are not concerned with the consequences anyway.
-
Value.
The value of an object or being determines whether it is saved or destroyed.
-
Somebody needs to change the bong water.
-
If you will ask the difference between man and insect then why not man and plant or rock?
-
"do the laws of humans, and the morals of nature have any place together?"
Nature does not have a moral code. It does not think or feel. Human law is a collection of customs, prejudices, technicalities and fashions. It is not scientific. It is hard to think of a universe without law or morals because we are so used to the idea of both.
"how is crushing an insect and murdering a human any different?"
It is not illegal to crush an insect under British law, at least unless the insect is very rare or you crush it in a manner judged inhumane by a court. There is no law or moral code beyond that which we make for ourself. There is no law beyond human law. The only judges are human beings and the only laws are human laws. There is no higher judge and no universal moral standard. Animals do not punish each other for killing and eating other animals. Several human societies have legalised the killing of other human beings. If human society valued the life of insects over the life of people, we would change the law so that it would be unlawful and immoral to crush an insect. If human society enjoyed killing then we would legalise killing. The Romans entertained themselves by watching real human beings hack each other to death with axes and swords.
The last man on Earth will have no law or moral code except that which he makes for himself. And after he dies there will no law or moral code or any concept of either. The sun will shine down on the empty earth and there will no right or wrong, or anything except for packets of energy decaying forever into almost nothingness.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
stealing a ciggarette from your brothers packet when he is not around to ask persmission, and stealing all the possesion from another persons house are both stealing, but how is it that us humans will morally accept one action and instantly damn the other action.
I accept neither action.
1st if I did smoke my little brother would have got a slap up side the head.
Then told next time wait and ask. Because he needs to learn not to mess with other peoples stuff. This is where the thief mentality starts.
Stealing all possessions ehh lock em up for as long as possible.
See lvl of punishment fits the crime.
Nope bat stilll disagree with ya.
Bronk
-
I've fished since I was old enough to hold a rod. Back when I was younger, I saw the trophies my uncle had up on the wall, and so when I finally caught some real keepers, I had them mounted too.
I have to say, I regret doing that. Now I'm all catch-and-release, and even feel pretty bad about using live bait (I get over that pretty quick if the fishing is slow though ;) )
That said, I don't feel anywhere near as bad for doing that as I would for killing another human, or a human-like animal such as a dog.
I don't know why that is, but that's just the way it is.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
That said, I don't feel anywhere near as bad for doing that as I would for killing another human, or a human-like animal such as a dog.
dating an ugly girl huh?
-
Originally posted by storch
dating an ugly girl huh?
No, but we've all been there. Well, except the teetolarers, anyway :D
I just feel bad killing animals. Not that I don't eat them or such. It's just I don't really feel good about killing them.
-
nature does have its own moral code that is seperated from 'human morals'.
a lion on the plains does not kill the antelope because it stands on his soil.
if he is not hungry the lion will rest peacefully 50yrds from a herd of lazy grazing 'prey' who will not worry that the lion should attack them just because he feels like it.
the lions moral code is of natural progression and thus a pure code denoted not by descisions, but by nature and the age old concepts implanted in the predators mind.
when the lion is hungry, he will attack and kill the same antelopes becuase he must do so to survive.
the lion knows the difference betwen 'right and wrong' on nature's terms.
even this obvious example clearly shows to me that nature has a moral code totaly seperate from what we call 'human morals'
the funny thing is, at the dawn of the human race, the moral codes followed by these arrogant two legged creatures was exactly the same as the lion's natural moral code.
over millenia, us humans have forgoten that nature provides us with a built in moral code, and we have invented our own 'human code' and tried to take credit for the many different variations and evolutions of the original natural code.
now we have 'nature's code' and 'human morals' and we pretend to express that as humans we are above other creatures intelectually because we have decided our own moral limitations.
we fail to see that the natural order of things that almost every other creature follows to the letter, was a far better code of conduct than anything we have since conceived.
" why dont you relate them to plants and rocks, if you realate this question to insects"
half and half
plants are alive, lifeforms with the same rights to exist as any human.
on the other hand
rocks are monuments to matter that once was alive, but is long since dead and returned to its natural state.
in saying that, the cycle of life is started in rock, grows into a living being, and uses itself up and returns to rock, ready for the next time the life energy contained deep within the rock's atoms can find a way to actively 'live' again, and die, and return to rock.
so
hurt plants = bad
hurt rocks = not easy
human moral code = short lived and made up to suit our circumstances, changed and taylored to every need to keep ourselves within the guidelines.
natural moral code = will live on untill life itself dies, and will not change its rule book once from creation to destruction.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
Snipped for bs
Really Bat . Walk up into a pride of lions. I don't care if they are hungry or not you will be mauled.
Now just like animals you walk unannounced and uninvited into someones home. You can expect the same treatment the lions would give you.
Hell even ants do the same. Get real close to a red ant mound and see what happens.
Dude pass it on you've had enough.
Bronk
-
the only reason the lions would attack me is either because they were starving, or if i acted with either a threatening manner, or a petrified manner.
in other words more simply for people who call 'BS' on anything they dont like.....
()they will kill me for food.
()they will kill me to eliminate the threat i might pose to them.
()they will kill me if i show fear.
thier justification is part of the natural moral code implanted in them through evolution that they will act upon without realising or thinking about it.
most intresting for me is the third bullet point there.
kill me if i show fear?
what is naturlly moral about that you may ask
its quite simple, if i show fear to them, i have either done something that means i deserve thier punishment, or that i know i am a very tasty meal and know they will enjoy eating me.
both of these reasons that i might show fear to them are perfectly good natural reasons for them to take an interest in me.
the only animal on he planet that kills for lust, greed, anger or flight of fancy on a regular bases is the human being.
ironic that we should claim to be the only ones on the planet with a true and fair moral code.
nature has morals far better than ours, it doesnt even take much soul searching to uncover them from the depths (or shallows) of your mind.
-
they will kill me to eliminate the threat i might pose to them.
Ding
Thats why they will kill you regardless of what you do.
They don't want you in their space period end of story.
Just keep on spinning it to fit your view though.
Tell ya what go to the zoo. Let us all know how it works out when you jump into the lion enclosure.
Make sure you take what your on now so you wont be scared.
Wouldn't want that to mess up the experiment.:D
Bronk
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
the only animal on he planet that kills for lust, greed, anger or flight of fancy on a regular bases is the human being.
Ohhh really.
http://www.chimpcollaboratory.org/news/ahr3.asp
Care to try again.
Bronk
-
shallow bronk, very poor, your first post.
about the chimps, they are closer to becoming human than most animals. they may have evolved to ignore natural codes and decide thier own laws.
they may have fits of outrageous violence spured by instant reactions to situations, but i doubt they truly conspire to kill another lifeform and plan the attack for some time before. they react instantly to a situation, they dont not decide on a course of action and then follow it through for the purposes of simply killing for the sake of killing.
back to the Lion
you firstly misunderstand the 'threat' reason for them attacking me.
for them to attack me i must first pose a threat in the body laguange and my actions.
the problem, and the reason you are confused, is in two parts.
first that years of theatening action by humans have associated the human form with threat personified.
secondly, that i would wager every single human that has been mauled or killed by a lion has either been acting as a threat openly, or been wetting themself with fear openly.
a Lion in the zoo is not commanded by nature's laws.
it is commaded by human laws, it is surrounded by humans day in day out, it watches hundreds of physically weaker lifeforms walk around its cage day in day out, with no chance to eliminate the threats and therefore over time the lion becomes more human. governed by human laws, its eventually adopts them in fvour of the natural laws in its makeup.
when some fool jumps into his pen, the lion acts as a human.
he kills that human in his enclosure simply because he is really pissed off with life and has learnt the values of captivity, freedom, natural life, unatural life and most of all he has learnt the values of hate and revenge.
he learnt them all from studying humans.
think about that for a while
-
(http://www.arthursclipart.com/toys/toyscol/Top.gif)
Bronk
-
pathetic.
I can see you're done with making worthwhile contributions.
-
(http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/Assets/artfuldodger.jpg)
Artful Dodger is a nimble and elusive Warrior. When strongly attacked he changes the subject with a diversionary counterattack. For example, if in a moment of pique his opponent refers to him to him as a "sonofa*****", Artful Dodger will not only demand a public apology for the insult to his own mother, but will castigate his opponent on behalf all mothers everywhere. Knowing full well that staying on topic works to his disadvantage, Artful Dodger will not allow himself to be pinned down.
Just keep on spinning.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
pathetic.
I can see you're done with making worthwhile contributions.
Lmao you did a long way back.
Figured I'd start with the inane posts also .
Bronk
-
Ohh and your still a thief if you rip a friends CD for you own use.
Done with you .
Spin on and on and on.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
(http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/Assets/artfuldodger.jpg)
Artful Dodger is a nimble and elusive Warrior. When strongly attacked he changes the subject with a diversionary counterattack. For example, if in a moment of pique his opponent refers to him to him as a "sonofa*****", Artful Dodger will not only demand a public apology for the insult to his own mother, but will castigate his opponent on behalf all mothers everywhere. Knowing full well that staying on topic works to his disadvantage, Artful Dodger will not allow himself to be pinned down.
Just keep on spinning.
Bronk
i am one of the very few people on this forum, possibly in life altogether, that maintains my viewpoint no matter what is thrown in my direction.
i have answered your posts in great detail, often on subjects that should not even be hard to understand for a small child.
unless your only intention in this thread is to bait me into a personal argument, and therefore lower the worth of my words, then i pity you.
if not that, i have no clue why you enter such a topic and post in such a manner.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Somebody needs to change the bong water.
Here's a helpful hint: adding a very small amount of mouthwash (about 5% concentration) to your bongwater will keep your bong from tasting nasty much longer between cleanings.
Remember: a clean bong is a happy bong.
culero
-
bongs are for people who just want to get high in the same way a shot of spirits is for people who want to get drunk.
a rolled joint is for them who wish to appreciate the smoke, take in the flavours, and not get high and like a fool, in the same way the vineyard owner drinks a single glass of his finest red wine and recorks the bottle.
both methods can be alot of pleasure at the right moments.
but....is it moraly right to do this to the cannabis plant :D
-
Stealing is wrong, whether it's a cigarette or a mountain of gold. It's wrong. No room for compromise. But in society there is a graduated series of punishments for theft.
Murder is wrong but depending on your interpretation of the sixth commandment, Killing is OK as long as it's justified. That's where human law comes into play. In certain countries execution for murder is morally acceptable but in most it's considered morally unacceptable and in fact murder. Killing in war is OK too but that is where it gets very messy and ambigious.
But there tends to be a general taboo against killing other humans in most societies not surprisingly.
The answer really is that we set the rules to suit ourselves. We can invoke a God to support our cause or use patriotism or whatever 'ism' we like. We can even murder other people as long as we can justify it to ourselves or we have the approval of the group or country or religion or 'ism' we belong to. The Nazis being the classic example.
There is no one morality. We all have our own. Often it coincides with whatever group we are part of. Even if it doesn't we tend to obey the rules set for us by other people in the group. The lawmakers whether elected by us or not, decide. We obey or pay the consequences, which sometimes is to be put to death by others whose morality allows them to do so.
Remember stealing was once a capital crime in certain situations. Even children were hanged. The people who did so no doubt felt morally secure. Who are we to say they were wrong? In their minds the thief was a much a threat to society as the lions would be to b@tfink or b@tfink is to the lions??
If one day that group decided killing an insect is murder. Then so be it. Watch where you walk:noid
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
bongs are for people who just want to get high in the same way a shot of spirits is for people who want to get drunk.
a rolled joint is for them who wish to appreciate the smoke, take in the flavours, and not get high and like a fool, in the same way the vineyard owner drinks a single glass of his finest red wine and recorks the bottle.
both methods can be alot of pleasure at the right moments.
but....is it moraly right to do this to the cannabis plant :D
OK, this thread just took a big ol' turn into sillydom.
Please let me help you..
1. nature has no "morals".
2. smoking weed to appreciate the flavor is like drinking everclear cause you like the taste....
3. party on dude
-
If Batfink isn't the posterchild for why you shouldn't do drugs I don't think we'll ever find anything that is.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Stealing is wrong, whether it's a cigarette or a mountain of gold. It's wrong. No room for compromise. But in society there is a graduated series of punishments for theft.
Murder is wrong but depending on your interpretation of the sixth commandment, Killing is OK as long as it's justified. That's where human law comes into play. In certain countries execution for murder is morally acceptable but in most it's considered morally unacceptable and in fact murder. Killing in war is OK too but that is where it gets very messy and ambigious.
But there tends to be a general taboo against killing other humans in most societies not surprisingly.
The answer really is that we set the rules to suit ourselves. We can invoke a God to support our cause or use patriotism or whatever 'ism' we like. We can even murder other people as long as we can justify it to ourselves or we have the approval of the group or country or religion or 'ism' we belong to. The Nazis being the classic example.
There is no one morality. We all have our own. Often it coincides with whatever group we are part of. Even if it doesn't we tend to obey the rules set for us by other people in the group. The lawmakers whether elected by us or not, decide. We obey or pay the consequences, which sometimes is to be put to death by others whose morality allows them to do so.
Remember stealing was once a capital crime in certain situations. Even children were hanged. The people who did so no doubt felt morally secure. Who are we to say they were wrong? In their minds the thief was a much a threat to society as the lions would be to b@tfink or b@tfink is to the lions??
If one day that group decided killing an insect is murder. Then so be it. Watch where you walk:noid
good stuff sir.
particularly the last 2 paragraphs.
you have just outlined, in my mind, human morality and its undulating course through history.
natural morality does most definitely exist, and is governed by no living creature, it is instinct.
instict is nothing to with human morality and human laws.
our laws were written, revised, and re-written for thousands of years untill we end where we are now with a thousand rules to human morality.
natural instict has been around since the dawn of the universe, and can never be edited or revised to suit who ever is in 'power'.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
If Batfink isn't the posterchild for why you shouldn't do drugs I don't think we'll ever find anything that is.
and humanity i general, golfer, is the poster child of why we should all divert our minds away from the 'human race' if we intend to make it to the year 3007AD.
btw, i dont 'do' drugs. i may drink some beer and i may smoke a little weed now and then.
if you would really care to account for the way i think as being as simple as doing some substances, and lets suppose you are correct in this assumption, then i would gladly thank the substances that took me away from thinking like you do. I was once right in the middle of your kind of human, and was really good at being that type of creature. I have been you, or like you, and i know what its like.
you have never been anything like me and so i feel doubtfull you can currently come anywhere near understanding my philosophy.
-
Indeed B@tfink, and the biggest problems often arise when natural instincts conflict with human morality or laws.
-
thats the nail hit square on the noggin cpxxx, do you mind if i write that one down?
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
is murder still murder and an equal crime accross the whole spectrum of life?
It isnt yet. But with the help of crackpots like PETA and the rest of the feelgood crowd we are well on our way to getting there
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Indeed B@tfink, and the biggest problems often arise when natural instincts conflict with human morality or laws.
Unfortunately, natural instincts always conflict with morality and laws.
Teenager has some problems with his father. The simplest natural instinct tells him to fight and get dominant position in family like lion would do, but he doesn't do that. Why? because he knows the consequences. He can predict. His father had conversation with his manager, and it looks like he is going to be fired. He really wants to kill manager, to protect the wellbeing of his family, to fight... but he doesn't do that! Why? because he can predict.
Humans didn't change, we still act according our natural instincts. Alone or as a group. But that natural instincts were adjusted, they were a little bit modified because of our possibility to predict.
Adam and Eve were the first human who had this capability. But they were idiots in modern sense, they can predict results of their actions only on one step, otherwise they would never leave the Eden. But we have developed since that time, and even their sons were able to forecast for more than one step.
Right now our "morality" and "laws" are just a result of pre-calculated consequences of our actions. Say, somebody kills somebody for any reasons. After a long chain of events the result will be indictment and execution. Not everybody is clever enough to make all that necessary
inferences and forecast or calculate the possibility of the final result, so "law" and "moral" prompt them.
Amoral person is not who make something immoral but who is not clever enough to predict or avoid the results. Those who could are always moral. Because they were clever or strong enough to be not caught.
-
interesting.
the prospect that natural instincts work in direct conflict with human laws in an attempt to be true to those instincts.
i dont think natural instinct has ever or will ever change.
what has changed is human laws and morals, and natural instinct, being the powerfull force that it is, still finds ways to overcome the unatural boundries and live through this conflict thus theoreticaly proving that natural instinct is more powerfull than any human law.
this begs the question, which humans listen mostly to thier natural instincts, and which humans mostly follow human laws and ignore thier basic programming.
this also begs the definition between which natural instincts are acceptable to follow in a world dominated by human laws, and those that are not acceptable.
finally all this leads us to wonder, how long before natural instincts become the prevalent force behind humanity once more?
or will they ever?
-
I find it funny how large a human is to a spider, and how we can do infinitely more damage to it then it can to us.
Yet most of us get the willies pretty bad when one crawls over the arm of the couch when we are sitting there quiet.
(http://www.everythingabout.net/articles/biology/animals/arthropods/arachnids/spiders/wolf_spider/wolf_spider.jpg)
Christ, i got the willies just looking for that picture.
-
Natural instincts have nothing to do with morality. There is no morality in nature. That lion you mentioned might not hurt you at all, but it's not because of his moral fortitude I guarantee it :aok
-
Insects annoy me all the time, humans only now and again, that's why I stamp on anything that comes within striking distance when I'm having a smoke and a cup of coffee outside, Inside I have a Tennis racket styled bug zupper, I use it all the time, morals? doesn't bother me one bit.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
hurt plants = bad
hurt rocks = not easy
Who are you to judge the quality of life of a rock?
Try doing no "hurt" to animal or plant and see how long you can go. I'm betting about 2 months.
-
Animals with morals?
If some golfers decided to play a round of golf in a nature reserve near a pride of Lions I don't think a lion has too much a moral discussion about it - and if they did attack whos fault would that be?
I do always find it amazing when say a shark takes a swimmer or surfer the natural instinct is that the shark should be found and killed because it is now a danger? Sharks do what sharks do, and if you happen to be in their enviroment there is a chance they may decide to chew on you...because thats what they do...
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Brenjen (also relates to tronski)
Natural instincts have nothing to do with morality. There is no morality in nature. That lion you mentioned might not hurt you at all, but it's not because of his moral fortitude I guarantee it :aok
i disagree. but i do agree that it is not the lions own sense of morality that governs this situation.
the morals of nature that are instinct to the lion dictate his every action.
the lion that isnt hungry, and may not attack a human in close proximity does so because of the natural moral code.
if such mental programing did not exist, the lion might just as well maul the human and leave the carcass for the scavengers.
but no, the lion does not kill the human without something in its instinct telling it to.
he lion may not actively think about this moral situation, it does not need to. instinct tells the lion it has no need to mess with this creature as yet.
~ therefore the moral fortitude present is not that of the lion, but the moral foritude of nature herself that governs the instincts of all creation.
-
The only moral fortitude enforced by "nature" is survival of the fittest.
-
if that statement is correct, which i will always strongly dispute, then it is only more proof of how far human laws and morals have fallen from the proverbial tree.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
go look for someone who takes you seriously, and doesnt consider you a total waste of carbon.
-
[4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
I have heard that cats kill for fun. I had a cat that wiped out the squirrel population in my back yard. It would leave the tail of its kill on my doorstep every time. Guess it ate the rest, but I never found evidence of partially eaten squirrel carcasses.
My opinion is that attributing human qualities to wild animals is to misunderstand nature. Wild animals have instinct and survive in nature. Their biological systems are set up so they can eat rotten meat and not get sick, for example. A big mistake would be to watch what an animal eats, and then assume it's safe for you to eat. They're different organisms from humans.
That said, humans have a conscience which guides us. In this case, the motive for killing something should be taken into consideration...hunting for example can be a great teacher of morals and right from wrong. If you're going to kill, do it humanely with a well placed shot. Eat what you kill, or mount it but don't kill just to be killing. Don't shoot songbirds. These are moral lessons from interacting with nature. It's called hunting...not killing.
It seems Bat, you are asking why there is no moral equivalence concerning the killing of a bug or of a human? Or why there are varying degrees of laws applied to theft? I'm sure there are some philosophical ways of thinking about this that would rack a brain. I believe religion is instrumental in a person's moral life and their code of conduct. Sometimes the state directs societal mores, such as in China and its form of communism. If you ask a communist Chinese couple who are engaged to be married, "Have you two been to bed (before marriage?)", they will give a blank look like they don't know what you're talking about. It simply is not done, or wasn't 20 years ago.
Animals are known to have sex just for fun. I think every time they procreate, it's for fun and no other reason. Though there are some animals that have a single mate for life (geese,) I don't believe they have any concept of marriage. It's humans that have sex with the insight that offspring will result.
Again, I believe it's a mistake to assign human attributes to animals. Nature is pretty far removed from our world and the business of people. Of course it's interesting to think about for sure. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't want to see laws passed based on such misunderstanding though.
Les
-
they will kill me if i show fear.
:lol
dude, where do you get this stuff?
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
:lol
dude, where do you get this stuff?
I'm guessing either from Timothy Treadwell, or a relationship :D
-
where do viruses fit in to it all then.
they are alive as well.
-
i think many of you misunderstand what im saying. i do not belive the mroals of nature are individual to each wild animal. what im saying is that mother nature herself has a moral code that she imparts upon her creatures in the form of instinct.
how many humans do you think have come face to face with a wild lion and not either intended to kill the lion, or been very very scared?
wild creatures especially predators will sense this right away.
you are clueless if you do not think that showing fear to a wild cat is the worst thing you can do.
as les just said, he thinks his cat kills for fun (even though clearly the cat was eating his prey) the cat senses fear in the mouse and chases it through natural instinct.
i had a cat once called biggles, a grey tabby, big strong cat always beating snot out of the alley cats in the area, massive build was this cat, had shoulders and paws so big he could easily rival alot of medium sized dogs with a quick slash accross the nose that would send even the hardest dogs running and wailing. i watermelon you not this cat was so tough and mean, when my sister was born my parents would not let the cat anywhere near her, he was that capable of causing injury.
That same master of the street was once sitting lazily on my kitchen floor and i was throwing down small chunks of cheddar cheese to him as i made some tosted sarnies. would you belive it, a little doormouse came confidently out from under the fridge, and marched up to biggles and just sat there. looking over the counter at this incredible moment the cat and mouse were starring at each other, the cat wafting his tail to and fro and purring, the mouse twitching his nose and showing absolutely no realisation of what cats do to mice. he scampered a little closer as i sat in silent awe, and he picked up a scrap of the cats cheese and just stood there on its backlegs holding this scrap in its front paws. biggles didnt even stop purring. This was like david and goliath and they decided to go for a pint together in the pub before the battle.
Suddenly i couldnt hold in anymore and i made a sound that drew both cat and mouse to stare up at me as if they forgot i was there. quick as that the mouse was off and back under the fridge and the instant he did the cat sprang forwards and crashed into the fridge door in vain attempt to capture the now fleeing thief.
i gave biggles a right ear bashing about letting the mouse go, and he just purred and rubbed up my ankles. i have known him to catch everything from mice to pidgeons, and even rabbits before, leaving the entrails on the kitchen floor. but this master predator had no inclination to chase the mouse that showed no fear, or most likely was too young to realise the danger.
explain that.
-
Mama Cat, so called because she nursed another cat's litter (rare for cats) was the sweetest, most well behaved cat I'd ever seen. That cat would come to me when I called it. It wasn't really even my cat but my room mate's cat, which was entrusted to my care. I think she sensed squirrels would please me after seeing me shoot a BB gun at squirrels a couple times. She was obviously showing off the trophy for my benefit. I don't think fear on the part of squirrels had anything to do with it. She was displaying her hunting prowess for my benefit.
Now I was feeding her regularly, so she didn't need the food. Biggles was probably awaiting your instruction when dealing with the mouse.:D
Cats love cheese. There would be no cheese sitting on the floor for long. Biggles attention was on cheese at the moment. The cheese was more important than the mouse at the time. A cat that isn't hungry always will toy with a mouse first. I suspect Biggles was waiting for more cheese and wasn't interested in playing around.
Les
-
serioiusly Bat (and I find my philosophical quotes going ingnored quite "interesting") what about a virus.
it's alive.
by your line of reasoning, there shouldn't be a diff. from killing viruses, and killing people, as they are both living entities.
-
lute your quote were fascinating and i read them all twice. fact is they are solid philosophical quotes that are more statements than qurstions that need discusing. thank you for them i have copypasted them into notepad files and i am very impressed with your knoledge and additions to the topic. thank you!
to answer your question as best i can:
a virus is a lifeform with as much 'right' to exist as a human, yes.
the blatant fact you are possibly overlooking is that if a virus is attacking a human body, then natures morality denotes it as 'right' to defend the body from said virus. its not like people often go round hunting new viruses in swaps just to kill them off for no reason.
so yes, there is no essential difference between killing a virus and killing a human. the major fact in both spieces is that when a lifeform comes under attack by another lifeform, nature considers it only fair that we fight to preserve our own lives.
if a virus is trying to kill you then there is every right to destroy the attacker before it destroys you.
if a human is trying to kill you then, in most countries and communities, there is every right to destroy that human before it destroys you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie, good points and possibilities about what my cat was thinking. definitely possibilities and i'm thinking on the matter as i type.
sounds to me like Mama Cat was a good hunter! but do you not suppose that whilst stalking her prey mama cat would have been aware of the body language of the target?
it is obvious for me to geuss (read: estimate, not know for sure) that before the very vast majority of kills a cat makes in the 'wild' the prey would be suddenly aware of its peril and that is the moment the predator would choose to strike, when it can physically 'smell' the fear. Some get away in time, the slower ones dont.
bat
-
Bat, you seem to be trying to personify the matierial universe, and you even assign it the female gender and morals of (her) own. why don't you just go ahead and give her a name, like Mary Lou or LaShawna?
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Bat, you seem to be trying to personify the matierial universe, and you even assign it the female gender and morals of (her) own. why don't you just go ahead and give her a name, like Mary Lou or LaShawna?
that's just Gaia ;)
-
mother earth is the generally accepted nick name for nature, im simply putting it in words that require less typing.
i could say 'the natural force that governs the very essance of all life in the universe not just our planet' every time but that would make me a banana.
-
If you do not believe that man has a soul or that there is a god then there is no difference between killing a man and killing any other life form... You would be prevented only by man made laws. Of course.... some people need killing.
As for other moral crimes like stealing... there are degrees of evil here. If you take a small amount from someone who will not miss it.. it is a relatively small evil... if you take a small amount from a poor person who will suffer or, his family will suffer from it... then that is a great evil.
If you lie to a policeman about an unjust law you have broken then it is perhaps not an evil at all.. the evil was the law..
It is not difficult stuff here guys.
lazs
-
well, its extremely inaccurate to equate nature, or the matierial world, with morals. i think a pretty good working definition of "morals" is something like this one:
Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence. ...
if you believe that morals are pro-survival behavior in humans, you may equate human morals to animal instinct to the extent that both are pro-survival, but it is only semantics.
whew. im gonna have to go lay down now.
-
quick as that the mouse was off and back under the fridge and the instant he did the cat sprang forwards and crashed into the fridge door in vain attempt to capture the now fleeing thief.explain that.
Simple, the mouse's flight triggered your cats pedatory instinct. If an animal can "smell" fear as you put it, why do many animals freeze when in the proximity of a nearby predator; depending on blending in to save them from becoming a meal? If a predator could "sense" fear the camouflage would have no benefit, the predator would have no trouble finding the terrified animal. an example: young deer... fawns. You really need to change your thinking here, it's simply not based on any truth.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
where do viruses fit in to it all then.
they are alive as well.
Are they now? Back when I was in highschool, I was told that scientists were trying to determine whether or not viruses were alive.
At the time, there were 5 standards to judge that something was alive. Viruses had only 3.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Simple, the mouse's flight triggered your cats pedatory instinct. If an animal can "smell" fear as you put it, why do many animals freeze when in the proximity of a nearby predator; depending on blending in to save them from becoming a meal? If a predator could "sense" fear the camouflage would have no benefit, the predator would have no trouble finding the terrified animal. an example: young deer... fawns. You really need to change your thinking here, it's simply not based on any truth.
it was a rhetorical question steve, i knew this quite obviously, if you read above posts it should be obvious that this analogy was to backup something i was trying to say about lions not always killing people who show no fear and pose no threat.
so gunthr, therefore morality is only aplicable to humans? we will have to find another word for nature's moral code then.
fair enough, humans coined the term and refined the definitions.
but is not life itself a more powerfull force than the human race?
why do we then presume that we can formulate morals and laws so well and yet deny that purest essance of life itself, life as a totaly wild lifeform, has not developed the same in the vast ammount of time our planet has been full of life?
-
well Bat, if you lived way, way up in the cosmos, i think you would say that every life form on the planet earth is "in the wild". the earth is a steamy, fertile, volatile and dog eat dog dangerous place where the struggle for survival takes place every second of every day. the dominant species has learned to change the form of the earth to suit them, as every animal must either adapt or change to fit the environment.
the urge to life has no morals on the cellular level, there is only one thing, the urge to live and grow. it isn't until it reaches the concept of "I am" in the ability to think that occurrs in the only known organ of flesh in the universe (that we know of) that is aware of itself: the human brain. "morals" are described only by man, which many believe we have acquired as children of God, whether we choose to believe it or not.
-
fine philosophy guntr, and i read what you're saying with open eyes.
i think for me personaly, right now in my life, i find the absolute arrogance of humans considering themselves to be the only brain in the known universe to be aware of itself more than a little disconcerting for our future.
the house hold dog is aware of itself for sure, it knows that it will get fed and has no real fight to survive, and it enjoys walks, playing catch the ball, all that stuff. when you dont play with the dog for a few days it become petulant and bored, hankering for enjoyable liesure pursuits and to strut its funky stuff infront of the other dogs, a clear sign it is aware of itself.
this is most obviously attributable to the fact that it almost shares a common human existance, easy, no worries, thigns to do that are fun.
therefore it may not be a valid example for life itself as nature dictates it.
however, i could think of more. have you never seen seagulls or other birds just playing on the wind? no struggle, no fight, just relaxing and having fun flying around on the wind and heat of the ground they hold such contempt for.
some dolphins are well known to have complex social groups, and to often enjoy a good group game with any debris or rubbish they find floating. they show thier healthy energy to one another, the flirt and jostle around and show many many signs of being aware of thier own existance.
These are creatures with the power to diagnose cancers, illness, health in other lifeforms they are so developed in ways we never think about.
do humans really honestly assume they can rightly say we are the only lifeform known in the universe that is aware of ourselves, just because we have developed verbal communication? because we are 'civilised'?
why? how is it that we can be so ignorant a to belive that.
-
i think for me personaly, right now in my life, i find the absolute arrogance of humans considering themselves to be the only brain in the known universe to be aware of itself more than a little disconcerting for our future.
i love ya Bat... don't ever change :) its just that i don't know of any other tissue masses structured on the organ level that is self aware anywhere else in the universe. (can you imagine a noodle organ with a mind of its own?) i did leave a little wiggle room that there could be more ... you know, never say never... but the scary t hing is, if there is another sentient species in the universe, it may not necessarily have morals .... it might just as well rip your heart out as shake hands with you. You see what I'm driving at?
-
it was a rhetorical question steve, i knew this quite obviously, if you read above posts it should be obvious that this analogy was to backup something i was trying to say about lions not always killing people who show no fear and pose no threat.
LOL, you're one of those sad people that can never admit they're wrong, aren't you? Nice try but.... DENIED.
You stated it as fact not, as you say, an analogy. You even argued your point with the story about your cat.
An analogy is an example used to make a point about a similar point, it's not an incorrect statement or falsehood.
There's simply no point in debating this further with you. You cannot debate with someone who refuses to acquiesce that their original position is flawed or incorrect and is unwilling to learn. It's more interesting to have discussions with walls. I'm done with you.
-
very much so gunthr, and not I nor anyone could ever deny that sentiment.
heck, a human might just as well rip your heart out as shake hands in exactly the same situation? so maybe if were honest we might surmise that moals dont exist in the universe at all. :lol
i greatly appreciate the ability of another person who can discuss vastly opposing ideas and realise that you and I are not fighting for ourselves to be right or the winner of this subject, we are merely playing devil's advocate to the ideas that float into different heads. thank you sir.
hamish
-
oh and steve, you're lucky that you are a man bound by fact. one who cannot see the path to things that are not already visible. life is easier for you.