The remote control cockroach

[None of the above]

Im not trying to shake anyones beliefs , a simple yes or no would have done just fine

Bull fighting , c*** fighting , dog fighting etc is what i would class as immoral , if you are going to include cockroaches , you had best forget about walking on grass again , how many bugs does that kill ?

Tip.

It's simply a variation on the usual argument that those opposed to a moral or ethical stance wheel out to try and undermine it.

And it just doesn't.

It's a big concept and I don't blame you for not quite 'getting it'. It's certainly not about accidentally stepping on a bug.

If you want base your personal morality on being able to devalue any ethical point to whether you could make someone compromise an ethical stance based on that point given enough duress or consequences sufficiently dire, then you don't need to stop at torturing insects.

But whatever the hypothetical result, what you certainly don't prove is that the act itself is any more 'ethical'.

Which is why the question is 'not a serious one'.

[None of the above]

Compared to all the other animals I would think they would be pretty impressed with us.

Only if they came here with the intention of slaughter.

Then they might well look at the endless species we've made extinct and the way we have exterminated the majority of the worlds predatory species and be quite impressed.

[Lilly]

I really don't think cockroaches are in danger of extinction. Neither are the domestic animals humans eat.

I guess one could make a moral argument regarding killing anything. Be advised though, there's some research indicating even plants may have rudimentary sensation....doesn't leave much to live on does it?

Basically, nature is predatory, lifeforms use other lifeforms to live,

[Junior Chubb]

I really don't think cockroaches are in danger of extinction. Neither are the domestic animals humans eat.

I guess one could make a moral argument regarding killing anything. Be advised though, there's some research indicating even plants may have rudimentary sensation....doesn't leave much to live on does it?

Basically, nature is predatory, lifeforms use other lifeforms to live,

Wow! When vegans start to only eat synthetic food, what are they going to call themselves? Thetics?

Hang on Lilly, are you taking us off-topic?

[Lilly]

Hang on Lilly, are you taking us off-topic?

Not trying to...trying more to focus on the natural order of things verses ones personal dietary choices. Various species use other species, that's nature. Humans using cockroaches (or other animals) isn't really contrary to nature. Now, wiping out an entire species that's contrary (pretty horrible actually).

[Junior Chubb]

Not trying to...

Good girl, I wouldn't like to have to come down hard on you.

Various species use other species, that's nature. Humans using cockroaches (or other animals) isn't really contrary to nature.

Indeed, there are lots of relationships in the natural world, most are positive for both parties. This might not be positive for both parties, but I don't see any mistreatment going on here, well no more than with other animals we manipulate into working for us.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Junior Chubb

[tipotep]

It's simply a variation on the usual argument that those opposed to a moral or ethical stance wheel out to try and undermine it.

And it just doesn't.

It's a big concept and I don't blame you for not quite 'getting it'. It's certainly not about accidentally stepping on a bug.

If you want base your personal morality on being able to devalue any ethical point to whether you could make someone compromise an ethical stance based on that point given enough duress or consequences sufficiently dire, then you don't need to stop at torturing insects.

But whatever the hypothetical result, what you certainly don't prove is that the act itself is any more 'ethical'.

Which is why the question is 'not a serious one'.

Its a thin line and I don't agree with you but i have to admire you for your stance

Personally I think it would be a good thing if it can save lives , and I'm sure the majority of people would agree .

Have a great day ! ( or night ) depending on where you live .

TiP.

[None of the above]

I really don't think cockroaches are in danger of extinction. Neither are the domestic animals humans eat.

I guess one could make a moral argument regarding killing anything. Be advised though, there's some research indicating even plants may have rudimentary sensation....doesn't leave much to live on does it?

Basically, nature is predatory, lifeforms use other lifeforms to live,

The question is one of morality and ethics. Such concerns are not influenced by whether a species is rare or plentiful.

To point out the evolutionary imperative 'survival of the fittest' is a truism, what exactly does it have to do with human concepts of morality?

Edited September 11, 2012 by Atlantia

[None of the above]

Its a thin line and I don't agree with you but i have to admire you for your stance

Personally I think it would be a good thing if it can save lives , and I'm sure the majority of people would agree .

Have a great day ! ( or night ) depending on where you live .

TiP.

Fair play.

Best Regards

Atlanita

[Ashotep]

I have a hard time worrying about the treatment of cockroaches. They have been around forever and outlasted the dinosaurs and will probably outlast humans. What is a bigger concern to me is how will they be used.

[Lilly]

The question is one of morality and ethics. Such concerns are not influenced by whether a species is rare or plentiful.

Well, my personal sense of what's moral and ethical has a great deal to do with whether a species is rare of plentiful. For example, I wouldn't hesitate to eat a domestic chicken, but I would not eat any bird on the endangered species list.