Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hypocriticaljap)
    At one time it was morally acceptable to burn catholics at the stake
    at one time it was morally acceptable to burn protestants at the stake

    morality is a moveable feast.
    I think the word your looking for is socially.
    That said some moral theories show morality to change from subject to subject.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    disagree....

    first of all not every religion is backwards..

    as for morality being inherently subjective, the thing is in case of a conflict, we can go back to the Qur'an and the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad....both revelations from God, whereas an atheist will go back to another human made authority (human rights/law) which might be flawed and unjust.....
    Well that's your opinion and I've given you mine. I don't know what else you're trying to say, try to be clear and coherent when you make a point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    first of all not every religion is backwards.
    The term 'backwards', at least in the manner you're using it, is a subjective term and, therefore, your statement above is merely your opinion.

    (Original post by saalih)
    the Qur'an and the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad - both revelations from God.
    Please bring forward conclusive evidence for this claim. Prove to us that, first, there is a god and, second, that that god 'sent' the Quran.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    That's interesting. What I really meant with animals (I wasn't clear) was, you said to cause the least harm to other people. Now what personhood is or isn't is another debate, but it's generally taken to mean human. So do you think part of being a moral agent (following what you say is the moral thing to do) includes how you treat animals?

    And as you seem to enjoy this sort of thing:
    1)A rape victim is in a police station, and pictures of her naked need to be taken for evidence (lets say she has brusies on her or something).

    A policeman who shouldn't, manages to get his hands on these photos.
    He can show them to his mates, or get rid of them.
    If he does show them to his mates he'll get rid of them shortly afterwards (so that there's no evidence he did it).
    Basically no-one will know.
    So the rape victim won't know these sensitive photos of her have been circulated.

    Is getting hold of them/showing them to his mates wrong?




    A general problem:
    2)A train is going along with no breaks, it will hit two men tied to the tracks killing them.
    You can change it so it's going to hit one man.
    They're too far away for you or anyone, to untie.
    Is it acceptable to do nothing?
    Is it acceptable to change it so the one man dies?
    I think that humans should be moral in their treatment of animals, since if we choose to use our moral inclinations, they should extend to all creatures. If you hit a human, they will hurt, if you hit an animal, it will hurt too. If you believe it is wrong to cause unnecessary pain, it should extend to all things which can feel pain.

    The policeman should use his ability to empathise to consider the feelings of the victim. Therefore to show pictures of the suffering the victim has undertaken for amusement or pleasure is wrong.

    I think it is acceptable to do nothing in the train situation, since who would I be to decide which of the men lived or died? If everyone has an equal right to life, then surely it is wrong to decide which one you would rather save. Its not something I feel entirely comfortable with saying, as obviously, it sounds really callous, but its logical.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    here is where the belief in the afterlife plays a crucial part, knowing that this life is too short and sacrificing personal gain for the right thing will benefit us in the ultimate life, the hereafter, which is eternal, will make us brave in such situations.....
    While I can understand this, I actually find it rather hypocritical, since behaving well in this life in order to be rewarded in the next is entirely for personal gain. There is nothing altruistic about following religious tenets, since ultimately it is just to gain in the long term.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chassi)
    I think that humans should be moral in their treatment of animals, since if we choose to use our moral inclinations, they should extend to all creatures. If you hit a human, they will hurt, if you hit an animal, it will hurt too. If you believe it is wrong to cause unnecessary pain, it should extend to all things which can feel pain.

    The policeman should use his ability to empathise to consider the feelings of the victim. Therefore to show pictures of the suffering the victim has undertaken for amusement or pleasure is wrong.

    I think it is acceptable to do nothing in the train situation, since who would I be to decide which of the men lived or died? If everyone has an equal right to life, then surely it is wrong to decide which one you would rather save. Its not something I feel entirely comfortable with saying, as obviously, it sounds really callous, but its logical.

    With the police man argument though he is not hurting anyone.
    He could be very sympathetic to her in person, then have his fun with her none the wiser. If she doesn't know how will she suffer?

    With regards to animals, do you think pain is the only thing to take into account, or perhaps that they are lesser beings because we appear to be more intelligent?

    Are you a vegetarian or vegan by any chance?
    Your first sentence is a little odd, but I take it to mean "animals should be moral patients".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    With the police man argument though he is not hurting anyone.
    He could be very sympathetic to her in person, then have his fun with her none the wiser. If she doesn't know how will she suffer?

    With regards to animals, do you think pain is the only thing to take into account, or perhaps that they are lesser beings because we appear to be more intelligent?

    Are you a vegetarian or vegan by any chance?
    Your first sentence is a little odd, but I take it to mean "animals should be moral patients".
    Actually, I'm a teeny bit hypocritical, because I'm practically a carnivore, salad dodger extroadinaire, thats me! But I know that most animals are killed humanely therefore they feel little pain, and that reassures me a little. I think that since humans are designed to be omnivorous, it is ok for me to eat them, but that I should only eat those that have been well cared for, and killed humanely.

    The policeman... I accept that she is not being harmed by his actions- perhaps I am being too judgemental. But, I don't know, it is a betrayal of trust, and it is using the products of another suffering for a trivial reason... It just doesn't sit well with my image of the 'ideal police' I guess

    I think animals are more intelligent than people, such as myself, often give them credit for. But I see no evidence that animals suffer from conflicting moral arguments. Either they always know innately that what they do is right, or they do not have a concept of doing the right or wrong thing. Since humans consider their actions, they should use their consideration to the effect on all things of their behaviour. I don't believe animals have lesser importance than humans, the ecosystem as a whole relies on each part to work. So, certainly, there is more than pain to take into account, it was simply the first example I thought of!

    Wow that took a lot of thinking out .
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chassi)
    Actually, I'm a teeny bit hypocritical, because I'm practically a carnivore, salad dodger extroadinaire, thats me! But I know that most animals are killed humanely therefore they feel little pain, and that reassures me a little. I think that since humans are designed to be omnivorous, it is ok for me to eat them, but that I should only eat those that have been well cared for, and killed humanely.

    The policeman... I accept that she is not being harmed by his actions- perhaps I am being too judgemental. But, I don't know, it is a betrayal of trust, and it is using the products of another suffering for a trivial reason... It just doesn't sit well with my image of the 'ideal police' I guess

    I think animals are more intelligent than people, such as myself, often give them credit for. But I see no evidence that animals suffer from conflicting moral arguments. Either they always know innately that what they do is right, or they do not have a concept of doing the right or wrong thing. Since humans consider their actions, they should use their consideration to the effect on all things of their behaviour. I don't believe animals have lesser importance than humans, the ecosystem as a whole relies on each part to work. So, certainly, there is more than pain to take into account, it was simply the first example I thought of!

    Wow that took a lot of thinking out .
    Most animals in the food industry live lives that are based in suffering.
    They are to be capitalised upon, not made to feel comfortable.
    What counts as humane killing?
    If I were to kill you, but you wouldn't know about it, would that be humane?
    Furthermore you think we were designed?
    By which entity?
    And what evidence do you have for that?
    Lastly, being omnivores means that we can live off meat, or plants, or both. Being able to do something obviously doesn't justify it. Surely in the western world it's very easy for most if not all of us to (although if it was all it would take a decade or so to make the transition) turn vegan?
    And as a vegan, I must inform you that I can't stand most salads, they're horrible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Most animals in the food industry live lives that are based in suffering.
    They are to be capitalised upon, not made to feel comfortable.
    What counts as humane killing?
    If I were to kill you, but you wouldn't know about it, would that be humane?
    Furthermore you think we were designed?
    By which entity?
    And what evidence do you have for that?
    Lastly, being omnivores means that we can live off meat, or plants, or both. Being able to do something obviously doesn't justify it. Surely in the western world it's very easy for most if not all of us to (although if it was all it would take a decade or so to make the transition) turn vegan?
    And as a vegan, I must inform you that I can't stand most salads, they're horrible.
    Designed was obviously the wrong word. I should have said evolved I don't believe in any supreme entity, I can understand why that was misleading, sorry.
    I suppose to some extent I try to justify my selfishness, because I know I can survive without eating meat, I just would find it difficult, and I would miss it.
    My grandfather farmed cows and sheep, and I can assure you that his were treated well, though of course I know this is not representative of the whole. Because I would find it hard to give up meat, I try to make sure the meat I eat is from animals treated as ethically as is possible. Humane killing to me is quick killing, so the animal does not register pain, or as little as possible before it dies.
    I realise that it is more humane not to kill them at all.

    It would indeed be feasible, and more ecologically viable for the Western world to be vegetarian, and possibly vegan, though, again, I love my dairy products, and find little to take issue with on free-range eggs.

    Do you still find it easy to get variety in your diet, as a vegan, or is it very difficult to do?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chassi)
    Designed was obviously the wrong word. I should have said evolved I don't believe in any supreme entity, I can understand why that was misleading, sorry.
    I suppose to some extent I try to justify my selfishness, because I know I can survive without eating meat, I just would find it difficult, and I would miss it.
    My grandfather farmed cows and sheep, and I can assure you that his were treated well, though of course I know this is not representative of the whole. Because I would find it hard to give up meat, I try to make sure the meat I eat is from animals treated as ethically as is possible. Humane killing to me is quick killing, so the animal does not register pain, or as little as possible before it dies.
    I realise that it is more humane not to kill them at all.

    It would indeed be feasible, and more ecologically viable for the Western world to be vegetarian, and possibly vegan, though, again, I love my dairy products, and find little to take issue with on free-range eggs.

    Do you still find it easy to get variety in your diet, as a vegan, or is it very difficult to do?
    It becomes second nature so I find it easy.

    Would you say it would be any more immoral for me to take the life of a human animal so that it registered as little pain as possible instead of a non human animal?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    i dont understand how that would make an atheist more morally right!!!

    the concept and belief that God is watching us all the time, if anything, makes a human being a better person...because there are things like backbiting, watching pornography etc. which a person does freely but knowing that he will be accounted for everything he does, does limit the person from doing wrong/immoral acts...

    Actually it is the belief in the hereafter (afterlife) is what straightens the character of a person in many ways...because in this life, only physical law is complete, you jump off a cliff you are likely to suffer, you put your hand on fire it will be burned, but moral law is not complete, you lie and nothing happens to your tongue, etc...
    Because religious people do what they are told and assume that it is right, whereas non-religious people make up their own minds of what is "right" and "wrong", and their actions are based upon that rather than what someone preaches to them.

    Look at suicide bombers; they are doing it for their religion (holy war, whatever). But they believe that what they are doing (the slaughter of innocents) is right.

    I can tell that you didn't look at my sig, because I've just had to re-iterate it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Because religious people do what they are told and assume that it is right, whereas non-religious people make up their own minds of what is "right" and "wrong", and their actions are based upon that rather than what someone preaches to them.

    Look at suicide bombers; they are doing it for their religion (holy war, whatever). But they believe that what they are doing (the slaughter of innocents) is right.

    I can tell that you didn't look at my sig, because I've just had to re-iterate it.
    But to many of them surely who they kill aren't innocent?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Because religious people do what they are told and assume that it is right, whereas non-religious people make up their own minds of what is "right" and "wrong", and their actions are based upon that rather than what someone preaches to them.

    Look at suicide bombers; they are doing it for their religion (holy war, whatever). But they believe that what they are doing (the slaughter of innocents) is right.

    I can tell that you didn't look at my sig, because I've just had to re-iterate it.
    i do not agree with your sig also, because right and wrong can be entirely different to different people, then what would be the criteria to judge which one of them is right?

    there is not a single verse in the Qur'an or a single saying of Prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him where the term "holy war" is used..it is made up by the west...

    coming to suicide bombers, whoever does it to kill innocent people is wrong, but most of those who do it, usually target the militaries of the real terrorists out there who not just slaughter innocent peple, but deprive them of water, electricity, and experiment new weaponry against them!!! those who do suicide attacks have nothing but stones and bricks, so they resort to their LAST option, which is blowing themselves.even though i personally am against it, but at least i can understand why they do it....and yet we see the media calling them terrorists and forgetting the real ones hiding under army uniforms

    and speaking of suicides, why then, in countries like sweden etc, where everything is available, money, luxury, food etc. we have so many suicide rates???? it is the lack of purpose in life (as most atheists claim) and guidance from God what drives them to forsake their own lives..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    And as a vegan, I must inform you that I can't stand most salads, they're horrible.
    even plants have life, even plants feel pain.....so i think you should stop eating anything at all..

    the following is taken from
    http://www.islamicvoice.com/december.98/zakir.htm
    If you observe the teeth of herbivorous animals like the cow, goat and sheep, you will find something strikingly similar in all of them. All these animals have a flat set of teeth i.e. suited for herbivorous diet. If you observe the set of teeth of the carnivorous animals like the lion or tiger, they all have a pointed set of teeth i.e. suited for a carnivorous diet. If you analyze the set of teeth of humans, you find that they have flat teeth as well as pointed teeth. Thus they have teeth suited for both herbivorous as well as carnivorous food i.e. they are omnivorous. One may ask, if Almighty Allah wanted humans to have only vegetables, why did He provide us also with pointed teeth? It is logical that He expected us to have both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food.

    Human beings can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian foods
    The digestive system of herbivorous animals can digest only vegetables. The digestive system of carnivorous animals can digest only meat. But the digestive system of humans can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food. If Almighty Allah wanted us to have only vegetables then why did He give us a digestive system that can digest both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian foods?

    Certain religions have adopted pure vegetarianism because they are totally against the killing of living creatures. If a person can survive without killing any living creature, I would be the first person to adopt such a way of life. In the past people thought plants were lifeless. Today it is a well established universal fact that even plants have life. Thus their logic of not killing living creatures is not fulfilled even by being a pure vegetarian.

    Even plants can feel pain
    They further argue that plants cannot feel pain, therefore killing a plant is a lesser crime when compared to killing an animal. Today science tells us that even plants can feel pain. But the cry of the plant cannot be heard by the human being. This is due to the inability of the human ear to hear sounds that are not in the audible range i.e. 20 Hertz to 20,000 Hertz.

    Anything below and above this range cannot be heard by a human being. A dog can hear up to 40,000 Hertz. Thus there are silent dog whistles that have a frequency of more than 20,000 Hertz and less than 40,000 Hertz. These whistles are only heard by dogs and not by human beings. The dog recognizes the master’s whistle and comes to the master. There was research done by a farmer who invented an instrument which converted the cry of the plant so that it could be heard by human being. He was able to realize immediately when the plant itself cried for water.

    Killing a living creature with 2 senses less is not a lesser crime. Once a vegetarian argues his case by saying that plants only have two or three senses while the animals have five senses. Therefore killing a plant is a lesser crime than killing an animal.

    Suppose your brother is born deaf and dumb and has two senses less as compared to other human beings. He becomes mature and someone murders him. Would you ask the law to give the murderer a lesser punishment because your brother has two senses less? In fact you would say that he has killed a ‘masoom’, an innocent person and you should give the murderer a greater punishment. Islam is not based on such logic.

    In fact the Qur’an says: “O ye people! Eat of what is on earth, lawful and good” [Al-Qur’an 2:168]

    Over population of cattle
    If every human being was a vegetarian, it would lead to overpopulation of cattle in the world, since their reproduction and multiplication is very swift. Allah (SWT) in His Divine Wisdom knows how to maintain the balance of His creation appropriately. No wonder He has permitted us to have the meat of the cattle.


    A Muslim can be a very good Muslim despite being a pure vegetarian. It is not compulsory for a Muslim to have non-vegetarian food.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chassi)
    While I can understand this, I actually find it rather hypocritical, since behaving well in this life in order to be rewarded in the next is entirely for personal gain. There is nothing altruistic about following religious tenets, since ultimately it is just to gain in the long term.
    you can look at it another way, behave well for the good of humanity in this life and you will ALSO be rewarded in the after life, it is not hypocritical at all, because it also depends on the intention, if your intention is good, then you will be fully rewarded.....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greens)
    The term 'backwards', at least in the manner you're using it, is a subjective term and, therefore, your statement above is merely your opinion.



    Please bring forward conclusive evidence for this claim. Prove to us that, first, there is a god and, second, that that god 'sent' the Quran.
    well those who say all religions are backwards is also just an opinion...

    as for Qur'an being from God
    http://www.thewaytotruth.org/theholy...wordofgod.html

    existence of God
    http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

    should shed some light.....
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    even plants have life, even plants feel pain.....so i think you should stop eating anything at all..

    the following is taken from
    http://www.islamicvoice.com/december.98/zakir.htm
    If you observe the teeth of herbivorous animals like the cow, goat and sheep, you will find something strikingly similar in all of them. All these animals have a flat set of teeth i.e. suited for herbivorous diet. If you observe the set of teeth of the carnivorous animals like the lion or tiger, they all have a pointed set of teeth i.e. suited for a carnivorous diet. If you analyze the set of teeth of humans, you find that they have flat teeth as well as pointed teeth. Thus they have teeth suited for both herbivorous as well as carnivorous food i.e. they are omnivorous. One may ask, if Almighty Allah wanted humans to have only vegetables, why did He provide us also with pointed teeth? It is logical that He expected us to have both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food.

    Human beings can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian foods
    The digestive system of herbivorous animals can digest only vegetables. The digestive system of carnivorous animals can digest only meat. But the digestive system of humans can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food. If Almighty Allah wanted us to have only vegetables then why did He give us a digestive system that can digest both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian foods?

    Certain religions have adopted pure vegetarianism because they are totally against the killing of living creatures. If a person can survive without killing any living creature, I would be the first person to adopt such a way of life. In the past people thought plants were lifeless. Today it is a well established universal fact that even plants have life. Thus their logic of not killing living creatures is not fulfilled even by being a pure vegetarian.

    Even plants can feel pain
    They further argue that plants cannot feel pain, therefore killing a plant is a lesser crime when compared to killing an animal. Today science tells us that even plants can feel pain. But the cry of the plant cannot be heard by the human being. This is due to the inability of the human ear to hear sounds that are not in the audible range i.e. 20 Hertz to 20,000 Hertz.

    Anything below and above this range cannot be heard by a human being. A dog can hear up to 40,000 Hertz. Thus there are silent dog whistles that have a frequency of more than 20,000 Hertz and less than 40,000 Hertz. These whistles are only heard by dogs and not by human beings. The dog recognizes the master’s whistle and comes to the master. There was research done by a farmer who invented an instrument which converted the cry of the plant so that it could be heard by human being. He was able to realize immediately when the plant itself cried for water.

    Killing a living creature with 2 senses less is not a lesser crime. Once a vegetarian argues his case by saying that plants only have two or three senses while the animals have five senses. Therefore killing a plant is a lesser crime than killing an animal.

    Suppose your brother is born deaf and dumb and has two senses less as compared to other human beings. He becomes mature and someone murders him. Would you ask the law to give the murderer a lesser punishment because your brother has two senses less? In fact you would say that he has killed a ‘masoom’, an innocent person and you should give the murderer a greater punishment. Islam is not based on such logic.

    In fact the Qur’an says: “O ye people! Eat of what is on earth, lawful and good” [Al-Qur’an 2:168]

    Over population of cattle
    If every human being was a vegetarian, it would lead to overpopulation of cattle in the world, since their reproduction and multiplication is very swift. Allah (SWT) in His Divine Wisdom knows how to maintain the balance of His creation appropriately. No wonder He has permitted us to have the meat of the cattle.


    A Muslim can be a very good Muslim despite being a pure vegetarian. It is not compulsory for a Muslim to have non-vegetarian food.
    And this is why I couldn't be bothered to adress you before:
    *YAWN*.

    I has been suggested that plants can feel pain, and then counter evidence has been put up. And at the moment it looks like they cannot feel pain.

    Furthermore you're argument presupposes a greater being exists and created us.

    Another argument is "we can, therefore we should".
    I'm not disputing that we're omnivorous. But nice straw man argument.

    If every human was vegetarian cattle would likely not become over populated.
    Most cattle are bred by farmers. Furthermore the decline on demand and switch over to vegetarianism would be gradual, not 5.5billion at once.
    Any cattle in the wild would only be able to breed according to how much food there is for them, and how many predators there are that can take them down.Then there are things like for instance, diseases, to take into account.

    I really hope you're about 13.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    And at the moment it looks like they cannot feel pain.
    this alone makes your entire argument baseless.....you will believe the plants do not feel pain, i believe they do........
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saalih)
    this alone makes your entire argument baseless.....you will believe the plants do not feel pain, i believe they do........
    Shame about that thing called science huh.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Shame about that thing called science huh.
    yes because science said plants feel pain and i believe another science counter argued that saying they don't.....pick your choice....
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.