Investigation launched after Idaho science teacher allegedly feeds puppy to snapping turtle - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53199309]we need to create edible robotic exoskeletons filled with ethically sourced nutritionally balanced protein substitutes that are programmed to mimic the movements of prey animals[/QUOTE] Or just frustratingly throw a piece of a cucumber at a snake and tell it to shut up and eat, but it would probably not agree with the proposition.

[QUOTE=genkaz92;53199253]I will rephrase it more directly. The professor mentally traumatized his students, as a result he should be held responsible for it.[/QUOTE] This is an awful argument imo because said "trauma" is purely based off of custom and you could argue many nasty things if the premises are accepted as worthwhile, regarding race, sexuality, etc.. It's not something objectively traumatic, compared to the other types of life feeding. Although the live-feeding is questionable, especially with how loud it apparently was.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53199363]This is an awful argument imo because said "trauma" is purely based off of custom and you could argue many nasty things if the premises are accepted as worthwhile, regarding race, sexuality, etc.. It's not something objectively traumatic, compared to the other types of life feeding. Although the live-feeding is questionable, especially with how loud it apparently was.[/QUOTE] There is a statistically high probability that the specific group of students to whom he was showing the event were greatly mentally disturbed. It is important not to perceive this perspective as something that has to apply on any large scale, we are talking about a very specific incident. Also what the fuck is "objectively traumatic?" there is no such thing as objectively traumatic.

[QUOTE=genkaz92;53199370]There is a statistically high probability that the specific group of students to whom he was showing the event were greatly mentally disturbed. It is important not to perceive this perspective as something that has to apply on any large scale, we are talking about a very specific incident. Also what the fuck is "objectively traumatic?" there is no such thing as objectively traumatic.[/QUOTE] That was a bad term to use but stuff like rape, murder, etc. are not traumatic just because our culture built them up to be. Mentally disturbed needs qualification and again, it's because of a cultural double standard. And even in that case, the responsible thing to do isn't necessarily to stop the feeding, but it's to not force people to witness it if they don't want to.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53199384]That was a bad term to use but stuff like rape, murder, etc. are not traumatic just because our culture built them up to be. Mentally disturbed needs qualification and again, it's because of a cultural double standard. And even in that case, the responsible thing to do isn't necessarily to stop the feeding, but it's to not force people to witness it if they don't want to.[/QUOTE] This line of reasoning seems to greatly favor promotion of what most people would consider to be evil human behavior as well as complacency. And at some point it is important to draw the line between what is just a cultural thing and what is basic self preservation of a social fabric, unless ofcourse we want to dilute the notion of morality even further and promote mass rape and murder. I am not fond of grey morals personally.

[QUOTE=genkaz92;53199405]This line of reasoning seems to greatly favor promotion of what most people would consider to be evil human behavior as well as complacency. And at some point it is important to draw the line between what is just a cultural thing and what is basic self preservation of a social fabric, unless ofcourse we want to dilute the notion of morality even further and promote mass rape and murder. I am not fond of grey morals personally.[/QUOTE] Allowing culture and custom-rooted trauma to be what's behind morality allows for codified racism, transphobia, homophobia, etc.. You might like it when it's used as a bludgeon against behaviors you [I]personally[/I] don't like, but it's a very faulty grounding for morality. I don't think rejecting double standards are gray morals, which is what's at play here.

In that case what exactly would you have as a source of morality? Describe how reasonably presuming that the professor mentally traumatized a group of students is a double standard.

While its fun to argue over if its morally right or not, has anyone stopped to consider that there's the possibility he didn't feed them a puppy? The article just takes a bunch of kids at face value assuming they could -never- lie or make an incorrect assumption and tries to paint a bad picture of the guy by stating things that are normal because the writers forgot to do their homework. Like the options here are: A) The dude is crazy, fed a puppy to turtles and is going to get booted from the school and be known as a nutcase forever B) The kids saw him feeding the turtles a guinea pig to the turtles as is pretty standard practice and just assumed it was a puppy because fluff and made a fuss over it, not stopping to consider they could be wrong. I know everyone likes to jump at the opportunity to argue but given the choice I'd like to think its just kids being kids.

[QUOTE=genkaz92;53199431]In that case what exactly would you have as a source of morality? Describe how reasonably presuming that the professor mentally traumatized a group of students is a double standard.[/QUOTE]I don't claim to a specific system of morality but I tend to work with some form of restricted utilitarianism. It's a double standard because the "trauma" is because of our cultural double standards with animal treatment. I've already hinted at it but do I really have to spell it out that sexist people, racist people, etc. can be "traumatized" in a similar way and it's still not a moral justification.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53199462]I don't claim to a specific system of morality but I tend to work with some form of restricted utilitarianism. It's a double standard because the "trauma" is because of our cultural double standards with animal treatment. I've already hinted at it but do I really have to spell it out that sexist people, racist people, etc. can be "traumatized" in a similar way and it's still not a moral justification.[/QUOTE] We are not talking about sexist or racist people though. We are talking about a group of students that were raised with the supported notion that dogs are a man's best friend. As a result they observed a man's best friend getting eaten alive by a snapping turtle, which they were most probably significantly hurt by. It is not their fault that they were raised with that impression and it is not their fault that they witnessed an occurrence that they had a perspective towards. Another issue is that utilitarianism kind of sounds logistically improbable to implement in present day society, even in a restricted sense. And it also yet again poses the capacity to promote questionable human behavior.

[QUOTE=genkaz92;53199481][B]We are not talking about sexist or racist people though. We are talking about a group of students that were raised with the supported notion that dogs are a man's best friend.[/B] As a result they observed a man's best friend getting eaten alive by a snapping turtle, which they were most probably significantly hurt by. It is not their fault that they were raised with that impression and it is not their fault that they witnessed an occurrence that they had a perspective towards. Another issue is that utilitarianism kind of sounds logistically improbable to implement in present day society, even in a restricted sense. And it also yet again poses the capacity to promote questionable human behavior.[/QUOTE] The difference is irrelevant because they're working off of the same justifications, and the "trauma" is the same. And no, it's not their fault. I'd refuse to eat dog if offered to me and I'd be quite disgusted. I'm not going to call the person offering it or someone who accepts it immoral or something tho. As I said, in this case he should have offered to let students not witness it if they don't want to. Well I did say "work with," not entirely cling to, it depends on the domain. It's very useful when talking say, economic policy or animal welfare, where speciesism is rampant. Logistics don't exactly matter when talking about what's true, and with increasing efficiency of lab-grown meat, increasing popularity of vegetarianism and veganism, I wouldn't be so sure that this double standard won't break down in the future.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53199508]The difference is irrelevant because they're working off of the same justifications, and the "trauma" is the same. And no, it's not their fault. I'd refuse to eat dog if offered to me and I'd be quite disgusted. I'm not going to call the person offering it or someone who accepts it immoral or something tho. As I said, in this case he should have offered to let students not witness it if they don't want to. Well I did say "work with," not entirely cling to, it depends on the domain. It's very useful when talking say, economic policy or animal welfare, where speciesism is rampant. Logistics don't exactly matter when talking about what's true, and with increasing efficiency of lab-grown meat, increasing popularity of vegetarianism and veganism, I wouldn't be so sure that this double standard won't break down in the future.[/QUOTE] I would say that the difference is still relevant because in one instance we are talking about human beings being repressed from the prejudices of other people, and in this instance we are talking about human beings getting messed up by the actions of an individual who may have done it malevolently or because he had empathy issues. Therefore we have a group of homosexuals or people of a different race getting repressed because of conditioning, and then we have a group of students getting messed up because of a professor who may potentially be a sociopath and to some degree detrimental to social structure because of his lack of sensitivity, which is arguably a significantly more reasonable thing to be against. And honestly I fully support grown lab meat myself, we have to stop killing critters just to eat as soon as possible.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53199426]Allowing culture and custom-rooted trauma to be what's behind morality allows for codified racism, transphobia, homophobia, etc.. You might like it when it's used as a bludgeon against behaviors you [I]personally[/I] don't like, but it's a very faulty grounding for morality. I don't think rejecting double standards are gray morals, which is what's at play here.[/QUOTE] I think inflicting fear or disgust and inflicting emotional pain are two separate things. When a child empathizes with an animal, and then you cause that animal pain, you are, in a sense, inflicting that pain on the child. When we empathize with something, we are subjecting ourselves to what we believe to be its experiences. Continually exposing children to things they empathize with suffering creates an association between empathy and distress. This is what people mean when they say "damaging". It's the same as giving them an electric shock for smiling or sharing their toys. You're punishing good, healthy behavior. On a side note, this is probably why people are bothered by people who don't empathize with animals that are more humanlike. When someone isn't affected by emotional expressions or cute features in animals, that tells us they're less likely to be affected by those same things in humans. The problem isn't making people feel bad, the problem is teaching people not to empathize by associating empathy with pain or extreme distress. I'd actually say that making kids feel bad is practically half the job of being a parent. People are naturally cautious, and putting kids into situations where they might feel distressed so that they can learn [I]they don't have to be[/I] is very important.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53199525]I think inflicting fear or disgust and inflicting emotional pain are two separate things. When a child empathizes with an animal, and then you cause that animal pain, you are, in a sense, inflicting that pain on the child. When we empathize with something, we are subjecting ourselves to what we believe to be its experiences. Continually exposing children to things they empathize with suffering creates an association between empathy and distress. This is what people mean when they say "damaging". It's the same as giving them an electric shock for smiling or sharing their toys. You're punishing good, healthy behavior. On a side note, this is probably why people are bothered by people who don't empathize with animals that are more humanlike. When someone isn't affected by emotional expressions or cute features in animals, that tells us they're less likely to be affected by those same things in humans. The problem isn't making people feel bad, the problem is teaching people not to empathize by associating empathy with pain or extreme distress. I'd actually say that making kids feel bad is practically half the job of being a parent. People are naturally cautious, and putting kids into situations where they might feel distressed so that they can learn [I]they don't have to be[/I] is very important.[/QUOTE] I see what you mean, I'm still hesitant to say that him feeding the dog in itself is a particularly immoral action compared to the rest of the feeding. But aspects like this are a mental prison, so damage is there. [QUOTE=genkaz92;53199520]I would say that the difference is still relevant because in one instance we are talking about human beings being repressed from the prejudices of other people, and in this instance we are talking about human beings getting messed up by the actions of an individual who may have done it malevolently or because he had empathy issues. Therefore we have a group of homosexuals or people of a different race getting repressed because of conditioning, and then we have a group of students getting messed up because of a professor who may potentially be a sociopath and to some degree detrimental to social structure because of his lack of sensitivity, which is arguably a significantly more reasonable thing to be against. [B]And honestly I fully support grown lab meat myself, we have to stop killing critters just to eat as soon as possible.[/B][/QUOTE]put the spooked kids aside for a sec. is feeding a guinea pig as bad as the dog if no one were "traumatized?" And what about if it were a pig?

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53199540]I see what you mean, I'm still hesitant to say that him feeding the dog in itself is a particularly immoral action compared to the rest of the feeding. But aspects like this are a mental prison, so damage is there. put the spooked kids aside for a sec. is feeding a guinea pig as bad as the dog if no one were "traumatized?" And what about if it were a pig?[/QUOTE] Personally I am against the fact that a snapping turtle was being fed any living creatures in general. So in a way yes. In order to remove all moral ambiguity it could be assumed that killing living creatures for food of any even remotely equal development is equally wrong. So if a snapping turtle was fed some synthetic meat or as scorpio mentioned earlier, a puppet stuffed with synthetic meat imitating a real rodent, it would be a significantly less problematic situation. Even feeding a fake puppy stuffed with synthetic meat would not be a problem, it would certainly be a bit on the morbid humor side but no real puppies would be hurt. however it would have to be very obviously a fake puppy because a realistic fake puppy would still be potentially fucked up to watch.

[QUOTE=genkaz92;53199552]Personally I am against the fact that a snapping turtle was being fed any living creatures in general. So in a way yes. In order to remove all moral ambiguity it could be assumed that killing living creatures for food of any even remotely equal development is equally wrong. So if a snapping turtle was fed some synthetic meat or as scorpio mentioned earlier, a puppet stuffed with synthetic meat imitating a real rodent, it would be a significantly less problematic situation. Even feeding a fake puppy stuffed with synthetic meat would not be a problem, it would certainly be a bit on the morbid humor side but no real puppies would be hurt. however it would have to be very obviously a fake puppy because a realistic fake puppy would still be potentially fucked up to watch.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. The main thing that annoys me in these sorts of cases is the fixation on the doggo and minimization of the suffering/immorality involved in feeding other animals. Animal feeding in general isn't a very pleasant thing that is sometimes necessary for exotic pets.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53199593]Fair enough. The main thing that annoys me in these sorts of cases is the fixation on the doggo and minimization of the suffering/immorality involved in feeding other animals. Animal feeding in general isn't a very pleasant thing that is sometimes necessary for exotic pets.[/QUOTE] Most certainly, it gets completely retarded when using pigs as an example, with them reportedly having exactly the same or even greater cerebral capacity than dogs, but all in all it doesn't matter which one of the species or smarter or dumber, it's all equally dumb and we should get rid of animal suffering

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53199540]I see what you mean, I'm still hesitant to say that him feeding the dog in itself is a particularly immoral action compared to the rest of the feeding. But aspects like this are a mental prison, so damage is there. put the spooked kids aside for a sec. is feeding a guinea pig as bad as the dog if no one were "traumatized?" And what about if it were a pig?[/QUOTE] Personally I don't think you can reasonably argue in favor of moral consideration for things that are incapable of understanding the concept of morality. I don't think there's a moral difference between feeding a snake a bunch of dead rats or a single live deer. You just run into too many weird moral obligations if you start with the axiom "causing or allowing suffering is wrong". The reason you don't want people torturing animals capable of expressing humanlike emotions is because of the negative effect it has on people's ability to empathize. We should condition people to care about the feelings of animals, because doing so allows them to more easily care about the feelings of other people. Empathy is an important part of the glue that holds society together, and the more capable people are of utilizing it, the more likely they are to treat each other in a fair and just way.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53199613]Personally I don't think you can reasonably argue in favor of moral consideration for things that are incapable of understanding the concept of morality. I don't think there's a moral difference between feeding a snake a bunch of dead rats or a single live deer. You just run into too many weird moral obligations if you start with the axiom "causing or allowing suffering is wrong". The reason you don't want people torturing animals capable of expressing humanlike emotions is because of the negative effect it has on people's ability to empathize. We should condition people to care about the feelings of animals, because doing so allows them to more easily care about the feelings of other people. Empathy is an important part of the glue that holds society together, and the more capable people are of utilizing it, the more likely they are to treat each other in a fair and just way.[/QUOTE] I think that it is important to view animals as more than just convenient tools to teach humans to not be dicks towards each other. There is no moral difference between what the snake is being fed because both of those actions can be interpreted as being equally wrong depending on the circumstance. The best idea would be to just use the replacement meat all the time to make it as certain as possible. There is nothing inherently wrong with having certain moral obligations when it comes to not making animals feel like shit. We know that they can feel pain and terror and we know that are capable of feeling suffering.

[QUOTE=genkaz92;53199634]I think that it is important to view animals as more than just convenient tools to teach humans to not be dicks towards each other. There is no moral difference between what the snake is being fed because both of those actions can be interpreted as being equally wrong depending on the circumstance. The best idea would be to just use the replacement meat all the time to make it as certain as possible. There is nothing inherently wrong with having certain moral obligations when it comes to not making animals feel like shit. We know that they can feel pain and terror and we know that are capable of feeling suffering.[/QUOTE] Building your moral framework around the idea that suffering is intrinsically bad and we are morally obligated not to cause or permit just doesn't work out in reality. For example, pets would be a horribly immoral thing under that framework. Literally all you're doing is producing more animals that will potentially suffer. And while torturing animals would be bad, it would mean that you could go around killing them arbitrarily as long as you're doing it in a way that doesn't cause them pain. You could make the argument that enjoyment and happiness also have moral weight, and things are fine as long as happiness and suffering are balanced in some way. How you could even compare them aside, the problem there is that for most, if not nearly all animals, happiness is contingent on the suffering of other animals. Whether that means predators that enjoy hunting, or herbivores that enjoy stripping an environment of resources, or even animals like dolphins or ducks that enjoy raping other animals. Suffering being bad needs to derive from the axiom that life capable of respecting morality has the right to self determination, with causing suffering being a violation of that right. You cannot reasonably obligate yourself to protect the feelings of amoral things.

I am not saying that all suffering is inherently bad because happiness could become meaningless if all suffering was eliminated. At the same time getting rid of certain manifestations of it could have plenty of merit, including the forms of suffering that arise from us having to eat animals. As to the happiness of some animals happening because of other's suffering, one of the objectives would be to gradually eliminate unnecessary suffering in the wild as well. This is venturing into far future/science fiction territory. but gradually transforming the Earth biome so that no species hunted and killed each other in general could be an interesting ecosystem to observe. In terms of producing pets it is difficult to venture into that topic without sounding inherently anti life or anti existential. Is it immoral to produce more life that is capable of potentially suffering or is it desirable to create life that can potentially feel happiness as well as suffering? Killing animals arbitrarily without causing pain is sort of complicated from a suffering perspective. Hence why I am not trying to imply that all manifestations of suffering are wrong. An animal may feel pleasure from whatever was used to make it fall asleep before it was killed, and an animal may feel pain from waking back up and having to walk around dumbfounded.

[QUOTE=genkaz92;53199804]I am not saying that all suffering is inherently bad because happiness could become meaningless if all suffering was eliminated. At the same time getting rid of certain manifestations of it could have plenty of merit, including the forms of suffering that arise from us having to eat animals. As to the happiness of some animals happening because of other's suffering, one of the objectives would be to gradually eliminate unnecessary suffering in the wild as well. This is venturing into far future/science fiction territory. but gradually transforming the Earth biome so that no species hunted and killed each other in general could be an interesting ecosystem to observe. In terms of producing pets it is difficult to venture into that topic without sounding inherently anti life or anti existential. Is it immoral to produce more life that is capable of potentially suffering or is it desirable to create life that can potentially feel happiness as well as suffering? Killing animals arbitrarily without causing pain is sort of complicated from a suffering perspective. Hence why I am not trying to imply that all manifestations of suffering are wrong. An animal may feel pleasure from whatever was used to make it fall asleep before it was killed, and an animal may feel pain from waking back up and having to talk around dumbfounded.[/QUOTE] This is what I'm saying. Outside of being able to wave a magic wand and have all suffering disappear magically, the solutions to moral dilemmas that that axiom would push you toward are really weird. It functionally ceases to be a moral framework at all because you can't use it to weigh the morality of different actions because the results you end up getting are so bizarre.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53199844]This is what I'm saying. Outside of being able to wave a magic wand and have all suffering disappear magically, the solutions to moral dilemmas that that axiom would push you toward are really weird. It functionally ceases to be a moral framework at all because you can't use it to weigh the morality of different actions because the results you end up getting are so bizarre.[/QUOTE] I don't really believe that it's all that bizarre. But I understand that it may appear that way.

[QUOTE=genkaz92;53199849]I don't really believe that it's all that bizarre. But I understand that it may appear that way.[/QUOTE] no I mean outside of the magical world where we put every single living animal into some virtual simulation to prevent them from harming themselves or each other That solution is just impossible, it isn't bizarre. Sterilizing every animal on earth that isn't necessary for its local ecosystem to function to minimize the existence of unnecessary suffering is bizarre.

That is not quite what i meant but I understand that what I am saying is pretty outlandish, nevertheless I had to share the thought anyway.