Animal Cruelty: Evil or Not?

Started by Sado224 pages
Sado22 Restricted

imo anytime people (who had nothing to do with the cause at hand and didn't chose to suffer) suffer from a cause its wrong. i can pick up a sword or gun and join a cause but the moment the cause ruins lives of people who don't have anything to do with it are involved and forced to make sacrifices they didn't chose..........it becomes wrong.

so does wrong make it evil. I assume it does. is raping a woman or a man wrong? does that make it evil? does maiming another person wrong? does it make it evil?

if the answer to the above is yes, then yes animal cruelty is evil.

Morality does not evolve, and it does not change.

I agree. morality, when truly understood, does not evolve. unfortunately human beings are rarely "moral" unselfishly thats why so many things in the past that were immoral from today's standards were moral back then. prejudice against women was moral in the eyes of many a few decades ago even though religious leaders and talkers were quick to point out that men and women were equal. slavery was legal and moral, where good upstanding christians were keeping slaves even though god says we are all equal.
today americans are bombing iraq and calling arabs "sand nigg3rs". is that moral? in their mind and in the mind of lots of people, they are doing it for a just cause and helping them (the usual paradox of a dominant civilization plundering their way into a weaker civilization under the guise of equality and justice 🙄 ). is that moral? how do iraqis view this morality? and what will the world think of this moral act 50 years in the future? will they scoff at it the same way the world scoffs at the british empire and their "just, moral cause" of undertaking the white man's burden?

~Sado

lil bitchiness -

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And drinking leads to peeing.

🙄

Hahahaha!

lil bitchiness -

On the topic at hand - people who are cruel to animals, rarely stop there.

Is it bad - of course it is. But how can we expect to be fair to animals when we are killing/torturing our fellow humans.

Changing that is important before any real change towards animals can be achieved.

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Originally posted by Sado22
...I agree. morality, when truly understood, does not evolve...

You have not given anything to support this claim.

Sado22 Restricted

You have not given anything to support this claim.

yes, you're right, i was vague.
what i meant was that if there is something called "true morality" then it will not change. unfortunately, we dont' have true morality because at various times, in different parts of the world everyone had a different take on morality. slavery was moral about a century ago even as far as god fearing people were conscerned for instance. but if it truly was moral, then there would no time where it would be compromised.

thus, there is no such thing as true morality and if it is, then its horribly unknown to us.

~Sado

inimalist Junior Member

lol

the answer to every question about morality: we can't talk about morality

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo

Originally posted by Sado22
yes, you're right, i was vague.
what i meant was that if there is something called "true morality" then it will not change. unfortunately, we dont' have true morality because at various times, in different parts of the world everyone had a different take on morality. slavery was moral about a century ago even as far as god fearing people were conscerned for instance. but if it truly was moral, then there would no time where it would be compromised.

thus, there is no such thing as true morality and if it is, then its horribly unknown to us.

~Sado

I think morality is relative.

WO Polaski Don't wanna die...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
FACT: Hitler was against animal cruelty.

DO YOU WANT TO BE LIKE HITLER?

**** you. crylaugh

Rogue Jedi Restricted

I dunno if it's evil, but if I were to run across some guy bashing in the heads of seals with a club, I'd take the club from him and give him a taste of his own medicine.

Sado22 Restricted

I think morality is relative.

yes, because we don't know what "truly moral" is. so we just interpret it. its kinda like truth/god

the answer to every question about morality: we can't talk about morality

well, we can't now can we. every time you try to tell a person what moral and immoral is you're heading to two very troublesome territories:
-you're being a dick because you expect everyone to agree with you
-you're being a dick because you don't understand that its highly subjective from time, people and places.

I dunno if it's evil, but if I were to run across some guy bashing in the heads of seals with a club, I'd take the club from him and give him a taste of his own medicine

why would you do it if its not immoral? would you walk up to a guy playing baseball and bash his head in for hitting the ball?

~Sado
P.S. you better make sure the guy doesn't come back and run you over with an SUV because until then bashing someone repeatedly wiht a bat does not equal "ass kicking" 😠

Captain REX Networking

It can and can't be immoral, personally. We use certain animals for food; some may disagree strongly, but I feel that, in that case, it is not immoral.

Setting a cat on fire for entertainment, however, is immoral.

Rogue Jedi Restricted

So is beating a seal to death with a club.

Sado22 Restricted

It can and can't be immoral, personally. We use certain animals for food; some may disagree strongly, but I feel that, in that case, it is not immoral. Setting a cat on fire for entertainment, however, is immoral.

which goes to show the subjectivity of "morality". a jainist or buddhist or hindu consider even eating animals immoral while muslims and jews are fine with eating most animals but consider eating a pig immoral. setting a cat on fire is immoral but pre-renaissance europe setting a supposed-witch on fire was moral. two centuries ago, slavery and "white man's burden" was moral. today we spit at those chums.

So is beating a seal to death with a club.

so's running over someone with an SUV

~Sado

Bardock42 Junior Member

Originally posted by ushomefree
[Warning: Explicit Material]
View with Caution!

YouTube video

Animal Cruelty is evil; on humanistic terms, it is repugnant!

Undecided? Learn more:

YouTube video

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
FACT: Hitler was against animal cruelty.

DO YOU WANT TO BE LIKE HITLER?

You both make good points, but I think I have to side with the bigger font.

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo

Originally posted by Captain REX
It can and can't be immoral, personally. We use certain animals for food; some may disagree strongly, but I feel that, in that case, it is not immoral.

Setting a cat on fire for entertainment, however, is immoral.

But killing isn't always cruel.

inimalist Junior Member
Originally posted by Sado22
well, we can't now can we. every time you try to tell a person what moral and immoral is you're heading to two very troublesome territories:
-you're being a dick because you expect everyone to agree with you
-you're being a dick because you don't understand that its highly subjective from time, people and places.

relativism = baby out with the bath water

EDIT: Like, don't take this personally, because it certainly isn't a critique of you, but like, on what other subject would anyone have any intellectual respect for "we can't know, so lets stop looking". It is the literal equivalent of "we know, so lets stop looking", which you say is bad above.

Also, it is very easy to talk about objective morals without judging people or demanding that they agree with you...

Bardock42 Junior Member

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
So is beating a seal to death with a club.
Arguable.

Sado22 Restricted

Like, don't take this personally, because it certainly isn't a critique of you, but like, on what other subject would anyone have any intellectual respect for "we can't know, so lets stop looking". It is the literal equivalent of "we know, so lets stop looking", which you say is bad above.

no offense taken mate 🙂
i too wasn't refering to you either when i was speaking. as for what you said, i dont' know how i sounded in my claims about us never knowing morality, but i didn't mean "lets stop looking because we can never know it". that's why i mentioned "true morality" in the earlier post because i honestly do believe that there is something that would be noble for all people, for all ages. i'm just saying that we don't know what it is as of now.

Also, it is very easy to talk about objective morals without judging people or demanding that they agree with you...

i suppose so.

~Sado

Symmetric Chaos Fractal King
Originally posted by inimalist
relativism = baby out with the bath water

I'm not sure what you mean here. Relativism is useful in that it allows us to accept that there are different ways to view the world, it doesn't necessitate ignoring your own sense of morals.

Originally posted by inimalist
Also, it is very easy to talk about objective morals without judging people or demanding that they agree with you...

How you can avoid judging a person you define as evil?

dadudemon Senior Member
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on what type of suffering. Suffering for a good cause is not what I was talking about, but causing the Innocent to suffer is.

But what if you could save all but 100,000 innocent people by causing those 100,000 people to die or chose to let the 100,000 live, but cause the rest of humanity to die through your inaction?