NSFSenstive: Dolphin Massacre

[noblok]

In reply to Golena: while I won't deny the importance of intuition, reducing morality to "what the media want you to think" is not something I can agree with either. I believe intuition should be the starting point, but an intuition as 'human dignity' says very little about concrete matters. I believe that this is where rationality/reason comes into play. The Romans e.g. didn't deny the value of human dignity, they simply denied that slaves were humans. I'm quite sure that if they'd try to defend this on reasonable grounds, they'd fail.

In relation to animal ethics this would probably mean that we need to analyse the concept of human dignity and what it's based on. If certain of these fundamental elements/traits can also be found in animals, we should give them the rights which follow from those traits. The problem here is of course that it isn't always clear what a certain trait implies and which traits take precedence. I believe 'feeling pain' for example has some importance, but what exactly the importance is, is context-bound and not quite clear (sado-masochists hurt themselves and enjoy it).

I have most trouble with the place of the concentric circle model* in this theory. This is also quite important for animal ethics, since it is a way to incorporate the symbolic dimension of human dignity in morality. The question is how far this should reach. I haven't really got an answer to this question, I only have an idea of how far it shouldn't reach (e.g. only duties towards oneself, no duties towards foreigners etc).

That being said, I think the intuitive theory is interesting on a meta-ethical level. I think something more substantial is needed if you actually want to determine our moral duties though.

*

Spoiler

The concentric circle model claims that our moral duties are ordered as concentric circles. The closer someone is to you (the centre), the greater your moral duties towards that person are. It is used to explain why our moral duties towards e.g. our family are greater than those towards strangers. (In general, sometimes family members do things which warrant them falling out of their 'normal' circle)

I never touched the part whether or not I find it morally admissible or not. Concluding out of my text that I would find it morally correct is a false conclusion based on no information on the subject (my opinion).

My apologies for the misunderstanding. The part which lead me to the assumption was that you claimed "If it were a moral rule, the opinions on this subject of people all over the world would differ immensly, however it does not," which to me seemed to imply that you didn't think of it as a moral rule. However, general instinct and moral rule aren't mutually exclusive, so I guess I jumped to conclusions too fast.

Oh and can we use less 'big' and flashy words please? Even though it's quite a intelligent subject, don't mean we need to put in a flashy word between every other word.

Those words exist for a reason and that reason is that they are best suited for expressing certain nuances. Although I'm not sure who you're refering to, as I don't see any 'big' and 'flashy' words being used anyway. That may just be because I'm not a native speaker though.

 

[Zita]

link dont work >< oh and to the person that said start a war with the japs, good idead, but unfortunatly, it will resolt in a nuclear war between the whole world, probably, and then probably all the animals will die, any way, near enough.