When I constructed the example in my mind, I was thinking of death in the first scenario as a consequence from getting shot by a bullet fired from a rifle and, in the second scenario, as a consequence of getting tortured. If you can accept that, then the question becomes whether or not one action is worse than the other when the result is the same. If you can't, then the example doesn't work and can be safely disregarded.

The bolded statement, how can you say that this notion is always based on feelings? That's not a statement which describes what I see in the justice system where I live. ;)

You write yourself that punishment can have positive effect in that it can prevent more crime. Isn't that also a notion behind punishment?

To my non meat eating compadres:

What is your stance on PETA?

^They can be annoying but I appreciate their views


Anyway I agree with vegetarianism and would love to be vegetarian but right now I couldn't do it maybe when i'm older i'll make more of an effort and become one.

Err

You eat meat...


edit: why can't you be vegetarian now

Yes but I'd like to be vegetarian in the future.

It's not the same.
PETA pretty much ****s vegetarians/vegans/other animal rights activists over with their ridiculous antics. To be perfectly honest, I think PETA demonstrations should be outlawed, as it interferes with the human right to choose what we put into our bodies, and are generally ****ing annoying. I don't want anyone righties telling me what to do with my uterus, but I also don't want PETA telling me what is "right" for me to eat or not. The main thing is, I choose to be vegetarian, no one should be forced or made to feel bad for the fact they eat meat.

honestly i think some of those people should like chill the F*ck out and get leid .. they shouldnt be telling us what to do and what not to do.

Aye more people should get Leid.

The consequence of death is equal, yes. However, I do not only regard the final outcome as all consequences of one action. As I am an utilitarianist I believe that an action is good if it leads to more happiness/pleasure than unhappiness/pain. This means the total pleasure and/or pain that the action causes throughout time.

Would the suffering of the animal be equal in both the cases I would say that the moral implications of both scenarios would be equal. In fact, I would argue that, given the conditions that in both cases the corpse of the animal is treated likewise, the best, most moral scenario would be the one with the sadist as he/she recieves pleasure from the action.

This is under the condition that it is a lone, isolated event and that the pleasure that the sadist recieves does not mean that he/she has had positive experiences on animal cruelty making him/her more likely to perform it again. (This, I would say, is likely the case.)


I argue that the notion that immoral actions should always be punished, for punishment's sake alone, is based on feelings rather than logic. That is of course assuming that a moral/immoral action is defined in the way I define it (as described above).

When saying that, I am making the assumption (a justified one, if you ask me, but that's just me) that:
A1: Crime causes an increase in unhappiness/pain and a decrease in happiness/pleasure. (This would of course depend on the specific crime, I would argue that some legal actions are still immoral and some illegal ones are moral.)
Hence:
A2: Less crime means less increase in unhappiness/pain and less decrease in happiness/pain. Per my system of morality: positive consequences.

B: Punishment works in a preventive matter by eg. scaring people into not commiting crimes or stating an example. (Of course punishment isn't enough, we also need eg. theraphy.) Due to A2, these are positive consequences.

hip hop bunny hop, you replied:

Realizing that animals like rabbits and pigs have emotions and can suffer from pain, stress, boredom, and fear, is not attributing human characteristics to these animals, but rather recognizing their *own* characteristics, I feel. People in the animal industry deal with (or sometimes ignore) all these animals' emotions. For example, Temple Grandin designs slaughterhouses for cows such that the chutes are curved, preventing cows from seeing what is ahead in order to reduce their stress and fear. You can read about cattle stress in the "Design" section of this slaughterhouse article: Slaughterhouse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your basic question appears to be this: how do we determine which beings are ones we should be concerned about and try not to kill? I feel this is a really important question and is at the crux of the vegetarian/meat-eating debate.

It sounds like you feel we should care only about those beings who are "self-aware." How are you defining "self-aware," hip hop bunny hop?

I feel most animals whom people eat (mammals, birds, and fish) are very self-aware in that they feel their bodies and their emotions. For example, a dog certainly feels her own mouth inside (as we do), and she feels her feet and legs move and is aware of the sensations. Dogs and parrots also appear to be able to experience depression, since dogs and parrots who have symptoms of depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder recover when given Prozac, the same drug that works on people.

Also, I'd like to point out that a young human baby, say a 1-month-old, does not appear more self-aware than adult livestock animals...and actually less so in some ways. People used to think very young human babies couldn't experience pain, since little babies' brains are still rewiring quite a bit and babies don't *appear* to be very aware of what's going on. Some people seem to have similar beliefs (which I feel are false) about non-human animals such as cows, pigs, chickens, fish, etc.

I feel that how an animal dies, whether peacefully in a field or chased down and ripped apart by a predator, makes a big difference to an animal like a rabbit! I am curious why you think the type of death would *not* make a difference. It sounds like you feel rabbits are unfeeling machines.

Tore, I agree with you that someone intentionally torturing an animal (knowing this is causing pain) is morally worse than someone accepting that an animal will suffer during raising and slaughtering the animal.

However, I don't feel it is a morally good thing for bystanders to stand by and then benefit from an animal experiencing fear and pain at the hands of other humans and their machines.

I don't think most people who eat other animals and their body parts *want* those animals to experience fear and pain...but they accept this suffering. I suspect many people discount the importance of animals' pain, since humans can't feel it. This doesn't make meat-eaters sadists. But it does make them people who stand by and do nothing when someone else, an animal, is frightened and then killed.

I definitely agree with you that a man slowly torturing a hare to death is doing something much more morally reprehensible than killing a hare (nearly) instantly with a gun shot to her head. However, I feel that killing a rabbit by a gun shot to her head is also morally wrong...just not as bad as torturing her first!