On Jan 27, 12:48 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > The poor lions- I read about some tribe- maybe in Kenya- poisoning a > dead steer to attract a pride of lions to their own demise and wasn't > some taco joint serving lion meat last week? Between encroachment, > trophies and illegal hunting, I fear the larger animals are doomed to > zoos or extinction. I suppose the arguments always will favor the > humans for sport, survival or a deemed necessity. Are we stewards of > creation?
Well, our religion says that we should act as such. Do you think animals serve a purpose besides our needs or > entertainments? Of course. In certain cases, they led to our evolution. And, the simple worm aerates the soil, improving it for plants' sake rather than for humans' sake Do you think their instincts rise to the level of > thought and planning? Of course. Have you never seen a squirrel store food for the winter? If that isn't planning, what is? > > An important factor in punishments is the broader picture of the > society/culture and its beliefs-religion or superstitions. Justice may > be imperfect or outsiders may not understand the basis for judgements. > Reading 19th C. history, I have shuddered over the tactics of the > British though their ruthlessness was apparent in previous centuries > yet many look to Britain as the epitome of law and culture. There are certainly fewer instances of people being 'drawn and quartered' now than in the past. But, there are far MORE instances of people 'imagining the death of the reigning monarch', which would have been considered High Treason in former times (thus warranting deing hanged, drawn and quartered). >Maybe luck > has a good deal with coping with the "rules" during a lifetime and the > ability to accept injustice or unfairness in one's society. Are there > universal laws or do major powers set the rules? The universal laws are physical laws. Physics allows for what we call 'murder'. But, simply because the laws of physics allow it doesn't make it right, practical or worthwhile. For every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Newtonian physics almost demands a form of 'natural punishment' for certain actions. However, Newtonian physics does NOT say how long it will be between action and reaction, rather, it only states that there must be a reaction. >Maybe we would have > to observe what other beasts do to cleanse the group of a bad seed- > one who commits a heinous crime. Usually, the strongest win- even > Alexander understood that notion. > > The Opium War of the mid-1800's was immoral, imo. Do trade and profit > trump ethics? If you're economy is capitalist, yes. Capitalism has no ethics. ;-) >The Empress of India- Victoria- certainly presents a > divided soul and not a very dainty empire in her policies. And we- the > USA- are still coping with the reaction and rejection. > As is the UK. The amount of influx of immigrants from the old 'Raj' area to the UK has created a huge amount of racism against those people in the UK. Imperialist tactics and policies have a far- reaching effect over time. But, the thing to do isn't to sit on our hands and complain but t oembrace one another as fellow humans--all born on Earth--and try to work together the very best we can. To do less, IMO, is unethical. The boat is Earth and, clearly, we are all in that boat together. > On Jan 25, 11:16 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 18, 4:26 pm, wizard_47_cpp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Recently i was thinking about murder. I was wondering if this, > > > sometimes, could be the best solution to many important problems (i > > > obvious exclude personal and economical ones). There are some people > > > who we think should die, because they damage the society, the world > > > and other people. So, do we have the right to kill this individuals? > > > I'm some kind of atheist (exaclty i don't believe in an antropomorphic > > > god, endowed with an human-like will), so i don't think, like > > > somebody, only god has the right to kill humans. > > > My thought is we have this right, but it needs valid motivations. > > > But now the questions are: does valid motivations really exist? can > > > human understand wich are them? > > > The topic can become wider with the last one, it implicates the > > > understanding of an absolute truth. > > > > Sorry for my english > > > No worries about the English!! Obviously lions, for example, have the > > ability to kill humans, but, most would only do so for tfood or self- > > defence. Neither of those 'reasons' are murderous. Murder is the > > needless killing of an individual. Life sometimes presents us with > > situations where killing other humans is required. Self-defence is > > the obvious one. The death-penalty CAN be viewed as a societal self- > > defence and it can hardly be seen as anything other than self- > > protection, perhaps coupled with ultimate prevention of further crimes > > by the individual so-disposed. Killing is different from murder. > > There are even situations (plane crashes is mountainous areas) where > > an individual may decide to kill another for food so that they can > > live long enough to be saved and, thus, live long enough to never have > > to kill a human for food again. There are many 'reasons' for what > > some may call murder, but the true murder is a killing that is > > 'without requirement'.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
