Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I don't think the end game is what most of them are in it for... Interesting, could you say more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Well as "Hume’s Law" states, “In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it”. And whatever an apocryphal "vast majority" need or do not need, I having been Vegan and becoming anaemic and arthritic showed me that I do need meat. Well I've been a vegetarian since the 90s and am so far from being anaemic that I've donated both blood and marrow, so I guess that cancels your anecdote out. You might need to eat meat, most people however can do just fine on a vegetarian or even vegan diet. Most however enjoy eating meat far to much to entertain the thought. Eating meat is the reason why human beings evolved the brain size and capacity we did. Plant material just not providing the excess calorific connects to enable the structural enlargement of the human brain over evolutionary time. If we were still hunter-gatherers in Africa this would have a good point, however we aren't and in the UK today you can easily get access to lots of extremely energy dense vegetarian food. So much so that despite my vegetarianism I could do with losing some weight. In fact thanks to modern food technology, which has produced B12 supplements, should you want to for the 1st time ever you can actually survive on an animal product free diet. So as far as I am concerned this is reason enough, and legitimacy enough to eat meat. And has absolutely nothing whatever to do with hunting for sport. They are separate moral issues. Really so because you had difficulty with a vegan diet that means that it's perfectly moral for people who've never even contemplated going vege never mind vegan to spend their lives eating meat for fun whilst voting to criminalise fox hunting does it? No doubt Hume himself would have been proud of such a brilliantly reasoned argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Do you reckon people don't enjoy the hunt if no fox is caught? Oh and did you see my previous post regarding Victoria Braithwaite? No I didn't see that. If she contends that then she stands opposed to most of evolutionary biology and I would probably think she lives on cabbages which have died a natural death!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Interesting, could you say more? I think,only my opinion mind, that most of the hunters are there for the chase and the excitement of riding at speed through the countryside..many of them won't be anywhere near the kill if/when it happens..or do you think they all wait for tail end charlie to catch up..? Not sure the hounds'll stand for that any idea of the percentage of hunts that end with a kill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 No I didn't see that. If she contends that then she stands opposed to most of evolutionary biology and I would probably think she lives on cabbages which have died a natural death!! Oh OK.. Victoria Braithwaite is Professor of Fisheries and Biology, School of Forest Resources, Pennsylvania State University. Her research investigates the evolution of animal cognition, focusing on fish learning, perception, and memory. She has advised the UK Government Animal Procedures Committee, has published numerous research articles, and written for the broadsheet media including the LA Times. In 2006 Professor Braithwaite was awarded the Fisheries Society of the British Isles Medal. Her previous CV :Reader, Edinburgh University, 2007-present • Senior Lecturer, Edinburgh University, 2004-2006 • Lecturer, Edinburgh University, 1995- 2004 •NERC Post-Doc, Glasgow University & Freshwater Fish Laboratories, Faskally, 1993-1995 •D.Phil. Oxford University, 1993 • BA(Hons) Zoology, Oxford University, 1989 Obviously your academic position is greater than hers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 The fact that they have no moral objection to it, is the point isn't it? The Fox has no capacity to do so and so is not culpable of the failure to do so. So no it's not moot is it? It is, because, just because people have the capacity to make moral judgements, does not mean they will all have the same sense of morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Still pursuing the Fox purely for pleasure to inflict suffering. Aside from the fact that it's far from clear that fox hunting is about "for pleasure to inflict suffering" what difference does that make to anything? So what if the unnecessary suffering is the direct reason for the pleasure (as you claim is the case with fox hunting) or is the unnecessary suffering is the inevitable but unintended result of the pleasure (as is the case with all the animals farmed so people can have the pleasure of eating them). Surely what matters is the unnecessary suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 A moot point, since those that go hunting have no moral objection to it. That's an odd argument, you might as well say that paedophiles have no moral objection to what they do, so let them get on with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Well I've been a vegetarian since the 90s and am so far from being anaemic that I've donated both blood and marrow, so I guess that cancels your anecdote out. You might need to eat meat, most people however can do just fine on a vegetarian or even vegan diet. Most however enjoy eating meat far to much to entertain the thought. If we were still hunter-gatherers in Africa this would have a good point, however we aren't and in the UK today you can easily get access to lots of extremely energy dense vegetarian food. So much so that despite my vegetarianism I could do with losing some weight. In fact thanks to modern food technology, which has produced B12 supplements, should you want to for the 1st time ever you can actually survive on an animal product free diet. Really so because you had difficulty with a vegan diet that means that it's perfectly moral for people who've never even contemplated going vege never mind vegan to spend their lives eating meat for fun whilst voting to criminalise fox hunting does it? No doubt Hume himself would have been proud of such a brilliantly reasoned argument When we slaughter animals for food steps are taken to minimise suffering. Is everything which could be done being done? No. Animals are kept and killed in deplorable situations and circumstances. But the object of their death is the use of their flesh for food. You can argue back and forth about the moral rightness of this. But the fact remains that some people exercise their freedom of choice to eat meat. Contrast this with the deliberate enjoyment of the infliction of suffering and sadistic terror on a Fox and the argument has shifted to one of pure sadistic enjoyment. Whatever else can be said for or against eating meat, the infliction of (deliberate cruelty) for no other reason than the furtherance of sporting pleasure is the real defining issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Aside from the fact that it's far from clear that fox hunting is about "for pleasure to inflict suffering" what difference does that make to anything? So what if the unnecessary suffering is the direct reason for the pleasure (as you claim is the case with fox hunting) or is the unnecessary suffering is the inevitable but unintended result of the pleasure (as is the case with all the animals farmed so people can have the pleasure of eating them). Surely what matters is the unnecessary suffering. I would be a bit worried to leave my children in your care, if you didn't morally know the difference between accidental and deliberate infliction of cruelty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.