Are You Good?

[path_of_one]

Horses and dogs are slaves, what about humans? What would a horse or dog actually want if freed to respond to their own natural instincts?

I don't think of my horses or dogs as slaves. They are inherently pack/herd animals that will elect a leader and are happiest when it is not themselves. They don't think like we do. They don't respond with happiness or longevity when they have control.

Horses, when free to respond to their own natural instincts, want to do nothing. They greatly enjoy standing around doing nothing. And eating. That's pretty much what they do. This is also mostly what they do if they're kept as pleasure animals. The thing is, horses when they're treated well often like to be ridden and be around people. My horses nudge the gate when I come and call to me. They're happy to work with me. But I respect what they are, and we spend a lot of our time hanging out doing nothing together.

But conversely, a human is not like a horse or dog, and while we have the need to be social, we also have the need to have control. We "tick" differently.

For me, my whole point in what is good is that it doesn't have much to do with society directly. I'm trying to be freed of my shackles so I can see my life more clearly, and my place in the cosmic flow, if you will, in every moment. This is entwined with liberation. If I'm being driven by social conditioning, I can't be free enough to open to the cosmic flow, so the first part of the process is to come to know who and what I really am and to learn strong boundaries so that I am not being pushed around by the dominant social order (or another other order, for that matter).

 

[citizenzen]

I don't think of my horses or dogs as slaves.

Then tear down their fences and let them come and go as they please.

Then let's see how long your slaves remain on the plantation.

 

[path_of_one]

Then tear down their fences and let them come and go as they please.

Then let's see how long your slaves remain on the plantation.

First, it wouldn't be legal.

Second, there is a difference between enslavement and protection. We as human beings have altered the environment, building highways, train-tracks, and other such technology that kill animals.

People (I hope) don't consider their children to be slaves, but neither do they let them run across the road.

Furthermore, unless you are suggesting that horses and dogs enslave each other in their natural social order (as they both do have heirarchical natural social orders), then enslavement is something different from leadership.

Finally, I will put forth that on the occasion that one of my horses got loose, years ago, he went to the hay and ate, then went back to his corral. And the few times our dogs have escaped, they chased bears then returned to the front porch to wait for us. I did research on cattle ranches for several years, and many let their extra horses run free with the herds during gathering/driving. They didn't run off into the Sierra Nevadas, never to be seen again. They hung out with the horses being ridden. Apparently, they like the plantation.

 

[citizenzen]

First, it wouldn't be legal.

I'll bet that's the same excuse the plantation owners used in the old south.

People (I hope) don't consider their children to be slaves, but neither do they let them run across the road.

Okay. Wait until your horse reaches adulthood, then tear down the fences.

Finally, I will put forth that on the occasion that one of my horses got loose, years ago, he went to the hay and ate, then went back to his corral. Apparently, they like the plantation.

See? No need for the fences.

 

[path_of_one]

I think you know as well as I do that your logic is absurd.

There are "fence-in" states and "fence-out" states. California is a "fence-in" state in which a livestock owner is legally responsible for fencing their livestock in.

It was always legal to release slaves. Since cities sprung up, it has never been legal to release livestock. I sort of find it appalling that you even compare the two, which hearkens back to a rather disturbing way of viewing humans.

And I'm pretty sure you know as well as I do that a dog or horse never reaches the cognitive capacity of an adult human being. But perhaps you really think it would be most kind to simply turn all of our domesticated animals out into the wild and let them starve, be hit by cars, and otherwise injure themselves (as well as endangering the lives of people in the process).

Then again, I think you are just bored and nit-picking with unsuitable analogies.

 

[citizenzen]

Then again, I think you are just bored and nit-picking with unsuitable analogies.

I'd say, just poking you with a stick.

But you do show a prickly side in your attempt to defend yourself.

I think that stick hit a tender spot.

 

[path_of_one]

I'd say, just poking you with a stick.

That's what I figured. Thanks for the honesty. Now I am confirmed in my suspicion that your posts are not serious, and I should take some or most of what you have to say with a heap of salt.

But you do show a prickly side in your attempt to defend yourself.

I think that stick hit a tender spot.

I have my prickly sides like anyone.

There are people who use these analogies and mean it. I've read PETA tracts, for example, that propose all sorts of rubbish about domesticated animals that are entirely ungrounded in biological reality. Considering that I've seen feral horses that were emaciated, crippled due to lack of hoof care, and with poor conformation making them unadoptable... I've seen people who let their dogs run wild, leaving them to be hit on the highways... yeah, it does hit a tender spot to suggest that lack of care of the animals we've domesticated is "kind" or "good."

I've worked with horses that were neglected to the point that they became dangerous and were nearly sent to the slaughterhouse. Dogs that were neglected until they were dangerous to the point of being put down. I've picked up a lot of starving animals who were left to run free and I've picked up animals who had been run over and were dying so they'd at least die with someone to care about them, in a space where they wouldn't be repeatedly injured.

My own animals are rescues. My Rottie was 50 lbs underweight when he came to us because someone thought it a good idea to dump him out somewhere and let him fend for himself. It took him years to fully recover trust. So, yeah, discussions about how it's "enslaving" domesticates when we make sure they can live healthy and happy lives rather than abandoning them to a world to which they are no longer evolutionarily suitable touches a nerve.

I'm a sensitive gal. I've seen a lot of animal suffering, and I've on occasion put myself in harm's way to try to restore broken animals to wellness. There are real ignorant people out there who aren't just trying to goad someone on a message board- people who really do believe that it's acceptable to let animals take their chances in a world of freeways and county animal shelters that will euthanize them for being "free." There is a real world of overpopulation of cats and dogs, and on the ranges, of mustangs. There is a real world of animals who are starving, who are hurt, who are unadoptable because they were not properly taken care of.

So... yes, you did hit a tender spot. I consider animal neglect and suffering to be a serious topic.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Since I started this I should probably say something. An analogy never stands on two legs, unless you're Glenn Beck, LOL! In a world altered and controlled by humans, humans have a responsibility to care for animals, especially domesticated animals which they have bent to their will. I spent a number of years training horses so I understand and agree with what Path is saying. My point wasn't about animals, it was about humans being treated like animals in service of a so called common "good" which deprives them of personal choice. Children need boundaries to feel secure within the functionalism of how the world of humans works, but are those boundaries themselves intrinsically good, or are they a protection against the intrinsic evil of the social model? Is teaching children to do as they are told, line up just so, refrain from speaking unless they are spoken to and so forth an exercise in goodness, or is it simply to make them manageable for the institutional power structures to which they are subjugated? This is the question I'm asking.

Chris

 

[Quahom1]

Well are you?

I am going to make it easy and ask you to describe only 3 events that would define you as a good person. Or for any resident recidivists and lawyers in the house the 3 things that would define you as 'bad'.

I am not going to answer it myself before before giving it some thought...

Why the philosophy section? Well hopefully this will steer in this direction.

1. To act in a manner that best benefits another, despite how one feels.
2. To know you are no better than others, but could be much worse, so you strive to improve self.
3. To look to the higher power (that which is greater than us), for guidance, enlightenment, encouragement, and forgiveness for not always making the grade.

Or as someone else once said:

Charity/Love
Hope
Faith

Faith, Hope, Love...these three, define thee...but of these, the greatest is Love.

 

[17th Angel]

No, no- 17th... that would be you. You're the dog-dude, I'm the horse-chick.

Though my dogs are pretty happy too. I must confess, though, I'm better at being alpha mare than pack leader. My Rottie sees it as his job to protect me, so he mostly listens, but if he thinks I really need protection, he doesn't.

lol But you are acting in a manner which would be seen as in harmony with that Realising from the said disciplines and actions you take as a leader are in the big picture for the good of the rest. That is commendable.

As for your Rottie taking on the protection role in non needed situations you should make sure you claim leadership clearly in those situations, just dealing with my sisters dog now who also thought it was his job to do so, bit the postman :O lol... That needs fixing.

 

[wil]

I'm not as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was.

 

[citizenzen]

I'm better than some... worse than others.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Well are you?

I am going to make it easy and ask you to describe only 3 events that would define you as a good person. Or for any resident recidivists and lawyers in the house the 3 things that would define you as 'bad'.

I am not going to answer it myself before before giving it some thought...

Why the philosophy section? Well hopefully this will steer in this direction.

I'm don't know that I'm either good or bad. Good and evil are a great deal like light and dark; there are many shades in between. Where does darkness end and light begin? Same with hot and cold, good and evil, etc.

I prefer to think of life in terms of what is wise and unwise for our world. Then again, I'm not sure if anything is absolute anymore, except for maybe change.

 

[greymare]

I'm not as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was.

LOL, love that song Wil!!!

 

[wil]

LOL, love that song Wil!!!

Yes I should have credited Toby Keith...but he was the singer....he and Scotty Emerick, were the song writers...Burt Reynolds is credited as first using the line in some show in the 80's but....who was the screenwriter that wrote that?

I guess I still can't accurately credit it...

 

[sonisis]

There's a couple of interesting points that have struck me.

Firstly, China Cat Sunflower talked about children being taught to act in certain ways. I feel that much of these things we learn as children are mainly to fit in to a fixed societal model. We are taught to behave in certain ways that are culturally acceptable, but don't necessarily have any positive or negative effect in terms of our biology, only within the particular culture.

But, at the same time, children act impulsively and majoritively on feeling and fearlessly. This is a primitive (though more pleasurable) way of being and if this carried on in to adulthood we would all still be acting as animals, defending land and resources by fighting eachother. (I think there was a study on children and to what extent they seek to own things such as toys, and regardless of background they all sought to 'possess' things). So we do need the rational side, which comes at the expense of our own personal urges and feelings.

I think as a species we are making this transition at the moment where we are trying to harmonize our feelings and urges with a rational understanding of how the human race functions and survives on the planet.

But this means we need to consider the race as a whole. I've always felt in any moral situation you can either think of the individual or you can think of the greater good, as exemplified by the question:- "You can save 1000 people, but you must kill one person in order to do so, what do you do?".

Once you start thinking like this, it becomes very difficult to determine what is 'good', as what is good for one person may conflict with what is good for another.

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

Gatekeeper>don't know that I'm either good or bad. Good and evil are a great deal like light and dark

We can't say so. Good differs from bad, so to say. We can't say "I don't know". Even if we discuss only the ethical side of the question, we must be certain about that. You say - like light and dark. Agreed. But we cannot forget what is dark and what is light. They've got some obvious difference. The same are the good and the bad side of Ethics.

sonisis>Once you start thinking like this, it becomes very difficult to determine what is 'good', as what is good for one person may conflict with what is good for another.

No. Your message is informative but I can't agree with its ending. At the end, you were talking about some certain profit that someone could find of Ethics. Ethics as the science of good and bad (that differs us from animals, as you said) is rather determined in its definitions.
Good is always about the other people, bad is always about one's own profit. If someone suffers - it is bad, but if he suffers making 1000 people not to suffer, then it is good. As in your words:
>"You can save 1000 people, but you must kill one person in order to do so, what do you do?"
Even if you'll kill (but you must be sure that the positive effect will be obvious) - Ethics won't be damaged... only in a case if in this act will be no egoism.

 

[betty]

I don't know if I am a good person but at least I know that I'm not bad...Cause I always try not to hurt my peers, and even if I do so I don't do this on purpose...

 

[Ben Masada]

Well are you?

I am going to make it easy and ask you to describe only 3 events that would define you as a good person. Or for any resident recidivists and lawyers in the house the 3 things that would define you as 'bad'.

I am not going to answer it myself before before giving it some thought...

Why the philosophy section? Well hopefully this will steer in this direction.

A self confession of being good is already not good. It would make of one self-righteous, which carries the connotation of being unrigheous. The agent to evaluate if or how good one is must rather come from outside of oneself. Even to oneself, one should not attribute the virtue of being good
or righteous. It would be tantamount to a self-conceited attitude, which
sounds abhorrent to commonsense.
Ben

 

[Etu Malku]

I am pure Evil . . . but I keep it under control . . . muwhahahahah!!