Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Life needs death

janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 9:04:41 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
In order to grow and maintain your bodily functions, we must kill and take life of other beings. This is true for all animals, and some plants. Only photosynthetic plants can be excluded. Is it evil to kill to maintain your life, or is it "just the way it is".?
simplelife
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 10:16:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 9:04:41 PM, janesix wrote:
In order to grow and maintain your bodily functions, we must kill and take life of other beings. This is true for all animals, and some plants. Only photosynthetic plants can be excluded. Is it evil to kill to maintain your life, or is it "just the way it is".? : :

This won't be necessary in the New Heaven and Earth. All the laws that govern God's creation will change in the next part of the program.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 4:47:44 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 9:04:41 PM, janesix wrote:
In order to grow and maintain your bodily functions, we must kill and take life of other beings. This is true for all animals, and some plants. Only photosynthetic plants can be excluded. Is it evil to kill to maintain your life, or is it "just the way it is".?

It's immoral to cause suffering, that's why eating animals is morally wrong when you can survive off plants. If an object does not suffer it's not immoral to kill it
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 11:46:48 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 4:47:44 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:04:41 PM, janesix wrote:
In order to grow and maintain your bodily functions, we must kill and take life of other beings. This is true for all animals, and some plants. Only photosynthetic plants can be excluded. Is it evil to kill to maintain your life, or is it "just the way it is".?

It's immoral to cause suffering, that's why eating animals is morally wrong when you can survive off plants. If an object does not suffer it's not immoral to kill it
Suffering is subjective therefore incapable of being anything other than what it is to you, a mere opinion. When you get a universally agreed upon idea that suffering is bad, plenty people think it is beneficial to the soul, then you may be able to attach an adjective to suffering. I doubt it will ever be defined by immoral however. Maybe only immoral to some, but that of course doesn't make it anything other than an appeal to popular belief.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 3:03:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Suffering is subjective therefore incapable of being anything other than what it is to you, a mere opinion.

I suppose that if an individual is suffering no one else can actually feel their pain so in that sense it is 'subjective', but the fact that suffering exists in this sorry world of ours is not really matter of opinion - it is an objective fact that suffering exists in abundance.

I think it is very likely to be immoral to kill a creature capable of suffering, even for food. It is, however, unavoidable as things are. Just because something is immoral does not mean it is avoidable, just a something does not become moral because it is unavoidable. However in the absence of 'artificial food' I think it behoves us to ameliorate the suffering caused.

If I avocated moral perfection I might argue for veganism, but I won't advocate what I don't practice, or even aspire to!
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 6:47:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 4:47:44 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:04:41 PM, janesix wrote:
In order to grow and maintain your bodily functions, we must kill and take life of other beings. This is true for all animals, and some plants. Only photosynthetic plants can be excluded. Is it evil to kill to maintain your life, or is it "just the way it is".?

It's immoral to cause suffering, that's why eating animals is morally wrong when you can survive off plants. If an object does not suffer it's not immoral to kill it

Except that there are some animal-specific vitamins, fatty acids, etc. that are needed to be a peak health.
You can live without eating meat, sure, but you won't be able to be as healthy as if you do.

Studies also do show that supplements, while they can be helpful, are unhealthy if they are used as complete replacement (so, replacing meat with supplements to get those animal-specific vitamins, acids, etc. is also unhealthy).

So, if you want just to live, and health be damned, sure, avoid meat and use only supplements.
If you do care about health as well, then meat is important.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:20:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 11:46:48 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/1/2016 4:47:44 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:04:41 PM, janesix wrote:
In order to grow and maintain your bodily functions, we must kill and take life of other beings. This is true for all animals, and some plants. Only photosynthetic plants can be excluded. Is it evil to kill to maintain your life, or is it "just the way it is".?

It's immoral to cause suffering, that's why eating animals is morally wrong when you can survive off plants. If an object does not suffer it's not immoral to kill it

Suffering is subjective therefore incapable of being anything other than what it is to you, a mere opinion. When you get a universally agreed upon idea that suffering is bad, plenty people think it is beneficial to the soul, then you may be able to attach an adjective to suffering. I doubt it will ever be defined by immoral however. Maybe only immoral to some, but that of course doesn't make it anything other than an appeal to popular belief.

Suffering is objectively undesirable. Thats a truism. Some people might say that *some* suffering is necessary to having a good "soul", they only think so because having that suffering results in preventing *more* suffering in the future (by not having a good soul).
keithprosser
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:51:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Some people might say that *some* suffering is necessary to having a good "soul", they only think so because having that suffering results in preventing *more* suffering in the future (by not having a good soul).

Really they say it because they can't really explain why a good god would allow suffering.

I think the gods allow suffering because they don't exist but I believe not everyone agrees with me on that.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 8:49:43 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 6:47:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 4:47:44 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:04:41 PM, janesix wrote:
In order to grow and maintain your bodily functions, we must kill and take life of other beings. This is true for all animals, and some plants. Only photosynthetic plants can be excluded. Is it evil to kill to maintain your life, or is it "just the way it is".?

It's immoral to cause suffering, that's why eating animals is morally wrong when you can survive off plants. If an object does not suffer it's not immoral to kill it

Except that there are some animal-specific vitamins, fatty acids, etc. that are needed to be a peak health.
You can live without eating meat, sure, but you won't be able to be as healthy as if you do.

Studies also do show that supplements, while they can be helpful, are unhealthy if they are used as complete replacement (so, replacing meat with supplements to get those animal-specific vitamins, acids, etc. is also unhealthy).

So, if you want just to live, and health be damned, sure, avoid meat and use only supplements.
If you do care about health as well, then meat is important.

True, but not being at my peak health is a lot less suffering than killing animals. So the killing of animals outweighs the *peak health*. But the premise is still interesting
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 10:45:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 8:49:43 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:47:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 4:47:44 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:04:41 PM, janesix wrote:
In order to grow and maintain your bodily functions, we must kill and take life of other beings. This is true for all animals, and some plants. Only photosynthetic plants can be excluded. Is it evil to kill to maintain your life, or is it "just the way it is".?

It's immoral to cause suffering, that's why eating animals is morally wrong when you can survive off plants. If an object does not suffer it's not immoral to kill it

Except that there are some animal-specific vitamins, fatty acids, etc. that are needed to be a peak health.
You can live without eating meat, sure, but you won't be able to be as healthy as if you do.

Studies also do show that supplements, while they can be helpful, are unhealthy if they are used as complete replacement (so, replacing meat with supplements to get those animal-specific vitamins, acids, etc. is also unhealthy).

So, if you want just to live, and health be damned, sure, avoid meat and use only supplements.
If you do care about health as well, then meat is important.

True, but not being at my peak health is a lot less suffering than killing animals. So the killing of animals outweighs the *peak health*. But the premise is still interesting

And this is why I have no issues with it if one wishes to eat meat or not. I Just don't think certain diets should be forced into people.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 10:50:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 10:45:25 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 8:49:43 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:47:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 4:47:44 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:04:41 PM, janesix wrote:
In order to grow and maintain your bodily functions, we must kill and take life of other beings. This is true for all animals, and some plants. Only photosynthetic plants can be excluded. Is it evil to kill to maintain your life, or is it "just the way it is".?

It's immoral to cause suffering, that's why eating animals is morally wrong when you can survive off plants. If an object does not suffer it's not immoral to kill it

Except that there are some animal-specific vitamins, fatty acids, etc. that are needed to be a peak health.
You can live without eating meat, sure, but you won't be able to be as healthy as if you do.

Studies also do show that supplements, while they can be helpful, are unhealthy if they are used as complete replacement (so, replacing meat with supplements to get those animal-specific vitamins, acids, etc. is also unhealthy).

So, if you want just to live, and health be damned, sure, avoid meat and use only supplements.
If you do care about health as well, then meat is important.

True, but not being at my peak health is a lot less suffering than killing animals. So the killing of animals outweighs the *peak health*. But the premise is still interesting

And this is why I have no issues with it if one wishes to eat meat or not. I Just don't think certain diets should be forced into people.

Well, by utilitarianism, vegans have a moral obligation to force everyone to be vegans. Thats why utilitarianism is thought of as too much of a demanding ethical system. literally buying a protein bar that costs $5 instead of $4 is morally wrong because you could use the extra dollar to donate to charity and give a starving child a meal.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 12:58:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 7:20:09 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:46:48 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/1/2016 4:47:44 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:04:41 PM, janesix wrote:
In order to grow and maintain your bodily functions, we must kill and take life of other beings. This is true for all animals, and some plants. Only photosynthetic plants can be excluded. Is it evil to kill to maintain your life, or is it "just the way it is".?

It's immoral to cause suffering, that's why eating animals is morally wrong when you can survive off plants. If an object does not suffer it's not immoral to kill it

Suffering is subjective therefore incapable of being anything other than what it is to you, a mere opinion. When you get a universally agreed upon idea that suffering is bad, plenty people think it is beneficial to the soul, then you may be able to attach an adjective to suffering. I doubt it will ever be defined by immoral however. Maybe only immoral to some, but that of course doesn't make it anything other than an appeal to popular belief.

Suffering is objectively undesirable. Thats a truism. Some people might say that *some* suffering is necessary to having a good "soul", they only think so because having that suffering results in preventing *more* suffering in the future (by not having a good soul).
Suffering is objectively undesirable? Prove it
The problem hayd is speaking for all of humanity isn't a truism just because you say so. And since I am just as much an authority on the human condition as you then I will say suffering is objectively good, desirable, and necessary. There goes your attempt at utterance being sufficient to offer a hypothesis.
"they only think so because having that suffering results in preventing *more* suffering in the future (by not having a good soul)"
Who is this they that you know what they "think"? There is no argument here, this is nothing more than argumentum ad nauseam based solely on your need to construct the only premise in which your argument can have a foundation. Once again the problem here is you're not capable of knowing what "they think" or why "they think" it. You simply have no offering of evidence to prove suffering is bad or undesirable to anyone except you. Suffice to say you aren't humanity and to even offer an assertion based on that reasoning is in itself illogical and preposterous.
My assertion wasn't suffer to have a good soul, my assertion is suffer because one cannot learn suffering simply through imagining it. All people on this planet have suffered in some degree and that lesson leads to "spiritual wisdom". This is just as valid an argument as you attempting to justify your opinion on what is or isn't desirable, much less who does or doesn't desire it. To cause suffering isn't immoral, it's a means to an end and the end is a good. See, I need just as much evidence that you do to prove I'm right in saying suffering is a desirable and good thing. It is objectively a good thing. Who's right? It can't be proven therefore it can't be objectively immoral.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 4:02:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I will say suffering is objectively good, desirable, and necessary.

You can say the world is flat, but saying so - even if you believed it - wouldn't make it any less round.

There may be good arguments against objective morality, but simply declaring 'Suffering is good' isn't one of them. An 'objective moralist' would say that if one person says 'suffering is good' and the other says 'suffering is bad' then one of them is wrong, just as if two people disagree about the earth being flat or round then one of them is wrong.

An objective moralist believes we are in the same position as the ancient greeks were in regard to the shape of the world. The Greeks believed the world was round since about the 5th century BCE, but seem not have had what we would call a reasonable proof until the 3rd century BCE.

An objective moralist considers accepting the remote possibility that suffering might actually be morally good to be a very small price to pay for avoiding the gross error of taking whether suffering is good or bad as no more than personal whim.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 8:26:40 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 4:02:00 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I will say suffering is objectively good, desirable, and necessary.

You can say the world is flat, but saying so - even if you believed it - wouldn't make it any less round.

There may be good arguments against objective morality, but simply declaring 'Suffering is good' isn't one of them. An 'objective moralist' would say that if one person says 'suffering is good' and the other says 'suffering is bad' then one of them is wrong, just as if two people disagree about the earth being flat or round then one of them is wrong.
There may be good arguments against suffering not being objectively good but simply saying suffering is objectively immoral isn't one of them.
Dying of old age causes one to suffer. Nature cannot be moral or immoral. Therefore suffering cannot be objectively immoral because nature has no moral compass and suffering death at the hands of nature via dying of old age is suffering. Therefore no case can be made for suffering to be objectively immoral as it occurs without any "moral interaction". If humans are the source of morality then nature cannot through mere natural course be considered immoral or moral. If this were so humans would deem the behavior of carnivores, especially crocs lol, as immoral animals. Therefore immoral is an inherent part of nature. Humans are a part of nature and therefore have just as much right to act accordingly, including the killing of other animals. Human is an animal. Therefore the killing of humans by humans is natural and cannot therefore be objectively immoral or else why would nature cause humans to suffer a death at old age? If suffering is objectively immoral then allowing suffering when it can be stopped is immoral too. Therefore all people who suffer death via old age should be killed , say around 93?....lol

An objective moralist believes we are in the same position as the ancient greeks were in regard to the shape of the world. The Greeks believed the world was round since about the 5th century BCE, but seem not have had what we would call a reasonable proof until the 3rd century BCE.

An objective moralist considers accepting the remote possibility that suffering might actually be morally good to be a very small price to pay for avoiding the gross error of taking whether suffering is good or bad as no more than personal whim.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 8:40:02 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 7:51:36 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Some people might say that *some* suffering is necessary to having a good "soul", they only think so because having that suffering results in preventing *more* suffering in the future (by not having a good soul).

Really they say it because they can't really explain why a good god would allow suffering.

I think the gods allow suffering because they don't exist but I believe not everyone agrees with me on that.
You cannot gain wisdom via imagination. One has to actually experience something to gain a perspective that is complete and all encompassing. If humans merely imagined what it was like to suffer, not one human ever actually suffering or being emotionally exposed to actual suffering, a person could not gain complete knowledge of what suffering is and how it is experienced. The most wise course of teaching certain things is to experience them. You cannot learn what skydiving is like simply by using virtual reality. You must experience it to gain fully what the experience is. That is why suffering must occur and is a good thing. It allows for wisdom to develop in so much as it will deter suffering or the cause of suffering when all souls have learned the lesson of it. That's why God allows suffering. When we all possess the knowledge of all that is involved in suffering our wisdom will not allow us to act in such a way that suffering will return once it is wiped away from the external world of people/souls..
keithprosser
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 9:56:04 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Sidewalker - I'd say that is a very good exposition of the conventional argument for why God allows suffering. It makes a lot of sense - if you believe that the idea of God make sense in the first place. So unfortunately it falls on unconvinced ears as far as I am concerned.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 11:53:35 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 9:56:04 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Sidewalker - I'd say that is a very good exposition of the conventional argument for why God allows suffering. It makes a lot of sense - if you believe that the idea of God make sense in the first place. So unfortunately it falls on unconvinced ears as far as I am concerned.
It's nice that you believe my purpose is to convince you of anything, it isn't. I merely tell you why God allows suffering. For you to know it is true would mean this conversation would have never been necessary. Therefore, from my position, you still are learning what the basis of suffering is. I on the other hand have learned what it is and why its necessary.
The only challenge now is for you to come find me when you realize I am right so I can have the satisfaction of saying, "I told you so"........lol
keithprosser
Posts: 2,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 2:22:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
You seem to think I have never suffered in my life so I can only imagine it. I wish that were true! Apart from my personal sufferings I have also lost both parents and a wife to long and painful diseases so I have been pretty close to just about as much suffering as you can get. And you know what? Nobody got a thing out of all that suffering - except an awful lot of pain.

Suffering doesn't get you to heaven:

Ecclesiastes 1:19 For what befalls the sons of men befalls animals; as one dies, so dies the other. There is one breath for all of them; there is no advantage for man any more than animals, for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place: All are from the dust and all return to dust.

Who suffers and who does not is down to dumb luck:

Eccles 9: 11
Again I saw under the sun that"
the race is not to the swift,
nor the battle to the strong,
nor food to the wise,
nor riches to the intelligent,
nor favor to those with knowledge;
but time and chance happen to them all.


There are not too many wise words in the Bible, but most of them are in Ecclesiastes.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 12:57:22 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/31/2016 9:04:41 PM, janesix wrote:
In order to grow and maintain your bodily functions, we must kill and take life of other beings. This is true for all animals, and some plants. Only photosynthetic plants can be excluded. Is it evil to kill to maintain your life, or is it "just the way it is".?

True.
Meh!