: :: Ask a Hindu or Buddhist, he'll tell you that a 'higher power" has decreed that harm towards any sentient life is wrong. : Am I arguing with a Buddist or Hindu? If you hold either one of these
: faiths maybe we can discuss the merits of that but to use a snipet of
: Buddism to support your argument while casting away the rest certainly
: violates the Eightfold Noble Path and leads away from Nirvana.
: Similarly, you don't appear to practicing the four yogas either so
: you're attempting to subjugate these religions for your purposes. I
: know I asked for the ecclesiastical standard that supports rights for
: animals. Do you see the intellectual dilemma in offering them if you do
: not subscibe to any of the rest of it? My position is consistent with
: my belief in the Bible. Animals are resources created for man by God.
Excuse me, sir. I don't see the relevance but I'm close to being a Hindu- if I had to fill in a 'religion" box on a form that would be it. I am certainly not an atheist or agnostic. But I detest the idea that you have to accempt any religion all or nothing. I'm proud to say I accept certain aspects of Hinduism and violently reject others. I will not alter my innate sense pof right and wrong simply because the Laws of Manu set down thousands of years ago dictate something. I don't know about your religion, but neither Hinduism or Buddhism say that you have to accept any religion all-or nothing. Hindus certainly don't say that Christians, Muslims, etc. are going to hell. Many Hindus recognzie both Christ and teh Buddha as incarnations of God. there is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting religions selectively. The Buddha selectively accepted certain aspects of Hinduism and cast away others; Hinduism recognizes him as the personification of God. I find it repugnant to know in your heart that homosexuals are people as deserving of life as you or I but to agree to stone them to death simply because Mosaic Law holds it so. (And no, this is not a personal insult. i don't know what your vioews about homosexuality are and that's not relevant. I'm talking about certain Muslim fundamentalists like the Taleban here.) I don't need your permission or anyone else's to seek the truth, regardless of where it lies. I accept certain aspects of Hidnuism, certain aspects of Catholicsim, certain ones of marxism, etc. I believe all of these people were inspired, some probably had divine revelations, but the revelatiosn have become garbled and corrupted after being ahnded down through human society for millenia. Therefore, I see no reason to accept any religion wholesale. If it all makes sense to you, as a coherent whole, all power to you. But for me to give up what I believe merely to make it conform with Hindu codes and the Laws of Manu would be intellectually and morally dishonest. I'm not committed to any ideology or religion whoelsale. I'm committed to finding the Truth, as are we all, sir.
Again, I don't see the relevance, but I accept much of the "theological" aspects of Hinduism (i.e. the beief in an all-pervasive God, the immortality of the soul, incarnation, etc.) while I reject its social prescriptions. Hinduism doesn't imply following a specific set of writings or prescriptions.
: :: Sorry to inform you, but humanity has a good dela of carnage and cruelty as well. Should pygmy chimpanzees think that they're superior to us because we repress homosexuals? Should mole rats think they';re superior because tehy live for teh collective good rather than being selfish? Does the fact that our predominant economic system reduces the necessities of life and human beings themselves to monetary value mean that humans are a pimitive species, undeserving of rights? To compare the "carnage" in nature to the abuses of human society is comparing two totally different things.
: Not at all. I mention the carnage to suggest that nature doesn't bestow
: the rights to a pain free existence to animals.
Nor does it guarantee us a pain free existence, yet we all knwo that killing and causing unnecessary pain to other people is wrong.
There is a Hindu parable about a deeply religious man, a hermit, who was impaled on a stake because years ago, as a child, he liked to stick insects on pins. The point of teh story is taht all actiosn have consequences. Sometimes we have no choice but to commit a sin, we must sin in order to survive. But this doesn';t mean we won't be punished for it.
:This is manifested in
: the way they treat each other.
What about the beauty and co-operation, teh social cohesion taht we see in nature. And what about the numerous brutalities and perversions taht are unique to man.
:You side-step this fact and obfuscate
: the point by bringing the deparvity of man into it. Stick to the point.
That was the point.
: Does nature bestow the zebra with rights that preempt the lion's
: dinner? Of course not! Therefore, any rights we are discussing are
: within man's purview to delegate.
The lion has no choice but to eat the zebra. There is another Hindu parable to that effect about a kindg who sacrifice his life to protect a dove, but I'm getting off-topic. I don't believe in animal rights (to this extent) anyway, so it's somewhat moot.
: :: Any argument in favor of animal rights must acknowledge that
: : : man is the arbiter of those rights unless the protagonist wishes to
: : : assume that those rights stem from an even higher source of
: : : cognitive reasoning.
Well, many Hindus and Buddhists do, anyway.
: : No. This may be my personal view, but it is not a necessary implication. If agnostics can postulate teh existence of the law of gravitation, etc. without the need to postulate a source for tesoe laws, then they can do teh same with respect to natural, inalienable rights. Human rights were determined on exactly such a basis, people didn't get together and draw up a contract saying "OK< we all ahve a right to life". throughout history, human rights have been proclaimed by people on the basis of being natural and immutable.
: Again, state whatever natural law you refer to and say why the zebra
: isn't covered by it. You can't because those inalienable rights
: you refer to are granted by God - not nature.
God is present in nature, nature is a way in which God chooses to manifest himself. There is no strict separation between the two.
:Nature gives us death sir
: - not life, liberty, or any other right.
No, look at the declaration of Independence. A falwed document, it nevertheless refers to rights being granted by "Nature and Nature's God."
: : : There is a dilemma, therefore, for those who see a world without
: : : God. If man and only man is responsible for the creation, maintenance,
: : : and delegation of rights,
: : No, you can believe in natural rights without believing in God.
: (Zebra ghosts rattle their chains of oppression.)
I don't see the point.
: : : there can be no convincing moral component to
: : : an argument in favor of animal rights when this argument is juxtaposed
: : : to the historical cultural record of man.
: : ???
: Man's entire written history and current record has him as an omnivore.
: You can't make a case to say that his dietary habits are immoral late
: in the 20th century.
Man eats far less meat than vegetables. 30% of his calories come from animal product, even with the gratuiitous excess of meat consumption in the West.
: :: I believe in God, I also believe man is an animal. How can one not believe this, given the known fact that evolution has occurred and the known fact that we have so many similarities to other animals. saying man is not an animals is like saying a carrot is not a plant.
: Which God? The one that breathed a soul into man and set him apart from
: the rest of creation in doing so.
Man has a soul, but I deny that the existence of a soul is an all-or-nnothing proposition, and I deny that animals dn't possess a soul to any degree. They certainly possess consciousness, some of them. All of nature is a manoifestation of God, some are more aware of this tahn others. Please define the soul, otherwise it's hard to discuss this.
:I think not. I think you worship some
: other god.
No, I deny thsi too. there are no multiple gods, all legitimate world religions worship the same god, and by teh way, I noticed your capitalization of your God without capitalizing my god. I take my cue from Gandhi when he said "All religions are true."
: I differentiate man from animals by his immortal soul. I
: will try not to denigrate your belief but I want it to be clear which
: God I worship.
That's OK, but I don't think Christianity and Hinduism need to be opposed. Christ is recognized as a form of God by many Hindus.
:
: : :If man is an animal, he is not subject to
: : : any morality contrived by a small minority of idealists when history,
: : : as seen by any objective atheist, proves that man is only acting true
: : : to his animalistic, carnivorous instincts with such behavior approved
: : : by all majorities of historical and contemporaneous mankind.
: : 1)man is not carnivorous, and never has been, where do you get this?
: Pardon me. I thought the context might allow the license to get away
: with such imprecison. Man is an omnivore. Don't argue this or I'll just
: laugh and go on to some other thread. As an omnivore he is both an
: herbivore and a carnivore. So to be precise, man, if an animal, is only
: acting to the carnivorous side of his omnivoristic(?) self when he eats
: meat.
Man is an omninvore, who hsitorically leans far towarsd teh herbivorous side. Adultery is also pretty "natural" for humans. I don't have a prob;lem with extramarital sex, but if it's surrounded by lies and cheating, as adultery is, tehn it's wrong. Man has the capability tod ecdie between different courses of action. Meat-eating may be a sin, I don't knwo, it may be purer not to eat meat. I eat meat to maintain muscle tone, etc. and because I have a taste for it, though i don't eat cows or pigs (for religious reasons). I recognize that my soul may suffer for it. I recogmnize I don't live a perfect life, thsi is one of my many transgressions. At elast I don't try to defend my meat eating as soemthing moral or noble.
: : 2)tehre is no evidence that if people followed natural instincts they would be more cruel, etc. then they are now. Societies in "a state of nature" are generally teh msot peaceful.
: Rubbish! State examples so I can counter with the numerous indiginous,
: peace loving, natural american indian tribes who regularly killed each
: other over dwindling winter food supplies.
Oh, how about the San or the Pygmies where property, coercion, murder overwork, and crime are unknown. Force and government are equally unknown. Their society is held together by shared values and bonds of friendship, arther than by "laws and guns". Technological society is far more violent, taht's an undeniable fact. Look at teh miniz=scule criem and murder rates in most African countries, and then compare them to crime rates in America or England. (Although, in fact, teh primary determinant of crime rates is not technology but social inequality. Still. Western society is far more economically unequal tahn most African or South American tribes.)
: : 3)a strong argument can be made that it is society and/or property relations and/or social conditioning that makes man the cruel, violent creature he is. in other words taht evil stems from society, not from human nature. See Marx, Confucius, Colin Turnbull, etc.
I'm making the point in an abstract way, but I do believe this myself, by teh way.
: Humanism is dead Nikhil.
No evidence, I could just as well say capitalism is dying, as a matter of fact it is, but it's a damn slow death.
:You want to blame property for the condition
: of man?
You got it.
: What nonsense! Who thought up the concept of property?
Certainly not God.
:If God didn't it must have been man.
:If property is evil and the concept of
: property is spawned in the mind of man, blame man - not property. Blame
: the individual for his own actions instead of the elusive society.
: Blaming society for individual failure is the essence of humanism,
: claiming that man has no inherent flaw and is capble of progressing to
: a higher state of being. Look around Nikhil. Marx, Confucius, and Colin
: Turnbull have contributed absolutely nothing to this self realization
: you pine away for. Nothing!
Um, no, society is considerably better off now tahn a few hundred years ago. Slavery is almsot dead, so is social Darwinism, except in backwaters liek Singapore. Social conditioning causes people to do evil things.
: : :Morality
: : : abides meat eating if morality is man-made.
: : Not necessarily. You can oppose meat-eating on religious, humanitarian, altruistic, environmental, or health reasons. One coudl oppose emat-eating as immoral simply because it is so wasteful of resources.
: : How can you eat that steak when teh grain for taht cow could have fed so many starving Sudanese, etc.
=
: Sudanese aren't starving because I eat meat. This tactic stinks. You
: know, if there is any immorality around here it is the attempt to
: shovel guilt down the throats of those who have prospered because of
: the simple luck of having been born into an economic system, a morality
: code, and a work ethic which leads to abundance. One might be so bold
: as to credit God Himself with the receipt of such blessings. I don't
: think a handful of very left leaning activists are the arbiters of
: morality. I think the world-wide, historical acceptance of meat eating
: speaks for itself.
I didn't make the argument, but now I think I will. The fact remains, our prosperity is based on oppresion and exploitation. As my high school headmaster used to say, you don't deserve a damn thing, nor do I. Accidents of birth do not make it "moral" to be rich. Wealth is created by unequal property relations, not by intelligence, hard work or anything else.
None.
