Why should animals die for us?
Scroll to see replies
Well...at least you're philosophising 'round here.
Since you appear so knowledgeable on ethics and morality, can you at least answer me this?
Can you give me a definition of what morality is? Is it a code of ... conduct, a set of rules, something like this? If so, WHO is establishing what's moral and what isn't moral?
All I want to know.
Since you appear so knowledgeable on ethics and morality, can you at least answer me this?
Can you give me a definition of what morality is? Is it a code of ... conduct, a set of rules, something like this? If so, WHO is establishing what's moral and what isn't moral?
All I want to know.
Original post by PythianLegume
Am I missing something? Legumes are a type of vegetable; legumes are beans, not pasta?! 
Yeah, you're right, but you can also have legume based pasta using legume flour
Original post by kidomo
Yeah, you're right, but you can also have legume based pasta using legume flour
You learn something new every day.
Well then...is there a CORRECT theory and a WRONG theory? Can I make my own theory? If not, why not?
I agree with what you just said - that there are different 'theories', that you have to come to your own conclusions etc.. And this, for me, means that you can't label other people moral or immoral. Because when you do that you label them in accordance to a CERTAIN moral code, to which they may, or may not adhere. They may appear to be awfully immoral to you, but for me, they are incredibly moral.
And that's why I place little value on morality...because it's all relative.
YOU can consider killing animals immoral - that does not make killing animals inherently immoral. I, for one, can consider killing animals moral - but, again it does not make killing animals inherently moral. Because killing animals is neither moral, nor immoral. Because morality does not exist. It's no more than a set of personal opinions on what's wrong and what's not. And like all things personal, it's subjective.
I agree with what you just said - that there are different 'theories', that you have to come to your own conclusions etc.. And this, for me, means that you can't label other people moral or immoral. Because when you do that you label them in accordance to a CERTAIN moral code, to which they may, or may not adhere. They may appear to be awfully immoral to you, but for me, they are incredibly moral.
And that's why I place little value on morality...because it's all relative.
YOU can consider killing animals immoral - that does not make killing animals inherently immoral. I, for one, can consider killing animals moral - but, again it does not make killing animals inherently moral. Because killing animals is neither moral, nor immoral. Because morality does not exist. It's no more than a set of personal opinions on what's wrong and what's not. And like all things personal, it's subjective.
(edited 10 years ago)
How is what I'm saying full of contradictions? All I'm saying is that a certain action cannot be deemed inherently moral or immoral.
Do you agree or not?
Scumbag debater:
Asks for moral explanation.
Rejects all morality.
I asked what your definition of morality is.
You want to say this:
2 people are sitting, one has chips.
The person without chips takes one, and the one with chips say "oh, you can't do that, it's wrong!"
The person who took the chip says "that's right, it is wrong!" and takes another.
According to the simple subjectivists there is no disagreement, the person who took the chip recognises that the other person believes it to be wrong and that's the end of that.
I don't understand actually what you're trying to say. One person considers A to be wrong, and the other considers A to be right. Can A be right and wrong in the same time? For me, no. A isn't either wrong, nor right.
Just because people disagree about what is moral or immoral it does not mean you can't hold them responsible for their actions.
Hold them responsible in what sense?
Do you agree or not?
Scumbag debater:
Asks for moral explanation.
Rejects all morality.
I asked what your definition of morality is.
You want to say this:
2 people are sitting, one has chips.
The person without chips takes one, and the one with chips say "oh, you can't do that, it's wrong!"
The person who took the chip says "that's right, it is wrong!" and takes another.
According to the simple subjectivists there is no disagreement, the person who took the chip recognises that the other person believes it to be wrong and that's the end of that.
I don't understand actually what you're trying to say. One person considers A to be wrong, and the other considers A to be right. Can A be right and wrong in the same time? For me, no. A isn't either wrong, nor right.
Just because people disagree about what is moral or immoral it does not mean you can't hold them responsible for their actions.
Hold them responsible in what sense?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Eva.Gregoria
When we have eradicated evil against other humans, when we have eradicated torture, murder, rape and other suffering towards humans, then should we consider putting animals on an equal pedestal as us.
Just look at us. When there's a petition for anything animal related, there would be thousands of signatures in a few days, but for disabled people, people suffering and people in poverty EVEN IN THIS COUNTRY ALONE not to talk of worldwide, there's a struggle to reach the same amount of signatures in months. Disgusting.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Just look at us. When there's a petition for anything animal related, there would be thousands of signatures in a few days, but for disabled people, people suffering and people in poverty EVEN IN THIS COUNTRY ALONE not to talk of worldwide, there's a struggle to reach the same amount of signatures in months. Disgusting.
Posted from TSR Mobile
True that we too suffer from these social evils but I feel that since animals have no voice it is our moral responsibility to prevent animal equality.And I feel that people are already protesting for stricter laws for (rape cases in India), but however I feel that we must equally prioritize the rights of animals.
Original post by Angry cucumber
Animal testing for medical uses is done at the absolute minimum and used in an ever decreasing number of trials. Technology is increasing to avoid the use of it, but it is still not as good as live models.
We are remarkably similar to animals, not identical but physiologically we aren't that dissimilar. Effects of the drug on one animal has a good chance of causing an effect in humans. That said differing liver enzyme expression and CYP450 expression, do lead to some differing biochemisty effects. Hence the drug cascade system in animal medicine.
You have no scientific knowledge backing up your opinion, only attempted emotional blackmail.
It's good that animals are used less. And loll no it's not emotional blackmail unless for some reason people can't see why it is so cruel. As a vet student, I would be surprised if animals weren't in your interests too
Original post by Sanaa SurnamE
It's good that animals are used less.
And loll no it's not emotional blackmail unless for some reason people can't see why it is so cruel.
It's good that animals are used less.
And loll no it's not emotional blackmail unless for some reason people can't see why it is so cruel.
The person said "where are our hearts?" etc, thats an emotional argument, it has no place in science. See previous post for my thoughts on animal pain (hint - It's not acceptable)
As a vet student, I would be surprised if animals weren't in your interests too
Nice ad hom.
Original post by North Wolf
I will give you reasons why animals SHOULD NOT die for us.
5) Drugs I feel should be tested on vile humans instead of instead of innocent animals. If test on criminals, the results of the new drugs would be instantaneous and hence new drugs will quickly come in market, rather than drugs tested on animals which takes more longer time to reach in markets.
.
5) Drugs I feel should be tested on vile humans instead of instead of innocent animals. If test on criminals, the results of the new drugs would be instantaneous and hence new drugs will quickly come in market, rather than drugs tested on animals which takes more longer time to reach in markets.
.
You want to test stuff on criminals?! That is abhorrent, human rights should take precedence over animal rights in any circumstance.
P.S before you started posting things which annoyed me, the red Comic Sans was already lowering my opinion of you.
Original post by Wattsy
You want to test stuff on criminals?! That is abhorrent, human rights should take precedence over animal rights in any circumstance.
P.S before you started posting things which annoyed me, the red Comic Sans was already lowering my opinion of you.
P.S before you started posting things which annoyed me, the red Comic Sans was already lowering my opinion of you.
I know my opinion is bit unpopular among many, but I am not going to change my stance. Medical research on an innocent animals are okay for many, but wait a sec you want to give criminals 'human rights'? Their actions like brutal murder, terrorism makes him no longer 'human'. Imagine someone commits a wrong thing and because of 'his rights' he gets away? Do you think that is correct? Plus do you think that any normal person would accept that criminal in society once again? Imagine you have a mass murderer and terrorist as your neighbor, would you feel confident or comfortable to live near his presence? If an individual commits a crime, he not only loses character, but he also looses his rights. And yet you feel since criminal is a 'human' and an animal is an animal (if it is innocent/harmless surprisingly many people will support the criminal because he is a human and we must 'respect human rights'. I feel that both human and animal rights must be treated par with each other and it is really unfair that if a creature loses its rights just because they cannot talk or have intelligence of humans.
P.S I am writing in Red Comic Sans for my TOK project, of how red font annoys people and after 1 month I will resume back to my normal font.
(edited 10 years ago)
Can I ask then to the people who think it's right killing animals...
What reasons make is acceptable that killing, slaughtering and using animals for testing is right?
Doesn't that fact it's another living thing effect you at all?
If you were an animal.. Would you like to be treated like it?
If it's not acceptable to treat another human being like it.. Why is it for something who's defenceless?
I'm not judging just curious.
Posted from TSR Mobile
What reasons make is acceptable that killing, slaughtering and using animals for testing is right?
Doesn't that fact it's another living thing effect you at all?
If you were an animal.. Would you like to be treated like it?
If it's not acceptable to treat another human being like it.. Why is it for something who's defenceless?
I'm not judging just curious.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by North Wolf
We have plants so why go for flesh for our diet?
but steaks are so damn tasty!
Original post by Jess_TheCab
Can I ask then to the people who think it's right killing animals...
What reasons make is acceptable that killing, slaughtering and using animals for testing is right?
What reasons make is acceptable that killing, slaughtering and using animals for testing is right?
I gave you a list of reasons.
Original post by Jess_TheCab
Doesn't that fact it's another living thing effect you at all?
Doesn't that fact it's another living thing effect you at all?
Not at all.
Original post by Jess_TheCab
If you were an animal.. Would you like to be treated like it?
If you were an animal.. Would you like to be treated like it?
No.
Original post by Jess_TheCab
If it's not acceptable to treat another human being like it.. Why is it for something who's defenceless?
If it's not acceptable to treat another human being like it.. Why is it for something who's defenceless?
It's something. Not someone. It's an animal.
Original post by Jess_TheCab
Can I ask then to the people who think it's right killing animals...
What reasons make is acceptable that killing, slaughtering and using animals for testing is right?
Doesn't that fact it's another living thing effect you at all?
If you were an animal.. Would you like to be treated like it?
If it's not acceptable to treat another human being like it.. Why is it for something who's defenceless?
I'm not judging just curious.
Posted from TSR Mobile
What reasons make is acceptable that killing, slaughtering and using animals for testing is right?
Doesn't that fact it's another living thing effect you at all?
If you were an animal.. Would you like to be treated like it?
If it's not acceptable to treat another human being like it.. Why is it for something who's defenceless?
I'm not judging just curious.
Posted from TSR Mobile
If you find a mosquito biting you, do you hit it?
If you find mice in your house, do you put down traps?
Do you buy vegetables that have been sprayed with insecticide?
If you have an infestation in your house, do you call an exterminator?
When your house was built digging the foundations would have killed innumerable creatures in the soil, is that OK with you?
Likewise with any sort of land use at all, to be honest.
Have anything made from wood in your house? Chopping down a tree is the death of any insects, mice or birds that have made it their home. Is that acceptable?
Eating meat is only the tip of the iceberg. Without accepting the loss of animal life, many of the activities we humans do to, not for enjoyment but to survive, would be impossible.
To put the value of an animal's life on a par with a human's is only possible if you place no value on human life.
Original post by North Wolf
We have plants so why go for flesh for our diet?
Man can't live off chips alone...
Original post by cuckoo99
1. Humans have rights even if they are murderers. Those rights are more important than the rights of an animal.
Why?
2. Through farming cattle and other animals we have effectively made their species a successful species in terms of evolution. They aren't dieing out any time soon.
Neither are humans, and putting myself in the animals' position - I would rather have my species die out than be used for medical testing.
3. Why do humans eat meat ? 1. We are at the top of the food chain so it is very accessible ,Most of us on here will have access to lots of other alternatives 2. it tastes nice, That's not really an argument it. 3. Why would i waste my perfectly good canines same reason as you don't use your tonsils?
4. Correct me if I'm wrong but people in Korea do not have dogs as pets which is probly why they don't care....While people in the west have grown attached to dogs due to their usefulness in the past and some still in the present.
5. Humans are not peaceful loving beings. We are a virus on this planet that feeds off the natural resources of the world and gives little back. so shouldn't we try to change that? *cough* watched the matrix yesterday lolz.
Why?
2. Through farming cattle and other animals we have effectively made their species a successful species in terms of evolution. They aren't dieing out any time soon.
Neither are humans, and putting myself in the animals' position - I would rather have my species die out than be used for medical testing.
3. Why do humans eat meat ? 1. We are at the top of the food chain so it is very accessible ,Most of us on here will have access to lots of other alternatives 2. it tastes nice, That's not really an argument it. 3. Why would i waste my perfectly good canines same reason as you don't use your tonsils?
4. Correct me if I'm wrong but people in Korea do not have dogs as pets which is probly why they don't care....While people in the west have grown attached to dogs due to their usefulness in the past and some still in the present.
5. Humans are not peaceful loving beings. We are a virus on this planet that feeds off the natural resources of the world and gives little back. so shouldn't we try to change that? *cough* watched the matrix yesterday lolz.
In case you were going to viciously attack everything I said, what I am saying is not an attack, I'm genuinely curious as to what you might (nicely) say in argument.
Original post by lucas13
cos animals have less intelligence
there was a study done recently that showed that some animals have higher IQs (and therefore more intelligence) than some people with brain disorders, but you wouldn't eat them.
http://www.paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html
Original post by BAD AT MATHS
...
Original post by Jess_TheCab
...
I just wanted to say that I agree with you guys^^
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by simon_g
but steaks are so damn tasty!
They might be, but don't you think for your taste buds these animals are losing their lives? Visit an abattoir and you will see how painfully these animals are passing away.
Original post by 90pies an hour
Man can't live off chips alone...
They can. Buddhists, Jain and other vegetarians are the living examples.
Original post by North Wolf
So that does not mean that they deserve to die! We don't have any authority to take life, if we can't give back any life to animals.
you can give back life, a lot of animals in this country wouldnt exist if they werent bred.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
