|
On April 21 2010 03:07 Slow Motion wrote:
Also, when we die we lose consciousness and memory (unless you have religious or supernatural beliefs, which aren't usually the model of rationality). Why is the pleasure and pain we experience in this lifetime then "good" or "bad" if it's something we won't even remember when we die? It'll be as if we have never experienced that pleasure or pain. I just don't see how utilitarians can argue that basing a morality out of pleasure and pain is "logical."
If:
1) All suffering of all animals is equal; and
2) When we die we lose all conciousness and memory
Then this picture
+ Show Spoiler +
is win/win because in 15 minutes neither of them will be suffering from hunger.
logic!
|
United States42685 Posts
On April 21 2010 03:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 03:07 Slow Motion wrote:
Also, when we die we lose consciousness and memory (unless you have religious or supernatural beliefs, which aren't usually the model of rationality). Why is the pleasure and pain we experience in this lifetime then "good" or "bad" if it's something we won't even remember when we die? It'll be as if we have never experienced that pleasure or pain. I just don't see how utilitarians can argue that basing a morality out of pleasure and pain is "logical."
If: 1) All suffering of all animals is equal; and 2) When we die we lose all conciousness and memory Then this picture + Show Spoiler +is win/win because in 15 minutes neither of them will be suffering from hunger. logic!
It's not a good situation but yes, a quicker death would probably be a mercy instead of starvation.
|
On April 21 2010 03:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 03:07 Slow Motion wrote:
Also, when we die we lose consciousness and memory (unless you have religious or supernatural beliefs, which aren't usually the model of rationality). Why is the pleasure and pain we experience in this lifetime then "good" or "bad" if it's something we won't even remember when we die? It'll be as if we have never experienced that pleasure or pain. I just don't see how utilitarians can argue that basing a morality out of pleasure and pain is "logical."
If: 1) All suffering of all animals is equal; and 2) When we die we lose all conciousness and memory Then this picture + Show Spoiler +is win/win because in 15 minutes neither of them will be suffering from hunger. logic!
It doesn't seem like it's win/win to you because you're still alive and reacting to the picture. It certain doesn't make a difference to them after they die.
|
I think I agree with the decision.
Alito's dissent says: "Because an overly broad law may deter constitutionally protected speech, the overbreadth doctrine allows a party to whom the law may constitutionally be applied to challenge the statute on the ground that it violates the First Amendment rights of others.... The overbreadth doctrine “strike[s] a balance between competing social costs.” Williams, 553 U. S., at 292. Specifically, the doctrine seeks to balance the “harmful effects” of “invalidating a law that in some of its applications is perfectly constitutional” against the possibility that “the threat of enforcement of an overbroad law [will] dete[r] people from engaging in constitutionally protected speech.” Ibid. “In order to maintain an appropriate bal-ance, we have vigorously enforced the requirement that a statute’s overbreadth be substantial, not only in an absolute sense, but also relative to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Ibid."
I think that the first amendment is not about a balance but about protecting all constitutional speech against banning or deterrence, similar to how people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not innocent until there is "substantial" evidence that they are guilty. I think that the proper response is to narrow the law by banning sales of the videos (which the Humane Society seems to support in the Huff. Post article linked to by the topic creator) and to ban the actions depicted in the videos (already illegal). If both of those are done, I don't see the problem. Some might possess these videos and consume them like pornography, but the exact same footage could be possessed by police as evidence or a vegan activist documentary director for unobjectionable use. So, I don't think the root of our disgust is the mere existence of such footage as in the case of child pornography.
|
On April 21 2010 03:19 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 03:12 Fen wrote:On April 21 2010 03:07 Slow Motion wrote:On April 21 2010 03:02 travis wrote:On April 21 2010 02:54 Slow Motion wrote:On April 21 2010 02:39 travis wrote:On April 21 2010 02:30 Slow Motion wrote:On April 21 2010 02:18 Romantic wrote:On April 21 2010 02:12 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 02:06 travis wrote:
Animals are living beings like you or I. They clearly experience pain and pleasure like you or I.
Some of the people in this thread either haven't realized this yet, or don't care (which is even worse). I think everyone realises that living animals are alive. As for caring, why should we care that they're alive. So are trees, I don't lose sleep over it. The usual measure is the amount of suffering or happiness we perceive them to have. That moral compass is almost natural in humans, babies dying outrages us because of the innocence and lost potential for happiness, old people? Who cares. We can easily crush bugs because we do not think of them as sharing in the same kind of suffering other creatures, say, mammals, would. Cats and dogs are social and emotional creatures (and we make it more so by naming them and giving them human traits) so it is easy to feel outraged at abuse directed towards them. It is more a choice of how much suffering and theft of live\joy\happiness that we can accept based on the benefits of inflicting the abuse. But for Kwark (and many others) his moral compass happens to place less value on the suffering of animals. including humans? If not, then that is the entire point of what I was saying. As fen said, how is suffering experienced by a non-human being different than suffering experienced by a human being? It's ignorant to think so. All evidence points otherwise. Again, you're criticizing how a person places moral value on things as ignorant. That argument makes no sense unless you have a objective morality to point to as being the "correct" morality. What does your evidence of pain and suffering matter if I place less moral value on the pain and suffering of animals? I would say that is unreasonable and ask you to explain it to me. Were you a being other than a human, would your pain and suffering no longer matter?
Do I really need to explain my morality with logic?
I do think entirely irrational beliefs/opinions are worthless. Also, when we die we lose consciousness and memory (unless you have religious or supernatural beliefs, which aren't usually the model of rationality). Why is the pleasure and pain we experience in this lifetime then "good" or "bad" if it's something we won't even remember when we die? It'll be as if we have never experienced that pleasure or pain. I just don't see how utilitarians can argue that basing a morality out of pleasure and pain is "logical." So you would be completely fine with deliberately hurting yourself? Because when you die you wont remember it, so its as good as never happened? I doubt you actually think that way. Regardless if it is remembered or not, an experience still happened. I won't be fine with it now because as an animal I still instinctively shy away from pain and seek pleasure. That doesn't mean that I can then abstract that pleasure and pain and call it "good" or "bad." And I do believe that when I die it's the same as if it never happened. Think about this, right this moment you and your friend just went on an adventure, and had your memories wiped of that. You experienced great pleasures and your friend was tortured nonstop. How do you feel now? Are you feeling that the pleasure you don't remember is "good?" Is your friend right now feeling a sense of "badness?" No because there is no pleasure or pain if you can't remember it. And remember it's worse when you die cause you won't even be conscious that you forgot something. There will be no one to tell you that you experienced pleasure or pain. You simply won't exist.
Would telling my friend during his ordeal that its ok because he wont remember it ease his suffering? Not a chance. We live in the moment. Which is why even with a viewpoint that life in essentially meaningless, we still work our hardest to make ourselves happy in the here and now.
|
On April 21 2010 03:07 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 03:02 travis wrote:On April 21 2010 02:54 Slow Motion wrote:On April 21 2010 02:39 travis wrote:On April 21 2010 02:30 Slow Motion wrote:On April 21 2010 02:18 Romantic wrote:On April 21 2010 02:12 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2010 02:06 travis wrote:
Animals are living beings like you or I. They clearly experience pain and pleasure like you or I.
Some of the people in this thread either haven't realized this yet, or don't care (which is even worse). I think everyone realises that living animals are alive. As for caring, why should we care that they're alive. So are trees, I don't lose sleep over it. The usual measure is the amount of suffering or happiness we perceive them to have. That moral compass is almost natural in humans, babies dying outrages us because of the innocence and lost potential for happiness, old people? Who cares. We can easily crush bugs because we do not think of them as sharing in the same kind of suffering other creatures, say, mammals, would. Cats and dogs are social and emotional creatures (and we make it more so by naming them and giving them human traits) so it is easy to feel outraged at abuse directed towards them. It is more a choice of how much suffering and theft of live\joy\happiness that we can accept based on the benefits of inflicting the abuse. But for Kwark (and many others) his moral compass happens to place less value on the suffering of animals. including humans? If not, then that is the entire point of what I was saying. As fen said, how is suffering experienced by a non-human being different than suffering experienced by a human being? It's ignorant to think so. All evidence points otherwise. Again, you're criticizing how a person places moral value on things as ignorant. That argument makes no sense unless you have a objective morality to point to as being the "correct" morality. What does your evidence of pain and suffering matter if I place less moral value on the pain and suffering of animals? I would say that is unreasonable and ask you to explain it to me. Were you a being other than a human, would your pain and suffering no longer matter?
Do I really need to explain my morality with logic?
I do think entirely irrational beliefs/opinions are worthless. Me too, which is why I am amoral. Why do you think utilitarianism is rational? It starts off assuming pleasure is good and pain is bad in and of itself, because that's something we can all feel and agree with. But that's only true for my pleasure and pain. What is the logical basis for arguing why I should view your suffering as good or bad if I can't feel it?
Honestly this is such a difficult question I decided to just avoid it altogether in my last post(it was the direction it was heading...)
If you do want to get into it I would start by asking, "do you believe that the suffering of others is experienced by others, just as your suffering is experienced by you?"
Also, when we die we lose consciousness and memory (unless you have religious or supernatural beliefs, which aren't usually the model of rationality). Why is the pleasure and pain we experience in this lifetime then "good" or "bad" if it's something we won't even remember when we die? It'll be as if we have never experienced that pleasure or pain. I just don't see how utilitarians can argue that basing a morality out of pleasure and pain is "logical."
Edit: I really challenge anyone to present me with a "logical" system of morality.
How does anything that happens to anyone while they are alive matter then?
It matters because it happens.
I would accuse you of being a part of something and not realizing it. If everyone was selfless and promoted wellbeing imagine what kind of awesome world we would live in.
(not actually personally attacking you, none of my business what u do as long as ur not hurting people)
|
On April 21 2010 03:02 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 02:58 defuzas wrote:god damn it, i need to take some english classes , this is a very interesting topic, but i just pwn myself bad:D imma hardcore debate fan but only in my mother tongue. gosh. gonna keep lurking..  Sorry I wasn't sure if english was your first language, I could have tried to keep it more simple.
You were pretty busy correcting his vocab anyways...
Don't worry your arguments are already about as simple as they come. You could surely convince an army of kindergartners.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 21 2010 01:09 DexterHGTourney wrote:
This is an area where I'm sure hardly anyone agrees with me, though logically, most people are so hypocritical and illogical it blows my mind when it comes to this issue.
Do I agree with the decision? Yes. For the reasons stipulated by the SCOTUS? No. Animals do not have rights. Therefore, animal cruelty while heinous and sickening should not be illegal. They overturned the law based on the First Amendment, but I think they should have went further and dissected the issue at hand. Do animals have rights or not? Now, Governments do not grant rights, they merely enumerate them. Rights are negative. Our rights deriving from Natural Law, and recognized as such by the formation of this Union (Decl. of Independance, ConCon, AoC, state Constitutions, etc.). If indeed they do not have rights, then they are property. Since reason and sentience is for me, a pre-requisite to the self-evidence of Natural Rights, then it becomes quite silly to criminalize someone for harming their own property. Moreover, if we are to believe that animals do have the right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness then how do we hold them accountable? As is, liberty is borne from negative rights. Where you have the liberty to do as you please as long as you do not infringe on anothers liberty. Once this occurs both parties must have the sentience to acknowledge and to formulate just laws to recompense for this violation.
It is blindingly clear that animals show no ability to either acknowledge through reason or any semblance of sentience these truths. In that vein, the SCOTUS should have struck down all Federal Laws on the books criminalizing the use of the persons property (animal).
The next question begs, that if you support the notion that animals have rights, then you must criminalize a host of areas. Any murder of an animal would be punishable the same as a murder of a human being since we share the same rights. I mean, are people ready to go down that road? That also means you cannot own pets, since slavery violates the rights of the animal. So how do we bring animals to justice? Yeah...
Now, I do not support the disgusting acts perpetuated upon defenseless animals. I also however, do not support criminalization.
Banning animal cruelty does not give animals rights. Just because you own something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it, even if it hurts others. Kids engaging in animal cruelty are much more likely to abuse people as well, for instance. I guess we should strike down all the laws about using a person's property (gun) in any particular way. Banning animal cruelty doesn't mean you have to give animals the right to vote - Exhibit A = Status Quo. Laws can and should have nuance, so gtfo with your cravings for black/white dichotomies and slippery slopes.
|
On April 21 2010 03:41 gogogadgetflow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 03:02 travis wrote:On April 21 2010 02:58 defuzas wrote:god damn it, i need to take some english classes , this is a very interesting topic, but i just pwn myself bad:D imma hardcore debate fan but only in my mother tongue. gosh. gonna keep lurking.. Sorry I wasn't sure if english was your first language, I could have tried to keep it more simple. You were pretty busy correcting his vocab anyways... Don't worry your arguments are already about as simple as they come. You could surely convince an army of kindergartners. + Show Spoiler +
I don't know what your deal is but I was nothing but polite to that guy and I am pretty sure he has no problem with me. If you think I was being sarcastic or insincere then you are wrong.
|
On April 21 2010 03:17 Puosu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 03:15 Chunkybuddha wrote:On April 21 2010 00:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I'm really having a hard time figuring out how this is part of free speech, I mean holy hell. I also never thought I would agree with Justice Alito. How sad that this will spur an influx of videos and only a matter of time when someone posts one here on TL.
Because you should still be able to make movies about anything you want. Right to freedom of speech. Yeah like child pornography oh wait right that's been made illegal because it hurts living beings.. why doesn't the same thing go for animal cruelty?
The existence of child pornography hurts the victim further because they can be cognizant of that footage out there and people exploiting their image. I don't think any animals would suffer on going psychological trauma from worrying about their image being distributed and exploited. So that is at least one difference that could justify treating them differently in the law.
|
On April 21 2010 01:09 DexterHGTourney wrote:
This is an area where I'm sure hardly anyone agrees with me, though logically, most people are so hypocritical and illogical it blows my mind when it comes to this issue.
Do I agree with the decision? Yes. For the reasons stipulated by the SCOTUS? No. Animals do not have rights. Therefore, animal cruelty while heinous and sickening should not be illegal. They overturned the law based on the First Amendment, but I think they should have went further and dissected the issue at hand. Do animals have rights or not? Now, Governments do not grant rights, they merely enumerate them. Rights are negative. Our rights deriving from Natural Law, and recognized as such by the formation of this Union (Decl. of Independance, ConCon, AoC, state Constitutions, etc.). If indeed they do not have rights, then they are property. Since reason and sentience is for me, a pre-requisite to the self-evidence of Natural Rights, then it becomes quite silly to criminalize someone for harming their own property. Moreover, if we are to believe that animals do have the right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness then how do we hold them accountable? As is, liberty is borne from negative rights. Where you have the liberty to do as you please as long as you do not infringe on anothers liberty. Once this occurs both parties must have the sentience to acknowledge and to formulate just laws to recompense for this violation.
It is blindingly clear that animals show no ability to either acknowledge through reason or any semblance of sentience these truths. In that vein, the SCOTUS should have struck down all Federal Laws on the books criminalizing the use of the persons property (animal).
The next question begs, that if you support the notion that animals have rights, then you must criminalize a host of areas. Any murder of an animal would be punishable the same as a murder of a human being since we share the same rights. I mean, are people ready to go down that road? That also means you cannot own pets, since slavery violates the rights of the animal. So how do we bring animals to justice? Yeah...
Now, I do not support the disgusting acts perpetuated upon defenseless animals. I also however, do not support criminalization.
I wanna run into you in a dark alley.
|
On April 21 2010 03:07 Slow Motion wrote:
Why do you think utilitarianism is rational? It starts off assuming pleasure is good and pain is bad in and of itself, because that's something we can all feel and agree with.
I don't. Life with no pain would be bland. An excess of pleasure can render one idiotic.
To render someone incapable of feeling pain or make them feel constant overwhelming pleasure would be a terrible crime against them.
Neither deserves primary standing in moral philosophy.
I believe we have no direct moral responsibility to animals, but that our instinctive empathy toward animals, and its link to our capacity for sympathy toward other humans, creates important practical considerations with regard to our treatment of animals. It is bad in principle to cause suffering in animals because on some level we perceive it in the same way as human suffering, and are troubled and confused by it. However, principles have exceptions, and this is a very complex issue.
|
On April 21 2010 04:00 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2010 03:07 Slow Motion wrote:
Why do you think utilitarianism is rational? It starts off assuming pleasure is good and pain is bad in and of itself, because that's something we can all feel and agree with. To render someone incapable of feeling pain or make them feel constant overwhelming pleasure would be a terrible crime against them.
My morality is not about pleasure and pain. It is about suffering. You do not need to experience pleasure in order to not suffer, and you can not suffer while experiencing pain.
|
On April 21 2010 03:37 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
I think that the first amendment is not about a balance but about protecting all constitutional speech against banning or deterrence, similar to how people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not innocent until there is "substantial" evidence that they are guilty.
You're forgetting about the part in the constitution where it says that none of its absolute restrictions should be taken seriously, and any of them can be set aside for practical or philosophical reasons as long as a majority of Supreme Court Justices think there's a really good excuse.
Remember "it's a living document" and words only mean what we decide to let them mean, on a case-by-case basis.
Actually amending the text of the constitution is too much of a hassle. It's far easier to just pretend.
|
Organized animal fights is indeed fucked up but three years in jail for that is a bit of stretch. Freedom of speech is a important basis of a democracy but it's also a very vague concept : There is freedom of speech as long as it does not impede the exercice of other fundamental rights or harm the overall well-being of society.
Yes I know my english blows :/
|
Before i have read this tread i didnt even know that such videos exist. Thats just sick. Thank You teamliquid.net for showing me another proof of human depravation.
Just when You think nothing can surprise You anymore, theres a solution for You. Visit TL.net. Thank You all folks!
|
On April 21 2010 04:21 Silvanel wrote:
Before i have read this tread i didnt even know that such videos exist. Thats just sick. Thank You teamliquid.net for showing me another proof of human depravation.
Just when You think nothing can surprise You anymore, theres a solution for You. Visit TL.net. Thank You all folks!
I'm not quite sure how to interpret this. Do you want me to link the Two Girls One Pup video or not?
|
|
|
On April 21 2010 01:54 InToTheWannaB wrote:
So what does this law geting over turned really mean? Its ok to own a video of animal cruelty , but you can't commit acts of animal crulety yourself because of state law right? I don't understand how this law violates free speech at all. I could understand if they said it was a states rights issue, but how the hell does owning animal snuff films have anything to do with free speech?
It's said to violate free speech because freedom of speech loosely translates into freedom of expression and "silent speech". Therefore, being able to create a video and show it is an expression of yourself (or something like that). It's not so much that the supreme court took a look and said
"OH MAN WE GOTTA LET THOSE PEOPLE SHOW THEMSELVES KILLING AMINALS"
It's more like:
People have the freedom to create and share videos.
There is a law preventing this.
This law should be struck down, as it prevents freedom of speech (expression) and thus is unconstitutional.
So it's not really about the act itself....
The only exception to this is pornography and a few other cases.
|
On April 21 2010 02:39 travis wrote:
including humans?
If not, then that is the entire point of what I was saying. As fen said, how is suffering experienced by a non-human being different than suffering experienced by a human being? It's ignorant to think so. All evidence points otherwise.
It isn't ignorant to think so. Also, if people want to make valid arguments, then don't argue by saying things like "everyone,all", when it is clearly not true. It is the reason there is usually a response arguing otherwise. You can't say, for example, "no one sane thinks my sister is hot.. that is outrageous! Only a sick person would think so". Psychological evidence is NOT like math where 2+2 will and always equal 4. Saying "well only an idiot would think like this", or "I can't believe the monsters that would do this", are mere opinions and makes your argument weak. No one on the other side of the topic will believe you if emotional opinions are being thrown out like that. (goes for everyone doing it)
On April 21 2010 02:06 travis wrote:
Animals are living beings like you or I. They clearly experience pain and pleasure like you or I.
Some of the people in this thread either haven't realized this yet, or don't care (which is even worse).
The question of if an animal feels pain like a human is still up to debate. Especially because of the cases on "Animal Testing". It is a very controversial subject, and one can not just say on this thread, "Yes animals do feel pain like a human being as a fact".
Now you should consider what type of pain we may be talking about as well. Yes, most people can agree that an animal does feel 'physical' pain like a human, but is the 'emotional' pain the same? A tree can react to the 'physical pain' of being chopped by an axe, and react to it naturally. One can say confidently though, that a tree doesn't feel emotional pain. Emotional pain is a deep factor in if a human being can cause pain to another. Saying 'animals' experience this the same as a human is wrong. Saying Kid A thinks the same as Kid B is wrong as well.
Lets think of this as a staircase. Humans being on the top at the moment, and bugs being one of the bottom steps. I personally find shame in the thought of torturing or killing a helpless bug, but it doesn't mean most of us haven't done it when we were kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://thepirata.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/nilgunyalcin_childvulture.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/save-planet-kill-yourself.jpg)
