Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
Yep, I did originally have a sentence acknowledging the 'what gives you the right' issue might need addressing - that's why I used 'I'm not sure' as a possible escape clause for me  . |
Ah, the handy escape clause!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
But, what interests me about the idea of killing without any suffering, is the question of what harm it actually does. I'm not sure it does any (but I may be wrong  ); but it's probably too hypothetical to ever occur in reality anyway. |
The harm is in the killing. By ending the animal's life, we are harming it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
(Although there was a recent documentary on humane executions that came up with a method that seemed to produce a pleasurable death - the victim goes out in a state of euphoria. One critic said they objected to the lack of suffering involved.)
|
It won't surprise anyone here to know that I am competely opposed to the death penalty!
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
That argument strikes me as pure sophistry, I'm afraid. You "value life", therefore you categorize anything whose life you do not value as "not alive"?
Doesn't a carrot have as much "right to life" as a chicken? You are claiming that one has a "right" to be alive, but the other does not? Both were brought into existance for the specific purpose of being eaten.
|
I do not say the carrot is not alive because I do not value it. It is simply not alive.
Because the carrot is not alive, it can not have a "right to live."
Both were not brought into existence simply to be eaten. Animals were created for there own reasons. Just as women were not made to be mated with men, and black people were not made to be slaves for white people. Everyone is here for their own reason. Because we do not know the answer does not make it untrue.