wildernesslodgelover
<font color=darkorchid>LOTW charter member!<br><fo
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,196
A brain dead person is DEAD!We still treat their body with some degree of respect because they *used to be* a person--but now they are just an empty body. (But of course what counts as respect differs from culture to culture--cannibalizing one's family members *is* a form of respect in some cultures...just not ours.) But no, of course I don't think DEAD bodies in themselves have any moral standing--I think the person who the body once belonged to had moral standing to decide what happens to the body after their death. (I don't think carrots have any inherent moral standing either--do you?
)
As to your suggestion in an earlier post that animals are no different morally than vegetables and that animal suffering simply doesn't matter--well I have to assume either your a psychopath if you really believe that, or you just like to ruffle vegetarians' feathers. If the latter, oh haha, never heard that one before. How witty.![]()
This is why I say if you're not just being difficult for the fun of it, that you must be psychopath. Because even a five year old could reflect for 30 seconds on how we routinely treat vegetables and realize that obviously it is not morally okay to treat animals that way. Lots of Americans hollow out the insides of pumpkins and carve faces into them on Halloween--are you really suggesting there is no difference between doing that to a pumpkin and to a dog and that the suffering a dog would feel when having that done to it is of no ethical concern?![]()
If hollowing out and carving up a dog (or any other mammal) is not morally the same as making a jack-o-lantern, then what is the difference? On your view apparently there is no difference, but to any sane person can see that the difference is that the dog is sentient, can feel pain, can suffer, has emotions--just like it's not okay to carve up a human child because it freakin hurts!. And if causing horrendous pain to an innocent being for fun isn't wrong in the case of dogs, why would it be wrong in the case of humans?
Also speaking of acting superior, you seem to think you are smarter than those of us (everyone but you I would think given the pumpkin case) who think that vegetables and animals are morally different. I assume you must have studied ethics in a serious way then. I'd like to hear more about what sort of coherent ethical view you have according to which animals count for nothing more than carrots. I've been teaching college level ethics courses for 5 years now and I can't say I've ever come across a serious ethical contender that suggests that carving a dog is no different than carving a pumpkin (since, of course, for an ethical view to be taken seriously it can't have implications that seem outright insane to 99.9999999% of the population).
Perhaps Descartes would have been okay with this thought as he thought animals were mere machines, though I'm not sure what his view on torturing these "machines" was. (In any case, current science seems to offer no reason to think that dogs are any less able to feel pain than humans so it seems Descartes was simply wrong about this. If dogs are just machines then humans must just be machines too.) Kant, I'm sure you know, thought animals had no intrinsic worth since they were not rational beings. But he still thought that torturing animals was wrong because it would train humans to be insensitive to suffering and eventually those humans would then begin to treat humans badly as well.
You sound very much like some of my 18 year old "I'm smarter than all of these brilliant philosophers of yore" students. They like to say crazy things too just to see what everyone else in the class will do. One of them used to claim that he would totally kill and eat human babies if only he wouldn't get caught and thrown in jail. I think you and him would get along well!
I am speechless. Which is fine, because you said everything perfectly. What a well written, intelligent response.
BTW-I feel bad for the OP. The OP never even implied she felt morally superior for considering going veg. This has happened to me on this board a few times. I start a thread hoping to start a discussion, and things turn mean quickly. OP, I appreciate you starting this thread, it is making me consider vegetarianism again...got so many great ideas and thoughts from this thread!
We still treat their body with some degree of respect because they *used to be* a person--but now they are just an empty body. (But of course what counts as respect differs from culture to culture--cannibalizing one's family members *is* a form of respect in some cultures...just not ours.) But no, of course I don't think DEAD bodies in themselves have any moral standing--I think the person who the body once belonged to had moral standing to decide what happens to the body after their death. (I don't think carrots have any inherent moral standing either--do you?

I'm sure that's how cannibals feel about human flesh. And overweight people about candy. And dogs about their own poop. Just because something may taste good doesn't mean it should (or must be) eaten.