Contemporary Moral Issues

[Raiders]

This is the question, isn't it?

Human murder is illegal, and deemed immoral by many religions. Thou shall not commit murder (kill).

So should murder be illegal? Is it not also a religious rule?

I think it could and should be argued that the law is not formed out of a religious impetus but that in order to keep a controlled, stabilized society it is important that people be allowed to feel secure about their livelihood and that citizens not have free roam to execute whomever they choose. Outlawing murder is among the first steps I would think to forming a non-anarchic and functioning society.

[Qrazy]

So you're OK with dog fighting?

Well, on a related note what of bull fighting? Big game hunting? And aside from instances where animals receive physical harm should other animal/spectator sports be accepted? Such as the institution of horse racing, other animal racing, etc? Are these cases of reaction constraining moral issues? Such that we may morally disagree with the pastimes but recognize others right to engage in them?

[Watashi]

Yep. But then we don't, or shouldn't, legislate based on a particular set of religious beliefs.

Pretty much.

[Watashi]

Well, on a related note what of bull fighting? Big game hunting? And aside from instances where animals receive physical harm should other animal/spectator sports be accepted? Such as the institution of horse racing, other animal racing, etc? Are these cases of reaction constraining moral issues? Such that we may morally disagree with the pastimes but recognize others right to engage in them?

Hell, what about fishing?

[D_Davis]

Outlawing murder is among the first steps I would think to forming a non-anarchic and functioning society.

I would agree, although the hypocrisy of state-sanctioned murder in capital punishment and war is befuddling.

[D_Davis]

Bull fighting is best when the bull wins. But that rarely happens.

[DavidSeven]

Attractive female teachers having sex with their male students. Yay or nay.

[D_Davis]

"Violence is always wrong."

Agree, or disagree?

[D_Davis]

Attractive female teachers having sex with their male students. Yay or nay.

I'd have to see the pictures.

EDIT:

Of the teachers.

[Watashi]

What's objectionable about outlawing dog fighting?

Since Barty has converted me to his political Libertarian views (though I'm sure I've always been one), I don't think dog fighting should be illegal as then you would have to draw the line somewhere. Like Qrazy said, you'd have to outlaw sports like horse racing, fishing, and bull fighting. Animals in sport even as violent and gruesome as dog fighting is a spectator form of entertainment. The dog is your property, and even if I think it is morally wrong, we shouldn't take someone's right away from letting it fight another dog.

[Qrazy]

Hell, what about fishing?

Indeed. Animal rights is a tricky issue. If we do grant anti-cruelty rights to animals and not establish anti-cruelty legislation in relation to humans acting upon animals... then how do we grant these rights? Do we provide a graded scale based on nervous system functioning? Such that animals that can conceivably experience pain similar to our own (presumably, based purely on biology... mammals, etc) have greater rights than those which don't (fish, insects). As a result of these difficulties and how socially dependent we are upon animal resources (not just meat/garment industry) at least pragmatically it's easier/preferable to set up anti-cruelty boundaries based upon human relations... that is to say claiming that harming animals makes someone more likely to harm humans, etc... unfortunately such arguments seem a bit weak.

I guess (at least intuitively for myself) a Utilitarian approach is the best one here. Use animals for medical testing and significant food stuffs, try to limit their use for make-up testing and pure acts of cruelty. Sort of an analytic extension of the Native American utility concerns D_davis brought up. But again, why not waste? Because pragmatically it's bad to misuse/waste resources for our sake? Because it's bad for the animals (then they require some rights)? Or because to waste is a priori morally wrong (I reject this)?

[D_Davis]

Since when is it some kind of human right to make animals fight for our amusement?

How does this benefit humanity?

[Qrazy]

"Violence is always wrong."

Agree, or disagree?

Disagree, sometimes it is necessary to repel an aggressor by force or risk eradication.

[Qrazy]

Attractive female teachers having sex with their male students. Yay or nay.

On a general level I feel that I ought to say nay but the 8th grade Spanish student in me also wants to say yay.

[number8]

Yeah, I was in this argument recently and that was the pro-argument employed. So constraining ourselves to animals mounting people should it be allowed in the privacy of one's own home or deemed criminal? I am intuitively in favor of making it illegal but I wasn't completely satisfied with my justifications. Essentially I had to group it under animal cruelty (this did not feel entirely satisfactory) and appeal either to some minimal rights of animals themselves or to arguments that societally sex with animals is not valuable to society or that bestiality demeans human dignity (in a Kantian sense). None of these justifications seems sufficient to me though. I feel like there must be a better reason out there. Alternatively my predilections against bestiality may be too strict and perhaps they should be abandoned. But I do not feel this is the case.

While I do not believe in beastiality (nor do I really agree with my own argument above), it's really from an ethics standpoint. I absolutely do not think that it should be illegal in those instances, unless it's clearly rape (shagging sheep) or endangerment (sticking gerbils in your anus), which would fall under animal cruelty. And even then it would have to be a per-case basis, taking account the context of the situtation.

My problem with criminalization is that it opens the gate for bogus charges much like statutory rape and child pornography laws (both of which I am against), like cases where a 19 year boy is labeled as a sex offender for life for having consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. Or that retarded case recently where a grandmother is arrested for child pornography because she turned in a roll of film at WalMart that has a photo of her granddaughter taking a bath. When you criminalize beastiality, you're going to have cases where a farmer jerking off a horse is an offender, or that a picture of a naked chick with her dog licking her tits is illegal. Beastiality--and animal cruelty--just doesn't work that way.

You can set up guidelines in the law that defines beastiality, but since the sex act itself is so varied, how do you define it? I've had times when I'd be having sex and my cat would jump on the bed and get between us, and we'd just ignore her and keep going until she goes away. You can argue that that's a form of beastiality. It's like trying to outlaw fetishes. "You can drip hot wax on your partner, but you can't pee on them!" These things are better left to personal moral and ethical boundaries.

[D_Davis]

We are to treat the creation as though we are a part of it, not above it, not outside of it. We rely upon it, and we should respect our place in it.

If you do not believe in a god, than human beings are just animals, no different than anything else. Some animals eat other animals. They eat what they kill, and they, mostly (Dolphins are known to murder, don't know about anything else), kill only to eat, and they rarely (ever?) torture for the sake of some kind of entertainment.

If you do believe in a god, than everything in the creation is of the same divine spark, thus treating any part of it with disrespect is to directly disrespect the creator.

[Sven]

"Violence is always wrong."

Violence is not a human institution. Imposing morality on nature isn't something I like to practice.

[Watashi]

Since when is it some kind of human right to make animals fight for our amusement?

How does this benefit humanity?

How does MMA benefit humanity?

These animals are bred and raised for the purpose of this "sport". How do we know these dogs aren't loved and cared for outside of the ring? It's all about what people find entertaining.

I morally think dog fighting is wrong, but they shouldn't charged for anything unless it gets out of their control.

[D_Davis]

Disagree, sometimes it is necessary to repel an aggressor by force or risk eradication.

Take your example further back in time.

You answered the question, "Is self-defense against violence always wrong."

[Qrazy]

Since when is it some kind of human right to make animals fight for our amusement?

How does this benefit humanity?

Well that's the thing. What functions as the foundation of your moral system? A general pragmatic benefit to the species or the protection of certain 'core' rights such as freedom? Which do you feel is more valuable, the protection of individual freedoms (as much as possible... excluding the right to kill, steal, etc) or the promotion of that which 'adds something to society' (the definition of which is certainly debatable).

[D_Davis]

How does MMA benefit humanity?

Does not equate. The humans involved give their consent.

Totally different.

How do we know these dogs aren't loved and cared for outside of the ring?

Are you serious?

It's all about what people find entertaining.

Really? That's what it comes down to? Entertainment?

[Sven]

If you do not believe in a god, than human beings are just animals, no different than anything else.

Very much not the case. Because of course human beings are different. Because we have logic, self-awareness, the capacity for abstract thought, etc.

[megladon8]

I would have no problem defending myself with violence if I am in danger of serious physical harm because of an attacker(s).

I don't think many would argue that this is wrong. It would be stupid to let yourself be beaten or even killed because you believe in non-violence. And any society that would view you as in the wrong for defending your life has some moral issues of its own to sort out.

That being said, I certainly believe in "overkill", and I think if you are in a situation like this, subduing the person would be the #1 choice. Killing them would be when there is no other alternative - you must kill them or they will kill you.

[Qrazy]

If you do not believe in a god, than human beings are just animals, no different than anything else.

This is not true.

[D_Davis]

Very much not the case. Because of course human beings are different. Because we have logic, self-awareness, the capacity for abstract thought, etc.

This is not true.

Okay - I'll admit that I may be wrong on that point. I am not an authority on the subject. But I doubt either of you are either - although I could be wrong on that as well.



But my point is still valid. Either way, we need to treat the creation with respect. That's the underlying message here.