1=1

Yes that's exactly what I am proposing, If a cows ideal "quality" life is equal to say, 0.8, and a humans is 1 (Assuming a human is worth more than a cow), you would try to find the solution that has the highest overall number, the highest being 1.8. So letting the humans eat the cows quickly and painfully, the humans life might be max at 1, but the cows is only 0.1, so the overall is 1.1 which leaves some room for improvement. I hope I am making myself clear with this, I am sorry if I cant convey this idea properly.

First, of all thanks for being reasonable, not saying you were not before, but thanks in general. I guess I was making the mistake of leaving the logic in my head and not putting it out in my posts (rather foolish). So, I would like to think that everyone agrees that for a cows life to be ethically maxed, for the cow, the cow would live the best life possible for that cow. If the cow is literally living the best life possible, than logic would dictate that you could not be any more ethical to it. You can't make the cow's life any better. So, hence, a perfect life for all beings would mean that the ethicality would be maxed for all the beings included. I know this may not be probable or even possible, but I would think If everything was at max happiness for the longest amount of time, you couldn't make anything better. This is a hypothetical situation. You are accusing me of something I never said, I said for the cow that means they more or less die of old age, but if you take the cow and the human into the equation, that would not be most ethical. You would have to balance out the worth of the life of the cow, and the worth of the need of the human. So, as I have said numerous times, I don't want everything to live forever, because that might not be best, in the real world. Thank you for your time, and I am glad I am being challenged in my arguments and ideas. EDIT: I didn't mean to imply I was going to leave the discussion or end the thread by saying "thank you for your time"

I am not saying that the animals should be kept for no reason, I am not saying that. I am just saying in an Ideal ethical world, not ideal for humans or cows, but ideal for ethics, everything would live as long as possible and nicely. I am not saying, keep these cows for no reason and not eat them, I repeat, I am not saying any of that. I agree with you, if you look at my original statement, I am saying exactly that. Also I am not saying it is unethical for things to eat other things to survive, as I have said before. I feel I am being attacked for things I have not said, by numerous people. All I am saying is we should try to max out the ethics in this scenario, so it's best for everyone, all living things.

Good, I understand where you are coming from, and I totally agree that by the definition of "rights" animals don't have them in a majority of places. What I am proposing, is a system based on what animals should have. They should have the opportunity to live, and therefore I am comparing the killing of cows on what the animals should deserve, and not what they recognised rights are. Sorry for the confusion. I will call these "ideal ought rights" as they ought to have them in an ideal world. So I am saying whether killing these cows benefits or hinders the ideal ought rights of the cows. Should we or shouldn't we? P.S: I am sorry if it seemed like I was being aggressive and ignorant. I didn't mean to come off that way.

I see we are having a major problem with the ideal that every living being has a right to live, so maybe you could explain why you have a problem with this? And if you respond as if I am saying "everything must live at all costs" I am going to get rather mad, as I have made a particular point to point out that is not what I mean. Let us get to the resolution of this single question before we continue on shall we?

I think you must be misunderstanding, I am not saying "things must not be killed at all costs" I am only saying that their lives are worth something, and we should take that into account. Stop interpreting my arguments to the extreme, because that is not what I am saying. I do agree with your last paragraph, which is well put I think. I don't see how this is an invalid premise, I think everything's life has worth. If you think a living being's life doesn't have any worth, that's the only way you could disagree with my premise.

Firstly, as I said this is based on the idea that everything deserves to live and be happy, which I think is a reasonable principle. No one is enforcing this, its just a measurement. The hawk's need to live is equal, maybe greater or less depending on specifics such as importance, intelligence, their moral status etc. I wasn't arguing that the animal must not be killed at all costs, only that it's life has worth. I know people kill everyday (most likely) but that doesn't make it right. Since the lives of bacteria are substantially less worthy than a humans, it is usually ignored that we kill bacteria everyday, if there was a way to avoid this, it would be morally right to do so. Also killing flies is morally wrong, minorly, but still wrong, unless it is causing more grief than pleasure, for itself and others. The fact that civilisation grows during these activities doesn't make it morally right. I have to agree that i did make a bit of a jump, let me clarify more. If people did not value the lives of others, something as small as fighting over a sandwich could end in fatal violence, if there were no laws to prohibit these things. But why would there be laws against this if the government and people didn't care about the lives of others? Unless the government realised the potential of its people. I would assume that there would be at least more fatal events then usual. I admit I was unspecific with my original statement. And yes I refer to rights and morals as if everyone excepts them because that's what I am basing this argument on.

Yes, yes they are. We are just focusing on cows for the moment though. Look at my other response to your comment as well, hopefully it will clear things up a bit.

If that's the case am I allowed to kill someone quickly and painlessly than eat them? I know human lives are worth more than a cow's but that makes it less wrong, but still wrong nether the less. If a humans life = 1, A cows life would be worth about an 6 or something. Not 0. Disregarding a cows right to live basically denies a humans right to live. Unless there's something else in the equation I am missing.

The rabbit does have a right not to be eaten by the hawk, they are no different. I am basing this argument on the moral judgement that living things deserve to live. Without that basic principle everybody would be killing as they see fit, and our civilisation would collapse. Also, what I meant by obvious, is that at first glance, a living being should not be killed, referring to the principle stated prior, but as you think about it more in depth, there are more hidden reasons for killing the animal that outweigh the evil of the animals death.

What i meant is that all living things deserve to live and enjoy their life, if they can, without causing more grief than they pleasure they get from their life. If a rabid wolf was going to kill two human being's , killing it would be ethical because it would be saving the lives of two humans which is worth more than one wolf in a rabid state. If it wasn't going to harm anything killing it would be pointless.

So if we find a way to kill the cows without harming the environment or ourselves, it would be ethical? That sounds good to me. Also would it be ethical to decrease the time it takes for the cows to be ready to be harvested? How do we balance efficiency against the cows right to live? Because cows are living things and most likely have feelings.

I was pondering the essence of ethics relating to cows being breed for meat, and came upon a viewpoint which makes it ethically right (as far as I can see anyway). The problem is that the idea of killing cows is obviously ethically wrong at the first glance. However as I thought about it more deeply I thought that if we did not breed these cows, than that they possibly would never have lived. And isn't Living and dying young better than not living at all? Of course the major points of relevance would be: killing age, natural death age (and hence how much of their life are we cutting short), how they are killed and if we could breed them for milk instead but would their be enough demand? Please point out any points I have overlooked, as I would like to clarify this matter.

Another case of first class evidence.

I have to agree that the bible is evidence, very minor evidence and not very compelling either, but evidence nether the less. Also, just because there is a large cumulation of incorrect data, it doesn't make it correct.

Can somebody give a direct answer to my question? I know there have been a few, but lets get this thread back on track shall we?

Still no hard evidence Dovada, which is what I am asking for.

That still isn't any evidence, you still can't prove anything. Anybody could say that. I want hard proof before I accept any of these claims. I would write 770 000 words if I was crazy, or if I wanted to make billions of dollars. Hell I would go start one right now if I didn't think i could commit my life to understanding the world instead. And the book burning thing, that is a complete fail of logic and a big assumption. It would be rather hard to burn all the copies of one book, especially one as widespread as the bible.

I was referring to the claims you have made about being enlightened by the holy spirit, and your reasons for believing in god. I am sorry, I should have specified that. EDIT: I spelt for "foe".

Please, just put out a statement with viable evidence. That's all we need. If you can not do that you need to have another look at what you believe.

What I read was, "I am pretty smart, I don't have evidence, I am right." Pleas please please use some evidence its how things work around here. This is how it looks to me IMO. And i also would like to exclude Dovada from any hijacking charges, as i would like to see him discuss these ideas he has.

If I was a omnipotent god, I would not send a man with his own mind and body to help all those people. I would simply make all the land bountiful and full of food, and take the aggressive behaviour from every bodies minds. Since I was all powerful. And in answer to the question of what god would need to do to prove he exists is to reply to my specific and controlled request, that nothing else could interfere with. And I don't understand where is should have given credit.

I would like to reply to your question. If I was god, in my personal preference, I would make the world fair and loving. I know this would deduct a bit of meaning from life, but it would be worth it. Also, if people did not believe I existed, I would show myself to them and speak to them, not make it exceedingly hard to find me and punish people for favouring the more likely possibility of me existing. I might even favour those people, as the people that believed in me for no reliable evidential reasons would be acting illogically. I think it would be mildly sadistic to set up the world likes this anyway, if I was omnipotent.

If you take that attitude to everything you didn't know, the human race would be no-where.

Since about a month ago I have been having muscle spasms through out my whole body, primarily near joints. In the last week I have also had a sharp pain followed by numbness in the right half of my left hand, middle and pointer finger and thumb. This morning I had paresthesia (pins and needles) in the exact same place where I had the numbness. The muscle spasms are not painful, or extreme, but are visible. I estimate there is something wrong with my nerves, but have no idea what is precisely causing it. I am not stressed and have been getting adequate sleep of 8-10 hours. Would you recommend me seeing a doctor? Is this meant to be posted in biology? Thanks for the contributions.