Grasscity - Cyber Week Sale - up to 50% Discount

A Moral Dilemma....

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Boats And Hoes, Dec 25, 2012.

  1. #1 Boats And Hoes, Dec 25, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 25, 2012
    So... I just killed a grasshopper :hide:.


    It was in my house, and I tried to trap it by placing a cup over it and then sliding a piece of paper under the cup, so that I can let the little guy go outside. As I went to place the cup over the grasshopper I noticed that the edge of the cup snapped both of his legs; I didn't do this intentionally, and I felt really bad. I thought I should still let him outside, and I did, maybe he will persevere with the will of liberty on its side; but it was acting as if it was a person whose just been shot in both of their legs and their arduously dragging themselves across the floor. It was obvious that the grasshopper was not going to able to endure the harsh and cold winters of the eastern united states... so, I thought it would be better to kill him, in a way that would cause the least amount of pain -- I stomped on him as hard as I could:(. I figured ur brain has no time to process pain when it flat as the pavement, and it's gotta be less painful then having to die a slow death in freezing weather.

    I honestly feel bad about this situation; I'm not a Buddhist or anything, I'm just against vain and superfluous killings -- no matter the creature.

    Was what I did wrong? Should I have left the grasshopper subject to the formidable and austere ways of mother earth's winter? Or, should I have killed it? And if so, was my method of execution the best possible way it could of been executed? My mom suggested flushing it... I was like damn, that's cold, momma :smoking::smoking:.
     
  2. Your intention was to have a consequence that in theory would had resulted in the least suffering , and in reality it also would had been the choice that resulted in the least suffering , compared to letting it try to fend for itself in a cold winter with broken legs.

    This brings up many euthanasia issues. Is it morally just to let someone live a long painful life or is it morally just to let someone live a short painful life or short good life? Ignoring the silly "we're not God claim" it largely depends on philosophical positions.
     
  3. Great point... this thread may seem stupid because it's about a grasshopper's demise, but, as u said, it raises arguments which are by essence -- philosophical. This thread can either be about euthanasia issues, as u pointed out; or, it can be an argument about compassion and survival of the fittest... is the grasshopper's death justified simply because of the fact that I'm an animal which is higher up in the hierarchy of nature's creature's? Or, does with great power come great responsibility - How must I utilize consciousness? simply for my own benefit as a subjective Will, or must I recognize myself in other creatures and manifest compassion and sympathy?
     
  4. A better question is whether that grassshopper would extend you that same courtesy.
     
  5. There are people that eat grasshoppers, youre good.
     
  6. #6 Boats And Hoes, Dec 30, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 31, 2012
    Not really...; and I say this because I was asking this question from a perspective which entails a conscious, don't take this word too lightly, human being to contemplate the most justifiable way of action. A human being who is aware and conscious of all his/her power and potential. To extract ourselves from the hierarchy of animals, in order that we can impartially judge the legitimacy of the hierarchy itself -- to see if nature wanted Man to abide by the dog-eat-dog mentality of the jungle?

    The grasshopper knows nothing of empathy (a very important cognitive power); so, a grasshopper probably wouldn't spare me, but that's not important, because this thread is addressed to conscious and vigilant humans, and not to small minded creatures, i.e., grasshoppers and unaware humans.
     
  7. if we only apply morality towards beings that we think would do the same for us , then we'd not be applying morality towards a lot people with mental disabilities and babies.
     
  8. Very true... great point:smoking:.
     
  9. Morality, benevolence, whatever. I think importance is an arbitrary decision, which is the reason for the complete skewing of moral philosophy. To obtain peace of mind, I live by Confucius' golden rule: Do not impose onto others, what you do not wish for yourself.

    That being said, in your position I would have done the same. I would rather be put out of my misery than to travel across the snow with broken legs and no help from my brethren.
     

Share This Page