/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5947391]

Is animal sacrifice for religious purposes unmoral?

[Anonymous No.5947396]

mama wots 'unmoral' mean?

[Anonymous No.5947400]

the smell of burning animal bones pleases god, it can't be immoral

the old testament is so fucking awesome, honestly

[Anonymous No.5947404]

Only if it isn't performed properly by an official member of ZZ Top.

[Anonymous No.5947406]

does it matter?

[Anonymous No.5947421]

>>5947396
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unmoral

[Anonymous No.5947451]

>>5947391
Not so much immoral as it is pointless and stupid.

[Anonymous No.5947869]

It's immoral in the sense that you kill an animal for nothing. It's like shooting some caged deer and then putting the carcasses in the trash. That's worse than hunting and leaving the animals in the woods, that way you at least became better at hunting.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5947897]

>>5947869

an animal sacrifice often supposes that you will eat the meat of your victim, it's not only in hellenismos

[Anonymous No.5947908]

>>5947869
In that case it's moral.

[Anonymous No.5947910]

>>5947391

do jews still do this lol

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5947922]

i believe their only temple is still ruined and so they only stick letters to their god to a single remained wall there (which i suppose a palestinian janitor sweeps away later)

they cannot rebuild it due to some religious and political motives

[Anonymous No.5947931]

>>5947391
Who has the ultimate say in what's moral or not when considering this question?


Is it someone's God? My own interpretation? Your moral standards? American moral system? The religious people in question?

[Anonymous No.5947936]

>>5947869
>It's immoral in the sense that you kill an animal for nothing
How is killing an animal for nothing immoral?

[Anonymous No.5947981]

>>5947936
Destroying food.

[Anonymous No.5947987]

>>5947981
How is that immoral?

[Anonymous No.5948001]

>>5947981
We already produce enough food to feed the entire planet, the producers just through out a lot because the people who need it can't afford it. I don't see how buying and destroying food it wrong.

[Anonymous No.5948002]

>>5947987
Food is necessary for survival, so lowering the amount of food is not rational. There has to be at least SOME reason, like training for hunting, pest removal etc. Even if there's an excess supply of food, it would not change the fact that you lower that supply without any benefit.

[Anonymous No.5948006]

>>5948001
As I just said, excess supply has nothing to do with it, the fact remains that the total amount is lowered without any reason, making it ethically wrong.

[Anonymous No.5948010]

>>5948002
So morality means 'helpful to the survival of something'?

[Anonymous No.5948014]

>>5948006
If you didn't buy the food for sacrifice, it would be destroyed anyway.

[Anonymous No.5948016]

>>5948010
The survival of the species as a whole. Does not necessarily apply to every individual, not even to every community. But the species as a whole is holy.

[Anonymous No.5948018]

>>5948002
>l. There has to be at least SOME reason
Uh, religious use is a reason, neckbeard.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5948019]

any wasting increases the global entropy

[Anonymous No.5948024]

>>5948014
It would not be destroyed by yourself in that case, so it's not your fault. Furthermore, if you don't over-consume, the production will go down as well which may be a good thing.

[Anonymous No.5948030]

>>5948024
>It would not be destroyed by yourself in that case, so it's not your fault
I could have bought it, so it is my fault.

> Furthermore, if you don't over-consume, the production will go down as well which may be a good thing.
Production won't go down because food producers get massive subsidies to ensure production doesn't go down.

[Anonymous No.5948032]

>>5948018
There has to be a VALID, RATIONAL reason. God is dead, don't feed him. You could argue that rituals strengthen community ties, but communities feeding a dead god are subhuman.

[Anonymous No.5948041]

>>5948030
Subsidies are wrong if they only cause overproduction. So if you buy it it would still not be your fault. Furthermore, you're weakaning yourself financially in the process. Wrong too.

[Anonymous No.5948046]

>>5948041
I mean, AS LONG AS YOU DONT BUY IT it would be not your fault.

[Anonymous No.5948048]

>>5948016
How is that so? What makes life 'holy'? Could you define holy?

[Anonymous No.5948057]

>>5948048
Life goes against the entropy gradient. But it's mostly an axiom.

[Anonymous No.5948058]

>>5948046
Yes it would because then the food would be wasted and children are starving in China. I could stop the waste, but I don't, I don't buy as much food as I possibly can to stop it from going to waste. I let the evil continue.

[Anonymous No.5948065]

>>5948058
They would starve anyway because nobody will transport the surplus. But the production of the surplus is a problem in itself. Earth is a closed system and overproduction can hurt it, thus hurting the species.

[Anonymous No.5948072]

>>5948065
Since buying the food to sacrifice doesn't contrinute to overproduction, and you don't think it's practical for me to transport the surplus (but that's not the issue of hunger so much as people can't AFFORD food, famines account for a relatively small part of hunger), then basically you're saying it's "wrong" because I'm wasting money on religion?

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5948079]

>>5948065
if you don't buy the surplus it decreases its demand and eventually production

[Anonymous No.5948084]

>>5948072
But buying food you then destroy DOES contribute to overproduction because you still need the same amount of food to feed yourself, thus you need more food. The financial aspect is there as well, you spend money on a senseless action.

[Anonymous No.5948087]

>>5948079
Yes, and that's a good thing because it lowers the stress on the environment.

[Anonymous No.5948101]

>>5948084
Department of Agriculture determines production of food, not the free market. If a thousand people stopped eating altogether, it wouldn't be enough to affect policy here, and if a thousand people bought twice as much food, that wouldn't affect policy either.

[Anonymous No.5948111]

>>5948101
Subsidies are wrong in almost all cases, as I have already said. Still, as long as you don't buy these subsidies you are not at fault, it's those who allow them. Plus, if consumption goes down, it will put pressure on them.

[Anonymous No.5948134]

>>5948111
The Department of Agriculture would control production regardless of subsidies.

You don't "buy" subsidies, subsidies just means money the government gives farmers so the farmers can afford to produce far more food than they could profitably sell.

>Plus, if consumption goes down, it will put pressure on them.
No, it won't.

[Anonymous No.5948142]

You're dealing with tens of thousands year old traditions here and for that you'd have to study each case to understand its context. From the point of view of people who see themselves above animals, eat animals and so on, of course it is perfectly moral. To a secular society it is immoral because the purpose of it is deemed as void, etc.

This >>5947869 is an example of this highly ideological secular and anthropocentric point of view. When it is about religion or art, it is mistakingly said to be "for nothing", which speaks more about the person's view on art and religion rather than one's opinion on animal killing. Meanwhile, eating animals is considered moral because biological purposes are ultimate and cultural purposes are null. Of course, this is only the excuse of ideology at its service, because animal eating itself is a cultural thing and not a necessity.

While we could argue on whether killing animals is moral or not, when you include this condition of a purpose, we are left only discussing the validation of the purpose itself. Is killing someone in revenge moral? Is the killing of an outlaw by a law enforcer moral? Is killing someone for cannibalism moral? Is it moral to kill a violent oppresive dictator? And so on. You'd only be talking about which reasons justify the doing.

This would be a very different debate if we were to agree on the purpose. For instance, within a religious system like Christianity, or Buddhism, you'd have priests and scholars debate on whether it is moral or not to kill animals in sacrifice or for eating. Or within the scientific community there must be scientists in favour or against animal testing. They all agree and understand the purpose, but disagree on the method.

When animals are injured in the making of a movie or in a cultural festival, animal protection agencies often make the loudest noises. Even though a lot of those people also fight against the massive scale of animal slaughter for the food industry and testing of cosmetics and pharmacals, those things are well accepted as "necessities", while the first examples are seen by most as superfluous. Perhaps it is us who are not taking our art, religion and culture as "serious" as we could. In my opinion, it is just as important as our food (which, again, is also cultural).

[Anonymous No.5948143]

>>5948134
But even IF they continue producing more than anyone needs, as long as you don't buy and then destroy it, it would be not YOUR fault.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5948156]

>>5948134
firstly it works differently in different countries and secondly a significant change in the demand can change the production and/or its price anyway regardless how it's regulated

>>5948142
>When it is about religion or art, it is mistakingly said to be "for nothing"
when somebody makes something like this from sugar it's for nothing

[Anonymous No.5948161]

>>5948143
Since buying it and destroying it doesn't contribute to production, it wouldn't be my fault anyway.

[Anonymous No.5948163]

>>5948156
>a significant change in the demand
How many people would have to sacrifice animals for that to happen?

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5948165]

>>5948163
imagine your example can make it trendy

[Anonymous No.5948171]

>>5948161
I get your point, but you would still be part of the system. Furthermore, it's very questionable that they won't lower production if the consumptions goes significantly down. In the case of OPs pic, it's a living animal, which has a pretty long shelf-life as well. It's likely to end up on some plate.

[Anonymous No.5948174]

>>5948165
It can't, I'm not a celebrity.

[Anonymous No.5948178]

>>5948163
>How many people would have to sacrifice animals for that to happen?
A lot. Doesn't change the ethics.

[Anonymous No.5948182]

The question is not whether its moral (of course it isn't) but whether its reasonable, which it isn't.

As >>5947981 says, killing the animal is impractical because it's a waste of food. Not to mention you might get blood on your hands and make a mess of wherever you choose to perform the sacrifice. The sacrifice is likely to cause you a number of problems without any tangible benefits.

[Anonymous No.5948183]

>>5948171
The animal burning is clearly the leftovers from a meal (in Judaism, the priests have three days to dine on the presented sacrifices, they burn what's left), and the minor sacrifice bird (merchants used to sell birds in temples for that) is probably not something you'd eat.

[Anonymous No.5948190]

>>5948178
Yeah, it really does. If you're only eating what you need to live, but sacrifice on top of that, you're more ethical by your system than quite a few people in the country. Unless you think it's not unethical when it's fun, in which case the people eating more than they need to live would not be ethical. But I know you're not silly enough to say something being fun makes it ethical.

[Anonymous No.5948194]

>>5948183
In that case it could be that the results justify the means, the results being the improvement of communal ties. Still, it's an empty gesture.

[Anonymous No.5948198]

>>5948190
>would not be unethical

[Anonymous No.5948200]

>>5948194
>sharing your meal with God as a guest is an empty geusture

[Anonymous No.5948204]

>>5948190
Fun can only be ethical if it's used as a motivational force and there are no serious drawbacks (like medical issues caused by obesity). Still, being frugal and not sacrificing is better then being frugal and sacrificing. Frugal not necessarily in the sense of ascetic.

[Anonymous No.5948215]

>>5948204
>Still, being frugal and not sacrificing is better then being frugal and sacrificing.
Why? So I can sacrifice my quality of life to one abstract spook with zero cultural value instead of one with significant cultural value?

[Anonymous No.5948229]

>>5948215
The species is not a spook. Being frugal and having a low population is better for the long-term survival of the human race. As a matter of fact, we should not eat meat at all and sterilize 95% of people. Humanity reached quantum physics in the early 20th century, and there were maybe 500m people living is industrial societies then. We don't really need more than that.

[Anonymous No.5948258]

>>5948229
>The species is not a spook
Yeah, it actually is, unless you think there is a Geist for mankind as Hegel does.

[Anonymous No.5948260]

>>5948229
>sterilize 95% of people.
You going to volunteer?

[Anonymous No.5948262]

>>5948258
There may be a Geist for sentience.

[Anonymous No.5948267]

>>5948262
Not going to factor that into how I live my life unless there is strong evidence for such a Geist.

[Anonymous No.5948268]

>>5948260
Protip: you don't need to volunteer, it will just happen. Dead people are sterile after all.

[Anonymous No.5948273]

>>5948267
That aside, the biological species is a hard fact.

[Anonymous No.5948277]

>>5948273
Yes, but treating them as a monolithic entity is highly spooky.

[Anonymous No.5948293]

>>5948277
I get your point, but evolution seems to prefer at least some basic cooperation inside of a species. Even predators usually don't prey on each other. A spook is usually something like a faulty abstraction.

[Anonymous No.5948322]

>>5948293
Predators don't prey on each other because carnivore meat tastes awful, and because it's way more fucking dangerous than just chasing. But give carnivores much larger groups and the brains to enslave each other, and you will see plenty of conflict.

[Anonymous No.5948327]

>>5948229
I always like when you post, Yokohama poster, but you have to understand that there'sa difference between what would be a functional model and one that could actually appear in a real society. If you're aware of the distinction it's all cool.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5948329]

>>5948273
>the biological species is a hard fact
they are rather scientific constructs, fluid and vague

[Anonymous No.5948331]

>>5948322
Indeed, cannibalism is an option with higher primates. Still they usually don't. Also, while some branches of the human race may vanish over time, interbreeding is an option, creating a more monolithic entity.

[Anonymous No.5948340]

>>5948331
They don't, but I'm saying there are other incentives for war, they just aren't smart enough to access them. Taking slaves was a huge incentive for ancient conflict, if predators were intelligent enough to make slaves of each other and force the slaves to do all the hunting, they would be doing that. They're just not smart enough to do that, and in fact they'd "lose" evolution to us, a lot of them would, if we didn't protect them with laws; otherwise most great predators would be wiped the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.5948343]

>>5948327
We'll see. 7bn people and still breeding, unchecked by predators and governments. That's not a stable system, it will definitely lead to some major changes. Granted, annihilation is much more likely.

[Anonymous No.5948345]

>>5947400
Why hasn't there been a blockbuster movie series based on the OT yet?

Staring Arnie as Moshe.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5948349]

>>5948322
>Predators don't prey on each
pretty sure they do, that's especially typical in water ecosystems

also
>because carnivore meat tastes awful
lol no, taste isn't the reason

the energy quickly disappears the higher your go in a food chain so there are very few apex predators, few predators of some kind, a lot of herbivores and a ton of herbs
also animals usually are limited to hurt other ones of their species, they either can flee from each other or have a strong instinct against intraspecies violence etc

[Anonymous No.5948385]

>>5948343
There is more food being wasted than used and many points of extreme masses and consumption have been historically bad for crops and still stand (middle east, central africa). If anything we're gonna see a serious return of african economies on the hand of the Tutsis before we need to worry about sustainability. We're way too good forcing the earth to do shit, most of the "soy sucks all the nutrients" "we're gonna turn our fields into deserts" is just people not wanting to pay for artificial nutrients and historical cases that happened almost 100 years ago.

Sadly all we have to look forward is a slow social evolution in some silly direction until the system stops working some 300 years in the future. At least that's how I see it. We really blew it when we chickened out with WW3

[Anonymous No.5948410]

>>5948385
The curve still looks pretty much exponential, and it's not sustainable in the sense of global biological stability, not even in the next 100y. Unless Africa becomes economically efficient, then we may indeed get another 200y. But it's never too late for WW3.

[Anonymous No.5948438]

>>5947869
It's not really different from hunting and eating.

When you hunt, you kill an animal for pleasure, namely the pleasure of taste and that of settling your hunger.
When you sacrifice, you kill an animal for pleasure, namely the pleasure of spirituality and righteousness.

Why is one better than the other?

[Anonymous No.5948456]

>>5948410
Don't worry so much about it. These problems have a habit of fixing themselves. In industrialised countries birth rates have a habit of stabilising them selves. In poor countries famine and food shortages raise the death rates and they're incapable of threatening any developed nation. The only real thing driving the population growth is developing countries. However a country can't stay in the developing stage forever. Either they join us first world countries or they fuck up and go back to being a poor country doesn't matter the growth rate will still drop. There's a reason why most organisations like the UN believe that the earths population will stabilise at about 10 billion.

[Anonymous No.5948457]

>>5948410
>Africa becomes economically efficient,
If anything it is too efficient, they need a decent goverment that can make each country work autonomously. Right now most citizens are self regulating their numbers by killing opposing tribes over and over while being supported by the UN (the hutus raped and killed 800.000 tutsis and as soon as they got a reaction the UN sent troops and Bono made speechs, hilarious stuff). Just my country could feed all of Europe, food will never be a real issue until some company wants to exploit it more. But it will be an economical thing, not an efficiency issue.

This isn't a discussion in terms of people being happy, just how long can the system (and the empires that support it) last as it is right now before extreme meassures are even considerable.

[Anonymous No.5948467]

>>5948456
>However a country can't stay in the developing stage forever.
You clearly don't understand this stuff. Every country where a first world company can buy cheap labor is a developing country. At the same time, the countries with the higest birth rate are the ones with poor people being killed daily (Palestine, Brasil, China).

I'd like you to bring up a couple developed countries, that went from working it to fully first world. Let me remind you that the international bank has been giving money to developing countries and telling them how to use it since 1944 so they should had fixed at least one so far.

>>5948457
Forgot to add a cute pic, still better than having a trip.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5948475]

>>5948467
>I'd like you to bring up a couple developed countries, that went from working it to fully first world.
japan, south korea, japan used to sell their workers to the whole word much like china in 19th century, they still live in brasil etc

[Anonymous No.5948510]

>>5948475
>Japan, south korea
Their economy was saved by local industries and economic support from the government and direct american pressence. When the three world divide was invented they were already candidates for first world.

>sell workers like china
China does that to keep population outside the country while making sure other countries don't create jobs thanks to them. I understand that it's debatable if it's a 3rd or 1st world country. If anything China had been an empire for a millenium, had a couple rough centuries and is comming back to its rightful spot.

>they still live in Brasil
Chinese workers you mean? Or are you bringing up Brasil as another example?

I don't like those cases, I really feel it's not the same as Congo, Hungry, Serbia, Colombia, countries that have sucked much more international money and keep comming out worse than they were before; but if you're cool with that you're cool because I like you kitty.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5948520]

>>5948510
>Chinese workers you mean?
the descendants of japanese workers

[Anonymous No.5948522]

Its regrettable, but justifiable for the sake of their future predicting guts.

[Anonymous No.5948528]

>>5948520
Well, in my country we have descendats of italian, spanish, bolivian, peruvian, chilean, chinese, german, and many smaller groups that aren't that easy to notice.Every country did and does that. China made it into a state regulated system, because they are control freaks like that.

[Anonymous No.5949005]

>>5947391
It is immoral to refuse the Gods a sacrifice.

[Anonymous No.5949089]

>2015
>believing in Morals

[Anonymous No.5950751]

>>5948467
>China
>Large birth rate
Pick one faggot.

You're just being retarded. As more of the Chinese population has moved into the cities and become richer their birth rate has plummeted. The same thing has happened with Brazil.

[Anonymous No.5950756]

>>5949005
Good thing he hasn't asked me to sacrifice.

[Anonymous No.5950808]

>>5947391
It's immoral because it shows a lack of faith in Christ.

If you sacrifice animals, you're not accepting that our Lord sacrificed himself for us and that it is sacrifice alone that redeems us.

[Anonymous No.5950958]

Immoral in the secular sense, I don't know. If it's taken in the secular sense then definitely. It's mad idolatrous to think you can please God or have any effect whatsoever on God through your human behaviours, and especially since God does exactly what he wants and you cannot predict the way in which God will react if it were possible to know God's mental state.

[Anonymous No.5951402]

>>5950756
Even better no man on Earth has ever been asked to sacrifice another living thing and people do it literally only because their elders did it

[Anonymous No.5951418]

>>5951402
I can tell you haven't smoked PCP.

[Anonymous No.5951456]

>>5948345
They recently made some big budget movies based on the story of Noah and Exodus, but they suck gigantic dick.

[Anonymous No.5951474]

>>5951456
They had Dobbsman, he's a terrible actor.