h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>Intelligence is a criterion because, to me, some animals are more important than others, and intelligence is the criterion i base this on.

So it boils down to, intelligence is important because it is. A circular argument. I

Damn! Been caught inadvertently over-generalising twice on one thread.

Let's say that we would probably agree that if I were to kill SoRB painlessly, it would still be recognised as a wrong. Even though it might put me out of my misery.

"if I were to kill SoRB painlessly, it would still be recognised as a wrong."

Not by me. Not if I were in terminal pain and asked you to.

"Let's say that we would probably agree that if I were to kill SoRB painlessly, it would still be recognised as a wrong."

Three times...

B

Even the concept of killing either humans or animals is going to boil down to a circular argument, let alone causing them pain, or what makes an animal important

I'm with the euthanasia argument

so, in summary

"Let's say that we would probably agree that if I were to kill SoRB against his will painlessly, it would still be recognised as a wrong;"

Oh, good! There's a loophole!

I do consider it to be a level of moral cowardice the fact that our government, with the judicial system, has agreed not to prosecute those that assist those with terminal illnesses to go to Switzerland for euthanasia, but will not set up the same capability, under strict rules, here
- surely it should be one way or the other

So will is important, NB. Which brings us back to the thrashing around with every appearance of pain but certainly not consenting to death.

Hang on. I can't remember if it's OK to kill a . Whether for food or just for the halibut.

Well I'm slightly biased about that, you see...I'm in love with hali but hali doesn't love me



But do we have free will? Do fish act off a list of behaviour imperatives?

Was going to post on Euthanasia. New thread...

#133 "Same as the concern we have that we never got to tell a loved one something before they died. It's horribly harsh, but after they're dead, it just doesn't matter anymore what they died knowing or not knowing."

This seems quite an unsettling statement but I can't find anything wrong with it. Moments (and shared moments) are precious for as long as the moment lasts.

yes, but a moment can last a long time, a shared moment lasts as long as it lasts for one person.
I disagree with your first comment, in the same way as a moment lasts, even if you can't tell the loved one, the fact that you didn't (in a way, a bad moment) lasts for the person left behind

>>Moments (and shared moments) are precious for as long as the moment lasts.<< Nbb
... in the memory of the participants.

(unless they write about it...)


and >>Was going to post on Euthanasia. New thread...<< Ed
where's that thread?

Here?

We're up to the fifth most popular thread

And indeed, you're right about your comment Rod...quick someone say something controversial, we're starting to agree with each other

Oops! there it was, next up on My Conversations

(The Pratchett Report)

Controversial, Nbb?

Bed is the stuff of Liffe

I tend to agree with it myself, and given Pratchett, i don't think he would have had that much effect on the other authors, despite providing some of the funding (one of the main arguments about it)

THe rules seems sufficently strict to prevent issues

I'm not suggesting for one second that Pratchett influenced it.

I shall discuss on the other thread why I doubt the rules will, in practice, be strict enough.

"Is intelligence the only criterion (apart from taste, cost, whether it's on the WWF list)? Cuteness, surely?"

For me, cuteness wouldn't really be a criterion. The number one thing that would stop me eating an animal would be if it's an endangered species. If it is, then it has infinitely more value alive than on my dinner plate (in the same way that I *could* burn a Gutenburg Bible on the fire to keep warm, but it makes more sense to use a log from the forestry plantation up the road).

Eating primates I would have a problem with, because it would feel closer to cannibalism than eating mutton would. That's not to say that I'd *never* do it depending on the circumstances. But I'd rather not.

Cuddly/cute things: I wouldn't eat horse, but that's because I don't care for the taste. I wouldn't have a problem eating dog meat - even of the same breed as my pet dog - but if someone tried to do that to *my* dog I'd probably kick his arse for him. This probably means I'm both illogical, and hypocritical, in this regard at least.

Here's another thing. I've been fishing many, many times, and I quite enjoy doing it. Other people buy fish at the Tesco counter, eat it, but don't necessarily enjoy *catching* them. I tend to think that it's better my way, because if I'm going to eat them I'm at least prepared to kill them myself. But am I right? Perhaps, for want of an analogy, the people who buy fish at Tesco are like people who kill on the spur of the moment, but I'm like a freaky psycho who likes doing it, and has a whole lot of nasty specialised tools to do the job in different ways.

Hey - illogical and hypocritical is fine. It's the human condition.