We don't assess things from their perspective, humans have much greater moral value than animals. I don't expect a broken person like Android Raptor to acknowledge that though.
seetheprocatanus more like.
Philosophically this can be argued. Animals don't know the concept of evil, therefore are unable to act out of malice. Judging them by the same moral standards as humans is unfair and if someone wants to say that they are innocent by default, it's not an unreasonable perspective.
What if that kid end up growing to be a pedophilie, a school shooter, a serial killer or the next Pol Pot. Humans have infinitely more potential of harm then animals. It is only more moral in hindsight
Telling a 19 year old to kill himself is more of a self-own than you think
Pledge my allegience and send your goofy urbanite ass to the killing fields
Children are innocent, that's why crimes against them are considered especially evil. The fact that we value humans above animals means that since both animals and kids are innocent, kids are more valuable because innocence in itself isn't necessarily valuable. If we valued it that much we'd be vegans.
I don't agree, people hunt for sport all the time, which is essentially for pleasure. Nobody treats it like they do school shootings, nor should they. Shooting some ducks or fishing or whatever just isn't the same. I don't think it's even close.
Sure, but we don't operate on Minority Report logic. An innocent child is nothing but that.
I saw the depths of the void long time ago to make something ridiculous as commiting suicide.
Yeah, everyone knows the superior excuse is "My dog told me to do it".
There is a fundamental distinction between wild game and animals that have been pets or companions to people for thousands of years. No one, as far as I k ow, is equivocating the two here, although some in PETA do.
Guess I missed the part of developmental psychology where everyone lusts after thier sister and wants to fuck a cat. This is not normal, if it is to you seek help.
I agree there's a distinction between those, but I also recognize it's somewhat subjective and varies by time and culture. And regardless, there's less of a difference between wild game and domesticated pets than there is between any animals and people.
If the names Bob or Alice turn you on switch majors. Also whatever image you had in your mind for how security works its wrong. Hope you like math more than cock and balls.
If it's purely for pleasure - you're not eating what you hunt and it doesn't serve keeping the population stable - I'm strongly in favor of strict regulations and severe punishment for breaking them.
You equate morality with legality. I think it's a fallacy. There are acts that are legal but immoral and acts that are illegal but moral.
Then what is valuable? I think it's just bias to favor our own species that's just a part of our nature - we can understand a fellow human being and see ourselves in them to some degree, that's why we value them more. In my opinion it's an aspect of human nature so primal that it eludes moral judgement.
There is in the law although I think ancient Egypt gave the death penalty for killing a cat wrongly. Again, if I were dictator gratuitous cruelty to animals, especially cats, would be met with unspeakble horror and brutality.
I think that depends on the dog and the people in question, and the difference between a dog and pig is more thab inches. Moreso with cats. I value the life of most cats more than I do so much "false humanity." (nod to those who get the reference)"
You also have to remember though, one human can do so much more for the benefit of society than an animal can. Most don’t but you have to think of it this way, you save an animal, said animal will just do what it naturally does which is good but it natural instinct can be interloped by changes in nature I.E. if a large portion of the rat population dies the cat will soon have nothing to eat and may still consume rats till they go extinct. A human will change its diet and maybe eat the thing that’s eating another animal. will find a way to bring said animals population to a decent amount, it can assist in fellow humans and maybe invent something that could help out everyone. So the human I think will serve more purpose and by that chance more people would rather save humans, after all it is more or less how nature is designed.
You are absolutely correct but this is utilitarian perspective, not a moral one. You judge a being based on its usefulness, not on matters of good and evil.
That tracks, considering modern cybersecurity is an ongoing comedy routine.
That's what morality is though, socially speaking. Robert Pirsig describes it well in Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals. Evolution is tiered, with single-celled organisms coming together to form multicellular organisms, those organisms coming together to form superorganisms (societies), and, as he argues, superorganisms coming together to form ideologies. Morality is the prioritization of those tiers from macro to micro. It's moral for a society to kill a man that threatens it just as it's moral for a body to kill a cell that threatens it, and for an ideology to destroy a society that threatens it.
