Page 2 of 2

Re: Cat policy

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:28 pm
by BrianBlackwell
PsYcHo wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:03 am
Spay/ neuter your pets.
I'm curious to know why it is right to spay and neuter, but wrong to take their milk, for instance. We either own them and may do as we please, or we do not and are obliged to leave them alone. Is this not so? Do the ends justify the means?

Re: Cat policy

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:04 pm
by Red
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:28 pm
I'm curious to know why it is right to spay and neuter, but wrong to take their milk, for instance. We either own them and may do as we please, or we do not and are obliged to leave them alone. Is this not so?
Spaying/Neutering cats and dogs is the safest and most humane method of managing the feral populations (and I think I have said this, but spaying and neutering is actually beneficial for their health, for example it reduces the risks of cancer).

Spaying and neutering pets is an interesting discussion too, you should read this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=169
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:28 pm
Do the ends justify the means?
I thought you said you were consequentialist (I know the phrase is up to interpretation, but this just seems like and odd thing for a consequentialist to say).

Re: Cat policy

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:20 pm
by PsYcHo
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:28 pm
PsYcHo wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:03 am
Spay/ neuter your pets.
I'm curious to know why it is right to spay and neuter, but wrong to take their milk, for instance. We either own them and may do as we please, or we do not and are obliged to leave them alone. Is this not so? Do the ends justify the means?
I think you can own a dog, but cats merely decide they will allow you to house them.
I'm a person who believes in "grey" areas in regards to morality.
In my cats case, had I left him alone, he would have died. But cats breed exponentially, so while I chose to save him, I didn't want him to create more wild cats.
Right and wrong isn't always black or white; reduction of harm implemented even incrementally has a net positive effect.

Re: Cat policy

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:42 am
by Jebus
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:05 pm
If you were to breed thousands of lion fish, that would be an action YOU are taking, which falls under human morality. Cats killing birds with no human intervention has no moral implications,

So how do you think the cats got there?

Do you think it is ok to kill lion fish if someone else put them there?
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:05 pm
I've driven over the limit innumerable times and am very responsible, never even coming close to harming anyone.
The laws are not just there to protect you from driving dangerously. They are there to protect as many people as possible from driving dangerously. Not everyone drives responsibly after drinking. In fact, I've known people who increase their speed after consuming alcohol.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:28 pm
I'm curious to know why it is right to spay and neuter, but wrong to take their milk, for instance. We either own them and may do as we please, or we do not and are obliged to leave them alone. Is this not so? Do the ends justify the means?
It's great that you want to be identified as a consequentialist, but you're not quite there yet. Keep working on it.

Re: Cat policy

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:05 pm
by BrianBlackwell
Jebus wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:42 am
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:05 pm
If you were to breed thousands of lion fish, that would be an action YOU are taking, which falls under human morality. Cats killing birds with no human intervention has no moral implications,

So how do you think the cats got there?

Do you think it is ok to kill lion fish if someone else put them there?
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:05 pm
I've driven over the limit innumerable times and am very responsible, never even coming close to harming anyone.
The laws are not just there to protect you from driving dangerously. They are there to protect as many people as possible from driving dangerously. Not everyone drives responsibly after drinking. In fact, I've known people who increase their speed after consuming alcohol.
BrianBlackwell wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:28 pm
I'm curious to know why it is right to spay and neuter, but wrong to take their milk, for instance. We either own them and may do as we please, or we do not and are obliged to leave them alone. Is this not so? Do the ends justify the means?
It's great that you want to be identified as a consequentialist, but you're not quite there yet. Keep working on it.
The idea that it is morally acceptable to dominate the innocent in order to defend against the guilty is a perspective that inspires actions which yield adverse consequences. We must understand the concept of valid ownership. Ownership is the supreme or exclusive right to determine what's done with a thing or how it is used. By this definition, I have valid ownership over my own body, and a dog has valid ownership over his. It is as wrong to perform an involuntary surgical procedure upon my body as it is do perform it upon a dog. This is the core principle of moral veganism.

This ownership can only be infringed upon where the owner is acting in violation of others' rights. This is valid defensive action because it is in support of valid ownership (that of the innocent victim). When a rapist plies their trade, they step outside the realm of their natural right to express their free will through bodily action. Rape is an action which violates another's valid ownership over their body - it is not a valid expression of ownership. And so we are left with a choice: to allow an innocent's valid property right to be infringed upon, or to impose upon the ownership of the guilty. To permit the former is to allow a valid expression of ownership to be imposed upon - this is immoral, and thus yields adverse consequences in the society. To perform the latter act of defense is to stop an invalid expression of ownership and thus avert those adverse consequences.

Now, it very well be the case that the rampant breeding of domesticated animals has left us with a catch 22 where no moral option remains. Their existence being brought about by an immoral act of domination (violation of their self-ownership), it may be impossible to resolve the situation morally (though this is rarely, if ever, the case). The concept of the "necessary evil" is a highly dubious proposition, since immorality is defined by those actions which do not yield supportive or beneficial conditions. I'm afraid I've not thought long and hard on this topic, so I can offer no solutions at this time.