Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
What we're actually left with is people projecting their own feelings on to animals - a phenomenon pretty much confined to the cosseted, urbanised, Disneyfied Western world, where animals dress up in waistcoats to sing and dance for our entertainment, and meat is a mysterious pink substance that magically appears in shrink wrap on supermarket shelves - and arbitrary morality such as that articulated by Damien earlier: it's wrong because "it just is". All of which is fine as far as it goes. But to then legislate for that is as illiberal as legislating that everyone must be in church on Sunday morning.
|
Hang on. It's not that arbitrary . We're not simply projecting our feelings onto animals. We've feeling empathy for them, they're living creatures and we can relate to feelings of suffering that they may feel. Surely it's borderline psychopathic if we didn't feel such empathy for them. I also think it's rather patronising, albeit quite funny, to suggest that this phenomenon is confined to a Disneyfied view of the world where they sing and dance for us.
I admit there is a degree of hypocrisy to the fact I am not a vegetarian which I mostly get away with because the killing is abstracted away from me but also because I try not to buy products where the animal suffers and because I view the use of some animals for food as ethical different to killing them for sport.
Anyway unlike four years ago I probably wouldn't oppose this ban being lifted. Not because I think fox hunting is a good thing but because I dislike the idea of the Government passing laws and criminalising people unless there is a really good reason to so. My own view of the ethicality of Fox Hunting is certainly not a good enough reason.
However we've had this discussion before haven't we? I am surprised you're arguing about arbitrary morality and illiberal legislation because I think that we were on opposite sides of this debate when it came to Gay Marriage. Unless I misunderstood your position (which is possible) you were against the legalisation of it because of your own moral code whereas I was both for it in terms of morality but also believed that it wasn't the Governments place to enforce your/their morality on other people. What's the difference between the Government enforcing someone's moral view of Fox Hunting and the Government enforcing someone else's moral view of Marriage? Surely you already accept there is a such a thing as morality derived from a 'higher power'. Be it God or empathy for animals.