Back when I was a kid and I heard some one say they were going to give me a licking it meant that they were about to beat me....I would assume that it means the same for a pet/animal?
You've got that right on the euphemisms, lightbringer. I know we're in agreement on that subject from past discussions and I'm sorry for your memories.I guess by changing the words (licking/beating) it made it sound as if they weren't abusing a child. Funny how some don't want to accept that they may be doing something brutal to a child but do it any way by softening the words. Such fond memory's of childhood.
To lie is to express a falsehood with the intention of deceiving (or something like that). In order to deceive someone, you pass off an untruth for truth. But in order to conceive of something is true, you must have an intellect, the very formal object of which is truth.
Animals aren't rational beings. They don't have intellects. They can't be deceived in the strictest sense.
Furthermore, even if it were wrong, it would never constitute an offense against the animal. Animals aren't rational beings, are not subjects of moral law, and have no rights. We have no direct duties to animals.
So you think morality is based on religious laws, rather then on love?“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. (Exodus 20:16 NIV)
So then if we are telling the dog that he is not going to the vet but rather he is going to get a frosty, no. Not immoral. I wouldn't lie to my animals like that because I believe love does not lie to the object of it's affection. However, not immoral.
It is if we give false testimony. If you tell the dog that the sweet lady sitting next to you in church is a slut because her shirt is too revealing, now we are into false testimony against a neighbor. Lying in general is not to be encouraged by if we are seeking set boundaries...
Also, take caution what you say to your pet birds! ;-)
Peace be with you.
The laws may overlap, but I think the intent behind them often differs. We have civil laws against murder to establish and maintain the citizen's right to life (basic to civil peace). We have religious laws against murder because "God said so" (obedience to God). And the general 'law of love' forbids murder because murder is the opposite of an expression of love.You have a valid point. And I may be mixing concepts into a moral Long island... However I do feel that many (I wouldn't go so far as to say most, but many) religious laws are laws that teach us to show love for one another. We are not showing love for our neighbor or our God who commands is to love if we are sleeping with those neighbors' wives and then lying to the judge about it.
However if we are following Gods law we will be showing respect and care for God and others. While love may be more than respect and care, those are the most teachable aspects.
Also the only civil/government laws I am referring to are the most basic laws that simply imply respect of one another such as theft, murder, assault, harassment, etc.
Peace be with you.
The laws may overlap, but I think the intent behind them often differs. We have civil laws against murder to establish and maintain the citizen's right to life (basic to civil peace). We have religious laws against murder because "God said so" (obedience to God). And the general 'law of love' forbids murder because murder is the opposite of an expression of love.
The law is the same, but the ethical imperative it's representing in each case is somewhat different. And the reason I think this is important to note, is to show that civil law is not necessarily moral, nor religiously inspired. While not all religious laws are loving, or beneficial to civil society.