How do you feel about people who kill animals for the sheer fun of it?

[James R]

I agree with this.

If an action's good consequences out-weigh the bad then it's perfectly fine to do it.

That's only one possible ethic.

Good consequences:

You have fun

Bad consequences:

You are punished (if it is illegal to kill said animal)
You are looked down upon by people who see it as "wrong"

Why do you discount the bad consequences for the animal?

Do you deny that animals want to live, or care about living?

Or do you just not care about them?

"An animal dies" isn't neccessarily a good or bad consequence.

This is a nothing statement. The same can be said for a human being.

 

[swarm]

How do you feel about animals killing animals for the sheer fun of it?

Cats, killer whales, chimps and humans come to mind.

 

[James R]

How do you feel about animals killing animals for the sheer fun of it?

Cats, killer whales, chimps and humans come to mind.

I feel that animals do not claim to possess the capacities for moral reasoning that humans claim to possess. We ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard as a consequence.

Having said that, I am sure that there is huge variation among, say, individual killer whales, just as there is among individual human beings. It may be dangerous to generalise behaviour of an entire species from the actions of a few observed individuals.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

"there are those people who engage in hunting and shooting down defenseless animals for sports. People who hunt for the thrill of the kill. They kill for fun and recreation, and are proud of their killings.

What's your opinion on these type of people?

I dont know that ther any "sicker" than other people.!!!
Id say that mos people who hunt for "sport" was taut to behave that way by people they admired... an mos anybody coud be a "hunter" if they was raized under the rite circumstances.!!!

How do you feel about animals killing animals for the sheer fun of it?

Cats, killer whales, chimps and humans come to mind.

Personaly... i dont care for it.!!!

 

[Blender3d777]

The behaviour is wrong, because as conscious normal humans, they know better.

If you feel a need to hunt something, take up a sport that is similar enough to hunting to make you feel better. Like archery or something. Or a computer game.

You go ahead and do that, I'm gonna go hunting...squirrel tastes so good

 

[Enmos]

You go ahead and do that, I'm gonna go hunting...squirrel tastes so good

I hope you choke on one

 

[Captain Kremmen]

You go ahead and do that, I'm gonna go hunting...squirrel tastes so good

Shucks, you think squirrel tastes good.
You ain't never tasted fried possum then.
That's the tastiest little animal you ever did eat.

 

[Norsefire]

Why do you discount the bad consequences for the animal?

Who said he did? However, what is your point?

The animal dies....but I get to eat and enjoy the hunt. I, by self-proclamation and superiority in ability, come before the animal.

Done and done. There is no "objective" morality or ethic; it's all might and subjectivity. That's reality.

P.S. I don't actually hunt, it was just a statement

Do you deny that animals want to live, or care about living?

No, but I really don't care. I want to eat. I want sport.

There we go.

Or do you just not care about them?

I care about "them"....for instance, I care that cattle do not become extinct, because of their practical use. I care about their practical value, not "them"....they are not of my species and benefit me emotionally in no way

This is a nothing statement. The same can be said for a human being.

Yes. And, ultimately, this is the case: there is nothing to stop a human from overpowering another. That is the way the world works, "the strong survive"

However, we humans can reason, and we humans establish systems, and we humans have opinions. And so far, a large majority of humans seem to believe that we should protect one another.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

Why do you discount the bad consequences for the animal?

Who said he did? However, what is your point?

I said he did, because he didn't say anything about them. My point, Norsefire, is that leaving out an important consideration makes a moral analysis flawed.

The animal dies....but I get to eat and enjoy the hunt. I, by self-proclamation and superiority in ability, come before the animal.

Congratulations. You've just thrown out morality in favour of egotism.

Done and done. There is no "objective" morality or ethic; it's all might and subjectivity. That's reality.

The view that might makes right is the view of the morally bankrupt.

Do you deny that animals want to live, or care about living?

No, but I really don't care. I want to eat. I want sport.

You don't want to be moral. Ok then.

I care about "them"....for instance, I care that cattle do not become extinct, because of their practical use. I care about their practical value, not "them"....they are not of my species and benefit me emotionally in no way

In other words, to you other creatures are nothing but means to your ends. Or, to put it another way, you're morally bankrupt. Ok then.

And, ultimately, this is the case: there is nothing to stop a human from overpowering another.

In fact, there are many things that can stop such things. Morality is one of them - your nihilism notwithstanding.

 

[Enmos]

I can only hope that people like Norsefire get what they deserve one day.

 

[swarm]

I feel that animals do not claim to possess the capacities for moral reasoning that humans claim to possess. We ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard as a consequence.

So we aren't animals?

Having said that, I am sure that there is huge variation among, say, individual killer whales, just as there is among individual human beings.

Not according to what I've heard, but I definitely have never met a cat who didn't enjoy a half dead mouse.

 

[Enmos]

So we aren't animals?

Miss the point much ?
Humans claim to be different themselves. They claim to possess the capacities for moral reasoning (as James put it).
Unfortunately, we're also born hypocrites.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:



I said he did, because he didn't say anything about them. My point, Norsefire, is that leaving out an important consideration makes a moral analysis flawed.

Moral analyses (if that is the plural, I don't know) don't apply to everyone because not everyone believes in morals.

Congratulations. You've just thrown out morality in favour of egotism.

How does your "morality" benefit me? We are individuals, and I have individual desires, goals, and abilities. We can work together, too, so I'm not saying we can't...but that doesn't mean we should burden ourselves.

The view that might makes right is the view of the morally bankrupt.

In your opinion. In reality, that is just the case.

You don't want to be moral. Ok then.

I am amoral. Not immoral. Big difference.

In other words, to you other creatures are nothing but means to your ends. Or, to put it another way, you're morally bankrupt. Ok then.

Oh no, dear James R, I am simply amoral. Morality means nothing, it does not actually objectively exist, it is not a physical force of the universe. Sure, I can believe in fairies and morality, but I don't, so they don't apply.

In fact, there are many things that can stop such things. Morality is one of them - your nihilism notwithstanding.

No, there is nothing to stop a man intent on killing another man from doing so...because it is assumed that that man sees no moral wrong in that action. And after that, what is to stop him? God? Fairies? Morality?

Nothing. Except, of course, the actual enforcement systems we have established...but that's just it....it takes a physical and material thing in this world to actually have an effect. Immaterial, meaningless concepts like morality are, ultimately, powerless.

 

[James R]

swarm:

So we aren't animals?

Excuse me for confusing you. I was using the word "animals" in the common way to mean non-human animals. Hope that clears it up for you.

I definitely have never met a cat who didn't enjoy a half dead mouse.

Same for me. Cats, on the whole, are not particularly community-minded, though. They are not very social animals, except as regards their near relatives.

In any case, my original point stands. No cat is out there making speeches about how much "higher" cats are than other animals, how much better their capacity for reason and intelligence is, how they are capable of moral reasoning etc.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

Moral analyses (if that is the plural, I don't know) don't apply to everyone because not everyone believes in morals.

Rubbish. You can't just bow out of moral judgment because you claim that such a thing doesn't apply to you. Others will judge you.

How does your "morality" benefit me? We are individuals, and I have individual desires, goals, and abilities. We can work together, too, so I'm not saying we can't...but that doesn't mean we should burden ourselves.

If you're talking evolution, you ought to read up on reciprocal altruism and its evolutionary benefits, for a start. I'll let you follow that up for yourself. The basic idea, though, is that people will tend to treat you how you treat other people.

The view that might makes right is the view of the morally bankrupt.

In your opinion. In reality, that is just the case.

Yes, in my opinion. Once again, I ask you: who else's opinion am I supposed to have?

Now apply the same reasoning to you claim of "reality". This isn't "reality" - it is your opinion. Your egotism is preventing you from applying your own reasoning to your own ideas. And inconsistency in philosophical arguments is always a flaw.

I am amoral.

No you're not. You expect me to believe that you don't know the difference between right and wrong? Sorry, Norsefire, but I'm not buying it. And claiming that you don't know doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions, either.

Morality means nothing...

Then there's nothing to discuss. Why are you posting in this thread?

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:



Rubbish. You can't just bow out of moral judgment because you claim that such a thing doesn't apply to you. Others will judge you.

Yes, and for me the judgement of others, especially close friends and family, does mean something.

However, for the lot of viscious criminals out there, the judgements of others are meaningless. Thus, morality doesn't stop anyone... it doesn't objectively exist. It has no power beyond the power we allow it to have. The way we stop these kinds of people isn't through morality...we don't throw morality at them, we stop them through force. Through might.

If you're talking evolution, you ought to read up on reciprocal altruism and its evolutionary benefits, for a start. I'll let you follow that up for yourself. The basic idea, though, is that people will tend to treat you how you treat other people.

I absolutely understand and acknowledge that humans have it as part of their psychology to be co-operative and charitable (part of the reason why I am a libertarian)

However, that doesn't make it objective per se, because this psychology can be ignored, or interpreted in different ways (which is when people are still moral, in that they believe in morality, but disagree on what is moral and what is immoral)

Yes, in my opinion. Once again, I ask you: who else's opinion am I supposed to have?

Now apply the same reasoning to you claim of "reality". This isn't "reality" - it is your opinion. Your egotism is preventing you from applying your own reasoning to your own ideas. And inconsistency in philosophical arguments is always a flaw.

What I am saying is that IN REALITY morality is subjective. Nothing more. And that is the reality, it is true.

No you're not. You expect me to believe that you don't know the difference between right and wrong? Sorry, Norsefire, but I'm not buying it. And claiming that you don't know doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions, either.

Amoral doesn't mean ignorant of morality, it means not believing in morality. I don't believe in morals, not "I don't know the difference between right and wrong"

Perhaps I spoke out of turn. I am moral, then, but not of the same morality as you. There, happy?

 

[Saven]

Actually morals do exist. You not having any doesn't change that.

 

[swarm]

Actually morals do exist. You not having any doesn't change that.

Neat. What color are they?

 

[swarm]

Excuse me for confusing you. I was using the word "animals" in the common way to mean non-human animals. Hope that clears it up for you.

I think social vs non social is far more important than human vs non human.

Same for me. Cats, on the whole, are not particularly community-minded, though. They are not very social animals, except as regards their near relatives.

That relates more to how we own them. Where cat's have a chance to form a community they can and have greating rituals and what not.

No cat is out there making speeches about how much "higher" cats are than other animals, how much better their capacity for reason and intelligence is, how they are capable of moral reasoning etc.

You don't talk with many cats. Mine seem to have little doubt about how much "higher" cats are than other animals, how much better their capacity for reason and intelligence is, how they are capable of superior moral reasoning etc.

 

[Saven]

Neat. What color are they?

What color are black holes? They're really not black; they're not really any color. But they exist.

This is like asking "what color is farming?" Farming being the idea of an activity makes it not defineable by color. Farming still exists, however. How do we know? Because people do it.

The same way that morals exist: because people have them. You cannot have something that doesn't exist... or you wouldn't actually have them.

Case closed.