Why Animals Don't Have Rights

[SubRosa]

It doesn't matter how close you are Travis, the Op just wants confirmation that their belief/standpoint is the only one correct and that all others have some fallacy. Their viewpoint, and arguements are no different than other's presented here, and has just as many fallacies when viewed from a different perspective.

So says yet another who considers emotion and logic to be equally valid means of determining actions in any given situation. No more or less than I expect from you Bobby-Mike.

 

[SubRosa]

lol, agreed. So, Subrosa, what would you find to be gained from doing it your way v/s the current way?

Consistency in the application of governmentally applied force.

 

[Que]

All cultures have standards of behavior. They are not necessarily based on emotion, correct? When I teach my daughter that it is wrong to hurt animals without a need to do so, it's not about emotion. It's about ethics (which are NOT the same as emotion), and it is has to do with what I want to teach her in order for her to lead a happy, fulfilled life. It's part of the culture of my family. Larger cultures can develop shared values, and some people believe it is acceptable to enforce these values through law. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but it is certainly something that happens regularly, and it's not about emotion.

I guess I wasn't really making myself clear. Human emotions, and how they can override morals, drives society to write some laws designed to punish those who can not keep them in check.

If ethics is the philosophical study of morality and morals relate to principles of right and wrong in behavior then what is driving the behavior? Oftentimes it's emotions.

 

[happypoet]

I guess I wasn't really making myself clear. Human emotions, and how they can override morals, drives society to write some laws designed to punish those who can not keep them in check.
If ethics is the philosophical study of morality and morals relate to principles of right and wrong in behavior then what is driving the behavior? Oftentimes it's emotions.

Hmm... Yes, I agree that emotions do sometimes override morals in law-making. And in some cultures, yes, emotions are a driving force in morals, but I do think they are two distinct realms and not always directly related.

 

[Khemul]

Without getting into the whole political/idealogical argument; morality is emotional. We may think of it as logical and some of it may also be logical, but it is primarily emotional. The whole point of morality is to give an outlet for the emotional outburst created when people feel wronged.

Murders, theft, adultery; they are the often considered the highest of 'immoral' acts, not because we have some innate disgust for them, but because they lead to violent outbursts that can quickly spread beyond the individuals involved. Left unchecked they can result in dozens or even hundreds more being wronged, so legal systems were born to cut this off. It gave people somewhere to vent their emotions when they felt wronged. It gave governments justification in saying "don't do it yourself, we'll solve it for you".

 

[Fishfriend1]

So says yet another who considers emotion and logic to be equally valid means of determining actions in any given situation. No more or less than I expect from you Bobby-Mike.

Sub, you really should try to listen when this many people tell you the same thing.

Consistency in the application of governmentally applied force.

That's completely new. I can completely agree with that, governments should always treat what they do with euality, and never punish one person more then anopther if they have comitted the same crime. But welcome to reality, where nothing is truly equal except your fist chance.

Without getting into the whole political/idealogical argument; morality is emotional. We may think of it as logical and some of it may also be logical, but it is primarily emotional. The whole point of morality is to give an outlet for the emotional outburst created when people feel wronged.

Murders, theft, adultery; they are the often considered the highest of 'immoral' acts, not because we have some innate disgust for them, but because they lead to violent outbursts that can quickly spread beyond the individuals involved. Left unchecked they can result in dozens or even hundreds more being wronged, so legal systems were born to cut this off. It gave people somewhere to vent their emotions when they felt wronged. It gave governments justification in saying "don't do it yourself, we'll solve it for you".

I agree with everything in this statement.

 

[happypoet]

Without getting into the whole political/idealogical argument; morality is emotional. We may think of it as logical and some of it may also be logical, but it is primarily emotional. The whole point of morality is to give an outlet for the emotional outburst created when people feel wronged..

I disagree entirely. Morality is neither emotional or rational. They are not the only two options; it's way more complex than that. Also, the point of morality is not to give an outlet for an emotional burst! I don't even know how to reply to that, as I cannot understand the line of thinking that it took to get there.

 

[Rbishop]

ks folks...this is no longer an animals rights discussion.