You know, I don't like it when people come in here and bring up points in a debate, then don't back them up with anything yet continue to demand of their opponent evidence and proof. This is what you are doing, and I know that it is simply an attempt to wear me out enough to give up. This is a way to win a debate, however it is an empty way to win.So? You still gave a false definition. All you've shown now is that animals have a lesser degree of self-awareness than humans, but that they doe have some rudimentary awareness.
Have you proven that psychologica torture is worse for them yet?
Now, how about you prove that psychological torture isn't an aspect in animal torture at all?
It's your position, defend it.
You are right, you haven’t shown any logic yet. Instead you’ve chosen to highjack this thread because you refuse to take the original question at face value and answer it. Instead, you want details, scenarios and circumstances.When have you refuted my logic? You would need logic for that. You haven't given any thus far. Your entire argumetn is based on your opinion of what is moral.
you have yet to show that your opinion is factual.
If you are going to claim that your credibility in a debate about morals and the ethics required to define those morals, while claiming that I have no idea what I am talking about, you should have already known what I have outlined for you.The consequences are dependent on the circumstances.
The ends must justify the means, not the other way around. Now, we have on the authority of the experience of UtahBill that torture is not a good way to obtain information. Therefore by the logic of the situational ethics required for your consequential morals, torture cannot be justified as means for a good outcome.
Again, so demanding. Why don’t you do your own legwork and educate me?You have yet to prove that your view of morality is unequivocally correct. Beware: Now that you've gone the rout of moral absolutism, you cannot say that it is right for you, and you don;t need to prove it. That means you are promoting Moral relativism, and your entire argument will fall to pieces immediately.
If you can prove that your view of morality is undeniably correct, I will concede the point. But I want a logical Aristotelian deduction for this proof with concise premises. Inductive reasoning can not work.
Aristotle's Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Kant thought that Aristotle had discovered everything there was to know about logic, and the historian of logic Prantl drew the corollary that any logician after Aristotle who said anything new was confused, stupid, or perverse.
But the truth is I don't know how to go about doing what you request. This is not an admission that my position is invalid. But more like a WTF are you talking about?
This is your opinion.I just won't take the irrational "immorality" argument when I make fight against that brand of torture because that approach will always fail in it's asininity.
Your love of fantasy astounds me.Well done. Have you ever heard of the "Murderer at the door" scenario that basically bitch slaps Kantian ethics?
Look it up. Anyone who buys that bull**** is too irrational for words.
PEA Soup: The murderer at the door: What Kant might have said
"My argument is actually quite simple:
1. It is morally permissible (from a Kantian perspective) for an innocent person (i.e., a person who does
not deserve to die for some other reason) to lie to a murderer in self-defense.
2. If it is morally permissible (from a Kantian perspective) for an innocent person to lie to a murderer in
self-defense, then it is also morally permissible (from a Kantian perspective) for any person to lie to a
murderer in the defense of another innocent person."
Yes really, quickly dispatching the offender is the revenge and is also vigilante justice. Do you want to discuss the morals of vigilantism now? Well I officially refuse to let you try to open another avenue of browbeating in place of debate. Prove vigilante justice is moral using Aristotelian deductive logic.Really? I torture a guilty murderer to revenge the life of an innocent child and that doesn't justify my actions?
I brought morals and ethics up at your demand, the ball is now in your court. I am not well versed in philosophy I admit that however you have not provided any evidence that would lead me to believe that you are.Prove that you can't justify the actions using Aristotelian deductive logic. Please. You started bringing up ethicists, so I must assume you are well versed in philosophy. Lay out your deductions.
I originally brought up benevolence (in sarcasm) in response to Blackdog’s comment that only humans can appreciate art and natural beauty which was his reason for believing that humans and animals cannot be compared.All teh problems in the world. do you have some sort of evidence besides happy thoughts and butterfly kisses that humans are innately benevolent?
Though, I have heard of apes, cats, and elephants that paint. The intrinsic value of such painting is up for debate. And I do not believe it has intrinsic value and do not wish to debate this.
Why? I am not making this claim, you are putting words in my mouth.Yep. No duty. A duty is morla obligation. Can you show me evidence of any moral obligations whatsoever that are species-wide?
I just ask one one signle solid irrefutable peice of evidence that there is some form of species-wide moral obligation.
I'm only speculating that there could be evidence that he abused his kids not say saying he probably did.Do you think that is an intelligent response? We don't know if you molest children while playing Mr Rogers, but we should probably wait for the slightest bit evidence before we make the accusation.
When there is nothing at all that indicates the accusation is true, it is better to presume that it isn't the case.
You think research on whether or not a rat can be trained is legitimate? To what end?your arguemtn is that torturing animals means that you are willing to torture humans. When I show evidence of a legitimate reason to torture animals without feeling the compulsion to torture humans, you come up with somethignthat is totally and completely illogical as a response.
Maybe it would help if you took my statement for what it was and didn't assume all kinds of other things along with it.That's just disturbing to me.
Really? You haven't made half the effort to prove your position that I have. In fact you're just bitching me out for believing what I do and not showing me any proof that it is wrong.Where? when you said you would grieve for your cats as much as you would your wife?
I think you lost it completely there.
I didn't say killing a dog was worse than mauling a child. I said the consequence for the dog was unfair due to the dog's lack of ability to reason.How is killing a dog worse than mauling a child? You are the one that has stated that consequences are all that matter. Why is it the Dog's consequences matter all of a sudden?
This is not my argument, you continue to put words in my mouth.Oh, I know. Because even you can't stand the stench of bull**** your argument exudes.
Remember, Mauling a child is always wrong right, Mr. Moral Absolutist
Circumstances don't MATTER, Mr. Moral Absolutist.
Therefore, given the entire of your argument, your comment that what I would have done would be worse than what the dog would have done means: Killing a dog worse than mauling a child.
No, you choose to ignore my argument. And refuse to provide anything to support your's except opinion. I brought up moral absolutism without claiming to be a student of the philosophy. Just like you brought up 'Aristotelian deductive logic' without using it yourself.That's why you have no moral credibility. You can't even keep in teh spirit of your own argument. You shift the morality dependin gon circumstances for the dog, but it is unshiftable for the human.
It proves unequivocally that A. You don;t even understand your own argument fully
B. You have no moral compass. You are making bull**** up as you go along because you feel that this is how it should be.
Is that why you are the way you are here?Not really. I've been a fairly exemplary person my whole life. I have fought for people in need. I have sacrificed a higher income in order to take care of an infirm person. I donate loads of time to charity.
I'm well liked in my community, and I always give money to the homeless, even if it's the last dime in my pocket.
so know, I have no shame. I have some pride, though. It's a failing of mine.
You bottle it all up in real life then annoymously come in here and let it fly?
Do you think it's worse to torture a child rather than an adult? Or to abuse a handicapped person rather than someone that isn't?You said torturing an animal is worse than torturing a person. That strongly implies that you feel an animal is more important than a person.
They aren't even in the same ballpark. I'm not saying an animal is nothing but property. It is well above the level of a sofa, but it is far below a human.
I do, and I think animals deserve the same kind of reverence. I'm not saying they are better than humans I'm saying they should be treated equally in some situations.
Strange.Torturing a human is usually worse than torturing an animal. It would depend on the circumstances, but there are very very few circumstances where I feel torturing people can be moral, so the times that torturing animals is worse than torturing people for me is limited to those circumstances where tortue can be moral.
Finally an answer to the original question.It is very much true with torture. I've given the circustances where I would see nothing to forgive. The guy who tortured and killed Jeffery Dahmer? Yeah, I would forgive that guy.
John Wayne Gacy? Hell no.
I already have.Prove that there are some absolutes without hyperbole or opinion statements.
He got the medication his parents weren't buying for him and was placed in foster care. Should I have killed him?So what happens when he attacks soemone else in teh fuure. Will you feel guilty for not removing him from society?
Tha's what I thought, I find your morals disturbing.Situation one automatically means that situation two would not be the primary cause of the torture. It's just an added bonus.