Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Arcus on September 1, 2012 at 4:29pm

Not quite correct, morality is based on actions, not feelings (or thoughts, for those of us who are led by thoughts and not feelings).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on September 1, 2012 at 4:39pm

I distinguish between morality, based on prescriptions like The 10 Commandments or The Golden Rule, and ethics, based on reason and evidence.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on September 1, 2012 at 4:55pm

I believe we've had this discussion before and largely agree on being amoral and rather relying on ethics to guide us.

To me morality would be something which is right through the eons and without exceptions - and I cannot think of anything fulfilling those demands - while ethics would be context sensitive.

Permalink Reply by James Lee Wilson on September 1, 2012 at 5:16pm

That doesn't even make sense. Of course what people feel to be immoral is based on what the vast populations "feels" is immoral. It purely has to do with society's view of right and wrong. It's because of this, that what society deems moral or immoral changes. If there was a solid ground for what's moral, it would never change. It's because of this that morality and ethics are extremely flawed and can never use reason to determine it. The best we can do is accept what nature generally says, which is more about caring for your species and yourself. This is what's culturally acceptable because this is how the majority has evolved to think.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on September 1, 2012 at 6:17pm

While I do agree that morality, as understood as something which is universally right or wrong, is bunk, I do not agree that ethics, the process from which morality necessarily flows, is bunk.

As an example, incest would be considered morally wrong...except if you and your mature daughter are "the only ones left on earth", at least alone enough that the choice is between procreating thus or dying being the only two options left. At this point mere survival would trump morals, and it would be an ethically sound action. This is why I find morals to be bunk, because I can always find extreme circumstances with a situational context where immoral behavior is ethically not incorrect.

As for morals stemming from feelings it is a bit of a pedantic point. We are, of course, always creatures bound to our emotions, but that does not preclude our ability to be able to base opinions on rationally evaluated evidence.

Seeing as morality is bunk, our feelings do not necessarily cloud our judgement, and we have the ability to reason, there is a realistic option of separating good from bad choices, and furthermore codifying this into law.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on September 1, 2012 at 4:35pm

Where did you ever get that idea?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on September 1, 2012 at 5:53am

Holy necro thread revival.. but an interesting topic nonetheless.

I take no exception to regulated hunting by licensed hunters, and if it wasn't for the nature aspect of it I might join. In these parts hunting is a necessity as we have killed off most of the other predators and game therefore needs to be culled. Seeing as a large percentage of the populace still live in rural areas there is little public support for unchecked growth of predators. After Bambi was released here in the fifties the hunting of deer seized virtually overnight, and after a few years their population became unsustainable, leading to a plague which almost wiped them out.

Hunting and trapping are part of the basic skill set which sustained humanity for hundreds of thousands of years. I believe it is a good idea to keep these traditions alive, to not remove ourselves too far from our past and as a precaution for an uncertain future.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ed on September 1, 2012 at 9:01am

As a hunter who lives in the rural South (and my wife is not my sister) I believe hunter's have had some bad PR over the years. Some of it justified and some not. For instance the so called hunters in Michigan who shot the bears that frequented a local garbage dump. That does not constitute hunting. Or the folks down in Texas that have the small tracts of land where game is caged inside and they cater to paying customers who ride around on four-wheelers and take a shot. This is also not hunting. Unfortunately we have irresponsible people who derive a warped sense of satisfaction out of spotlighting game at night, shooting them, and sometimes even leaving them to lay. These individuals don't represent the millions of us who hunt responsibly and have an appreciation for nature and respect towards the animal whose life we took. I am adamantly opposed to big game thrill hunting where there is no need for the meat from a sustenance standpoint. Outside of nuisance varmints I eat what I kill. There is no thrill in the actual death of the animal. Game animals are healthy to eat and an economic way to put food on the table. The population levels around my home are maintained and everything stays in balance. I respect those who choose not to hunt or even eat meat. Our society has removed us from the role of hunter/gatherer and instead we go to the local grocery store to secure our sustenance. But a word of caution, just because that meat and vegetables is all clean and shiny looking doesn't mean it isn't laden with preservatives, insecticides, herbicides, and steroids. Wild game animals are much healthier to eat from that perspective.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Cox on September 1, 2012 at 2:43pm

"Outside of nuisance varmints I eat what I kill."

I read this as an abiguity. The term 'nuisance varmints' is a human judgement. I expect that to a griz, humans would be a nuisance, but tasty, cruchy, and easy to catch when you can find one.

I like wild mussles and crayfish, but I consider them as mostly food novelties. We eat our local berries, nettles, apples, plums and other fruit, while in season. We get a salmon and other fish from other family members sometimes, which we relish, but I will not fish for these due to reduced populations because of over fishing, dams, and lose of habitat due to HUMANS.

So eat our dear animals, brag about killing, show your trophys with pride, fill your freezer with their remains, and pretend to be palio-indians in a hunting party! When it ends there will always be snipe hunting after a few beers.    

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kat Parks on September 1, 2012 at 10:11pm

I agree, "Nuisance varmints" is a matter of perspective, many of my pets are considered nuisance pests by the majority of people. (snakes, lizards, etc)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ed on September 2, 2012 at 12:29am

Mr. Cox,

I will retort to your sarcasm. I believe you meant "ambiguity" and there is nothing ambiguous about a varmint being classified as a nuisance. Try the phrase vermin under Wikipedia. If you cared for and tended to fruit trees and vinifera only to have it invaded by marauding raccoon and possum you would clearly understand my classification system. In that context they are certainly not dear cute animals.

You must of skipped over the parts of my post where I explained my philosophy on the taking of game animals:

" I am adamantly opposed to big game thrill hunting where there is no need for the meat from a sustenance standpoint. Outside of nuisance varmints I eat what I kill. There is no thrill in the actual death of the animal."

Contrary to your personal beliefs there still is a place in our society for the hunter-gatherer to exist. I don't pretend to be palio-Indians or drink beer and snipe hunt. Wine is more my style. I show no trophies or brag about killing an animal. You evidently haven't had the opportunity to  be in contact with hunters of my ilk who take shooting an animal seriously and with no need for bravado or pats on the back.

Your sarcasm was unwarranted and not appreciated. I can respect a vegan lifestyle. My neighbors are strict vegans and we have mutual respect for one another. Something tells me it is a good thing you are not my neighbor.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on September 2, 2012 at 8:09am

Let's add that the death of (to take an example) a deer at the hands of a hunter, is likely a lot less agonizing and terrifying than a natural death in the jaws of a predator or dying on the side of a road of internal injuries and broken legs after being hit by a car or truck on a road or highway.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• …
• 15
• Next ›
• Page