{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:The Last Assassins
2/11/2014 1:15:34 PM
24
Unethical? From what point of view are you coming from? If there is no God, there is no such thing as ethics. There's nothing wrong with putting the animals in even smaller cages. No one tells us we have to help the "innocent" or those who cannot speak for themselves. Ethics would be an invention of society unfortunate carry over from the times we thought there were gods.
Or, let's say your a Christian then. Not unethical, because God called us to take dominion over the entire world. I'd certainly say zoos fall into that category.
One more thing: how can you know the animals are uncomfortable? They don't emote the same way humans do. Your assuming that certain body language means a certain thing, from a one day visit at one zoo. What if the polar bear had cramps that day because he ate too much food? What if the monkeys body language conveys a completely different emotion then it would in humans?
English
-
Edited by Pendulate: 2/12/2014 1:12:39 PM[quote]Ethics would be an invention of society unfortunate carry over from the times we thought there were gods.[/quote]This just isn't true at all. Ethics are no more or less an "invention" than pain or pleasure are inventions. Pain is bad, pleasure is good. Simple. Anyone with basic logical capacity should be able to define a sound moral code around the above statement. If you simply believe what "society" tells you is acceptable or not then you are lacking in that basic capacity. [quote]One more thing: how can you know the animals are uncomfortable? They don't emote the same way humans do. Your assuming that certain body language means a certain thing, from a one day visit at one zoo. What if the polar bear had cramps that day because he ate too much food? What if the monkeys body language conveys a completely different emotion then it would in humans?[/quote]Completely ignoring the physiological data that shows animals have similar nervous systems to us and therefore experience similar physical feelings, there is simply observable evidence. If an animal exhibits behavior that we would exhibit in a state of pain, it is only logical to conclude they are in a similar state. To assume that all animals in existence besides humans have completely polar opposite ways of expressing emotion is a desperate attempt to justify ethically deplorable actions and only makes you look detached. It's like a rapist saying it's okay because his victims probably enjoy it anyway. There's no weight to it.
-
So, if ethics exist, there must be a reason for the existence. Essentially, a god or God must have given them to us. There is no other explanation besides saying (illogically) "they just randomly appeared!" Or "they are an advanced evolutionary trait!" When in reality, bad ethics trumps good ethics for individual health and happiness. A good book to read about this would be CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity." He explains this much better than I have.
-
Edited by Pendulate: 2/12/2014 2:20:54 PMWhat on earth are you talking about? Ethics aren't tangible, it's simply a name given to a person's set of standards for living. There is no need for an ultimate power to set the rules for what is right and wrong because we can observe these things at a basic level. Again, pleasure is enjoyable. Pain is not. That's as objective as it needs to be.
-
But its not just pain and pleasure. What if its pleasurable for me to bring pain to other living things? What's to stop me from taking my pleasure, even if it costs others pain? My ethics would control whether I acted on my impulses or not. If there were no one who gave us moral (ethics) then we would not have them, because it could not come about naturally. I'm trying to get to the root of the issue-- where do these ethics originate? If they do not originate from objective truth, then it doesn't matter if his ethics are bothered or not. Do you know why? Because he's no better then I am, and no better then those who own the zoo. He can call for reform, but it has no base. He can say he wants the animals to be happy, but it doesn't matter-- the personal happiness of those who own the animals is equally important. Without an ultimate reference point as a guide, everything be ones subjective, and everything becomes permissible.
-
Edited by Pendulate: 2/12/2014 4:00:19 PM[quote]But its not just pain and pleasure. What if its pleasurable for me to bring pain to other living things? What's to stop me from taking my pleasure, even if it costs others pain?[/quote]That's where logic comes in. If you wouldn't want it done to yourself, don't do it to others. Seek your pleasure elsewhere and afford others the courtesies you expect to be afforded to you. [quote]If there were no one who gave us moral (ethics) then we would not have them, because it could not come about naturally.[/quote]That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. If they "couldn't come naturally" we wouldn't have them today, unless you're saying many people together can decide ethics but a single person can't, which is also ridiculous. [quote]I'm trying to get to the root of the issue-- where do these ethics originate?[/quote]Logic and reasoning. Pain is unpleasant, and innocent people don't deserve to feel unpleasant. [quote]If they do not originate from objective truth, then it doesn't matter if his ethics are bothered or not. Do you know why? Because he's no better then I am, and no better then those who own the zoo.[/quote]I'd say he is better since he can understand the logical thought process of affording others the basic courtesies you expect them to afford to you. [quote]the personal happiness of those who own the animals is equally important.[/quote]You contradicted yourself. If the happiness of the owners is equally important as the happiness of the animals, the animals shouldn't be suffering. [quote]Without an ultimate reference point as a guide, everything be ones subjective, and everything becomes permissible.[/quote]If you aren't consistent with your logic, you are almost always wrong, and at the very least your argument doesn't hold weight. Your logic here appears to be very inconsistent.
-
OH GOSH [quote]That's where logic comes in. If you wouldn't want it done to yourself, don't do it to others. Seek your pleasure elsewhere and afford others the courtesies you expect to be afforded to you. [/quote] Logic? really? What I'm saying is is that ethics determine that logic. If I don't care what I do to other people, that logic is different. If my own personal happiness is more important to me than others, I will do anything for my personal happiness. That's what ethics is. Your assuming that your logic can be applied to everyone and everything because it is right. What I'm questioning here is WHY it is right. If there is no objective, ultimate reference point of truth that dictates what is right and wrong, everything becomes subjective. It's all about worldview-- what is real affects what is true, which affects what is right (morals), which determines our actions.
-
[quote]What I'm saying is is that ethics determine that logic.[/quote]No. Logic determines ethics. You have your ethics because of your thought processes behind them. [quote]If I don't care what I do to other people, that logic is different.[/quote]Correct, and it is inconsistent logic. [quote]If my own personal happiness is more important to me than others, I will do anything for my personal happiness. That's what ethics is.[/quote]That's what [i]your[/i] ethics are, which aren't consistent. You're entitled to that, but don't try and say otherwise. [quote]Your assuming that your logic can be applied to everyone and everything because it is right.[/quote]I wouldn't use the term "right". "Superior" is more fitting. [quote]What I'm questioning here is WHY it is right.[/quote]It's consistent. You can't say you want others to afford you courtesies that you aren't willing to afford in return. That's hypocritical, which largely invalidates your argument. [quote]If there is no objective, ultimate reference point of truth that dictates what is right and wrong, everything becomes subjective.[/quote]Actually it's a lot more straightforward than that. If there is no objective way of knowing that you deserve more rights than anything, the only logical thing to do is treat all things equally. Because there is no ultimate dictation that they aren't your equals. [quote]It's all about worldview-- what is real affects what is true, which affects what is right (morals), which determines our actions.[/quote]Not entirely sure what to make of this, but again it goes back to my above statement that there is no objective "truth", so thinking that your personal desires are more important directly contradicts that.
-
I didn't assume polar opposite body language. I presented two possible other emotions body language could convey.
-
Edited by camaleon22: 2/11/2014 2:33:20 PMWhat if x 2 still not receiving any convincing information. Regarding ethics, the first two lines which you wrote at the beginning of the first paragraph clearly traced a two road distinction. Wether your religion is accompanied by an ethics standard that of which is applied in daly life thus "good samaritan" or if you are not bound to any religion which you describe as not being hand-in-hand by morals. "There's nothing wrong with putting the animals in even smaller cages. No one tells us we have to help the 'innocent' or those who cannot speak for themselves."I literally was about to puke from hearing this insensitive horse-crap. This is just a matter of Values acquired from being raised in such a family that could defiantly be atheist or agnostic. I just thought that bringing religion into this was a move below the belt, a move that didn't really play out for you given what was previously said. What world would we live in if there were no morals, values in daily life. What progress what be seen over time if we could not even care for each other, let alone do business?? Just remember,you're at the top of the food chain Ps: If your thinking about having kids, don't. It is bad as it is in this world. You clearly having an offspring cannot not benefit us at all. Another human being with your insensitive brutality and ignorance will not help, trust me until then, keep hating.
-
Edited by Stalwart: 2/11/2014 2:41:31 PMLol I created a hypothetical that is actually conceivably true. I'm just trying to find out where this guy is coming from, because ethics are derived from an ultimate reference point. I want to know where he got his ethics from, and I created two hypotheticals to show him that there is no ethics problems with putting animals in cages. I myself, as a Christian, don't believe at all that animals should be put in tiny cages. That's being a bad master of what you have been given dominion over. God wouldn't want what he created to be malnourished, marred, or otherwise tortured. However, this does not make me a vegan-- eating animals is taking dominion over them wisely, as long as they are not wasted.
-
I am Christian Catholic. Apart from the Values I adopt from church, the other morals regarding animal welfare have been attributed to me via my family. If you were creating such a hypothetical case, I just cant help ponder that it should have been stated before you continued with the philosophical tirade. Just reading the first two lines I sensed the emanating discontent, disproval, and overall hate. Maybe this is not what you wanted to portray, this is how I perceived it. What you said about the Mendoza zoo, that maybe my paper was written on one time visit thus potentially falsifiable is simply not true. I had visited this zoo 3 time. I decided I was fed up with what was seen multiple times. Regarding the polar bear "Arturo" here is a link explaining some contemporary information of his wellbeing. Links http://observers.france24.com/content/20131220-arturo-polar-bear-argentina-heat This has a video http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/send-sad-argentinian-polar-bear-to-canada-supporters-urge-1.1407193
-
Edited by Stalwart: 2/11/2014 4:09:54 PMBut where do those values come from? Do they have a foundation in an objective truth? If not, there need be no ethical consideration towards these animals. I'm trying to make you think here. As a fellow brother in Christ, I want to encourage you to think critically! Yeah I guess your right about this specific zoo. But your title is extremely misleading. You make it sound as if all zoos are bad, when in reality, you mention no other zoos except the above mentioned. I'd suggest a title change-- you can't judge all zoos from three visits to one zoo in your local area.
-
Thank you for the encouragement fellow brother, I appreciate the concern. The objetive truth, the origination of my concern for all animals on earth which makes me treat them in an ethical way is found in another religion which is not my own neither my family's. The answer lies in the Hinduism religion. My parents indeed have taught me to think out of the box or "critically". That is why I have found this love and care for every animal in this earth. Allow me to elaborate. This positive intervention caused me to branch out from my corresponding religion complete with its Dogmas and seek out new answers to new questions. I myself cannot call myself Hindu but do regard many of its lessons as correct and even went so far as to buy a Shrine of Lord Ganesha. In the religion of Hinduism there exists an concept of death and rebirth called Samsara. depending on how well one performed in one life in terms of benevolence and good deeds, one moves up this spiral into a different being. The objective of hinduism is to move up this ladder and at one point become one with the universe. This resembles the concept of Nirvana in Buddhism. Because of this, I view every living thing as potential candidate to be one with the universe. That is why seeing these fellow beings locked up in these cages disrupts my adopted ethics from My Hindu Branch of belief. These beings could definitely move up this system of Samsara and one day become a human. Us Humans locking them up reduces our chances of a favorable outcome in the next life. This basically sums up why I feel sick when going to the zoo. These are the origins of my ethics. lol Ill give you props on the title Ill have to change that "Mendoza zoo" One question, how old are you?
-
Do you truly believe all that about samsara etc.? You still claim Christianity as your main doctrine though?
-
When someone asks me what is my religion, I answer christianity. Although I do believe in a great portion of the Hindu teachings. It is a cocktail of mixed beliefs, positive beliefs. The reason I answer christianity is greatly do to the fact that not many people are educated on the hindu religion and end up classifying it as some weird tribal magical associated belief. I can speak from experience. And i really don't like to explain the whole concept every time I am asked Do you have A PSN account?
-
Edited by Stalwart: 2/11/2014 5:08:30 PMYes, I do have a PSN. So you classify yourself as a christian, but you believe in other "positive" religions? That is not possible. I'm glad I'm talking to you, man. I know you've spent your whole life searching for answers, you seem to be a profound person looking for the road to heaven. However, the Bible specifically states that there is only one way to heaven. Can we agree on that?
-
The bible said the earth was the center of the universe yet it was proven wrong According to the Bible all homosexuals shall perish in hell due to their ghastly demonic interference with the devil which causes their perverse hankering for the opposite sex. I am a christian, I go to church, I am not a bible thumper. I believe in a general good that has to be done. Is that not good enough to get into heaven? It may seem complicated mixing the concept of resurrection(samsara) and heaven(one way) In the end it is a matter of doing good. What happens when I die will be positive either way because of the way I lived. Ps; im not an adult
-
[quote]The bible said the earth was the center of the universe yet it was proven wrong According to the Bible all homosexuals shall perish in hell due to their ghastly demonic interference with the devil which causes their perverse hankering for the opposite sex. [/quote] These two sentences betray your own lack of knowledge on the Bible. The Bible never says any of that. It never said the earth was the center of the universe-- I have studied it, not quite extensively, but I would not believe it if it said this once, at any point. The Bible does not say homosexuals have been influenced by the devil. Whoever told you that was wrong, misinformed, or lying. I'd rather not get into this topic-- it is very emotional for some people, and until you have a strong foundation in the faith, we should wait to talk about it. I would suggest you find a bible and study it-- then you can judge it. Tbh, it seems to me as if you have never read it, and certainly never studied I for yourself. I can tell you are a seeking individual-- that's a good thing. So seek the truth! Read the bible, study it, and find out more about the creator.
-
Edited by camaleon22: 2/11/2014 9:35:35 PMlol bro you are still at it, wow props on determination to turn me into an active Christian given your long term agenda "we should wait to talk about it". In my eyes god does not penalize you if you haven't read the bible or performed the holy trinity sign time and time again. He has more important business to attend to than eying your every move in the name in the lord. Murder, Sickness, Evil, -blam!- all bewitch this world. God knows and cares that thou have not murdered, lied, coveted, cheated etc., not that thou haven't read the bible word by word and analyzed, hypothesized it extensively. The bible has been in the hands of many, rewritten multiple times and altered to have the illiterate majority under control. The essence of Divine benevolence lies not wether one knows the Bible and the extensive history of christianity but if one knows a pure and good reference point for all daily actions. Is not that what matters? All other extensive details are just added to keep a society in order. The devil is in the details (pun intended) Ps; Galileo Galilei, proved previously adopted a scientific belief regarding the center of the universe false. The geocentric theory believed by the church and concluded by Copernicus and Kepler. For such Heresy Galileo was forced to remain silent of his findings in order to avoid a revolutionist wave of Ideals toppling the Church's Universal authority. (e.g. "Sun, stand you still upon Gibeon", Joshua 10:12 - King James 2000 Bible #proofinthepudding
-
I don't have much time, but let me say this-- reading the bible everyday won't get you to heaven either. I'm not trying to turn you into an "active" Christian, I'm trying to make you one in the first place. If you don't turn to Jesus, ask him to forgive you of your sins, and believe in him, you will not be saved. "Saved by grace, through faith, not by works so no one may boast."
-
Edited by camaleon22: 2/12/2014 12:44:22 PMseems we have reached an inpass upon the very delicate ideal of sin, belief and good. I am a christian, I pray when times seem tough, I confess, I thank god for his blessings. I will pray for you brother, no boasting shall be done for i know subtleness is an essential for success. Believe me I speak to Jesus profoundly when arriving at church. There is an immense respect and worship within me for the man who died for our sins. May you find peace and know you need not convince and turn Christian some one who already is sufficiently. I just hope this issue does not linger in your mind long enough to cause some negative repercussion. As a fellow open minded christian
-
No. No it won't. I'm sorry, works are not good enough to get into heaven. Don't believe the lies the world has created to ensnare you. My question is, why even identify as christian if you don't believe the most important part of the faith? The bible is the foundation your faith needs to be built upon. It is going to sound terribly cruel, but you are not a true Christ follower if you don't believe in the bible. You don't have to thump it-- but without an objective truth (the bible in this case) what is the point of believing in Christianity at all? Let's think about this critically. Let's say I identified as a scientist, but had not read a science textbook ever. I'd performed experiments and such, and had come up with my own ideas about the universe. But without reading the textbook or having formal education, no one would believe me when I told them I was a scientist, and in all truth, I would not be a scientist. This is just one real life example-- I can come up with others.
-
I'm just a kid. I don't want to reveal my age-- I'm a bit of a privacy freak.
-
me too lol
