debate

@mariahaise I will try to address your points one by one: -why should healthy people who have never hurt anybody intentionally have to cope with their anger feelings towards people who are taking away their rights? My main point is control of oneself. Coping with feelings of frustration and anger in general is needed for Control. The world will throw slings and arrows at people not just in the form of "people who are taking away their rights" but in other issues as well. One needs to be in control of oneself to adequately deal with these issues. Punching a wall while cathartic would merely result in a damaged wall and, perhaps, a damaged hand. I do not feel this would be conducive with coping with issues such as "people who are taking away rights". -Did you know that in some cases coping with anger through other activities like exercise and meditation can lead to personality changes and a sense of egotism that wasn't there before thus turning healthy individuals into the exact opposite of what they were? I was not aware of that. Perhaps some individuals have adverse reactions toward these traditionally healthy ways of coping with anger. What I do know is that sublimation, the channeling of frustration toward a different perhaps productive use, is a psychological coping mechanism. I don't believe in using it because I feel that it would merely be avoiding the issue causing the anger but it is a coping mechanism people use. I must emphasize that I am not necessarily advocating channeling anger into exercise or coping with it through meditation though I believe these are useful tools. I am merely suggesting that punching a wall is not a healthy way of coping with anger because it leads to damage of the wall and hand and also because it may encourage or even compel one to punch more walls in the future when dealing with anger. @Audio-senpai That's a good point that violence can be an expression of other emotions. I imagine that using violence may encourage this future emotions as well.

Okay rafael since I cant read spanish I did a bit of research on Rousseau's theory of social contract (because admittedly I am not completely informed on his theory) and it is completely different from the theory as Hobbes describes it, which is the version of social contract theory that I was referring to in the debate. Rousseau believed that people were born to pity other human beings in suffering and defended more of a direct democratic form of government, while Hobbes thought that people were completely self serving, and so people would give up a certain set of their rights to protect what they want most. Hobbes version is the version that I was referring to. Since, evidently, using the term "social contract" can lead to confusion, I will summarize my position without using the term "social contract". I extend moral consideration to anything/anyone who is or will be capable of consciously comprehending and respecting laws/rules that we agree as a society would be necessary to maintain a functioning society, such as the idea that we shouldnt kill each other or we shouldnt steal from each other. Since animals aren't really capable of consciously comprehending or respecting these laws/rules, I dont extend moral consideration to them, and so I think it is morally permissible to eat meat.

Well, I agree. Thing is I still wonder where to draw the line? There have been a lot of injustice around where I live and while, I've never really hit on walls hard enough to hurt my hands because that's just overdoing in my own point of view, and honestly I've hit walls and doors like 3 times in my entire life so, when is it a really negative outlet? Here's this: "All of us experienced anger. Anger is a completely normal, healthy human emotion. Anger often serves important functions, such as motivating the individual to take protective action and achieve goal or overcome obstacles but when it gets out of control and turn destructive, it can lead to various physiological, psychological and behavioral problems." https://www.actascientific.com/ASMS/pdf/ASMS-03-0278.pdf -showing links cause I got a bit of time but my cellphone died t.t- Notice how it says "motivating the individual to take protective action and achieve goal or overcome obstacles.". When does the outlet of this become aggressive exactly? If you're suddenly reacting on some inanimate object as a first reaction, like punching your own leg slightly, throwing your hands fast over a desk, or like I said, just punching a wall. For men it tends to play off differently because they usually have greater strength and manifest anger differently than women do, so would it be considered a violent behavior if they were responding directly to some type of abuse? Now, onto the meditation stuff, there are plenty of articles in the net so I don't think I need to really source that. I'm gonna show this though: "Exercise, Can It Reduce Angry Feelings? ...A recent study presented at American College of Sports Medicine's 57th Annual Meeting in Baltimore discovered that exercise might have a beneficial affect on anger in men. The researchers discussed the need for more research in this neglected area of the relationship between anger and exercise. If you think about it, the results make sense because depression is often accompanied by a good dose of irritability and anger. In other words, if aerobic exercise reduces depression it is bound to have a positive effect in reducing anger. However, it is also true that angry outbursts can have nothing to do with depression. There are those people who experience so much rage that they cannot control their impulse to strike out at people.". https://www.mentalhelp.net/exercise/and-anger/ I quote this part specifically because when the need to diagnose with anger issues and poor anger management appears is usually when the person doesn't control themselves and physically hurt others in the process, being the time where they actually need outside mechanisms to deal with this emotion (or therapy). In that case they use aerobic exercises. So, in conclusion, if you hit things hard regularly to cope with anger it might escalate to the point someone else gets hurt yet if it's done ocassionally and in response to an injustice, would that be considered 'normal'? However it could play a negative impact on said individual's mental state in the long run if constantly put under the same pressure? Then what is the line to those acts if somebody isn't ever going to get hurt? I'm not really sure if I'm explaining it T.T I'm saying that you can't just reduce all bursts of anger into the same thing and say people have control issues. Aren't they just being human in those cases?

I think it's normal and human to feel anger at injustice. The expression of that anger is what is up to interpretation. Regarding this: ""when the need to diagnose with anger issues and poor anger management appears is usually when the person doesn't control themselves and physically hurt others in the process, being the time where they actually need outside mechanisms to deal with this emotion (or therapy). In that case they use aerobic exercises. "" When a person is so angry that they cannot control themselves, that is when I think exercise would not work. That is when I feel that something akin to holding oneself back even if it makes one sick would be better than taking any action. Because that suppression would show that the anger is not a good thing and discourage the body from getting as angry in the future. As for hitting things in anger: Even though I consider hitting things normal but I don't do it because I am hurting myself. Even if I do it in small doses and even if I don't necessarily cause bruising to my hands when I do so, I still feel I hurt myself with that act. My solution that I strive for even though I am not perfect is I would strive to find ways to deal with the cause of the anger. Hell, my mom says I should be more angry so that I could take more action against things. I wish I could tell you how to deal with injustice. If I had to do something, I would probably start writing letters and stuff but I am unfamiliar with where you live. Perhaps the people in charge would not listen to a mere letter. Perhaps violence would meet you if you participated in a demonstration. I do not know.

hypotheticals can be unrealistic and it still proves a point. while im not going to say your racist for not being opposed to having someone be your slave (i never mentioned nationality or gender), i will say this is the moral flaw of social contract. it has no morals just as you wouldnt care if a handicap person or a child was raped its morally vacant you say "well i wouldnt want to be a slave" thats why empathy is the baseline of morality, you used it in your statement do onto others as youd have done onto you the golden rule and by extension if you do not allow animals to fall under this, then you can not allow certain humans to fall under this as well, unless you can name what allows all humans moral consideration that animals lack

@ acacia, something id like to add you said "sheer sheep and milk cows" while shearing sheep can be helpful (given its not during a period they would need that wool) a cow must be pregnant to produce milk, they are not like chickens in that they produce milk/eggs all the time to get a cows milk you must take it from a pregnant cow, whos milk is not created for humans, but her calve its immoral to force a cow to get pregnant and then steal the milk that is ment first and foremost for her child imagine if we did this to humans. inseminated a woman, took her baby from her for baby meat, and then hooked her up to a machine and stole the milk she produced (oof Fury Road flashbacks actually)

mio animals do abide by social contracts as i said before with pets, your cat cuddling with you and you feeding it is a part of a contract you both formed animals have their own social contracts in the wild, and even will risk their own lives helping one another what you described mio means that children and mentally handicapped people are not covered under your consideration, so to you it would be fine if children and the mentally handicap were murdered for sport children can not abide by laws, and neither can people of a certain iq level

Lamby your viewpoint takes on more of a deontological approach, where you think that right or wrong should be determined by the actions committed, while I take a more consequential point of view where right or wrong is determined by the outcomes of the act committed. Both takes are perfectly viable, but different, moral theories. However, just because I prioritize the outcomes over the actions doesnt mean it is morally vacant. Also, since there are multiple versions of social contract theory from multiple philosophers which is causing my position to be unclear, for the sake of the debate I am moving on from using the term "social contract" and have described my actual position in an earlier post.

Also, while I dont really extend moral consideration to mentally handicapped people, as discussed in the earlier debate, children are protected because they can grow to the point to where they can consciously comprehend and respect laws. Also, we already, to some extent, put mentally handicapped people on a lower level from most humans. We assign them caretakers, don't really let them make decisions, etc. Are you saying they shouldn't have these restrictions on them?