Killing all the lions and tigers....

[russ_watters]

Do you have a link to that currently accepted moral code? Is it just your moral code?

http://uscode.house.gov/

And as William accidentally showed with his link on personhood rights for animals, as pertains to this thread, that is pretty much in line with what is accepted virtually everywhere in the world (animals do not have people rights).

Because the moral codes of most people I know do involve animals in some way or another.

So does mine. But as nearly all do, the sections on "people"" and "animals" are separate and not necessarily related.

 

[russ_watters]

I was surprised to not see "empathy" on the list.

Look harder.

 

[russ_watters]

Just for clarification: you do not think people are being wrongfully convicted to the death penalty?

I do. But I do not accept that that is ok.

 

[micromass]

http://uscode.house.gov/

The united state code of laws is the universally accepted system of morality?? Wow.

 

[micromass]

I do. But I do not accept that that is ok.

How can you possibly be a proponent of the death penalty then?

 

[StatGuy2000]

The premise of the OP's post begs the following question:

Are the only animals that are allowed to exist are those that "serve" humans?

Because that seems to be the basis of the argument about killing lions/tigers/a wide variety of animals. But what makes people think that only animals that are of "value" to humans are the ones who should survive?

I also think the question confounds a more important question: why should hunting and killing animals for sport be allowed in this day and age? I can understand why people may hunt animals for food & sustenance, but killing solely so that someone can mount the carcass in his/her living room is frankly barbaric and should be outlawed.

 

[micromass]

But as nearly all do, the sections on "people"" and "animals" are separate and not necessarily related.

OK, so morality does involve animal rights. So you disagree now with your previous statement that morality is by the people and for the people.

 

[russ_watters]

The united state code of laws is the universally accepted system of morality?? Wow.

That isn't what I said. Please read the rest of the post.

 

[micromass]

That isn't what I said. Please read the rest of the post.

I asked you for the currently accepted moral code and you responded with the US code of laws (which does not seem to involve morality a whole lot). I think the interpretation of your post is obvious: that you see the US code of law as the universally accepted moral code. Why else did you bring it up?

 

[russ_watters]

I asked you for the currently accepted moral code and you responded with the US code of laws (which does not seem to involve morality a whole lot). I think the interpretation of your post is obvious: that you see the US code of law as the universally accepted moral code. Why else did you bring it up?

There is no single written code that covers everyone and i never claimed there was (nor does there need to be). The US code is a reflection of the morality of the people who created and agree to adhere to it. And as I said in the next part of the post, they pretty well reflects the morality adhered to in most of the rest of the world, as pertains to this thread.

 

[russ_watters]

How can you possibly be a proponent of the death penalty then?

What problem do you see here? Do you think it is odd that I support an action/policy that sometimes accidentally kills innocent people?

 

[micromass]

There is no single written code that covers everyone and i never claimed there was (nor does there need to be). The US code is a reflection of the morality of the people who created and agree to adhere to it. And as I said in the next part of the post, they pretty well reflects the morality adhered to in most of the rest of the world, as pertains to this thread.

Personally, I do not find the US moral code to be very reflective of my own personal moral code. In any case, you are being very US-centric here.

 

[micromass]

What problem do you see here? Do you think it is odd that I support an action/policy that sometimes accidentally kills innocent people?

Yes, I find that odd.

 

[russ_watters]

Personally, I do not find the US moral code to be very reflective of my own personal moral code. In any case, you are being very US-centric here.

No I'm not. Again, AS PERTAINS TO THE OP OF THIS THREAD, the US code is very reflective of the rest of the world. As William's link pointed out, for example, there is virtually nowhere in the world that accepts personhood for animals.

I could cite the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights as the closest thing to a worldwide moral code, but it doesn't mention animals (that I know of) and I didn't want to play rough.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, I find that odd.

Then how do you reconcile it for yourself? There are few moments in your life when you AREN'T doing/participating in something that accidentally kills innocent people.

 

[micromass]

No I'm not. Again, AS PERTAINS TO THE OP OF THIS THREAD, the US code is very reflective of the rest of the world. As William's link pointed out, for example, there is virtually nowhere in the world that accepts personhood for animals.

I could cite the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights as the closest thing to a worldwide moral code, but it doesn't mention animals (that I know of) and I didn't want to play rough.

Well, it is called the decleration of human rights for a reason. But if you're evil enough then you might say that the existence of human rights signifies that there are also rights for nonhumans. Don't bother to reply to this, it's just a joke.

And yes, generally people do not accept personhood for animals. I do not see this as indicative that animals do not fall under our morality.

 

[micromass]

Then how do you reconcile it for yourself? There are few moments in your life when you AREN'T doing/participating in something that accidentally kills innocent people.

For example?

 

[russ_watters]

People at going nuts over the killing of this lion. But even William accidentally acknowledged that there is no real animal rights issue at stake here: the most the hunter can likely be charged with is poaching, which in this case is essentially distruction of property.

 

[russ_watters]

For example?

Do you drive? Fly? Ride a bike on streets? Walk on streets? Live in a structure built by people? Use electricity generated from coal? Use any products made from hazardous chemicals?

All of these activities regularly kill innocent people.

 

[micromass]

People at going nuts over the killing of this lion. But even William accidentally acknowledged that there is no real animal rights issue at stake here: the most the hunter can likely be charged with is poaching, which in this case is essentially distruction of property.

In my opinion, there is an animal rights issue here, even though the law does not recognize it. Shooting any animal with a bow and then letting it suffer for 40 hours should be seen as criminal because it is animal cruelty. If we are going to kill animals, let it be for good reasons such as food, or population control, and let us kill it in a humane fashion.

 

[micromass]

Do you drive? Fly? Ride a bike on streets? Walk on streets? Live in a structure built by people? Use electricity generated from coal? Use any products made from hazardous chemicals?

All of these activities regularly kill innocent people.

Do you really not see a difference between those activities and wilfully executing somebody who might be innocent (but who probably isn't)?? For example, I don't wilfully execute people in order to get coal, nor do I force people to work in dangerous conditions. And if people were forced to do this, I would not support it.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you really not see a difference between those activities and wilfully executing somebody who might be innocent (but who probably isn't)?? For example, I don't wilfully execute people in order to get coal, nor do I force people to work in dangerous conditions. And if people were forced to do this, I would not support it.

No, I don't. The construction worker who builds your house doesn't want to die, but he might because of something you asked him to do. You (and the rest of society) could totally avoid the possibility of his death, but you choose not to. Why? The fact that you are paying him to take the risk makes it ok with you?

 

[micromass]

No, I don't. The construction worker who builds your house doesn't want to die, but he might because of something you asked him to do. You (and the rest of society) could totally avoid the possibility of his death, but you choose not to. Why? The fact that you are paying him to take the risk makes it ok with you?

The fact that he chooses out of his own free will to accept the money and do the job, that makes it ok with me.

 

[russ_watters]

In my opinion, there is an animal rights issue here, even though the law does not recognize it. Shooting any animal with a bow and then letting it suffer for 40 hours should be seen as criminal because it is animal cruelty. If we are going to kill animals, let it be for good reasons such as food, or population control, and let us kill it in a humane fashion.

Fair enough. However, that is a very narrow part of this issue and (google) happens to be one where not all governments are aligned. I rather suspect though, that if this lion had been shot with a gun the level of outrage shown in this thread and in the general public would not be substantially different. The vast majority of the thread, for example, has been about (tangentially) whether animals should be hunted at all (whether they have a right to life and other human rights).

 

[micromass]

Fair enough. However, that is a very narrow part of this issue and (google) happens to be one where not all governments are aligned. I rather suspect though, that if this lion had been shot with a gun the level of outrage shown in this thread and in the general public would not be substantially different. The vast majority of the thread, for example, has been about (tangentially) whether animals should be hunted at all (whether they have a right to life and other human rights).

Well, lions get shot a lot by humans, without as much outrage. But in this case:
1) The killing was quite brutal with bow and arrow and a prolonged suffering.
2) The killing was illegal and the lion was lured outside of the park
3) The lion was being studied by scientific agencies, and was beloved by many in the country.
4) The killing was for fun and had no "bigger reason"
I guess those reasons together caused the outrage.

 

[micromass]

No, I don't. The construction worker who builds your house doesn't want to die, but he might because of something you asked him to do. You (and the rest of society) could totally avoid the possibility of his death, but you choose not to. Why? The fact that you are paying him to take the risk makes it ok with you?

Also, we need houses, we need electricity, we need to drive cars. If we don't, then our standard of living will decrease substantially. On the other hand, we don't really need executions.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, lions get shot a lot by humans, without as much outrage. But in this case:
1) The killing was quite brutal with bow and arrow and a prolonged suffering.
2) The killing was illegal and the lion was lured outside of the park
3) The lion was being studied by scientific agencies, and was beloved by many in the country.
4) The killing was for fun and had no "bigger reason"
I guess those reasons together caused the outrage.

I doubt it. #1 and #4 are legal, happen all the time and cause no significant outrage (about a hundred lions per year in Zimbabwae alone in total: http://time.com/3978116/zimbabwe-cecil-the-lion-poaching-hunting-wildlife-walter-palmer/ ). The only people who can plausibly claim continuous outrage over such things are currently hanging from a bridge in Oregon (and others like them). #2 is a necessary tangential aspect of #3, so that leaves #3. And I agree with #3, but I'll say it a more cynical way:

What makes this lion's killing newsworthy (pre-selected, packaged and preserved for freshness by CNN or your chosen source of outrage sustinence) is that it has a name and an owner who pimped-him out for research and amusement for profit.

And ironically that also makes most of the arguments in this thread irrelrvant to the point of being self-contradictory: the very thing that makes this lion's killing illegal and newsworthy is that it is property and by definition not entitled to human rights.

And again, slightly less cynically: if this lion were free and nameless, we would not have heard about its death.

Also, we need houses, we need electricity, we need to drive cars. If we don't, then our standard of living will decrease substantially. On the other hand, we don't really need executions.

I know of a lot of people who would disagree with the first two sentences. We also collectively make choices that make those things a lot more dangerous than they need to be, without much impact on standard of living. My sister lives in Boston and does not regularly drive a car, but I live in a suburb and do. Coal power is about the worst though and most ironic because much of the reason it is still used as much as it is is because of the very people who care most about the harm it causes. And while we may not need executions, per se, we do need criminal justice. But remember, executions are performed in order to save and enhance lives too. You're willing to get people killed so you can live better already. I see no real difference between those choices.

 

[William White]

What problem do you see here? Do you think it is odd that I support an action/policy that sometimes accidentally kills innocent people?

there is a difference between an policy that accidently kills innocent people

and a policy that is so flawed that innocent people are deliberately executedpeople die in accidents all the time. That's life. Deliberately executing them...different kettle of fish entirely.

 

[William White]

No I'm not. Again, AS PERTAINS TO THE OP OF THIS THREAD, the US code is very reflective of the rest of the world. As William's link pointed out, for example, there is virtually nowhere in the world that accepts personhood for animals..

NO

my link pointed out that SOME place DO give great apes personhood.

the link was in response to your earlier claim that no animals have such rights.

 

[micromass]

And while we may not need executions, per se, we do need criminal justice.

Of course.

But remember, executions are performed in order to save and enhance lives too.

How exactly do executions save and enhace lives?

You're willing to get people killed so you can live better already. I see no real difference between those choices.

If you really don't see the difference between a construction worker having an accident at work, and an innocent person being executed because they wrongfully thought it was guilty, then you are being dishonest at best. And saying that "I am getting people killed so I can live better" certainly is dishonest.