Mestecand un animal mort intre dinti
Pentru a beneficia de placerea mestecarii unui animal mort intre dinti este necesar sa omori o fiinta vie.
Pentru a beneficia de placerea mestecarii unui animal mort intre dinti este necesar sa omori o fiinta vie.
Putine persoane contribuie in mod direct la uciderea lor,iar miliarde contribuie in mod indirect,cumparand carne.Si cu cat mai mult acest produs este cerut pe piata,cu atat mai multe animale vor fi private de viata.
Ceea ce este ingrijorator este faptul ca acest proces este considerat unul natural si ca asa si trebuie sa fie,trebuie sa omoram pentru a manca.Comiterea unei crime este pedepsita prin lege pentru ca este considerata inumana,dar si un animal tot il omori,comiti o crima.Este foarte dubios cum crima a fost divizata prin lege in doua parti:
1.crime pe care nu ai voie sa le comiti(sa ucizi oameni)
2.crime pe care ai voie sa le comiti(sa ucizi animale)
Legea a fost facuta nu dupa principiul dreptatii,ca tot ceea ce are viata are dreptul la viata,ci dupa interes.
4 comentarii:
interesant,de ce oamenii atunci cand se duc la magazin nu intreaba:-cat costa un kg de pui mort?...
in opinia mea,s-a gasit un cuvant mai placut pentru urechi:-carne!!
hello beautiful,
even if I am not sure Google Translate did justice to the subtlety of your argumentation, I find 2 interesting ideas there:
1) the basic nature of human beings as a natural, meat-eating species. There, I would just rhetorically ask a couple of questions: what if there was no free will? If, using the words of Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, we are simply temporary vehicles programmed for the multiplication / survival of our genes, how can that behavior be wrong?
2) Arendt's banality of evil: the evilness of passivity, whereby each person becomes (by proxy) a killer, by passively conforming to the social norms of the group he/she belongs to.
Both ideas would deserve their own, protracted development but, to cut a long story short, I don't think they are totally incompatible.
Let me know what you think..
x
jean
in the future i am sure that google will translate better...
richard dawkins or daniel dennett are old minds,i am a new and fresh one.
1.so,you are saying that human naturally are meat-eating species.well,i am agree,they are because they eat it,but this is not natural.to kill for your stomac is sick!.primitive people used to kill for survive,but now are so much vegetables and cereals in the market so you don t have to harm beings,cut their heads of for eating,this is not needed any more.but,people keep doing it because this is a deep habbit in their minds(subconsciuos)...you can live very well and more healthier without animals in your digestive system,this is not natural,it is just a deep habbit that have to be removed...
about free will i will post this week a material so check it :).
the behavior was wrong and it is still wrong because most of the people are not consciouss enough about what they eat,what they think,why they think like this,were from come thoughts and they are really ours,how they arise in the mind etc etc.i will make a post this week about free will.
2.exactly,we BECOME killers,we are not born to kill(only some movies spread out this ideea in our subconscious:born to kill)...
we are born to live in harmony and peace with ourself and others,not to harm and disturb others,or even worst to kill,this is not natural,it is primitive,but we are not primitive any more.
I can't wait to read your take on free will, as this seems to be the central moral issue here.
And love the audacity that makes you simply dismiss Dennett and Dawkins as "old minds".. :)
It certainly ups the ante for you now !! ))
Trimiteți un comentariu