Quote:
Originally posted by twotimesadingo
All good points, dy156. Perchance, have you ever taken an ethics course?
Once you get through relativism, egoism, and other introductory material, you make your way to more contemporary moral philosophies that focus on intent. Morality, and immorality, is a product of intentions.
That's what angers me, and the other posters. We eat meat because, on some level, we have to (don't argue vegetarianism here because I see that point; I'm merely using an example you presented); we wear leather because, on some level, we need clothing. We didn't kill the cow simply because we enjoyed it, or merely wanted to - we did it with a purpose.
Therein lies the difference; as mentioned, it's a matter of intent.
|
I haven't taken any philosophy course other than Logic, and that was just because I could get it to count as a math credit.
Excuse me while I try to get philosophical.
Whether these kids deserve harsh punishment I guess, philosophically, depends on what you value most. Is relativism thinking that some things matter more than others, as in "well, it's all relative."?
I suppose I was thinking that their intent was to blow up rodents with rockets for their amusement, and probably among some of them, just to participate in a group activity and gain acceptance. (Hence, the comment about how some of them probably needed to grow a backbone. I doubt that all of them individually would have done this.)
There were good points made about how the rodents probably did not blow up quick and painlessly, but were burned and then bled to death. I had not thought about that. I might be epicurian(delving deep into my memory of philosophy) in thinking that pain is bad; happiness is good, and that those rodents suffered about as much as the animals that died to feed me, or because their mounds irritated me, and the rodents, having a short life span, were bound to die before too long anyway, and that their lives weren't as valuable as human lives because, well, I'm a human, and I have some homo-sapiens sapiens-centric attitudes. If in fact, the rodents suffered a slow, painful death, that's a little worse, but not as bad as a humane, but untimely death for the stupid people that did this. It's not so much not valuing life and condemning their intent to kill, but putting their intent into perspective instead of viewing in in a philosophical vaccuum. Go ahead, call me a relativist!
Okay, done. Resume normal response:
I said they needed help and backbones, but they don't need to die.