Should The Death Penalty Be Allowed?

but we all know they don't, so what was the purpose of your comment? it seemed like you were expressing doubt at somebody caring for animal rights. 'you can't really think animals are more important or you'd spend all your efforts helping them'. it's a completely vacuous point, if indeed what you intended

It just seemed an absurd point of view to me.

why? i find it absurd that we all magically ascribe a greater import to the suffering of one particular (arbitrary) category of animals. certainly we might be able to say that one particular animal (or type thereof) suffers less from the same stimulus than another, but that isn't to say the suffering of one possesses less intrinsic value. i find it even more ridiculous that some people (yourself seemingly included) ascribe a value of zero to the importance of other animals' suffering. as outlined in a previous post, you don't seem to have provided sensible justification for this position.

the base presumption is that no suffering matters. Show that the suffering of a dog matters.

but you already said that you take it as axiomatic that the suffering of some people matters, no? as previously demonstrated, the same argument you used to 'prove' that human suffering matters also 'proves' that animal suffering matters. in fact, it does the same for any kind of suffering in the absence of a 'rational distinction' between sufferers. i can't begin to imagine how such a distinction might be described.

perhaps i can show you that the suffering of a dog 'matters'. but perhaps first you can provide a rigorous definition of precisely what it means for suffering to 'matter'?

there are two rational distinctions:

1) there is only tenuous, at best, evidence that non-human animals are capable of suffering

Lol. Source?

Well yes, but surely there is a limit somewhere. If someone did something suitably horrific they would surely be disowned. I notice you left out my point that countered the familial distress claim. But when making a point, one would, naturally.

How do you know you can?

Are there not killers so incurably psychopathic that they are beyond reform?

This just sounds like you're picking up on language now. There must be cases when there can be no other conclusion than 'this person is guilty'. For example, being caught in the act with a weapon in your hand...

That's why you'd have to really really make sure. Insurmountable evidence would be required, with plenty of forensics of course.

I never claimed to understand it. But surely the justice system and prisons exist to punish to a degree. Incarcerating people for years for their crimes is more in line with retribution than rehabilitation.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. I believe that's what people say.

Yes, it's ridiculous. That's why it was purely hypothetical...

Democracy is an illusion, it's merely a veneer used to tell ourselves we're civilised. If the electricity goes off (as in permanently), it'll be chaos within days. You'll really see what people think of the sanctity of human life when they're fighting over the last tin of beans.

Anyway, I never said it would be a civilised society or moral government that would use such schemes. Theoretically, a covert organisation of assassins could be formed using some of the millions that goes in to black ops, and you'd never know anything about it. Except perhaps the mysteriously increasing number of dead criminals...

Yes, I don't really know what I'm talking about in regards to law and government but I'm just speculating on possibilities. But... if a rogue regime came in to power, all sorts could happen. Hitler made all other political parties illegal if my history lessons serve me well.

I know what you mean. Full of people who have never studied a day of law in their lives arguing law with people who have training contracts at magic circle law firms

Indeed, though I wouldn't put too much stock in qualifications as that doesn't compensate for logic or smarts, unless people are talking strictly about the facts anyway.

We do not know that there is a consistent link between neurology and feeling across species.

What do you mean by this? Have you ever looked at any of the literature on this? Your views are very much at odds with all of the science I've studied.

It's a question of philosophy, not science, once you get past the neurological side of things.

We can call it moral philosophy if we like, but it is wholly dependent on observable facts from psychology, sociology and neuroscience too. There is a lot of literature on the suffering of animals, and I can't see it as much more than naivety to dismiss it out of hand. There is good reason to think that animals can suffer, and so far you've provided exactly zero justification for your claim that they can't.

What evidence do we have that the observations we have correlate to their experiencing something which can be called suffering? None whatsoever, nor can we possibly find such evidence, since it requires observation from the perspective of the animal. Similarity to humans isn't enough.

Similar arguments can be used with humans, no? How do we confirm that what someone else experiences is indeed something which should be called suffering? The only difference is that the communication between humans is more sophisticated than that between humans and animals, which is of course an important difference. For example, I can say to you 'that makes me suffer'. But to do so with any meaning requires us both to have a pre-established notion of what it means to suffer, and we cannot confirm that what you feel when you say that you suffer and what I feel are the same. The fundamental problem remains.

On a more intuitive level, do you legitimately believe, for example, that dogs cannot suffer? What about bonobos or chimpanzees?

I think to thoroughly answer the question, we first need a rigorous definition of suffering. Then we can check explicitly how difficult it would be to search for suffering in other animals. Alternatively, if we concede that humans can indeed suffer, then we could potentially see whether animals behave in a similar fashion to humans when subject to the same stimulus. Certainly this is wouldn't form a conclusive proof, but it could be suggestive.




But I don't think you have done so at all.

At the moment, we're having two separate discussions. First, whether animals can suffer. If they cannot, then the rest of the discussion is irrelevant and I'll concede that you are correct. But if they can, the second question is whether or not their suffering is of moral importance. By your own argument, you can show that animal suffering is of moral importance, unless we can find some difference between animals and humans that would somehow remove that importance.

What such differences have you proposed? So far, that animals don't have the capacity for moral thought and that they cannot offer anything 'constructive'. The latter difference is entirely subjective, and hence I suspect hardly worth considering. Regardless, I don't see that you have explained how these differences should make a difference to the moral import of suffering at all. What premises did you start from and inferences did you draw to conclude so? I don't intend to set an unreasonably high burden of proof/justification, but I will demand something!




Well, my position would be that suffering is something that should be avoided almost by definition. I see no reason to draw a discontinuous distinction between the suffering of one being and another. I don't have my worldview fully settled in this regard really, but a definition of suffering would probably be something very vaguely along the lines of a physical and/or mental state that is unwanted by the being experiencing it.

Indeed, though I wouldn't put too much stock in qualifications as that doesn't compensate for logic or smarts, unless people are talking strictly about the facts anyway.

Don't forget the 'magic circle law types' who sold their souls and morals the minute they got their special piece of paper.

Posted from TSR Mobile

That's really your response?

So you're free to make ridiculous hypothetical situations and then when challenged you can just say that it was hypothetical? That's nonsense.

In a post this long it was only a matter of time until Hitler popped up.