Destruction of Life for Sustenance

--How DARE you call yourself an ethical man when you wont even post nude pictures of your wife in lewd and lacivious poses on the internet, -perhaps even having sex with several men at once, --even farm animals, -to keep someone from eating the food that they prefeer! -Your a SICK MAN! -Obviously void of any moral fiber..

 

1. I don't have a wife, I'm 17.
2. Values are relative.
3. I may not be more ethical, but I can guess that I am less of a hypocrite than you if you claim to value life*, then kill animals unnecessarily. However, it is completely possible that you don't (see number 2), and although I see your values as invalid, I will not judge you 'ethically' without agreement on ethics by contract. But if you are a hypocrite I reserve the right to make a value judgement on the inauthenticity of your character.

*I have yet to see a suitable arguement on why, from a nihilistic standpoint, human life is inherently more valuable than other species of animals.

 

><>**^^~~ --Do you have any pics of your sister? -Is your mom hot? -ANY pics of naked chicks will work! -C'MON MAN!! -I've been eatin STEADY for 4 DAYS NOW!!!! --bBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAPPpp..

 

that's the wierdest request for nudie pics i've ever read.

 

That isn't even a sensible proposition to take; from a nihilistic standpoint, nothing is valuable.

 

Indeed, by your interpretation atleast...

To rephrase: from a pure, objective persective why is human life inherently more valuable than other species of animals?

 

i dont' think other animals find me more valuable than others of their own species. so i'm not gonna lose any sleep over takingthe more natural standpoint and not value their above mine.

 

--From a pure, objective standpoint what makes "species of animals" more valuable than plants?

 

Consciousness

 

-OBJECTIVITY is not based on conciousnes.

 

nothing makes plants less valuable than than conscious animals. it's why we all destroy each other for sustenance.

 

I don't understand your use of objectivity here, objectivity is not based on anything but the 'object'.

I think you misinterpret my meaning: From an objective perspective I mean without distortion from one's Ego and/or any other subjective pretenses.

Values are relative, and I realize this. I value consciousness a priori. I cannot at this time suitably articulate why consciousness is more valuable than non-consciousness [but I maintain that it is].

I disagree, we destroy animals for sustenance because we necessarily require nutrients to survive. Whether they are conscious or not is not considered, nor should it be from a Darwinian standpoint. However, humans have mastered their environment, it is no longer a question of surival of the fittest, it is a question of ethics, or more fittingly--morality.

If this is the case, then would you claim a tree's life is as valuable as a human beings? Given the option, would you nourish yourself on the flesh of Johnny [the human being] or Jim [the plant]? Is the plant on an equal value plane as the human? I assume, unless for the sake of being stubborn, you would choose to eat the plant.

The question is then, what variable distinguishes the value put upon a life form?

 

><>**^^~~ You stated that you would objectivly base the value of a life form on wether or not it has conciousness. -Would you mind rubbin your own nose in your shit?

 

if i had to eat a human being, i would. i wouldn't consider it too sacred to ingest. all life has it's value, and all life has it's place on the food chain. i won't eat a tree, not a good meal. i won't hunt and kill a person, because that's just not what we do, we have other things to eat. however, i wouldn't consider something else killing and eating a human being to be evil.. we're not more valuable than those things that consume us (while alive AND while dead). we're just different.

 

[QUOTE=MidnightMoonlig to move in and start your own community, like what the white man did to the american indians,

to make judgments on an entire genetic line then attempting to justifiy that judgment with incomplete and biased knowledge is most asuriedly unethical and conterproductive to valuble philosiphy

 

--Hey KC ! -Could ya make the Jesus in the picture hold a big BUD and could the caption say -"The Bud Maker". -?

 

Lettuce understand that there is natural order in the universe.
Lettuce understand that consciousness has many variations from ours.
Lettuce understand that all life is either conscious or unconscious of itself.
Lettuce understand that unconscious life sustains conscious life.
Lettuce undertstand that some life is made unconscious so it too can sustain life.
Lettuce understand that life sustains life ~ it gives itself to itself for itself.
Lettuce thank life for life.
Lettuce enjoy life.

Lettuce

 

Looking at the problem of feeding people from their perspective, we might question the value of the current meat industry. The water and grain required to produce a kilo of meat is high compared to that required to produce similarly nutrients in vegetables. The dollar amount used to feed the american cow is more than alot of people in the world earn. As population increases and resources are limited, the question will become more acute in the future. Farmland and soil is also being lost

 

In nature, plants and animals feed of each others.
They gain nourishment from the dissolved organic matter in the soil, from the plants that grow in it or the animals that feeds on the plants. Destruction of life brings creation of life. That's the ethics of Nature.

But what is ethical for a human being? (And now I'm speaking in general):
Many of us have ideals. We don't want to be primitive beings, we want to raise ourselves above the ways of nature. We strive to be more noble and goodhearted than the logics of nature (which often is truly cruel in it's fundamental balance).

I think we have the right to make this ethical choice as long as we acknowledge and respect how nature works.

It's wrong to blame a cheetah for killing an antelope since it won't understand what's wrong with the picture. That is, unless you could convince it to see it your way. I, for one, don't have this talent. I think it would take a divine intervention for predators to feed on ideals.

I would keep myself from destroying a life for sustenance if there was other options available. Still, I guess I'm pretty much a scavenger since I get my sustenance from the local grocery stores.

 

That was awesome!!!