0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
The only problem with Aristotle is that he was wrong about almost everything.
Explore the technique known as the Socratic Method, which uses questions to examine a person’s values, principles, and beliefs. --Socrates, one of the founding fathers of Western philosophical thought, was on trial. Many believed he was an enemy of the state, accusing the philosopher of corrupting the youth and refusing to recognize their gods. But Socrates wasn’t feared for claiming to have all the answers, but rather, for asking too many questions. Erick Wilberding digs into the technique known as the Socratic Method.Lesson by Erick Wilberding, directed by Draško Ivezić.
The so-called Animal Sentience Bill currently being debated in the UK House of Lords seeks to establish, for the first time in history, a recognition that animals can feel pain in UK law.Opposition has been raised to the bill, on the grounds that it may threaten certain institutions, such as angling, hunting, and food production, among other things. Critics of the bill seem not to realise how raising such objections only demonstrates how urgently we need it to be passed into law.--------------------------------LINKS---------------------------------Read the Bill: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2867The Times Report: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-rebels-fear-activists-will-hijack-animal-sentience-bill-5qb97vx3lThe Times' Opinion Piece: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-the-animal-sentience-bill-happy-creatures-jxfkgdb9v
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 prohibits any person from inflicting, causing, or if it is the owner, permitting, unnecessary pain or suffering to be inflicted on any animal. The Act makes it a crime to beat, kick, torture, mutilate, administer an injurious substance, or cruelly kill an animal.
The only problem is that case law already requires you to quickly and humanely dispatch an injured animal if it is clearly beyond repair (or you intend to eat it). If you don't distinguish between species (and there's no scientific reason why you should) that makes human euthanasia mandatory, which will annoy a lot of religious parasites.
In technological singularity, nothing is beyond repair.
Self-driving cars are already cruising the streets today. And while these cars will ultimately be safer and cleaner than their manual counterparts, they can’t completely avoid accidents altogether. How should the car be programmed if it encounters an unavoidable accident? Patrick Lin navigates the murky ethics of self-driving cars.
QuoteIn technological singularity, nothing is beyond repair.For the umpteenth time, I quote my old navigation instructor:"Always start from where you are. Then you won't get lost before you take off."
We are at a point where there is a practical limit to the amount of repair work we can do to a damaged animal. The ethical problem is a reluctance among lawmakers to accept that humans are animals. In consequence it is an offence to prolong the suffering of any other species, or to shorten the suffering of a human.
Hmm. I wouldn't want to be attacked by a 200 lb flea.
We are at a point where there is a practical limit to the amount of repair work we can do to a damaged animal. The ethical problem is a reluctance among lawmakers to accept that humans are animals. In consequence it is an offence to prolong the suffering of any other species, or to shorten the suffering of a human.One of that practical limit is cost. Are we willing to pay for the cost of brain surgery to safe the life of a stranger?
If we ask a dog do you want your dinner he will very quickly let you know the answer but ask a dog does it want to die and well we no the answer.