[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Striking a blow against the predatory guilds



Congratulations Mr. Talon for the long speech : ). And sorry to the
list if I go too much off-topic in following the thread. Now, I think
you are right in that we cannot ask a felid to have our morality,
because he is not a subect to a morality he likely cannot even
understand. Even if someone wants to teach his cat not to kill little
fellow animals, or play with them, and teach him to eat vegetables (I
do not know how much can the cat live like this). However, I think the
philosopher does not desire carnivore extinction as a punishment, or
vengeance, to the predator, as if it was a moral subject just like us,
but just wants their extinction as a way to avoid pain, whatever the
moral beliefs (if any) in the predator. I think that being capable of
feeling pain is a great thing for our own good, as you say. But, I do
not think we can criticize the philosopher on this ground because the
capacity to feel pain leads us to avoid this pain, which is what the
philosopher wants to do when desiring the extinction of predators.
Another good point was raised by John Conway, the assumption that it
is our obligation to free others from pain. Interestingly, I think
questioning this assumption leads us to a debate on the basis of our
own morality (putting slightly aside the predators by a while). I will
have to state my own position and belief on morality before
continuing, to warn about my biases (sorry to the list for getting
somewhat political, but seems necessary). I prefer pacifism,
anarchism, co-operativism, equality of income for all, reduction to
some dignified and reduced personal income (which should be adequately
defined, then giving the excedent to poorer ones as capital to erect
their own productive enterprises), and avoidance to imposition, even
that of the majority or the wisest. And there is a problem for me. If
I see some kid treating to kill other, should I act? (let's forget how
much coward oneself can be). There is no problem if the morally wrong
are in advantage, for example if they are many and have much more
power than me (then of course there is nothing I can logically presume
to accomplish). But if I am in advantage, I have to choice between
reducing the pain and imposing, and not reducing the pain and not
imposing. Both things, pain and imposition, are bad stuff, so it is a
hard choice. Perhaps I can lean to avoid imposition, taking into
account that imposition means a struggle that also leads to pain, but
try to convince the offending dude to stop. Of course, a progresist
democrat, as I guess most of you are, for which imposition of the
majority is not such a moral issue, will find this less disturbing and
the moral decision easier.