This post is so riddled with political and historical ignorance that any recommendation I could give would sound patronising. — Lionino
Maybe. I guess I would respond to this by saying that this would just be another experiment. — Igitur
I have no idea how religious truth differs from common garden variety truth or personal truth, so I can't possibly care about it. Values and community do not require religious faith or adherence. I certainly would not attempt to practice one just for appearances - unless there was a threat of persecution, which there often is, and in which case deception is perfectly acceptable.Assuming you care about religious truth, values, or community, you would probably also attempt to practice religions — Igitur
They would not be able to fall on the people if they were in the floor, — Sir2u
On submarines and I would suppose star-ships the beams would be specially made in the form of the hull but they would not use curved beams for internal support. — Sir2u
Another question I cannot find an answer to is why space traveling beings are depicted with claws or tentacles that can never have been used to create the spaceships they ride around in. — Sir2u
You're quite right - it's the same question.I suppose a related question is, "Why do we humans find a deity coming through flames apposite?" — wonderer1
Wait, is it true that if we released farm animals in the wild they would ALL just die? — LFranc
What exactly do you mean by "deities"? Could you give an example maybe? — Sir2u
Has anyone else here had a sense that what they were experiencing in early life wasn't truly real or that it was highly stripped down? — TiredThinker
I don't understand this. In childhood, we begin by accepting the environment, things and people at face value; only as we gradually learn about illusion and deception, do we begin to question what things seem to be. Surely, by old age, we've figured out that nothing man-made is quite what it looks and sounds like; only nature is genuine.Or is that natural when one hasn't yet accepting things as they seem to be? — TiredThinker
I know that. I also know that, because they are our property, made for our use, we tend to treat them like inanimate objects. And we have no real need - I mean need, as distinct from profit and desire - to have such vast numbers of captive, miserable animals. We have alternatives.I get that domesticated animals aren't exactly akin to a sickle, however they're not like a wild animal either. Their genetics were crafted by humans to fulfill a human designed function. — LuckyR
The word 'purpose' always pulls me up short. I understand the purpose of a sickle or a canoe: something made by n intelligent being to accomplish something he wanted to do.my only point is that to be fair, we should take into account the "purpose" of domesticated animals as being fundamentally different from the lives of wild animals. — LuckyR
What does that mean? Remember domesticated animals were invented to provide goods and services for humans. Commonly that involves their death or at minimum living in an unnatural situation — LuckyR
I'm not familiar with a model of small scale ranching (what numbers? on what acreage? what procedures?) that would be beneficial to cattle.I agree with you that small scale ranching leads to a better (less bad) quality of life for the animals, that's all I'm saying, take aim at the worst offenders, not the whole inductry. — LuckyR
Motherhood is not a human societal concept. It's a deeply embedded animal instinct - one for which many birds and mammals and even some fish risk their very lives. If the crying of a bereft cow doesn't convey enough pain and sorrow to a human, the deficiency is not in the cow's understanding of motherhood.I don't think an animal has quite the same deep societal understanding of the concepts of "mother" or "father" as a human does. — Outlander
And what if we have the opposite effect? Suppose we benefit from 150, waste 50, extirpate 799 and save 1? (I'll do the research to support my numbers if you produce some to support yours.)So, as intelligent beings who can prevent this process, if benefited from perhaps 1 animal while we save 1000 that would otherwise die, become extinct, or suffer, it's really self-evident. — Outlander
Or maybe because they were hungry and ground under the landowner's heel? But that's a question for another tale.For good reason, the peasants often stole because they had no moral backbone or belief in consequence toward actions not immediately prevented. — Outlander
This can only be done with goats though. — LFranc
Pretending that ranching is solely negative is a gross oversimplification. — LuckyR
Yess! Clear, coherent and logical.A two-step criterion: (1) performative self- consistency; if an action/policy is not, then the relevant, problematic inconsistency should be exposed and possibly reformed. (2) efficacious harm-prevention/reduction; if an action/policy is not, then It should be opposed and/or replaced with an evidently more efficacious alternative. — 180 Proof
I meant to distinguish the agenda of a publicly constituted entity, such as a board of education, from the idiosyncratic one-time behaviour of an individual - say, pissing in an alley.I don't know what you mean in this context by "isolated act". — 180 Proof
Terrific summary!Simple policy, few objects needed, justification is enough objects and reasonings to show murder is bad so policy against it is good, or functional, and so justified, and we are done. — Fire Ologist
That was my premise: we can - and do - apply it to everything. Not just moral and legal issues, but personal hyginene, opinions, financial decisions.Before applying this to morality, and justifications for policies or actual individual acts, we can apply it to simply knowledge. — Fire Ologist
In a legal situation, it is not. One of the very common situations in which we find ourselves having to offer justification for our actions is the legal arena. Dealing drugs is very clearly against the law - unless you have a pharmacist's license. A court of law is where such matters are decided by other people. The hypothetical honest criminal may justify his action in his own mind. Different criteria are applied externally and internally.The justification is purely one toward the individual's moral compass. — AmadeusD
I think we're heading for apocalypse. See the four big dust clouds on the horizon? One of them can be nuclear cloud.You think there's going to be a nuclear war? — RogueAI
Forever and ever, amen!If only we were a bit more smart! — unenlightened
I like this explanation. Will have to reflect on it.So the point is that justification is intrinsically social. Negotiation is to be expected as there is a balance always to be struck between the generality of social norms and the particularity of every individual's circumstances. And thus what we should expect living in a pragmatically moral social order is this balance between globalised constraints and individualised freedoms. — apokrisis
True. in the specific case, as an answer to an example. Not a goalpost; not in the OP.Ahem.
justify it to a jury — Vera Mont
This is a Neon Green goalpost, totally different to personal justification. That's my point. And it's correct. — AmadeusD
I didn't understand it that way, though someone else might have. Okay. How does one justify a career in drug-dealing? I assume you take into account the drug and the customer-base.When i say "lump individuals" I am talking about that individual's drug-dealing career as a 'case'. Not several individuals. Sorry if that was unclear. — AmadeusD
Hoe do you judge a dealer's scruples in retrospect, not having witnessed his sales? It's up to him or his advocate to offer a justification, explanation, excuse or mitigating circumstance.whereas a dealer who does not unscrupulously sell drugs may need a more thorough analysis — AmadeusD
All kinds of different situations call for justification. It might be defense of a philosophical argument in an academic setting; it might be a confrontation with a spouse or employer who questions a decision; it might be advocacy for an allocation of funds in a city council; it might be criminal trial.Very, VERY different question that shifts the entire conversation to a different goalpost (not sure you intended to do that - just being clear why its not addressed here). — AmadeusD
No, you can't 'lump' individuals - they're all separate - and the plural of anything does not make 'a case'. You might be able to make a single case for a particular kind of situation, but you would first have to show how all the specific instances have enough commonalities to justify their being considered as a single case.But, you can lump individuals as 'a case'. — AmadeusD
Yes.It would be arguments that the individual/s that done the wrong were not fully to blame, or that we should be more lenient on them. — Down The Rabbit Hole
In which case, selling drugs would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis: which drug, to whom, under what circumstances; how did they use it, what affect it had. Doesn't that require a lot of usually unavailable information? How does the dealer justify it to a jury?n consequentialism the goodness or badness or an action is judged wholly by its consequences. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I think that would count as a mitigation or perhaps excuse. It doesn't justify the act; it only explains the motive.A strong justification could be an individual selling drugs to fund medical care for a dying family member. — Down The Rabbit Hole
So you think that sustaining their living is not a justification because the risks from making changes are not risky enough? — Apustimelogist
Only I didn't ask that question, and I don't think the OP was asking how the farmer justifies his living, but how the consumer justifies his food choices. That's just a guess, of course.That seems implied when you gave the question: "How can we still justify... " — Apustimelogist
Most agribusiness is not owned by 'a farmer'. Many farms are held by families, so the decisions are made by several senior members. The living they provide can be precarious, but many of these farmers have changed their methods according to the consumers' changing preferences and to reduce their dependence on suppliers. However, the corporate investors don't need to be responsive to public sentiment or local market conditions.I guess it depends on economics. I'm sure if more ethical choices were economically more lucrative, farmers would jump on it. I can't speak for whether such possible changes present significant economic risk to farmers that threaten thwie livelihoods. Possibly for some in some places. — Apustimelogist
I don't think any comparison to nature is valid. We took ourselves out of nature a long time ago, and have done everything our clever imagination could invent to protect ourselves from nature. The only thing nature gives animals that we refuse them is liberty - one of the things we most prize for ourselves.Just so, and well farmed animals will suffer less stress, be better fed, and protected from disease and parasites than their wild cousins. — unenlightened
That must be comforting.Often I feel we project our own capacity to suffer onto animals but I think we're far worse off in terms of our capacity to suffer. — Nils Loc
With excellent reason. As Mark Twain said: "Humans are the only animal that blushes - or needs to."Humans are probably the most angst ridden animal in the history of Earth. — Nils Loc
Ours wasn't that hard. After we moved to the country, my SO asked where to build the chicken coop. I said I didn't want chickens. "Why not?" "Who's going to kill them? Not me!" "Me either. But wait, that's hypocrisy, having other people do your killing." "Yes, it is." "So what's the alternative?"I've often admired vegetarianism, and have even tried to 'go vegetarian' for quite long periods, but living in a meat-based culture, and having been brought up consuming meat, it's hard to find the motivation to continue with it. — Wayfarer
Please do not hesitate to make several arguments at once. — LFranc
If you start with some fairly implausible premises, yes. God exploded and bits of his body have been decaying ever since. Nice.Looking at the universe in this way may make more sense. — Thales