Cognitive Dissonance

[sparky]

Apparently the bar for commitment is quite high.

am i worthy? ~S~

 

[Foxfyre]

Not all killing is murder

The definition of murder is "the taking of an INNOCENT human life"

So if you're going on a hike and a mountain lion is going to attack you, and you kill it in self defense, no one will condemn you.

But that's not a CHOICE you made today, is it?

I think that's what I said.

 

[ding]

My animals probably live & eat better than i do Ding

I've taken many apart , but to be honest pulling the trigger is the hardest part

~S~

I commend you. And, yes, it is the hardest part. Until one becomes desensitized to it that is. Which is how standards get moved. Deviation from standards is a gradual process. The Germans didn't go from killing is bad to kill all Jews in one step. It was a gradual process.

 

[ding]

am i worthy? ~S~

Great question. We should all be asking it. Everyday. I'm not. But that too is a gradual process.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not when it's unnecessary.

A lot of people think that hunting can be "moral" when there's a supposed overpopulation of certain animals, but what many people don't realize is that in many cases an animal population is artificially boosted to increase recreational hunting opportunities for hunters.

Furthermore, even if that wasn't the case, killing is not the answer. There are other ways to deal with certain problems that don't involve killing.

We (mankind) were given one job. To rule and take care of the animals as representatives of God, which means according to GOD's perfect will, not our own. God's perfect will is crystal clear both in Genesis 1 and in the prophetic scriptures about the future Kingdom, when God restores that initial paradise that was HIS intent for creation in the first place. Peace and harmony, not exploitation, cruelty, needless violence and killing.

We have not only failed at that one job we were given, but we have done pretty much the exact opposite, to the point of being humanity's greatest shame, imo.




What animals do should not be an excuse for our behavior. Some animals also rape and eat poop, that doesn't make it right for us. Also, carnivores like lions don't have a choice. We do. Meat is not necessary for humans. In fact, as was stated before, a diet high in animal flesh is linked to cancer, heart disease and other preventable illnesses. We were never meant to eat corpses, to eat death and violence.




That's a different matter. As someone already said, self-defense is not the same thing as murder or needless killing. Self-defense is justified. I don't believe that needlessly killing a sentient being who wants to live just as much as you and I do is ethically justified.

I don't generally respond to chopped up posts that too often destroy context and even can change the intended meaning. Thanks for understanding.

 

[sparky]

Until one becomes desensitized to it that is.

well that's a grand point Ding

and so i'll bore you with a short story that might have relevance

back when i first entered the system i was rather green, thankfully my mentors were of great guidance.....

many of them were ex-corpsmen , being let back in civilian life ,and further serving the public with their battle hardened experience

So there i was, the noob kid, showing up with this 'scared rabbit' look on my face , i couldn't help myself.......ya'know it just set folks off....and the sh*t just spiraled off from there....

They eventually took me aside ....
1st mentor>
"Look, kid , we can't have you panicking the patient like your doing"
2nd mentor>
"yeah, you're just settin' them off "
1st mentor
try these on...(hands me his sunnys)

and so i became the 'sunny responder'

gawd, i miss those guys! ~S~

 

[Foxfyre]

So what is a farmboy like me to do?

On one hand, i've seen the life leave countless human eyes , despite my best efforts (trust me, it lives in your head)

On the other hand , i raise , slaughter , and consume livestock

Any advice on the slippery cognitive ethical part of that?

~S~

And therein is a dichotomy that is neither cognitive dissonance nor does it require strained rationalization.

First let's set aside the cases in which we are unable to save a life whether it be human or animal. I worked in hospitals and around animals and been with dying loved ones, human and fur friends, for too many years to not have experienced a lot of deaths. And every one does haunt us to some degree, some more than others. I never caused a human death and hope to never have that experience, but I have had many suffering animals put down. It tears your heart out every time, but it is ethically necessary.

But all that is a very different thing than killing a healthy animal for food.

We either believe it is acceptable to humanely kill animals for food or we don't. There are strong arguments for both points of view. Some will feel guilt/emotional discomfort when they do that. Some won't.

We either believe it is acceptable to euthanize or allow to die suffering humans who have no chance to get well or we don't. There are strong arguments for both points of view. Some will feel guilt/emotional discomfort in the choice they make. Some won't.

I will forever speak out against the inhumane treatment of animals, people, the unborn. But otherwise in matters of keeping animals and poultry to produce eggs, milk, cheese, and yes, meat, I will not judge.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's life.

Exactly. There are absolutely times when there is no good choice. Just one that is better than another. And sometimes making a right choice is a real bitch.

Medical people have to make those choices all the time. Is not operating going to be worse for the patient than a life threatening operation with very high probability of complications? I think making life and death decisions is the one thing that stopped me from going to medical school which I considered at one time. Well that and I can't bear to hear anything screaming in pain.

 

[Blues Man]

Not when it's unnecessary.

A lot of people think that hunting can be "moral" when there's a supposed overpopulation of certain animals, but what many people don't realize is that in many cases an animal population is artificially boosted to increase recreational hunting opportunities for hunters.

Furthermore, even if that wasn't the case, killing is not the answer. There are other ways to deal with certain problems that don't involve killing.

We (mankind) were given one job. To rule and take care of the animals as representatives of God, which means according to GOD's perfect will, not our own. God's perfect will is crystal clear both in Genesis 1 and in the prophetic scriptures about the future Kingdom, when God restores that initial paradise that was HIS intent for creation in the first place. Peace and harmony, not exploitation, cruelty, needless violence and killing.

We have not only failed at that one job we were given, but we have done pretty much the exact opposite, to the point of being humanity's greatest shame, imo.




What animals do should not be an excuse for our behavior. Some animals also rape and eat poop, that doesn't make it right for us. Also, carnivores like lions don't have a choice. We do. Meat is not necessary for humans. In fact, as was stated before, a diet high in animal flesh is linked to cancer, heart disease and other preventable illnesses. We were never meant to eat corpses, to eat death and violence.




That's a different matter. As someone already said, self-defense is not the same thing as murder or needless killing. Self-defense is justified. I don't believe that needlessly killing a sentient being who wants to live just as much as you and I do is ethically justified.

Or we have killed all the natural predators and animal population grows unchecked

 

[Foxfyre]

To buttercup re that chopped up post:

Whataboutisms are usually not helpful in establishing ethics or principle. I would be the first to agree that humankind makes many unwise decisions when it comes to micromanaging the animal populations on Earth. We are the ONLY species given the intelligence and ability to do so.

There was one incident that wildlife managers thought there were too many elephants in one area of Africa so they killed many to thin the herds. But then they found out how much those elephants had been contributing to the ecology of that area and the reduced population had an extremely negative effect on both elephants and other creatures who depended on elephant activity. Good intentions. Really crappy consequences.

Fish stocking is done by most, maybe all to some extent?, states and it has been good to replenish some dwindling native fish. The recreational fishing industry and resulting tourism brings in billions. But in many cases it has also wrecked havoc on native fish populations and changed the ecology of the lakes and waterways. Farm raised salmon for instance turned out to not have the survival skills of native salmon. Some, maybe many, states are rethinking those policies.

The Mexican wolf was essentially extinct in New Mexico and Arizona and the decision was made to reintroduce it in the southern part of those states. The wolves however fared poorly and did not go after their natural game but instead young cattle and sheep and family pets. Many of these starving wolves were illegally shot by angry ranchers who pulled the tracking collars off and tossed them onto passing semi trucks for the feds to track. To remedy that, these so called environmentalists would catch and injure deer or elk and turn it loose for the wolves to more easily catch and kill. No way in my mind to justify the ethics of that.

So yes, introducing more game for hunters to kill can easily be seen as unethical. But far more likely is overpopulation of that same game. And wildlife management by governments can very often be counterproductive for both man and beast.

The ability of humankind to coexist on Planet Earth with all of God's creatures is a mixed bag of necessity and natural instincts and does require some ethical situations. Few of us are willing to share our home with poisonous spiders or snakes or potentially disease carrying rodents or a family of skunks. It is not considered unethical by a huge majority to use some violence to deal with these What rancher should be willing to see young lambs or calves torn apart by wolves, coyotes or wild dogs and not intervene even though the predators are simply doing what comes naturally to them for survival?

The ethics can get very murky. Is cognitive dissonance part of that? In some cases yes. But in many, maybe most cases, the choices of people are made more on common sense than anything else.

 

[Blues Man]

To buttercup re that chopped up post:

Whataboutisms are usually not helpful in establishing ethics or principle. I would be the first to agree that humankind makes many unwise decisions when it comes to micromanaging the animal populations on Earth. We are the ONLY species given the intelligence and ability to do so.

There was one incident that wildlife managers thought there were too many elephants in one area of Africa so they killed many to thin the herds. But then they found out how much those elephants had been contributing to the ecology of that area and the reduced population had an extremely negative effect on both elephants and other creatures who depended on elephant activity. Good intentions. Really crappy consequences.

Fish stocking is done by most, maybe all to some extent?, states and it has been good to replenish some dwindling native fish. The recreational fishing industry and resulting tourism brings in billions. But in many cases it has also wrecked havoc on native fish populations and changed the ecology of the lakes and waterways. Farm raised salmon for instance turned out to not have the survival skills of native salmon. Some, maybe many, states are rethinking those policies.

The Mexican wolf was essentially extinct in New Mexico and Arizona and the decision was made to reintroduce it in the southern part of those states. The wolves however fared poorly and did not go after their natural game but instead young cattle and sheep and family pets. Many of these starving wolves were illegally shot by angry ranchers who pulled the tracking collars off and tossed them onto passing semi trucks for the feds to track. To remedy that, these so called environmentalists would catch and injure deer or elk and turn it loose for the wolves to more easily catch and kill. No way in my mind to justify the ethics of that.

So yes, introducing more game for hunters to kill can easily be seen as unethical. But far more likely is overpopulation of that same game. And wildlife management by governments can very often be counterproductive for both man and beast.

The ability of humankind to coexist on Planet Earth with all of God's creatures is a mixed bag of necessity and natural instincts and does require some ethical situations. Few of us are willing to share our home with poisonous spiders or snakes or potentially disease carrying rodents or a family of skunks. It is not considered unethical by a huge majority to use some violence to deal with these What rancher should be willing to see young lambs or calves torn apart by wolves, coyotes or wild dogs and not intervene even though the predators are simply doing what comes naturally to them for survival?

The ethics can get very murky. Is cognitive dissonance part of that? In some cases yes. But in many, maybe most cases, the choices of people are made more on common sense than anything else.

These problems only occur when people think they can micromanage nature. The natural world does nothing that is in disharmony.

It is human arrogance that we believe we can outthink the natural order of things so as to impose our wills on it. This bit of hubris alone has been the cause of untold damage to the environment d the lives of both people and animals that we have bot begun to see the ramifications of.

 

[Foxfyre]

These problems only occur when people think they can micromanage nature. The natural world does nothing that is in disharmony.

It is human arrogance that we believe we can outthink the natural order of things so as to impose our wills on it. This bit of hubris alone has been the cause of untold damage to the environment d the lives of both people and animals that we have bot begun to see the ramifications of.

No argument for me there.

But it is also true that human existence does affect the environment just as the activity of other creatures on Earth affects the environment. And because uniquely among all creatures on Earth, we have the ability to see, understand, assess, and make efforts to correct the negative affects our activity can have, we alone of all species have a unique ability to change our behavior or correct some of our mistakes.

For 300,000+ years humans had minimal effect on the environment and ecology of our Planet. And for 300,000 years humans were a minority on Planet Earth.

Human population on Earth:
1471 - 500 million
1804 - 1 billion
1927 - 2 billion
1960 - 3 billion
1974 - 4 billion
1987 - 5 billion
1999 - 6 billion
2011 - 7 billion
2022 - 8 billion

So except for bacteria, some insects, fish, and rodents and such, we pretty much outnumber everything. To think that has no effect on our ecology and to some extent our environment is just silly.

But then again we have the dichotomy of too many people for the good of Planet Earth vs respect for and dedication to save and prolong life. Would it be ethical to kill off a large number of people to balance the ecology? Or is it ethical to understand people have a right to live here as much as anything else?

The debate rages on. Is some cognitive dissonance involved? Certainly yes. But also there is reason, logic, truth, error, and everything in between involved.

 

[Blues Man]

No argument for me there.

But it is also true that human existence does affect the environment just as the activity of other creatures on Earth affects the environment. And because uniquely among all creatures on Earth, we have the ability to see, understand, assess, and make efforts to correct the negative affects our activity can have, we alone of all species have a unique ability to change our behavior or correct some of our mistakes.

For 300,000+ years humans had minimal effect on the environment and ecology of our Planet. And for 300,000 years humans were a minority on Planet Earth.

Human population on Earth:
1471 - 500,000
1804 - 1 billion
1927 - 2 billion
1960 - 3 billion
1974 - 4 billion
1987 - 5 billion
1999 - 6 billion
2011 - 7 billion
2022 - 8 billion

So except for bacteria, some insects, fish, and rodents and such, we pretty much outnumber everything. To think that has no effect on our ecology and to some extent our environment is just silly.

But then again we have the dichotomy of too many people for the good of Planet Earth vs respect for and dedication to save and prolong life. Would it be ethical to kill off a large number of people to balance the ecology? Or is it ethical to understand people have a right to live here as much as anything else?

The debate rages on. Is some cognitive dissonance involved? Certainly yes. But also there is reason, logic, truth, error, and everything in between involved.

We haven't done a very good job of minimizing our impact though have we?

We have dumped countless tons of toxins into the ground and water that we will never be able to clean up.

We have screwed up river courses and turned arable lands to dust so we can grow cotton in the desert

We are even now on the verge of resource wars because we have managed ourselves so poorly.

The earth is a closed system and we are turning it into a cesspool

And this too springs from our arrogance of thinking we are somehow removed from the natural world because of our great intellect. Yet the irony is that that very same intellect is unable to see the damage it has done and that we cannot bend nature to our will

 

[Foxfyre]

We haven't done a very good job of minimizing our impact though have we?

We have dumped countless tons of toxins into the ground and water that we will never be able to clean up.

We have screwed up river courses and turned arable lands to dust so we can grow cotton in the desert

We are even now on the verge of resource wars because we have managed ourselves so poorly.

The earth is a closed system and we are turning it into a cesspool

And this too springs from our arrogance of thinking we are somehow removed from the natural world because of our great intellect. Yet the irony is that that very same intellect is unable to see the damage it has done and that we cannot bend nature to our will

We've made a lot of mistakes yes. Some of them deliberate for profit. Some of them accidental. Some simply didn't understand long range consequences. Some didn't care. Many good intentions have had very bad consequences.

We have learned how to do many things better to minimize the long range impact. Other things still need a lot of work.

Much of humankind has learned to be kind and compassionate and constructive as much as possible. But not all.

I am pretty sure it wasn't only deliberate sin but unintended sin addressed in the Bible:
Numbers 14:18 ‘The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.’

The takeaway is that future generations have to deal with the sins/transgressions/mistakes/unintended consequences of the current generation. It has always been so.

 

[Blues Man]

We've made a lot of mistakes yes. Some of them deliberate for profit. Some of them accidental. Some simply didn't understand long range consequences. Some didn't care. Many good intentions have had very bad consequences.

We have learned how to do many things better to minimize the long range impact. Other things still need a lot of work.

Much of humankind has learned to be kind and compassionate and constructive as much as possible. But not all.

I am pretty sure it wasn't only deliberate sin but unintended sin addressed in the Bible:
Numbers 14:18 ‘The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.’

The takeaway is that future generations have to deal with the sins/transgressions/mistakes/unintended consequences of the current generation. It has always been so.

And that thinking is part of the problem isn't it?

 

[Foxfyre]

And that thinking is part of the problem isn't it?

Sometimes. Not always.

The ability to plan ahead, to realize what are mistakes without personally making them, the ability to regret, the ability to understand more of the factors that go into environment and ecology, cause and effect makes humankind unique among all creatures on Earth. The ability to care about those we've never met, to care about what happens to other species makes humankind unique among all creatures on Earth.

Our mistakes are legion over the history of civilization. We learned from most of them even as the current generation finds ways to make new ones. But as humankind and civilizations have evolved, there has also been good, kindness, caring introduced into the world that otherwise would never have existed.

Raw nature, flora, fauna, humankind, can be unbelievably savage and cruel. That is simply a fact of life on Earth. And there is also nobility, beauty, caring, healing, love.

Humankind is just one of many millions of species on Earth and the only species that has a choice of whether to be cruel and savage or not. Our uniqueness I believe gives us special responsibilities. But we have a right to exist even as we have much more choice in what that existence shall be than any other species.

Understanding all that, in my opinion it is cognitive dissonance to care about plants and animals more than we care about the humans who live among them.

 

[sparky]

It is human arrogance that we believe we can outthink the natural order of things so as to impose our wills on it.

But it is also true that human existence does affect the environment just as the activity of other creatures on Earth affects the environment.

Yet the irony is that that very same intellect is unable to see the damage it has done and that we cannot bend nature to our will

Grand points!
~S~

 

[Blues Man]

Sometimes. Not always.

The ability to plan ahead, to realize what are mistakes without personally making them, the ability to regret, the ability to understand more of the factors that go into environment and ecology, cause and effect makes humankind unique among all creatures on Earth. The ability to care about those we've never met, to care about what happens to other species makes humankind unique among all creatures on Earth.

Our mistakes are legion over the history of civilization. We learned from most of them even as the current generation finds ways to make new ones. But as humankind and civilizations have evolved, there has also been good, kindness, caring introduced into the world that otherwise would never have existed.

Raw nature, flora, fauna, humankind, can be unbelievably savage and cruel. That is simply a fact of life on Earth. And there is also nobility, beauty, caring, healing, love.

Humankind is just one of many millions of species on Earth and the only species that has a choice of whether to be cruel and savage or not. Our uniqueness I believe gives us special responsibilities. But we have a right to exist even as we have much more choice in what that existence shall be than any other species.

Understanding all that, in my opinion it is cognitive dissonance to care about plants and animals more than we care about the humans who live among them.

The natural world is neither savage nor cruel it simple is.

Cruelty requires intent and there is no intent in the natural world.

You keep coming back to the idea that vegans care more about animals than people is that what you believe?

 

[Foxfyre]

The natural world is neither savage nor cruel it simple is.

Cruelty requires intent and there is no intent in the natural world.

You keep coming back to the idea that vegans care more about animals than people is that what you believe?

Cruelty does not require intent. The Great Society and urban renewal initiatives did not intend to be cruel but to make things better whatever the motives to get votes or whatever. But the long range effects have been cruel to many. And the way that animals kill other animals can very often be cruel.

Savagery is savagery however natural it may be.

And yes. Cognitive dissonance is strong when concern for animals is adamant, stressed, demanded while there is support for abortion on demand at whatever stage of pregnancy, when unnecessary policies are defended that are hurting people.

Is that true of all vegans? No. It isn't true of those I know personally and have at my dinner table. But it is true of a great many.

 

[Blues Man]

Cruelty does not require intent. The Great Society and urban renewal initiatives did not intend to be cruel but to make things better whatever the motives to get votes or whatever. But the long range effects have been cruel to many. And the way that animals kill other animals can very often be cruel.

Savagery is savagery however natural it may be.

And yes. Cognitive dissonance is strong when concern for animals is adamant, stressed, demanded while there is support for abortion on demand at whatever stage of pregnancy, when unnecessary policies are defended that are hurting people.

Is that true of all vegans? No. It isn't true of those I know personally and have at my dinner table. But it is true of a great many.

Of course it does

A predator that kills its prey is not cruel. Animals act on instinct and as such cannot be cruel because those behaviors are hard wired into their behavior and the animal has no choice but to act that way. You are anthropomorphizing nature by attaching adjectives like cruel to what is behavior that is in accordance with the nature of the animal or of the natural world itself.

The abortion issue is far more complicated. The legal and ethical question there is if a fetus has all the rights of personhood that we as a society recognize in all born persons. And if you think that at the instant of conception is when all rights or personhood should be granted to the unborn then you are stepping into a mire where it has to be decided what rights of the unborn are put before the rights of the woman and when.

If you want the fetus to have all rights of personhood at the instant of conception then the first thing to be decided is how you want the government to be notified of the existence of this new person that just happens to be unborn at the moment. After all if the government doesn't know a person exists then there can be no protection of that person.

Should the government make it a law that the results of all positive pregnancy tests be reported along with the mother's name address SSN etc? What about the fathers name address and SSN? Should doctors have to supply this data to the government without permission of the mother? What about home pregnancy tests?

And that's just the first hurdle in the fetal rights of personhood argument.