|
On June 10 2010 16:06 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 15:21 5unrise wrote:On June 10 2010 15:06 Vei wrote:On June 10 2010 11:57 jackofclubs81 wrote:On June 10 2010 02:57 IntoTheWow wrote:
I'm glad this happened. I realize that many people are against bullfighting, but there are two points I bring up: 1. Its a part of their culture. Your opinion of civilized isnt necessarily theirs. People need to stop simply accepting cultural differences and being okay with them. You can't just be like, diff strokes for diff folks for everything. Cultural differences such as harmless rituals, dances, clothing, and art -- fine, differences are great, do your own thing. Other differences, for example as: hating on blacks, discriminating against homosexuals, or killing bulls, you don't have to (or get to) say "cultural differences! don't judge man! be open and tolerant!" No, you can say they are objectively BAD/WRONG. There's a quote, "do not become so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance." Culture does not justify the agonizing death of an animal. Culture does not justify the persecution of different races. Here is your problem: You are comparing killing an animal to all these other things which, in the eyes of many people, vastly outweighs it in terms of wrongdoing. You may believe that killing an animal is wrong, or killing it as a form of entertainment is wrong, but others would not agree with you. Other people may think that humans just take that much precedence over animals .If this is an argument about whether discrimination against another group of people is wrong, we would probably reach a consensus. As things stands, you are forcing your cultural norm of what is acceptable on other people, when these things in question doesn't even hurt other human beings, and when there is such a diversity of opinions. Whether killing animal is wrong, that is up to people whose choice it is to decide. If you don't like it, don't do it, don't watch it, but as it stands, it doesn't hurt anybody else. By the way, based on what you are saying, eating meat, wearing hides, perhaps even keeping animals as pets are also harming them in the sense that you are killing them and limiting their freedom. But it draws no criticism since it is people's choice and it doesn't hurt anybody else. Cultural relativism is a really ridiculous pseudo-standard of morality. It prevents anything from being called 'wrong' by an outsider. If there were a culture which bred cats and then skinned them alive on their 5th birthday because it was fashionable, you can't call it wrong, even though it's abhorrently evil. If there were a culture which kept a koala alive but strung upside down in the town square, slowly dripping blood from its wrists because the women use it in their blush, you can't call it wrong, even though it's completely sick. If there were a culture who ritually ate the still-living spawn of their pets because they thought it brought them closer to their god, you can't call it wrong even though it's completely SADISTIC. No matter the standard of morality one chooses, one cannot simply choose to which instances it applies and to which it doesn't-- then it's not a standard, but merely a device of convenience. Your outlook is no different, and consequently runs into the problem of not being able to condemn an act even if it involves human beings. All those things I mentioned in my earlier post-- ritual genital mutilation, slavery, etc-- are all protected under the rule of "it's my culture, butt out." But what if we specify? What if we turn the rule into, "The values of one culture are their own to decide, and not an outsiders to interfere with, until the point it harms a human." Is this the same rule? Not the same as before, no; it allows for an infringement of the cultural values of one civilization by another for a greater good. But under this rule, who's to say what culture deserves to criticize another? Wouldn't one civilization be inflicting its morality upon the other? In a world of relativistic morals, what nation, or set of nations, would be called the "most good", and therefore set the standard? There must be another rule outside of "my culture has engaged in this practice for centuries, therefore it's ok".Cultural relativism isn't a rule of morality; it's a way of avoiding conflict by being unable to call something WRONG.
There is no such thing as an objective "wrong" (or "right" for that matter). The words only have meaning on a person to person basis (ie, act X performed in situation Y under circumstances Z is wrong to you).
On June 10 2010 16:37 neohero9 wrote:
Bulls feel pain, do they not?
Bulls go out of their way to avoid harm, and to escape death, right?
nm I'm out for the night. We're looking at this from two different ends of an idealogical chasm. As much as I may be on the high ground, there is no convincing you, not on this night.
And so what if they do? They are but a resource.
|
It is pareto efficient for resources to be used when the user values its use more than the alternative opportunity cost 
Okay.. I'm getting a bit too excited lol
|
On June 10 2010 16:47 Darcius wrote:
Sorry neohero9, as much as I think bullfighting is a worthless form of entertainment I can't sit idly by while you say such trash.
Animals are not people.
"People" implies humanity. Don't try semantics on this, either, we know I am right.
We have been killing animals for millenia.
If you feel that nonhuman creatures are people, then you should first start your day by mourning the death of hundreds of thousands of bacteria destroyed when you, inhaling, mix the bacteria from the air in your bedroom with the more malicious ones which live in your mouth.
I never said they are people. I said they feel pain and deserve that consideration. My last response to 5unrise was going to lead him somewhere, so if you're going from that I may see where you assumed I consider them people.
Regarding bacteria: there are several differences between animals and microbes. The ability to feel pain is one of them-- bacteria have no nervous systems, so I'll forego the morning mourning, tyvm.
There are other differences, such as the formation of interests. Animals have interests, some make plans that extend into the future, some make these plans quite far in advance-- great apes, elephants, and dolphins are some notable examples. The destruction of their lives, much like that of a human, precludes the fulfillment of any of their interests. The torture inflicted upon an animal by a bullfighter, farmer, or sadist frustrates the universal preference of not feeling pain.
Had you read my earlier posts, you may have seen me say some of this before. I can't fault you for not having done so, as the thread has exploded since its inception.
|
On June 10 2010 16:53 Draconizard wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 16:06 neohero9 wrote:On June 10 2010 15:21 5unrise wrote:On June 10 2010 15:06 Vei wrote:On June 10 2010 11:57 jackofclubs81 wrote:On June 10 2010 02:57 IntoTheWow wrote:
I'm glad this happened. I realize that many people are against bullfighting, but there are two points I bring up: 1. Its a part of their culture. Your opinion of civilized isnt necessarily theirs. People need to stop simply accepting cultural differences and being okay with them. You can't just be like, diff strokes for diff folks for everything. Cultural differences such as harmless rituals, dances, clothing, and art -- fine, differences are great, do your own thing. Other differences, for example as: hating on blacks, discriminating against homosexuals, or killing bulls, you don't have to (or get to) say "cultural differences! don't judge man! be open and tolerant!" No, you can say they are objectively BAD/WRONG. There's a quote, "do not become so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance." Culture does not justify the agonizing death of an animal. Culture does not justify the persecution of different races. Here is your problem: You are comparing killing an animal to all these other things which, in the eyes of many people, vastly outweighs it in terms of wrongdoing. You may believe that killing an animal is wrong, or killing it as a form of entertainment is wrong, but others would not agree with you. Other people may think that humans just take that much precedence over animals .If this is an argument about whether discrimination against another group of people is wrong, we would probably reach a consensus. As things stands, you are forcing your cultural norm of what is acceptable on other people, when these things in question doesn't even hurt other human beings, and when there is such a diversity of opinions. Whether killing animal is wrong, that is up to people whose choice it is to decide. If you don't like it, don't do it, don't watch it, but as it stands, it doesn't hurt anybody else. By the way, based on what you are saying, eating meat, wearing hides, perhaps even keeping animals as pets are also harming them in the sense that you are killing them and limiting their freedom. But it draws no criticism since it is people's choice and it doesn't hurt anybody else. Cultural relativism is a really ridiculous pseudo-standard of morality. It prevents anything from being called 'wrong' by an outsider. If there were a culture which bred cats and then skinned them alive on their 5th birthday because it was fashionable, you can't call it wrong, even though it's abhorrently evil. If there were a culture which kept a koala alive but strung upside down in the town square, slowly dripping blood from its wrists because the women use it in their blush, you can't call it wrong, even though it's completely sick. If there were a culture who ritually ate the still-living spawn of their pets because they thought it brought them closer to their god, you can't call it wrong even though it's completely SADISTIC. No matter the standard of morality one chooses, one cannot simply choose to which instances it applies and to which it doesn't-- then it's not a standard, but merely a device of convenience. Your outlook is no different, and consequently runs into the problem of not being able to condemn an act even if it involves human beings. All those things I mentioned in my earlier post-- ritual genital mutilation, slavery, etc-- are all protected under the rule of "it's my culture, butt out." But what if we specify? What if we turn the rule into, "The values of one culture are their own to decide, and not an outsiders to interfere with, until the point it harms a human." Is this the same rule? Not the same as before, no; it allows for an infringement of the cultural values of one civilization by another for a greater good. But under this rule, who's to say what culture deserves to criticize another? Wouldn't one civilization be inflicting its morality upon the other? In a world of relativistic morals, what nation, or set of nations, would be called the "most good", and therefore set the standard? There must be another rule outside of "my culture has engaged in this practice for centuries, therefore it's ok".Cultural relativism isn't a rule of morality; it's a way of avoiding conflict by being unable to call something WRONG. There is no such thing as an objective "wrong" (or "right" for that matter). The words only have meaning on a person to person basis (ie, act X performed in situation Y under circumstances Z is wrong to you). Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 16:37 neohero9 wrote:
Bulls feel pain, do they not?
Bulls go out of their way to avoid harm, and to escape death, right?
nm I'm out for the night. We're looking at this from two different ends of an idealogical chasm. As much as I may be on the high ground, there is no convincing you, not on this night. And so what if they do? They are but a resource.
A: An act is right or wrong depending upon its consequences and the circumstances in which it was performed. This does not mean that because I call it wrong and JimBob JoeBilly in South Dakota calls it right that one of us isn't incorrect. Don't mistake the inability to call an act "right" or "wrong" in and of itself for a lack of right and wrong.
B: What is the difference between a human and an animal, then? What makes a human not a resource? (This isn't an attempt to inflame you, I'm trying to find what qualifies as 'human' to you)
|
On June 10 2010 03:24 fredd wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 03:11 Zoler wrote:On June 10 2010 03:08 Liquid`NonY wrote:On June 10 2010 03:05 IntoTheWow wrote:On June 10 2010 03:04 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Wait why all the hate on him? None of you guys eat beef or what? =/ Killing to eat != killing for entertainment. Beef isn't needed to sustain human life. Humans eat it for pleasure. Eating beef is killing for pleasure, just the same. Torturing and killing isn't the same. If you think the mass-produced meat you have readily available to you hasn't been tortured, you must be really naive.
|
On June 10 2010 16:47 Darcius wrote:
Sorry neohero9, as much as I think bullfighting is a worthless form of entertainment I can't sit idly by while you say such trash.
Animals are not people.
"People" implies humanity. Don't try semantics on this, either, we know I am right.
We have been killing animals for millenia.
If you feel that nonhuman creatures are people, then you should first start your day by mourning the death of hundreds of thousands of bacteria destroyed when you, inhaling, mix the bacteria from the air in your bedroom with the more malicious ones which live in your mouth.
lol. Just going to say perhaps you should have tried to sit idly by.
|
On June 10 2010 17:01 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 16:53 Draconizard wrote:On June 10 2010 16:06 neohero9 wrote:On June 10 2010 15:21 5unrise wrote:On June 10 2010 15:06 Vei wrote:On June 10 2010 11:57 jackofclubs81 wrote:On June 10 2010 02:57 IntoTheWow wrote:
I'm glad this happened. I realize that many people are against bullfighting, but there are two points I bring up: 1. Its a part of their culture. Your opinion of civilized isnt necessarily theirs. People need to stop simply accepting cultural differences and being okay with them. You can't just be like, diff strokes for diff folks for everything. Cultural differences such as harmless rituals, dances, clothing, and art -- fine, differences are great, do your own thing. Other differences, for example as: hating on blacks, discriminating against homosexuals, or killing bulls, you don't have to (or get to) say "cultural differences! don't judge man! be open and tolerant!" No, you can say they are objectively BAD/WRONG. There's a quote, "do not become so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance." Culture does not justify the agonizing death of an animal. Culture does not justify the persecution of different races. Here is your problem: You are comparing killing an animal to all these other things which, in the eyes of many people, vastly outweighs it in terms of wrongdoing. You may believe that killing an animal is wrong, or killing it as a form of entertainment is wrong, but others would not agree with you. Other people may think that humans just take that much precedence over animals .If this is an argument about whether discrimination against another group of people is wrong, we would probably reach a consensus. As things stands, you are forcing your cultural norm of what is acceptable on other people, when these things in question doesn't even hurt other human beings, and when there is such a diversity of opinions. Whether killing animal is wrong, that is up to people whose choice it is to decide. If you don't like it, don't do it, don't watch it, but as it stands, it doesn't hurt anybody else. By the way, based on what you are saying, eating meat, wearing hides, perhaps even keeping animals as pets are also harming them in the sense that you are killing them and limiting their freedom. But it draws no criticism since it is people's choice and it doesn't hurt anybody else. Cultural relativism is a really ridiculous pseudo-standard of morality. It prevents anything from being called 'wrong' by an outsider. If there were a culture which bred cats and then skinned them alive on their 5th birthday because it was fashionable, you can't call it wrong, even though it's abhorrently evil. If there were a culture which kept a koala alive but strung upside down in the town square, slowly dripping blood from its wrists because the women use it in their blush, you can't call it wrong, even though it's completely sick. If there were a culture who ritually ate the still-living spawn of their pets because they thought it brought them closer to their god, you can't call it wrong even though it's completely SADISTIC. No matter the standard of morality one chooses, one cannot simply choose to which instances it applies and to which it doesn't-- then it's not a standard, but merely a device of convenience. Your outlook is no different, and consequently runs into the problem of not being able to condemn an act even if it involves human beings. All those things I mentioned in my earlier post-- ritual genital mutilation, slavery, etc-- are all protected under the rule of "it's my culture, butt out." But what if we specify? What if we turn the rule into, "The values of one culture are their own to decide, and not an outsiders to interfere with, until the point it harms a human." Is this the same rule? Not the same as before, no; it allows for an infringement of the cultural values of one civilization by another for a greater good. But under this rule, who's to say what culture deserves to criticize another? Wouldn't one civilization be inflicting its morality upon the other? In a world of relativistic morals, what nation, or set of nations, would be called the "most good", and therefore set the standard? There must be another rule outside of "my culture has engaged in this practice for centuries, therefore it's ok".Cultural relativism isn't a rule of morality; it's a way of avoiding conflict by being unable to call something WRONG. There is no such thing as an objective "wrong" (or "right" for that matter). The words only have meaning on a person to person basis (ie, act X performed in situation Y under circumstances Z is wrong to you). On June 10 2010 16:37 neohero9 wrote:
Bulls feel pain, do they not?
Bulls go out of their way to avoid harm, and to escape death, right?
nm I'm out for the night. We're looking at this from two different ends of an idealogical chasm. As much as I may be on the high ground, there is no convincing you, not on this night. And so what if they do? They are but a resource. A: An act is right or wrong depending upon its consequences and the circumstances in which it was performed. This does not mean that because I call it wrong and JimBob JoeBilly in South Dakota calls it right that one of us isn't incorrect. Don't mistake the inability to call an act "right" or "wrong" in and of itself for a lack of right and wrong. B: What is the difference between a human and an animal, then? What makes a human not a resource?
I agree with you, and as I'm sure you know, humans have been used as resources. It was called slavery. Also, I agree with you that when making judgments about bullfighting, it's necessary to consider if the ends justify the means. Torturing animals is an offense that transcends cultural boundaries, even if cultural implications must be taken into account when determining if the ends do indeed justify the means. Yes, some people have said that animals are nothing but resources. It is also the case, however, that humans have abused and eaten other humans throughout history. The Japanese ate Chinese during the occupation, and it is almost certainly the case that the Nazis ate people as well. No one, I think, will argue that eating other humans is acceptable, even if one believes that morals have no objective basis. If a culture can be identified where animals were never kept as pets, then perhaps an argument could be made that humans do not inherently value the lives of animals or that humans do not naturally develop a sense of value for the lives of animals through socialization. As far as I know, however, this has never happened. Whether it's for art, history, religion, or entertainment, bullfighting clearly has value. It's possible to disagree on whether this value justifies the treatment of the animals involved, but denying that cows should be in any manner respected is taking it too far.
|
Less than 70 years ago roughly 6 million Jews were exterminated in an event so grotesque that the term genocide had to be developed to describe it. Today, many people refer to this event as the Holocaust, saying that to call it merely a genocide would degrade the atrocity. You guys are running a cultural relativism argument in here about a long running tradition that involves the death of a bull. Find something better to worry about.
|
On June 10 2010 17:20 Precipice wrote:
Less than 70 years ago roughly 6 million Jews were exterminated in an event so grotesque that the term genocide had to be developed to describe it. Today, many people refer to this event as the Holocaust, saying that to call it merely a genocide would degrade the atrocity. You guys are running a cultural relativism argument in here about a long running tradition that involves the death of a bull. Find something better to worry about.
Yea, you're right. I'm going to go back to watching professional starcraft matches at 4 AM!
|
On June 10 2010 17:20 Precipice wrote:
Less than 70 years ago roughly 6 million Jews were exterminated in an event so grotesque that the term genocide had to be developed to describe it. Today, many people refer to this event as the Holocaust, saying that to call it merely a genocide would degrade the atrocity. You guys are running a cultural relativism argument in here about a long running tradition that involves the death of a bull. Find something better to worry about.
I really am not ~_~.. I was told that I was
|
Bull fighting is ancient and comes from superstition.
Superstition has to be annihilated. Thus, Corridas as well.
|
Damn didn't rip his jaws off...
Should've ripped toward the itself.
UGH!
|
On June 10 2010 17:01 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 16:53 Draconizard wrote:On June 10 2010 16:06 neohero9 wrote:On June 10 2010 15:21 5unrise wrote:On June 10 2010 15:06 Vei wrote:On June 10 2010 11:57 jackofclubs81 wrote:On June 10 2010 02:57 IntoTheWow wrote:
I'm glad this happened. I realize that many people are against bullfighting, but there are two points I bring up: 1. Its a part of their culture. Your opinion of civilized isnt necessarily theirs. People need to stop simply accepting cultural differences and being okay with them. You can't just be like, diff strokes for diff folks for everything. Cultural differences such as harmless rituals, dances, clothing, and art -- fine, differences are great, do your own thing. Other differences, for example as: hating on blacks, discriminating against homosexuals, or killing bulls, you don't have to (or get to) say "cultural differences! don't judge man! be open and tolerant!" No, you can say they are objectively BAD/WRONG. There's a quote, "do not become so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance." Culture does not justify the agonizing death of an animal. Culture does not justify the persecution of different races. Here is your problem: You are comparing killing an animal to all these other things which, in the eyes of many people, vastly outweighs it in terms of wrongdoing. You may believe that killing an animal is wrong, or killing it as a form of entertainment is wrong, but others would not agree with you. Other people may think that humans just take that much precedence over animals .If this is an argument about whether discrimination against another group of people is wrong, we would probably reach a consensus. As things stands, you are forcing your cultural norm of what is acceptable on other people, when these things in question doesn't even hurt other human beings, and when there is such a diversity of opinions. Whether killing animal is wrong, that is up to people whose choice it is to decide. If you don't like it, don't do it, don't watch it, but as it stands, it doesn't hurt anybody else. By the way, based on what you are saying, eating meat, wearing hides, perhaps even keeping animals as pets are also harming them in the sense that you are killing them and limiting their freedom. But it draws no criticism since it is people's choice and it doesn't hurt anybody else. Cultural relativism is a really ridiculous pseudo-standard of morality. It prevents anything from being called 'wrong' by an outsider. If there were a culture which bred cats and then skinned them alive on their 5th birthday because it was fashionable, you can't call it wrong, even though it's abhorrently evil. If there were a culture which kept a koala alive but strung upside down in the town square, slowly dripping blood from its wrists because the women use it in their blush, you can't call it wrong, even though it's completely sick. If there were a culture who ritually ate the still-living spawn of their pets because they thought it brought them closer to their god, you can't call it wrong even though it's completely SADISTIC. No matter the standard of morality one chooses, one cannot simply choose to which instances it applies and to which it doesn't-- then it's not a standard, but merely a device of convenience. Your outlook is no different, and consequently runs into the problem of not being able to condemn an act even if it involves human beings. All those things I mentioned in my earlier post-- ritual genital mutilation, slavery, etc-- are all protected under the rule of "it's my culture, butt out." But what if we specify? What if we turn the rule into, "The values of one culture are their own to decide, and not an outsiders to interfere with, until the point it harms a human." Is this the same rule? Not the same as before, no; it allows for an infringement of the cultural values of one civilization by another for a greater good. But under this rule, who's to say what culture deserves to criticize another? Wouldn't one civilization be inflicting its morality upon the other? In a world of relativistic morals, what nation, or set of nations, would be called the "most good", and therefore set the standard? There must be another rule outside of "my culture has engaged in this practice for centuries, therefore it's ok".Cultural relativism isn't a rule of morality; it's a way of avoiding conflict by being unable to call something WRONG. There is no such thing as an objective "wrong" (or "right" for that matter). The words only have meaning on a person to person basis (ie, act X performed in situation Y under circumstances Z is wrong to you). On June 10 2010 16:37 neohero9 wrote:
Bulls feel pain, do they not?
Bulls go out of their way to avoid harm, and to escape death, right?
nm I'm out for the night. We're looking at this from two different ends of an idealogical chasm. As much as I may be on the high ground, there is no convincing you, not on this night. And so what if they do? They are but a resource. A: No. An act is right or wrong depending upon its consequences and the circumstances in which it was performed. Don't mistake the inability to call an act "right" or "wrong" in and of itself for a lack of right and wrong. B: What is the difference between a human and an animal, then? What makes a human not a resource?
A) I am not mistaking anything. Yes, there are certainly cases where an individual is unable to declare an act right or wrong, mostly due to lack of available information or having a personal moral code that does not encompass said act. That however, has little to do with an act not being inherently right or wrong at all. Suppose that given the exact same information, your personal moral code stipulates that act X is "wrong" and that mine stipulates that it is "right" (or "just", an equally meaningless word). Who or what decides whether act X is inherently right or wrong, and what authority allows this arbitrator to make this choice?
B) Nothing. Humans have been (and still are in some cases, depending on definitions) used as such many times in the past. I stated in an earlier thread that this has lessened because people have the ability to exert at least some pressure on those who seek to use them.
|
On June 10 2010 18:04 Draconizard wrote:
A) I am not mistaking anything. Yes, there are certainly cases where an individual is unable to declare an act right or wrong, mostly due to lack of available information or having a personal moral code that does not encompass said act. That however, has little to do with an act not being inherently right or wrong at all. Suppose that given the exact same information, your personal moral code stipulates that act X is "wrong" and that mine stipulates that it is "right" (or "just", an equally meaningless word). Who or what decides whether act X is inherently right or wrong, and what authority allows this arbitrator to make this choice?
B) Nothing. Humans have been (and still are in some cases, depending on definitions) used as such many times in the past. I stated in an earlier thread that this has lessened because people have the ability to exert at least some pressure on those who seek to use them.
A: Whoever has the more logically-supported system has the superior system. It is the only way to make the best decisions. We will not ever make perfect decisions, but we owe it to ourselves and the rest of existence to make the most rational ones possible.
B: If humans and resources are the same, then would you also support the bullfighting if a man were substituted in place of the bull?
|
On June 10 2010 17:20 Precipice wrote:
Less than 70 years ago roughly 6 million Jews were exterminated in an event so grotesque that the term genocide had to be developed to describe it. Today, many people refer to this event as the Holocaust, saying that to call it merely a genocide would degrade the atrocity. You guys are running a cultural relativism argument in here about a long running tradition that involves the death of a bull. Find something better to worry about.
Who says we don't concern ourselves about such things? Who says they're not connected?
~.^
|
On June 10 2010 18:28 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 18:04 Draconizard wrote:
A) I am not mistaking anything. Yes, there are certainly cases where an individual is unable to declare an act right or wrong, mostly due to lack of available information or having a personal moral code that does not encompass said act. That however, has little to do with an act not being inherently right or wrong at all. Suppose that given the exact same information, your personal moral code stipulates that act X is "wrong" and that mine stipulates that it is "right" (or "just", an equally meaningless word). Who or what decides whether act X is inherently right or wrong, and what authority allows this arbitrator to make this choice?
B) Nothing. Humans have been (and still are in some cases, depending on definitions) used as such many times in the past. I stated in an earlier thread that this has lessened because people have the ability to exert at least some pressure on those who seek to use them. A: Whoever has the more logically-supported system has the superior system. It is the only way to make the best decisions. We will not ever make perfect decisions, but we owe it to ourselves and the rest of existence to make the most rational ones possible. B: If humans and resources are the same, then would you also support the bullfighting if a man were substituted in place of the bull?
A) Most logical? How absurd...Now you are simply replacing the word "right" with "logical". We are not speaking of the world of formal logic here (A or not A). What does "logical" even mean when applied to a complex moral judgment? Should party A seek to maximize its own utility in any given circumstance, or should party A be more concerned with aggregate utility for all parties involved? Which is more logical? Perhaps, you dislike the notion of maximizing utility; then, what metric should be used to judge what is or is not logical? Who or what determines said metric? Those last couple questions will doubtless sound familiar.
B) I don't support bullfighting as it is; of course, I also don't go out of my way to actively campaign against it, but I have a feeling you do not either.
|
On June 10 2010 17:01 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 16:53 Draconizard wrote:On June 10 2010 16:06 neohero9 wrote:On June 10 2010 15:21 5unrise wrote:On June 10 2010 15:06 Vei wrote:On June 10 2010 11:57 jackofclubs81 wrote:On June 10 2010 02:57 IntoTheWow wrote:
I'm glad this happened. I realize that many people are against bullfighting, but there are two points I bring up: 1. Its a part of their culture. Your opinion of civilized isnt necessarily theirs. People need to stop simply accepting cultural differences and being okay with them. You can't just be like, diff strokes for diff folks for everything. Cultural differences such as harmless rituals, dances, clothing, and art -- fine, differences are great, do your own thing. Other differences, for example as: hating on blacks, discriminating against homosexuals, or killing bulls, you don't have to (or get to) say "cultural differences! don't judge man! be open and tolerant!" No, you can say they are objectively BAD/WRONG. There's a quote, "do not become so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance." Culture does not justify the agonizing death of an animal. Culture does not justify the persecution of different races. Here is your problem: You are comparing killing an animal to all these other things which, in the eyes of many people, vastly outweighs it in terms of wrongdoing. You may believe that killing an animal is wrong, or killing it as a form of entertainment is wrong, but others would not agree with you. Other people may think that humans just take that much precedence over animals .If this is an argument about whether discrimination against another group of people is wrong, we would probably reach a consensus. As things stands, you are forcing your cultural norm of what is acceptable on other people, when these things in question doesn't even hurt other human beings, and when there is such a diversity of opinions. Whether killing animal is wrong, that is up to people whose choice it is to decide. If you don't like it, don't do it, don't watch it, but as it stands, it doesn't hurt anybody else. By the way, based on what you are saying, eating meat, wearing hides, perhaps even keeping animals as pets are also harming them in the sense that you are killing them and limiting their freedom. But it draws no criticism since it is people's choice and it doesn't hurt anybody else. Cultural relativism is a really ridiculous pseudo-standard of morality. It prevents anything from being called 'wrong' by an outsider. If there were a culture which bred cats and then skinned them alive on their 5th birthday because it was fashionable, you can't call it wrong, even though it's abhorrently evil. If there were a culture which kept a koala alive but strung upside down in the town square, slowly dripping blood from its wrists because the women use it in their blush, you can't call it wrong, even though it's completely sick. If there were a culture who ritually ate the still-living spawn of their pets because they thought it brought them closer to their god, you can't call it wrong even though it's completely SADISTIC. No matter the standard of morality one chooses, one cannot simply choose to which instances it applies and to which it doesn't-- then it's not a standard, but merely a device of convenience. Your outlook is no different, and consequently runs into the problem of not being able to condemn an act even if it involves human beings. All those things I mentioned in my earlier post-- ritual genital mutilation, slavery, etc-- are all protected under the rule of "it's my culture, butt out." But what if we specify? What if we turn the rule into, "The values of one culture are their own to decide, and not an outsiders to interfere with, until the point it harms a human." Is this the same rule? Not the same as before, no; it allows for an infringement of the cultural values of one civilization by another for a greater good. But under this rule, who's to say what culture deserves to criticize another? Wouldn't one civilization be inflicting its morality upon the other? In a world of relativistic morals, what nation, or set of nations, would be called the "most good", and therefore set the standard? There must be another rule outside of "my culture has engaged in this practice for centuries, therefore it's ok".Cultural relativism isn't a rule of morality; it's a way of avoiding conflict by being unable to call something WRONG. There is no such thing as an objective "wrong" (or "right" for that matter). The words only have meaning on a person to person basis (ie, act X performed in situation Y under circumstances Z is wrong to you). On June 10 2010 16:37 neohero9 wrote:
Bulls feel pain, do they not?
Bulls go out of their way to avoid harm, and to escape death, right?
nm I'm out for the night. We're looking at this from two different ends of an idealogical chasm. As much as I may be on the high ground, there is no convincing you, not on this night. And so what if they do? They are but a resource. A: An act is right or wrong depending upon its consequences and the circumstances in which it was performed. This does not mean that because I call it wrong and JimBob JoeBilly in South Dakota calls it right that one of us isn't incorrect. Don't mistake the inability to call an act "right" or "wrong" in and of itself for a lack of right and wrong. B: What is the difference between a human and an animal, then? What makes a human not a resource? (This isn't an attempt to inflame you, I'm trying to find what qualifies as 'human' to you)
A
"Just because your'e right doesn't mean that I'm wrong"
I really don't have much to say on this. You asked the right questions, there's no clear answer. I can lead a discussion on it but I'd rather discuss your second question.
B
There are american indian cultures which do not view animals as different from humans.
To explain their cosmology;
Human is just a word for a being.
Every being considers itself human, sees other animals as not human but since every animal sees things this way no human is more human than others.
They do kill buffalos though for ritual purposes and for survival.
Does this mean that they are eating a human being? Are they Cannibals when they do so?
Are christians symbolical cannibals when they "drink Jesus blood and eat of his body"?
Human beings relate to other human beings because they are human beings.
other animals can never be human beings but we can ascribe them human emotions etc which we can relate to. Which animals we ascribe which symbols etc is culture bound, therefore the differences between our friendly relation to cats and the chinese who eat them.
So it all comes down to what we ascribe and relate to. Which means that we possibly can relate more to a cat than a human.
In that context we can for example understand why Leopold of Belgium treated Africans the way he did.
+ Show Spoiler +
So here we are, culture bound, discussing wether it's right to kill bulls for entertainment of human beings.
I think human beings all over the world value human life above other animals unless they are taught to think differently as in Hinduism.
But if we should implement an idea of change on other cultures it should be based on human nature, therethrough logical human rights.
I guess the same thing should go for animals and animals rights. But we can deal with that when we live in a utopy where human lifes are in harmony in my humble opinion.
Also for those of you who find this discussion interesting I can recommend you to read
Good - Into the heart( an american anthropologist visits a culture where raping women is the social norm, he marries a 9 year old.)
|
On June 10 2010 12:50 Tal wrote:
Has anyone read Ernest Hemingway's Death in the Afternoon? Essentially it's an intellectual and artistic celebration of bull fightings greatness. He makes what I think is a pretty convincing case for it having many very moving and fascinating qualities - he equates the pleasure of watching once you understand it, with that which an expert wine drinker feels when they drink excellent wine.
Now whether it's moral or not is debatable. I went to a fight before reading the book and was appalled, and Hemingway himself thinks it isn't morally defensible. But at the very least, its worth considering that to many bull fighting is vastly more than senseless cruelty - it's a reflection on life, and attending such fights is an incredible experience for a lot of people.
As many of our other, often less profound, pleasures are built on the unnecessary suffering of animals, I think singling bull-fighting out for as much virulent criticism as it gets is a bit over-zealous.
Whew.
For many people, killing someone is a beautiful experience of life.
We call them psychopath.
Since when do we need the blood of anything to enjoy ourselves?
|
On June 10 2010 18:48 Draconizard wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 18:28 neohero9 wrote:On June 10 2010 18:04 Draconizard wrote:
A) I am not mistaking anything. Yes, there are certainly cases where an individual is unable to declare an act right or wrong, mostly due to lack of available information or having a personal moral code that does not encompass said act. That however, has little to do with an act not being inherently right or wrong at all. Suppose that given the exact same information, your personal moral code stipulates that act X is "wrong" and that mine stipulates that it is "right" (or "just", an equally meaningless word). Who or what decides whether act X is inherently right or wrong, and what authority allows this arbitrator to make this choice?
B) Nothing. Humans have been (and still are in some cases, depending on definitions) used as such many times in the past. I stated in an earlier thread that this has lessened because people have the ability to exert at least some pressure on those who seek to use them. A: Whoever has the more logically-supported system has the superior system. It is the only way to make the best decisions. We will not ever make perfect decisions, but we owe it to ourselves and the rest of existence to make the most rational ones possible. B: If humans and resources are the same, then would you also support the bullfighting if a man were substituted in place of the bull? A) Most logical? How absurd...Now you are simply replacing the word "right" with "logical". We are not speaking of the world of formal logic here (A or not A). What does "logical" even mean when applied to a complex moral judgment? Should party A seek to maximize its own utility in any given circumstance, or should party A be more concerned with aggregate utility for all parties involved? Which is more logical? Perhaps, you dislike the notion of maximizing utility; then, what metric should be used to judge what is or is not logical? Who or what determines said metric? Those last couple questions will doubtless sound familiar. B) I don't support bullfighting as it is; of course, I also don't go out of my way to actively campaign against it, but I have a feeling you do not either.
A: Logical as in built from verifiable, defensible premises, following the rules of logic to a sound conclusion. Moral judgments can be reduced and discussed in such a way. Between the two positions you presented above, the aggregate wins out-- if we consider only ourselves, the downfall of humanity looms closer.
You use the term 'utility'-- are you familiar with Utilitarianism? What of Peter Singer's version of it?
B: I'm not an activist, but I will fiercely debate any injustices.
Do you eat meat?
|
On June 10 2010 19:06 ArKaDo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 12:50 Tal wrote:
Has anyone read Ernest Hemingway's Death in the Afternoon? Essentially it's an intellectual and artistic celebration of bull fightings greatness. He makes what I think is a pretty convincing case for it having many very moving and fascinating qualities - he equates the pleasure of watching once you understand it, with that which an expert wine drinker feels when they drink excellent wine.
Now whether it's moral or not is debatable. I went to a fight before reading the book and was appalled, and Hemingway himself thinks it isn't morally defensible. But at the very least, its worth considering that to many bull fighting is vastly more than senseless cruelty - it's a reflection on life, and attending such fights is an incredible experience for a lot of people.
As many of our other, often less profound, pleasures are built on the unnecessary suffering of animals, I think singling bull-fighting out for as much virulent criticism as it gets is a bit over-zealous.
Whew. For many people, killing someone is a beautiful experience of life. We call them psychopath. Since when do we need the blood of anything to enjoy ourselves?
Umm, I think comparing a tiny worldwide minority with mental disorders to an entire culture is kind of missing the point.
Regardless, I wasn't even trying to argue that bull fighting is right - I just wanted to explain that it is far from senseless killing, and add something to the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
