The wider implications of saying no

[Michael]

In the thread: Should we ban the Kosher/Halal method of killing unstunned animals? , we debated the ethics of maintaining a particular Bronze Age sacrificial purification ritual (animal slaughter >2.5 min) over a scientifically proven, nearly instantaneous unconscious (millisec), animal slaughter.

Towards the end I asked a member if they would knowingly eat meat of an animal that was dead for a few milliseconds or so (definitely "dead") prior to exsanguination (bleed out via throat slit) knowing it was not religiously "kosher/halal"? That is had not been slaughtered in the manner their God approves of. From a moral point of view the animal would have been sacrificed in a scientifically less painful manner and thus more ethically. There's no medical concerns, as the animal is still bled-out (after dead) [not that there were anyway]. The only difference would be the animal was not sacrificed according to a Bronze Age religious superstitious tradition.


At this point I wanted to think about the wider implications of saying NO.
Of being raised to be so utterly fearful of some superstitious nonsense that the moral progress of society is stunted.


Here is an example of the moral stunting effect religious superstition has on society: Court in UAE says beating wife, child OK if no marks are left

A court in the United Arab Emirates says a man is permitted under Islamic law to physically discipline his wife and children as long as he leaves no marks and has tried other methods of punishment, the country's top court ruled. The ruling came in the case of a man who slapped his wife and slapped and kicked his 23-year-old daughter, the document said. The daughter had bruises on her right hand and right knee and the wife had injuries to her lower lip and teeth, the ruling said. The court ruled that a man has the right to punish his wife and children. That includes beating them, after he has tried other options, such as admonition and then abstaining from sleeping with his wife. However, the court ruled that in this case the man exceeded his authority under sharia, or Islamic law. His wife was beaten too severely and his daughter was too old to be disciplined, the ruling said.

 

[Lori_7]

excuse me but, why is the quality of life PRIOR to the slaughter not a bigger consideration than how they're slaughtered?

 

[GeoffP]

Well, there are laws for that as well: USDA is the body of interest for agriculture, AALAC for laboratory animals, and non-binding bodies. The discussion there was about halal-kosher slaughter vs. humane slaughter, and was specific to that.

 

[Moran]

Hi Michael,
At first I thought the case was in the UK and I was like WHAT! Seeing it is the UAE, why should I be suprised? There, guys are suprised about things like abortion on demand in countries like Tunisia (incidentaly this country is the West, that's what Maghreb means). They find open gay relation strange but don't blink at polygamous union. It is a strange world indeed.

 

[Michael]

excuse me but, why is the quality of life PRIOR to the slaughter not a bigger consideration than how they're slaughtered?

I'm not suggesting it isn't. That thread was about humane slaughter though, not about humane husbandry.

Well, there are laws for that as well: USDA is the body of interest for agriculture, AALAC for laboratory animals, and non-binding bodies. The discussion there was about halal-kosher slaughter vs. humane slaughter, and was specific to that.

Exactly.

Hi Michael,
At first I thought the case was in the UK and I was like WHAT! Seeing it is the UAE, why should I be suprised? There, guys are suprised about things like abortion on demand in countries like Tunisia (incidentaly this country is the West, that's what Maghreb means). They find open gay relation strange but don't blink at polygamous union. It is a strange world indeed.

Good points.

I should be clear it's not that I'm making a case against UAE in particular, but rather using them as an example of the negative effect Religious Laws can have on societies attempting to obtain modern humane rights. Social stability was obviously served well by sets of religious beliefs all over the world - thousands of years ago. However, now it's having the exact opposite effect. Stunting social development. Unfortunately for Islamic countries they still place a lot of stock in religious Law and hence we see these sorts of things occurring more often on those countries. But, don't get me wrong, that same shit would happen in the USA (particularly some southerner community's) if not for diligent guard and vigilance over individual rights.

 

[wynn]

At this point I wanted to think about the wider implications of saying NO.
Of being raised to be so utterly fearful of some superstitious nonsense that the moral progress of society is stunted.

Yeah, talk about being raised to be so utterly fearful of some superstitious nonsense that the moral progress of society is stunted -

 

[Michael]

I don't think of classical music, tattoos, heavy metal, piercings, skirts that show ankle, full nudity or a nice or junk car as immoral. I may think some of these things are for show, like feathers on a Peacock, but, certainly not immoral.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Remind me again why emo makeup is immoral?

When tribal societies wear body paint is that immoral?

Same idea with the makeup. Grow up and get angry about something that actually harms people.

 

[Michael]

gothic, loli-gothic, emo, punk, biker, metal, cosplay.. I don't think that is immoral is it? Wearing a klanhood .. .maybe is though?

 

[S.A.M.]

At this point I wanted to think about the wider implications of saying NO.
Of being raised to be so utterly fearful of some superstitious nonsense that the moral progress of society is stunted.

Define "moral progress". How do you measure it? What are the indications of stunting? How would you gauge morality or its progress in a society?

 

[wynn]

Remind me again why emo makeup is immoral?

When tribal societies wear body paint is that immoral?

Same idea with the makeup. Grow up and get angry about something that actually harms people.

I don't think of classical music, tattoos, heavy metal, piercings, skirts that show ankle, full nudity or a nice or junk car as immoral. I may think some of these things are for show, like feathers on a Peacock, but, certainly not immoral.

I posted a few examples of some superstitious nonsense (such as "you have to have a red sports car", "you have to look like a pin-up girl", "you have to express yourself in an emo way") that we are raised to be so utterly fearful of - "if you don't have a sports car, then you are a loser" etc.

There is all kinds of superstitious nonsense that we are raised to be utterly fearful of.
Modern "liberal" culture is full of it.

How many people really get a sports car because they would really like it? And how many do it because it is a particular culturally accepted norm which they are terrified to break?
The same goes for looks, the way one expresses oneself, what one eats, etc.

 

[Michael]

Define "moral progress". How do you measure it? What are the indications of stunting? How would you gauge morality or its progress in a society?

Good question - any takers?

Banning Slavery would be, IMO, an example of moral progress.
Accepting that women can be as intellengent as men, is another.
Accepting that blacks can be as intelligent as whites, another still.
Understanding that homosexuality for some people is natural again, is social progress.
Treating animals with dignity is progressive.

The point is, when superstition actually hinders moral progress, however you define it, then that's IMO a problem.

I posted a few examples of some superstitious nonsense (such as "you have to have a red sports car", "you have to look like a pin-up girl", "you have to express yourself in an emo way") that we are raised to be so utterly fearful of - "if you don't have a sports car, then you are a loser" etc.

There is all kinds of superstitious nonsense that we are raised to be utterly fearful of.
Modern "liberal" culture is full of it.

How many people really get a sports car because they would really like it? And how many do it because it is a particular culturally accepted norm which they are terrified to break?
The same goes for looks, the way one expresses oneself, what one eats, etc.

I agree.

I once saw an old short balding slightly fat Indian man drive by me (I was on my bike) in a bright yellow Lamborghini and thought to myself - poor guy. I'm not sure if that was the impression he meant to give, buying that million dollar sports car, but, that's what I felt.

 

[S.A.M.]

Good question - any takers?

Banning Slavery would be, IMO, an example of moral progress.
Accepting that women can be as intellengent as men, is another.
Accepting that blacks can be as intelligent as whites, another still.
Understanding that homosexuality for some people is natural again, is social progress.
Treating animals with dignity is progressive.

The point is, when superstition actually hinders moral progress, however you define it, then that's IMO a problem.

So basically your notions of progressive morality are whatever your society considers progressive. Thats rather convenient. Its like expressing individuality by conforming to popular brands

I agree.

I once saw an old short balding slightly fat Indian man drive by me (I was on my bike) in a bright yellow Lamborghini and thought to myself - poor guy. I'm not sure if that was the impression he meant to give, buying that million dollar sports car, but, that's what I felt.

Why did you feel that? Was it because he was short, bald, slightly fat or Indian? Is there an image of a successful rich guy which is better suited to yellow Lamborghinis?

 

[GeoffP]

So basically your notions of progressive morality are whatever your society considers progressive. Thats rather convenient. Its like expressing individuality by conforming to popular brands

Or the moral advantages thereby are self-evident. In what world is having less political and economic equality - among other things - for certain members of society a more moral outcome?

Your call, Canute.

 

[Michael]

So basically your notions of progressive morality are whatever your society considers progressive. Thats rather convenient. Its like expressing individuality by conforming to popular brands

No, it's self-evident.

Is your friend visiting again?

Why did you feel that? Was it because he was short, bald, slightly fat or Indian? Is there an image of a successful rich guy which is better suited to yellow Lamborghinis?

Actually, I have always thought showboating as shallow. Paying $1500 for a DG purse is a good way of losing my interest. In this case, it seemed even more so. Why? Because young 16 year old boys buy fast cars, or sup up cars, mainly to impress 16 year old girls. It's pretty common for 16 year olds to act like this because they really haven't developed the maturity and life experience to realize that driving a loud car and squeeling your tires doesn't really matter to most girls. Most girls aren't going, OMG, did you see the doughnut he spun, OMG, he's just soo soooo cool! haha... BUT that's what the 16 year boys think.

So, when I see a 55 year old man acting like that, well, for me, I think it's even more ridiculous.

PERFECT example

 

[Adstar]

I posted a few examples of some superstitious nonsense (such as "you have to have a red sports car", "you have to look like a pin-up girl", "you have to express yourself in an emo way") that we are raised to be so utterly fearful of - "if you don't have a sports car, then you are a loser" etc.

There is all kinds of superstitious nonsense that we are raised to be utterly fearful of.
Modern "liberal" culture is full of it.

How many people really get a sports car because they would really like it? And how many do it because it is a particular culturally accepted norm which they are terrified to break?
The same goes for looks, the way one expresses oneself, what one eats, etc.

Interesting thoughts. Far more interesting then the thread topic actually.

You cannot assume that everyone who buys a sports car does it to look like a winner. I have no doubt that many do. My brother bought one but from the way he drives it (like a madman) and the look on his face when he does (excited smile bigger then i ever see him otherwise) i don't think he got it to show off his success. So some buy them because they got the need for speed.

I find a lot of people in this world, even the ones supposedly in rebellion like the goths/emos are all conformists who are wearing uniforms. they all conform to the group. There are very few true individualists. there are very few people who are actually free.

As for the girl in the bikini she is conforming as well. All wearing their uniforms all regimented like troops on a parade ground. All following orders.

The day you see a free person you will see someone shunned by society. A person standing alone.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[wynn]

Interesting thoughts. Far more interesting then the thread topic actually.

It was my take on the "wider implications of saying no".

You cannot assume that everyone who buys a sports car does it to look like a winner.

I wasn't assuming that.

My brother bought one but from the way he drives it (like a madman) and the look on his face when he does (excited smile bigger then i ever see him otherwise) i don't think he got it to show off his success. So some buy them because they got the need for speed.

I apologize if this will sound callous, but I'd argue that such a "need for speed" is superstitious nonsense as well.

You are of course welcome to substantiate how having such a need is perfectly justified.

I think it would help me have more respect for what I feel are my needs.

I find a lot of people in this world, even the ones supposedly in rebellion like the goths/emos are all conformists who are wearing uniforms. they all conform to the group. There are very few true individualists. there are very few people who are actually free.

As for the girl in the bikini she is conforming as well. All wearing their uniforms all regimented like troops on a parade ground. All following orders.

Yes ...

The day you see a free person you will see someone shunned by society. A person standing alone.

Having fleas and lyce will get you shunned, but you won't necessarily be free.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, it's self-evident.

Is your friend visiting again?
Actually, I have always thought showboating as shallow. Paying $1500 for a DG purse is a good way of losing my interest. In this case, it seemed even more so. Why? Because young 16 year old boys buy fast cars, or sup up cars, mainly to impress 16 year old girls. It's pretty common for 16 year olds to act like this because they really haven't developed the maturity and life experience to realize that driving a loud car and squeeling your tires doesn't really matter to most girls. Most girls aren't going, OMG, did you see the doughnut he spun, OMG, he's just soo soooo cool! haha... BUT that's what the 16 year boys think.

So, when I see a 55 year old man acting like that, well, for me, I think it's even more ridiculous.

PERFECT example

Interesting how preconceived notions of appropriate behaviour and conformity to the same, as determined by values instilled by our own society, influence our outlook on morality, isn't it?

 

[wynn]

Your call, Canute.

What does this reference to Canute mean, please?

 

[GeoffP]

What does this reference to Canute mean, please?

Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes; but the tide failed to stop. According to Henry, Cnut leapt backwards and said "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canute#Ruler_of_the_waves

The allusion to a religious meme might throw one off, but the point is this: defense of inhumane slaughter is as standing before the sea and commanding it to stop moving.