[koumba]

>@Koumba
> Thanks for your response.I think GOOD and EVIL are
>platonic concepts that have long history in relation
>to Western philosophy and theological thought although
>the latter owes it's origin to Zoroastrianism.Kwa
>ufupi,the definition is so complex.But I stick on the
>fact that this two words(Good and evil)are just
>concepts invented by binadamu,based in the instict for
>survival,but have no true objective existance.Thuy are
>just ways of describing our attitudes towards
>things.Mfano,when you say "hii chakula ni mbaya"you
>laso want others not to like it.
> the second question you asked was to general,what
>specifically do you wonna know.

@safina this dude called death in catskills thread has beaten me to it....heres quick link

http://www.mashada.com/forums/index/...ndex.php#10317

Reason why i was asking if u think people are good or evil has also been adequately described eloquently by this dude.......
If he was to go deeper,am sure he would have mentioned phenomena like self deception where a dude does "evil" stuff but actually believes himself to be entirelly correct....read the nazis etc...An individual nazi thought hes doing right....
am not sure about this but i even think that rich countries actually believe that they are helping poor countries even as they perpetuate unfair business practices leading to mass death in africa....
Talk to an individual in say,the trade ministry in the country and he will be genuine in thinking hes helping,but look at the system and u begin to wonder.......
Orwell(of animal farm) also wrote a novel called "nineteen eight four" in which he satirises such aspects of a society...
self deception happens even on a day to day basis (on lesser crimes than the nazis of course..)

[chotadipo]

>
> I know the concept horrifies me.But what logical
>reasons are there that make farming humans morrally or
> ethically wrong that can't be applied to other
>animals like Ng'ombe.I know a few of you will come up
> and say humans poses free thinking and logic,others
>will say animals don't contribute to the society.My
>answer to this is ,not all humans posse logic and
>free thinking.Would it make it ok to farm those
>humans?Talk about Brain dead beings,infants.And as a
>matter of fact,not all humans contribute to the
>society,some even cause more damage than good.Also why
>is it natural for a species to eat another species.If
> other animals beside humans had logical and
>intellectual capacity to harvest different species,you
>better believe they would do it.I need logical answers
> to this questions,put religion aside for a minute.
>
> "shamba la watu"....Ndio ama hapana?
>

With the farming of human beings you are assumming that the farmed people will always be of an inferior intellect or disposition than the one farming them. While this is generally true with humans vis a vis other animals, and I use generally here considering the fact that only around 14 kinds of animals have been successfully domesticated and farmed for the benefit of mankind, the questions that wll come to mind that would challeng its morality would be
1.) If the farmed becoming stronger or more intelligent than you, would it not be fair for you to submit to them and be farmed?
2.) If your basis for farming is for food, are you then implying implicitly that you have run out of other food sources?
3.) If your argument would be for labour, then basiclly it would be retrogressive development, we move from buffalo to tractor, but you suggest we go back to buffalo?
4.) Humans have empathy, something that you will have to wrestlle with when it comes to farming brain dead people.
5.) The question on the contribution to society has been tackled elsewhere on the topic of Good vs. evil where it is apparent that the one wielding power tends to detrmine what is good or not. An example of this is an article I read about a belgian professor who was arguing that poor people should not be allowed to give birth. First of all poor is relative, second I come from a 'poor' upbringing according to him, yet I have an advanced degree in electronics and I'm economicaly well-off, how would he have justified to my mom to abort me knowing what I am today?

[safina]

Thanx for your response,at leasst you gave me your views.


>1.) If the farmed becoming stronger or more intelligent than
>you, would it not be fair for you to submit to them and be
>farmed?

If they can do it that's better for them,but trut me they will have to cross 10 rivers before they do that.

>2.) If your basis for farming is for food, are you then
>implying implicitly that you have run out of other food
>sources?

Come on now,When you put fish on your menu to replace chicken,were you running out of food?

>3.) If your argument would be for labour, then basiclly it
>would be retrogressive development, we move from buffalo to
>tractor, but you suggest we go back to buffalo?

My arguement had nothing to do with that labour thing,but even if it's labour,who cares if it's buffalo or tractor so long as the job get done.

>4.) Humans have empathy, something that you will have to
>wrestlle with when it comes to farming brain dead people.

I wonder what happens to the emphathy when we slaughter chickens.You can't know how other humans feel unless you are them,in this case you might have emphathy but I might not have it.

>5.) The question on the contribution to society has been
>tackled elsewhere on the topic of Good vs. evil where it is
>apparent that the one wielding power tends to detrmine what is
>good or not. An example of this is an article I read about a
>belgian professor who was arguing that poor people should not
>be allowed to give birth. First of all poor is relative,
>second I come from a 'poor' upbringing according to him, yet I
>have an advanced degree in electronics and I'm economicaly
>well-off, how would he have justified to my mom to abort me
>knowing what I am today?

I think you are off my main topic here.Hit me with some more points.....

[chotadipo]

>Thanx for your response,at leasst you gave me your
>views.
You are most welcomed
>
>>1.) If the farmed becoming stronger or more intelligent than
>>you, would it not be fair for you to submit to them and be
>>farmed?
>
>If they can do it that's better for them,but trut me
> they will have to cross 10 rivers before they do
>that.
>
That is exactly the point why we have to consider the ethical and moral implications. Deep inside you, you would not want to be game to another human being because you do understand that he 'sees' the world the same same way as you. A frightening scenario when you have cows that are easier prey and do not bring you into conflict with the other human being.

>>2.) If your basis for farming is for food, are you then
>>implying implicitly that you have run out of other food
>>sources?
>
>Come on now,When you put fish on your menu to
>replace chicken,were you running out of food?
>
You don't get it, you are assuming that fellow human beings can be equated to other forms of life. This is a faulty way of arguing knowing full well then even lesser animals don't sustitute food with their own unless they are compelled to. Preservation is a basic instinct.

>>3.) If your argument would be for labour, then basiclly it
>>would be retrogressive development, we move from buffalo to
>>tractor, but you suggest we go back to buffalo?
>
>My arguement had nothing to do with that labour
>thing,but even if it's labour,who cares if it's buffalo
> or tractor so long as the job get done.

We will leave this out respecting your view that it was not part of the arument.
>
>>4.) Humans have empathy, something that you will have to
>>wrestlle with when it comes to farming brain dead people.
>
>I wonder what happens to the emphathy when we
>slaughter chickens.You can't know how other humans feel
> unless you are them,in this case you might have
>emphathy but I might not have it.

Good point because you specifically refer to other animals, I thought your argument was about human to human farming. In this case there is a lot of empathy going on. You can choose to deny it though
>
>>5.) The question on the contribution to society has been
>>tackled elsewhere on the topic of Good vs. evil where it is
>>apparent that the one wielding power tends to detrmine what
>is
>>good or not. An example of this is an article I read about a
>>belgian professor who was arguing that poor people should
>not
>>be allowed to give birth. First of all poor is relative,
>>second I come from a 'poor' upbringing according to him, yet
>I
>>have an advanced degree in electronics and I'm economicaly
>>well-off, how would he have justified to my mom to abort me
>>knowing what I am today?
>
>I think you are off my main topic here. Hit me with
>some more points.....
>
I don't think so, because if you argue that it is ethically or morally sound to farm others because of their perceived non contribution to society, my question is where do you draw the line? A rogue scientist is worse to mankind than a 70 IQ labourer, I would rather we farm the scientist and 'eat' him and preserve ourselves.

[veritas]

What separates us from humans and animals? Well those being argued at the moment are 2 things:

1. Soul
2. Conscious

There is not yet scientific proof animals have either of these. This is the reason why you don't see a bunch of disability children rounded up like animals, because all humans having a soul are equal in the eyes of God, this is the legal argument. Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, understanding another fellow human being is in the eye of the beholder. We may meet a man with a cognitive deficit, my background in psych means I can interpret him easily, whereas you may think he's "stupid" or something. So yes from a legal and logical point of view, it is morally wrong to farm humans for food. But, that doesn't mean it's not been happening, cheap labour, test subjects etc. are still happening as we speak.

[safina]

>What separates us from humans and animals? Well those being
>argued at the moment are 2 things:

>1. Soul
>2. Conscious

>There is not yet scientific proof animals have either of
>these.

Can you tell me something about the scientific proof of existance of the soul.I think,animals don't act the way we expect them to act,that's why we jump out with conclusions that,we are better than them.I wonder if that ape that walked out of the forest a few billions years ago had a soul.Enlighten me on this please...............

'Faith is bankrupcy of intelligence'

[veritas]

Try google. Btw, intelligence is man made.

[safina]

Google what?

[teejay]

Safina may I remind you that you are posting in a Religion & Spirituality Forum Section of Mashada, and for you to ask us to keep religion out of it is tantamount to asking us to leave this section all together.

I suggest you seek another forum for logical arguments. Otherwise I come in handy with my religious approach.

But first, what are morals? and what is ethics?
What are the origin of those two?

Over to you Safina.

[KEMINOKANA]

LOL trust Safina to come up with very weird thoughts. Humans are a special kinda animals in that they think and act on how they feel. If you notice, most animals are far stronger physically than humans but humans control them because of their intellect.

However, humans are farming fellow humans for labor which provides food. And in west africa e.g sierra leone, if ur too pretty ur an endangered species! Those guys would wanna cook you and make meatballs to drown their fufu with!