Ukraine STILL killing dogs ahead of Euro 2012

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I agree. I was highlighting the hypocritical component of this thread - it is evil to kill dogs, but its ok to kill chickens and cows.

There is a difference between the killing of chickens and cows, and the killing of these dogs. These dogs are not being killed for a purpose. It is a waste, and is absolutely reprehensible. But, I do not feel we have the moral authority to go in and *dictate* to them, the ways in which it offends our sensibilities.

The killing of chickens and cows, on the other hand, is done to provide food, clothing, and medical supplies. And, the two animals you chose are utilized almost in their entirety...every cell in a cow's body is usable, in some way, whether as leather or food or gelatin or tendons or whatever.

I have no inherent problem killing an animal, if it is to be used. Utilized. Efficiently. Responsibly. And, with respect for the animal which gave its life.

The poor dogs in the Ukraine are not food, and in fact their deaths serve no purpose, save for clearing the streets. They are merely "pests" in Ukrainian society, and are being eliminated as pests. And, having said that, I HATE the way that they are being treated.
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
On the one hand we do have the moral absolutist position. Thou shalt not kill is a commandment because it is one of the ten God gave to Moses. The Ukraine has breached this. We also have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which also says no to killing. Cameron said on his first trip to China as PM that the West believes that there are UNIVERSAL rights.

We also have moral views within a community, along with the idea that moral values can and do change through time. Vegetarianism is an interesting one - at the moment just about every society accepts killing and eating animals, but it is possible that this may change. Views on euthanasia are perhaps changing.

The Ukraine breaches the moral absolutist position - but it also breaces the moral relatavistic position! However you cut it, the Ukraine has a government which is wrong. Ditto Russia, China, Syria, Iran, North Korea and no doubt others.

The contrast is with nations nearer to home. The USA is (most of the time) a moral nation - so that when it steps over the line it can be censured on specific issues. It is proper to condemn the USA for judicial murder, for waterboarding, for extraordinary rendition. Similarly the UK should be condemned for an illegal war in Iraq (it might have been legal in US law, but it was illegal in English law) and condemned for the judicial mess which allowed the Lockerbie bomber to be freed. The US examples are wrong in absolutist morality; the UK ones in relativistic morality.

(By the way I can't get that fussed about the Ukraine killing dogs - this is a symptom of a sick society, not in my view in itself a moral breach).

The examples that you give make sense when we look at moral absolutism from a specific ideology (the Liberal tradition of universal rights). I think our understanding of moral relativism diverges a bit, however. My understanding of relativistic morality is the acceptance of contrasting moral systems as equally valid and equally correct. In your judgment of the UK's moral failure from a relativistic standpoint, is it due to a lack of internal moral consistency (ie failing to abide by its own moral/legal code)?
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I see your point about hypocrisy, and for the record, I suspect future generations will be appalled at the way our era treats animals bred for slaughter.

But that hypocrisy is also a basic part of human history. We fight particular injustices while turning a blind eye to others. Black slaves were freed, but women still couldn't vote. Women won the vote, but homosexuality was still a crime. Gay people will someday marry freely, but we'll still slaughter animals on a mass scale.

You can rail against it, and with some justice. But I think you kind of have to chalk it up to a slow, painful process of enlightenment. Sure, we would be a more admirable species if we solved all our problems at once. But since we're not, I'm grateful for whatever justice and compassion I find, in the hope that it will continue to extend over time.

I wouldn't be so sure it is enlightenment if it is a moral absolutist system. An enlightened society does not need laws or rules or any kind of authority - be it written or moral.

Here is what the Tao Te Ching has to say about hypocrisy:

When the Way is forgotten
Duty and justice appear;
Then knowledge and wisdom are born
Along with hypocrisy.
When harmonious relationships dissolve
Then respect and devotion arise;
When a nation falls to chaos
Then loyalty and patriotism are born.