... Violence with more violence? Depends on the situation. It is the only language some people know.
What do you think would make a person feel that solving violence with more violence is the only way?
... Violence with more violence? Depends on the situation. It is the only language some people know.
I don't know if your being serious or not, but fish do feel pain. Maybe not emotional but they do feel physical pain. there are studies that prove this. So knowing this is there ever a time where it is wrong to kill a fish? and if so when?
I forgot to add my general opinion on the original topic. I am of the belief that if something inherently does not have a consciousness and never will (such as a plant as opposed to a fetus, not touching that topic if I don't have to lol) then there is nothing wrong with killing it for your own benefit. Our body has cells whose entire purpose is to die to carry out some of the most mundane functions. When doing so encroaches on things that have a consciousness, I take it on a case-to-case basis.
Past that, things get a little blurrier.
I think that when it comes to non-humans killing for killing's sake is wrong, but when there is a purpose it is a case-to-case basis.
No they don't, small creatures don't feel pain. Ugly creatures too like snakes, they don't feel any pain. Just mainly fury creatures like dogs and stuff.
That all depends on two things for me:So would you agree that it would be wrong to unnecessarily destroy a berry plant whose existence is the soul means of another beings survival?
That all depends on two things for me:
1)What this other being is. Are we talking about a person or a bacterium ( or where between), and from that how would that being's ceasing to exist effect its environment? I would need more details before weighing in on a solid answer.
2)What would be our reason for destroying the plant? What would define unnecessary? The plant could be sustaining that same being (a bacterium in this case) that in existing kills other things humans depend on (a crop that humans depend on). Nothing exists in a vacuum, so more details would be needed in this respect as well.
EDIT:
Reading my post over, it looked really wishy-washy, so as not to make it a complete cop-out, I think it would be wrong to unnecessarily kill a berry plant (that I will define as a being in and of itself, if going by the definition in the OP and just to complicate things ) if doing so would stop a being from existing, but this is with just the two variables of necessity and dependence being known. As I said before, I would need to know more before coming to a strong answer.
i don't think that treating violence with violence is terribly productive. i agree that it perpetuates cycles of violence. i also have a problem with the idea that punishment equals justice. i think if someone refuses to honour the contract that society proposes then society has a right to protect itself from this individual say by gaoling them or otherwise controlling their movements in the society but not to dishonour the terms of the contact they propose (based on equality and safety) by destroying that person.
Just to open Pandora's box a little wider, what about the livestock industry? The "necessary" killing of these livestock keeps us breeding them and keeps their numbers prolific, even if under conditions that are not guaranteed to be ideal. How important is a natural life with no guarantee of long term species survival? How does that mesh with your thoughts of importance on species going extinct?
the bible says thou shalt not kill.
Show me proof of this statement. I need to know if it's true.
This is a surprisingly thought-provoking question for me. My thoughts may seem scatter-brained here.Thank you, you've given me much to think about. Another question: does a bacterium have as much of a right to live as a human. Why or why not?
It's common knowledge.
If you set an ant on fire with a magnifying glass people laugh. If you dog fight your thrown into jail. The reason is because ants can't feel but dogs can.
This is a surprisingly thought-provoking question for me. My thoughts may seem scatter-brained here.
I see right to live as being a question of one or the other. The right to live would only matter in a case of having to choose.
Something important to me when thinking about this is the scale of a bacterium and the scale of a full-grown person.
A single person is equal in scale to a countless number of a bacteria. If we consider this from a "no one life is any greater than another" perspective, a human would have a greater right to live from my point of view.
If we talk about potential one way or the other, it becomes much easier in that a human has a much greater potential (good or bad) than a bacteria does to change the world and as such the cultivation of human potential matters more to me than the potential of a bacterium.
Surprisingly more focused going down than in my head, very nice ^_^
I'm not one to attach huge importance to a species extinction or survival as a whole in it own right (besides the human race of course, rational self-interest ), but would be opposed to a species as a whole going extinct based on the possibility of potential use lost. Like a plant with potentially useful chemicals that it creates naturally, that could be cultivated for the betterment of the world.I would have to think about this question longer, but as of now my answer is this: I believe that a natural life with no guarantee of long term species survival is just as important as any other being in the universe. Please challenge my response I want to learn.
I've never given much thought to the issue of extinction. what are your thoughts?