Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    And you've not answered my question. Would you save an animal's life over a child's?

    I know what vegetarianism means, thanks. I'm not looking for analysis of my lifestyle choices.
    Firstly if I were to save the child's life that would not mean that I think that's the moral thing to do. To presume that because I would to an action would mean I feel it's what I think is the moral thing to do would be a mistake.
    Thus I don't see how that is relevant.
    Secondly you've not tackled my points on that topic.

    Thirdly that shows how it doesn't stop it from being a moral dilemma in your current life.
    As a vegan I can assure you issues like this still pop up in everyday life. To presume otherwise would be a mistake.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Firstly if I were to save the child's life that would not mean that I think that's the moral thing to do. To presume that because I would to an action would mean I feel it's what I think is the moral thing to do would be a mistake.
    Thus I don't see how that is relevant.
    Secondly you've not tackled my points on that topic.

    Thirdly that shows how it doesn't stop it from being a moral dilemma in your current life.
    As a vegan I can assure you issues like this still pop up in everyday life. To presume otherwise would be a mistake.
    I'll rephrase my question since you want to make it specifically about morality: do you think it would be the right thing to do to save the life of an animal over a child?

    I haven't tackled your points on that topic, mostly because I'm not quite sure what your points are, I'll give it a go if you clarify them (and answer my question properly).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I'll rephrase my question since you want to make it specifically about morality: do you think it would be the right thing to do to save the life of an animal over a child?

    I haven't tackled your points on that topic, mostly because I'm not quite sure what your points are, I'll give it a go if you clarify.
    From a moral perspective I can't see a criterion that would be relevant to place humans above sentient beings.
    If you could provide me with such this may be of use.

    My points have been; you should back up your conclusions with the premises and logic behind why you've chosen the premises if it isn't obvious.

    Also to say that by being vegetarian you will avoid the issue of animals suffering is ludicrous, and only highlights your ignorance about many of the farming techniques used with regards to milk, eggs and honey (from a dietary point of view) and their use outside of that (for instance with leather and suede).

    If you could perhaps provide your logic/premises to how your conclusions came to be, I would be very grateful.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    From a moral perspective I can't see a criterion that would be relevant to place humans above sentient beings.
    If you could provide me with such this may be of use.

    My points have been; you should back up your conclusions with the premises and logic behind why you've chosen the premises if it isn't obvious.

    Also to say that by being vegetarian you will avoid the issue of animals suffering is ludicrous, and only highlights your ignorance about many of the farming techniques used with regards to milk, eggs and honey (from a dietary point of view) and their use outside of that (for instance with leather and suede).

    If you could perhaps provide your logic/premises to how your conclusions came to be, I would be very grateful.
    Answer my questions, then I will. It's not difficult, they're yes no questions
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Answer my questions, then I will. It's not difficult, they're yes no questions
    I just did, and why does your answering of my on topic questions depend on my answering of your seemingly off topic example?

    I don't feel that morally one should save one over the other.
    I think either would be fine to save.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I just did, and why does your answering of my on topic questions depend on my answering of your seemingly off topic example?

    I don't feel that morally one should save one over the other.
    I think either would be fine to save.
    So, like, even if the animal was an ant? You think it would be alright to save the ant over the baby? I'm just trying to figure out your stance on the matter.

    Anyway I'm not quite sure why you're demanding I have premises and criteria and stuff when my argument was basically 'it's a difficult issue and I don't think either side is wrong or right'. What exactly am I supposed to be trying to 'prove'?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    So, like, even if the animal was an ant? You think it would be alright to save the ant over the baby? I'm just trying to figure out your stance on the matter.

    Anyway I'm not quite sure why you're demanding I have premises and criteria and stuff when my argument was basically 'it's a difficult issue and I don't think either side is wrong or right'. What exactly am I supposed to be trying to 'prove'?
    I believe you said that anyone who believed animals are morally equal is talking crap, let me find the quote for you:

    I think there are some animals that are more equal than others, and anyone who says otherwise is talking crap
    So if you could perhaps, as I've requested consistently for many posts, provide your premises to the conclusion of why you feel they are talking crap, that'd be, well, just swell to be honest.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I believe you said that anyone who believed animals are morally equal is talking crap, let me find the quote for you:



    So if you could perhaps, as I've requested consistently for many posts, provide your premises to the conclusion of why you feel they are talking crap, that'd be, well, just swell to be honest.
    I would have thought it was clear from my post that I don't think these things can be proven. That was my whole point, that it can't be argued either way that one side is right or wrong. So asking me then to prove that my side is right is missing the point, to be honest. As far as I'm concerned, it's very subjective thing, which is why people who say 'animals are equal to humans so killing them is wrong' aren't really with it. I would say the same about the other end of the debate.

    However, if you want to give me your argument as to why animals are equal to people, I'd happily hear it.

    Also- keep it civil. I'm not interested in an argument.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I would have thought it was clear from my post that I don't think these things can be proven. That was my whole point, that it can't be argued either way that one side is right or wrong. So asking me then to prove that my side is right is missing the point, to be honest. As far as I'm concerned, it's very subjective thing, which is why people who say 'animals are equal to humans so killing them is wrong' aren't really with it. I would say the same about the other end of the debate.

    However, if you want to give me your argument as to why animals are equal to people, I'd happily hear it.

    Also- keep it civil. I'm not interested in an argument.
    If you're not looking for an argument then I'd advise you to stop stating how peoples arguments are 'crap'. One would have thought it obvious that an aggressive stance on such a topic isn't particularly helpful if you're trying to avoid some form of argument or debate.
    That said, I have been civil.

    As you're calling it subjective might I ask what moral theory you're going with?
    At the moment it looks to be either emotivism or some form of subjectivism, I'm guessing simple subjectivism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    If you're not looking for an argument then I'd advise you to stop stating how peoples arguments are 'crap'. One would have thought it obvious that an aggressive stance on such a topic isn't particularly helpful if you're trying to avoid some form of argument or debate.
    That said, I have been civil.

    As you're calling it subjective might I ask what moral theory you're going with?
    At the moment it looks to be either emotivism or some form of subjectivism, I'm guessing simple subjectivism.
    Apologies if you took that as an attack on your argument, I wasn't intending to refer to anyone on this thread, I was speaking generally and casually.

    Anyway, I'm not going with any 'moral theory'. Do I have to be going by a 'moral theory' to have a (pretty inoffensive) opinion?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Apologies if you took that as an attack on your argument, I wasn't intending to refer to anyone on this thread, I was speaking generally and casually.

    Anyway, I'm not going with any 'moral theory'. Do I have to be going by a 'moral theory' to have a (pretty inoffensive) opinion?
    You do if you want consistently. However if you think that morality is inconsistent I'd love to hear why.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    You do if you want consistently. However if you think that morality is inconsistent I'd love to hear why.
    If you have any actual criticism of my view then I'd be very pleased to hear it, but this somewhat silly cross examination isn't really welcome. I'm happy to debate, I'm not happy to be demanded of the ins and outs of my views on morality with no reference to the matter at hand- the one I was actually interested in debating. This isn't a counter argument.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    If you have any actual criticism of my view then I'd be very pleased to hear it, but this somewhat silly cross examination isn't really welcome. I'm happy to debate, I'm not happy to be demanded of the ins and outs of my views on morality with no reference to the matter at hand- the one I was actually interested in debating. This isn't a counter argument.
    As you're not putting up an argument, just making a statement, then I don't see how a counter argument can be put up.
    Surprisingly how we handle moral issues is related to if we think morals are (or should be) or are not (shouldn't be) consistent?
    Quite frankly you're avoidance of answers is very telling and I think the reason you're on the back foot is because you've done little to no research of moral philosophy. Which is completely normal.
    If that's the case just admit to it. If it isn't back your points up properly or admit to your research simply confusing you and get off the thread and make others asking for what moral theories have or haven't said and where you've become confused.

    Otherwise dear you're one of those people who are talking crap.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    As you're not putting up an argument, just making a statement, then I don't see how a counter argument can be put up.
    Surprisingly how we handle moral issues is related to if we think morals are (or should be) or are not (shouldn't be) consistent?
    Quite frankly you're avoidance of answers is very telling and I think the reason you're on the back foot is because you've done little to no research of moral philosophy. Which is completely normal.
    If that's the case just admit to it. If it isn't back your points up properly or admit to your research simply confusing you and get off the thread and make others asking for what moral theories have or haven't said and where you've become confused.

    Otherwise dear you're one of those people who are talking crap.
    I did A Level Philosophy and while I'm obviously no expert I'm very much familiar with moral philosophy and the terms you're using. I think in this situation it's pretty irrelevent, especially since I don't base what I think is right or wrong on any particular moral theories.

    My point is this, summed up- 'I don't think any of the arguments are particularly convincing when it comes to this debate, I'm ambivalent'. I'm at a loss as to what on earth you mean asking me to 'back this up', my whole point is that nothing can be particularly well backed up in this debate.

    admit to your research simply confusing you
    Well, yeah, of course it is, that's my whole point, that I think it's a really confusing area and I'm not sure who's right or wrong. What did you think my argument was?

    My argument- or 'statement' as you put it- is certainly up for discussion. What I think about morality in general and my views on moral theories are not. I'm sorry if that's what you're interested in discussing. I'm not. I'm interested in discussing animal rights, which isn't what we're doing right now. If you don't think it's possible to counter-argue my views, then don't reply to me at all. Like I said, I'm not interested in this cross examination.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I did A Level Philosophy and while I'm obviously no expert I'm very much familiar with moral philosophy and the terms you're using. I think in this situation it's pretty irrelevent, especially since I don't base what I think is right or wrong on any particular moral theories.

    My point is this, summed up- 'I don't think any of the arguments are particularly convincing when it comes to this debate, I'm ambivalent'. I'm at a loss as to what on earth you mean asking me to 'back this up', my whole point is that nothing can be particularly well backed up in this debate.



    Well, yeah, of course it is, that's my whole point, that I think it's a really confusing area and I'm not sure who's right or wrong. What did you think my argument was?

    My argument- or 'statement' as you put it- is certainly up for discussion. What I think about morality in general and my views on moral theories are not. I'm sorry if that's what you're interested in discussing. I'm not. I'm interested in discussing animal rights, which isn't what we're doing right now. If you don't think it's possible to counter-argue my views, then don't reply to me at all. Like I said, I'm not interested in this cross examination.
    Lord all mighty give me strength (that's an exclamation not a plea to a higher being).

    You don't see how moral theories go with the debate of the equality of species?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Lord all mighty give me strength (that's an exclamation not a plea to a higher being).

    You don't see how moral theories go with the debate of the equality of species?
    Of course I do. What I don't see is why you think it's necessary to quiz my on my views on moral theories with no reference to my actual post. I'm interested in debating about animal rights, and if necessary moral philosophy in relation to animal rights. What I'm not interested in are demands on my views on moral theory with no reference whatsoever to the debate at hand. Either talk animal rights at me, or not at all. Give me some kind of explanation as to why you think I'm wrong, or a counter argument, or don't bother replying, because I'm sure you'll agree this is getting kind of boring. Thanks.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Of course I do. What I don't see is why you think it's necessary to quiz my on my views on moral theories with no reference to my actual post. I'm interested in debating about animal rights, and if necessary moral philosophy in relation to animal rights. What I'm not interested in are demands on my views on moral theory with no reference whatsoever to the debate at hand. Either talk animal rights at me, or not at all. Give me some kind of explanation as to why you think I'm wrong, or a counter argument, or don't bother replying, because I'm sure you'll agree this is getting kind of boring. Thanks.
    Put up a point of view that's backed up by reasoning or else I can't counter anything because there's nothing to counter.
    I wouldn't know what reasoning to go against. Even if it's reasoning to say why you feel on this topic there can't be reasoning involved.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Put up a point of view that's backed up by reasoning or else I can't counter anything because there's nothing to counter.
    I wouldn't know what reasoning to go against. Even if it's reasoning to say why you feel on this topic there can't be reasoning involved.
    I don't have a view backed up by 'reasoning', and never claimed to. My view is basically 'I don't think either side of the debate is convincing so I'm ambivalent'. Quite why you decided to operate such an assault on this stance is really quite beyond me.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I don't have a view backed up by 'reasoning', and never claimed to. My view is basically 'I don't think either side of the debate is convincing so I'm ambivalent'. Quite why you decided to operate such an assault on this stance is really quite beyond me.
    We've been through all of this, if you would care to read our posts. It mainly stemmed from my first quote.

    Well done on not answering most of my questions properly and making yourself look like you don't have a clue to what you're talking about. Have a nice night.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loki276)
    Agreed

    They are our food
    Errr I hope you're not planning to eat every animal you come in contact with! Even so, they should still have the right to a comfortable life before slaughter.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,462

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.