Why is PETA so bloody dam stupid.... [Archive] - Page 2

Aepervius

15th June 2009, 09:43 PM

This is a comically weak, misguided argument. "Rationality" here is narrowed to self-interest and omits exogenous factors such as... morality.

Counter-example: Roark's fifty bucks short on the month's rent. He'd prefer to spend this Sunday hanging out with friends watching the big game, but he's already reluctantly agreed to do yard work for Mrs. Regan up the street. He hates yard work, but needs the money. On the way to Mrs. Regan's he spots a wallet, opens it up and... score: eighty-five bucks. No one around in sight. What's the "optimal" solution?

From the perspective of narrow, self-interest, Roark could pocket the wallet, and go watch the game. Never mind he's breaking a promise and stealing money. (Yes, you could have a strained follow-up: Roark could get caught! Jim may fall short on the rent next month and Mrs. Regan won't help him out. Ah, but Roark is a prudent predator.)

Also, MORE KNOWLEDGE and MORE PLANNING applies to non-vegetarians who consume free-range for moral reasons. Furthermore, you're talking about vegans living in a meat-eater's world. If it was a vegan world, then meat-eaters would have to hunt down their food, and the planning, knowledge, and dangers (not least of all the fact it's illegal) would render that diet less "rational" and "suboptimal." Anyway, I'm sorry simple morality does not extol the virtue of laziness: an unknown ideal.

If this was a vegan world we would not have this conversation. If Paris was small enough we could put it in a bottle. If Igf If. Well there is no IF ehre. We are omnivore. EAting mass farmed meat is easier and we are more adapted to it than having a full vegan diet. So it is more rational (as in : optimal) than a vegan or vegetarian or whatever diet. We evolved that way. What next ? Want us to have a citrate only diet to prove a point ?

What do you introduce HUNTING in the debate ? You want to compare with old time or prehistorical time ? That is stupid as we are speaking of TODAY. But since you want to speak of prehistorical time :

Omnivore/ Hunter gatherer knowledge and planning = Making pointy things and kill animals, gather what sort of fruit and plant are good to eat. Then move on when climate or weather is getting toward winter.

Full Vegetarian Planning : knowing what plant to plant , knowing what type of ground to use, knowing WHEN to harvest, HOW to harvest, knowing how to have a sedentary farming lives (including protection against weather & climate).... Way way more complicated than hunting and gathering. Pretending otherwise don't make it so. And you have to INVEST more time.

Within context of having to hunt its own stuff, please demonstrate that farming is more optimal for an individiual.

And if we are not speaking of hunting, (mass faerming and mass cattle) then it is even MORE optimal to have cattle grow on non farming land (plenty of it). If you think that all land is able to grow wheat and other vegetable, I have bad news for you...

Now onto morality :

The main problem with that is , morality is neither absolute, nor it is a non-personal thing. What you are doing ehre is define MORAL by what YOU think is moral. Some people think women showing their face is AMORAL. Do you agree ? I disagree. Well some people the same think eating meat is amoral and you apparently agree, but I disagree.

Morality is a very very weak argument to hold for veganism or whatever, But this is the SOLE the argument you people have, because on the optimal rationality , you biologically lose.

The_Animus

15th June 2009, 11:09 PM

So what? Isn't wanting to be treated in any way the result of evolved and natural desires?

Why should I care? Isn't empathy the result of evolved and natural impulses (sense).

Aren't the wants and deisres of another the result of evolved natural impulses? So what if it oppresses? So what if it controls someone?

Why should I care?

If we divorce all feelings and natural tendancies and desires from our forumlation then I don't see how we can formulate morality. Do you?

Couldn't everything and anything we do or think be considered a natural tendency or evolved impulse simply because we do it and therefor it is impossible to answer your question?

It seems to me that morality can only come about as a result of a conscious intelligent entity which has control over its actions. Without that there is no morality at all. As a conscious entity you are able to care what happens to you and would wish that others not cause you harm or interfere with your life and the choices you make. Morality comes from understanding that others wish the same thing for themselves and that if you expect it for yourself you best be prepared to do the same for others.

That's all I can think of at the moment.

PETA are idiots, but on the quality of the responses posted here, it seems a large number of people on this forum are too.

Sadly in the last few pages people have repeatedly brought up arguments that have already been addressed, and continue to ask questions that they could answer themselves if they stopped to think about it for about a couple minutes.

Yes, it's natural, but it isn't bad because its natural any more than feeling happy is good because its natural.
Suffering is bad, basically by definition. It is those things that beings (I say "beings" because I think this includes not just humans, or other animals, but can eventually include computers, if they are programmed in a similar way to us). As I was saying, suffering is that which beings experience as bad.

I know that it is bad because I know that I don't like it when I suffer.
Given that other things also experience suffering in the same way, it is also bad when they experience it.

None of this requires the naturalistic fallacy.

But we don't even need the logic. Because I am pretty sure that everyone else I talk to agrees that their own suffering is a bad thing. In that case, its not up to me to show that the suffering of others is also bad: it's up to them to show that there is some meaningful difference between their suffering and that of others.

I think Roboramma makes a very good point.

RandFan

15th June 2009, 11:25 PM

Well, obviously meat-eaters are just so much more tolerant Actually, in the case of your hypo, yeah.

Yeah, I know! You're right, as usual. The fantasy involves not peaceful co-existence, but people who go hunting and then get caught. Yeah, suckahs!

P.S. Why do we lock up people for rape?Eating meat is the equivalant of Rape?

People co-existence means locking people up who disagree with you?

Thanks for being such a great object lesson.

RandFan

15th June 2009, 11:29 PM

No.No.

No.No.

The argument of the form "X is natural, therefore X is morally good" is fallacious.And I've moved beyond that but it's obvious that you've got an ax to grind and don't care about anything but your own ego.

That's fine but it is this kind of stubborn arrogance that puts PETA types at odds with even many if perhaps not most liberals. Your not interested in anything more nuanced than a single argument that you blast away with. It's that simple minded "I'm only right and everyone else is only wrong and don't bother me" that puts you on par with the George Bushes of the world.

Don't engage me. You, with Cain, make for great examples of extremist arrogance.

Redtail

15th June 2009, 11:54 PM

Specifically for cows it's not as much, but for all animals we eat I can name a few. We spend money, labor, resources, and land for pretty much all animals we factory farm. There is breeding, steroids, antibiotics, taking care of the animals, feeding them (which for cows isn't as intensive because of grass, but nonetheless we grow large amounts of crops specifically to feed the animals we eat), dealing with sickness, their shelter, the facilities to kill and process them, the added requirements necessary to ensure safety of meat products as well as storage, branding, advertising, and I'm sure there is far more than that but to give you specifics I'd have to look up the figures. You can say that some of these things apply to plants as well, and that is true, but not as much, and what applies to the plants we grow for ourselves also applies to the plants we grow for feed for animals.

Sorry for the delay things got hectic.:)

Well until you look up the figures, how can you make that call? (I haven't read the rest of the thread yet so sorry if you have and presented them.)

Well yes, I was just trying to point out that when we do this to animals it's no big deal, but when done to us it suddenly becomes this great evil. And this sort of thing is portrayed repeatedly in various books, stories, movies, etc.And?

I suppose I can't say for sure unless it happens. I probably wouldn't stop for the rabbit or cat as it would be almost certain they would be dead. I can honestly say I'd probably cry at having killed them, especially for the cat. I love cats. I would stop for the child, partly because the child has a greater chance of being alive and being able to be saved, and partly because I grew up in this culture and so like everyone else I've been cultivated to see human life as more important. However the problem with this question is two fold. One, if I don't stop for the child and notify the police I'm creating further legal problems for myself because of the difference our societies laws place on the value of animals and people. And two, my own personal inclinations have no relevance as to what is morally right or wrong. If human life is worth more than animals there should be a reason, not simply because I feel more for the human.Ah, so it's a legal/moral issue?Well we know the legal side so why is an animal's life morally equal to a human's?

I'd have to disagree. Might equals right implies that whoever has the power gets to decide what is right and what isn't. You stated that we are the top of the food chain and therefor we get to decide whether it is right to cage, kill and eat them. I think that your top of the food chain post is a different argument and that these last 2 statements pose 2 new arguments.Ok, so where does "might equals right" not show oppression?

One, that the life a factory farmed animal lives is basically the same as it would live if it were not being cultivated as food.Waaaaay wrong! the search for food would be much harder.

ETA: I have to say again for the record, when PETA stops killing animals because they feel it's more dignified than living at a no kill shelter I'll pay more attention to what they have to say.

RandFan

15th June 2009, 11:54 PM

:)

Damn, I was beginning to wonder.

Thank you very much for the response.

BTW: The long post was not really necessary. I've posted many, many thousands of posts on this subject and nothing you've posted is new to me and nothing you've posted is anything that I haven't said myself many hundreds of times. But that's fine.

Robo, it's not my intention to condescend so please excuse my tone if I come off that way. I'll try and avoid doing so.

Yes, it's natural, but it isn't bad because its natural any more than feeling happy is good because its natural.

Suffering is bad, basically by definition.Ok, so:

Suffering is by definition bad (we evolved to experience certain things as painful or causing discomfort).
I assume that you would also agree that when others suffer, observers can also suffer because they experience the suffering of others (see mirror neurons) also an evolved sense.
Why?

Isn't it because this evolved sense helps to protect our genes and aid in social cohesion (see The Selfish Gene)?

In this interview (http://richarddawkins.net/article,3941,Steven-Pinker---The-Genius-of-Charles-Darwin-The-Uncut-Interviews,Steven-Pinker-Richard-Dawkins) with Pinker. Dawkins notes, and Pinker agrees, that morality is an evolved sense (a lust as Dawkins states).

So, so far we have A.) personal suffering and our ability to experience the suffering of others (empathy) as a negative experience (bad) and this feeling of pain or discomfort exists to facilitate genes and B.) Our sense of morality exists for the self same reason.

Ok, so here is the clincher, if I sense that any behavior is bad why is that, or would that sense be wrong? (FTR: There is an answer as to why it could be wrong, I believe it could be wrong, but I'll let you respond. The point is that the issue is a bit more nuanced than many would like to consider or perhaps even admit).

{rest of post snipped}

Robo, I'm happy to get back to the rest of your post but we need to resolve this issue first.

Ok,
I'm stranded on a dessert island with my family and some strangers.
After a few months it becomes clear that water and other resources, while sufficient for my family to survive, are currently diminishing and will not hold out for everyone.
My moral sense is to protect my family.
This moral sense will likely lead me to conflict and even bloodshed in order for my family to survive.
That moral sense exists because it is natural.
Question: Are any of my sensed (evolved) rules of behavior (such as, it is moral to put the needs of my family above others) wrong simply because they are natural (please note: I'm not arguing that these rules are right because they are natural. I'm asking you if the argument X is wrong because it is natural is valid?

RandFan

16th June 2009, 01:37 AM

Couldn't everything and anything we do or think be considered a natural tendency or evolved impulse simply because we do it and therefor it is impossible to answer your question?Yes to the first but I'm not sure why the conclusion would follow.

It seems to me that morality can only come about as a result of a conscious intelligent entity which has control over its actions. Without that there is no morality at all. As a conscious entity you are able to care what happens to you and would wish that others not cause you harm or interfere with your life and the choices you make. Morality comes from understanding that others wish the same thing for themselves and that if you expect it for yourself you best be prepared to do the same for others.I like this very much.

I've no contempt for ethical vegans or any kind of vegan or vegetarian for that matter. Certainly not wanting to cause suffering in others, be it human or animal, isn't a damnable thing. In fact, I think it likely that such sentiment very likely to increase over coming generations. I think farming meat using live animals (as opposed to growing it) will peak and wane. I don't mind that.

My point is that due to modern technology and farming we have the luxury to set aside some of our natural inclinations and can choose not to cause suffering in animals. We can formulate a different morality with different priorities if we choose to and I'm not opposed to activists who work toward that goal.
Two points though:

I don't personally view the eating of meat as immoral.
PETA is an idiotic organization that is smug, self righteous and self defeating. They and folks like them (including some in this thread) view all others through their narrow world view and see anyone who doesn't view the world the same as deficient in character and will rely heavily on personal attack and invective. They are absolutist and extremist who see divisive politics as an ends in and of themselves (note the rhetoric that is sure to follow from Cain. Smug and self righteous and heavy on the elitism and the idea that anyone who doesn't agree with him is stupid, beneath him and immoral).
That's all I can think of at the moment.Thank you. It's fine. Much more than some. :)

shawmutt

16th June 2009, 01:46 AM

My point is that due to modern technology and farming we have the luxury to set aside some of our natural inclinations and can choose not to cause suffering in animals.

The problem with this premise is that even with modern technology and farming animals still suffer. Animals such as deer, rabbits, geese, etc. all need to be controlled or will overpopulate and decimate crops. Furthermore, the combine, plow, etc. does not brake for animals.

RandFan

16th June 2009, 01:52 AM

The problem with this premise is that even with modern technology and farming animals still suffer. Animals such as deer, rabbits, geese, etc. all need to be controlled or will overpopulate and decimate crops. Furthermore, the combine, plow, etc. does not brake for animals.Oh, I agree 100%.

There is no utopia for animals. And let's be honest. Animals in the wild suffer. Nearly all die (eaten alive) shortly after birth. Those that survive that little holocaust will likely die before maturity. Animals in the wild must contend with exposure, disease, predation, etc., etc. There isn't much of any dying of old age in the wild.

Factory farming of meat can and often does provide safe haven and medicine for animals. Though to be sure much of the factory farming isn't exactly paradise.

In any event, that aside, you are correct. We can at best reduce suffering, not eliminate it.

RandFan

16th June 2009, 03:25 AM

As I was saying, suffering is that which beings experience as bad.It occured to me that there is some ambiguity and I'd like to clear it up if you don't mind.

My mother experiences pain and a good deal of suffering during her physical therapy and it has taken a great deal of prompting from my father and my siblings and I to keep her from quiting. Does the fact that her physical therapy is "bad" make her therapist immoral?

Ok, of course not. The point being that unnecassarily caused suffering is immoral. My point here is that the notion of "bad" and "immoral" are a bit more nuanced than we might at first note. "No pain no gain" as the saying goes. We sometimes need to suffer in the short term (dentist, surgery, physical therapy) to enjoy long term benifits.

Also: I want to get your take on Kevin Lowe's argument.

It can't be that "what makes rape wrong" is that we "naturally" feel an aversion to it. That would just be the naturalistic fallacy yet again. In otherwords, moral sentiment is, in and of itself, a naturalistic fallacy.

You just gotta love that.

But here is the problem: Why do people apeal to our sense of morality at all if we divorce all emotion from the equation? So what if someone is suffering? Why should I care? If I don't suffer or "feel" any empathy or compassion then what on earth is the point? It's no sweat off of my back. Perhaps I can profit from it?

No, in the end, as Dawkins, Shermer, Pinker and others note, we must rely on our own internal sense of right and wrong. This isn't to say that we can't also reason to shape that sense. We can and should but reason alone is insufficient to formulate morality. Empathy, compassion, the desire (or as Dawkins states "lust") to do good. These are requisite for morality.

The Painter

16th June 2009, 03:46 AM

Question: Do you think it's OK to harm cows for fun?
Follow-up question: Do you think it's OK to harm plants for fun?

Define "fun". Fun can mean a wide range of things to different people. A cow for example. Some people think cow tipping is fun. I not sure if this actually harms the cow but it does surprise it.Others think feeding a cow a handful of hay is fun, this can result in overfeeding and harm the cow.

So without your specific definition of "fun", It is impossible to answer. While you're at it, define "harm".

Tapio

16th June 2009, 04:38 AM

But why is raising millions of animals to slaughter and eat them wrong, Cain?

In my opinion, what's wrong in (see highlited part), has more to do with this (http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp) than morals.

Now, if you find some part of the data provided through the link inadequate, please do present evidence of the contrary. I want to know.

thaiboxerken

16th June 2009, 04:52 AM

In my opinion, what's wrong in (see highlited part), has more to do with this (http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp) than morals.

We're talking about the morality of killing livestock to feed humans, are we not? We are not talking about a secondary effect of global warming, which is not actually a scientifically proven result. Let's take this down to a smaller level. Is it ok to kill one cow to feed a famil for a few months?

Cain was using an appeal to extreme to support his position that eating meat is wrong. I'd rather go to the core of the issue, is killing animals other than human, for consumption, wrong?

Also, the relevance of livestock raised effect's of global warming has not been established fact.

Tapio

16th June 2009, 05:44 AM

We're talking about the morality of killing livestock to feed humans, are we not? We are not talking about a secondary effect of global warming, which is not actually a scientifically proven result.

When I tried to edit my previous post my computer crashed, so I couldn't fill in the parts I'd liked to, which deal with what you correctly addressed.

The point was not so much the link with global warming, but the morals behind (see highlited part of previous post).

What I'm talking about is more like (from the same link):

The world's cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people—more than the entire human population on Earth. About 20 percent of the world's population, or 1.4 billion people, could be fed with the grain and soybeans fed to U.S. cattle alone...

...meat consumption is an inefficient use of grain—the grain is used more efficiently when consumed by humans. Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, creating competition for grain between affluent meat-eaters and the world's poor

So my answer to...
Let's take this down to a smaller level. Is it ok to kill one cow to feed a famil for a few months?

...is, yes, it's reasonably ok.

Cain was using an appeal to extreme to support his position that eating meat is wrong. I'd rather go to the core of the issue, is killing animals other than human, for consumption, wrong?

In the case of 1 cow per family for a few months (which is still waay more meat than needed, if other food is also provided) I don't feel it's necessarily wrong. But the way things are at the moment globally, yes, I feel it is wrong. However, there are still so many different points of views to address regarding this issue, that a yes/no answer doesn't feel satisfying to me.

Cuddles

16th June 2009, 06:35 AM

Well, obviously meat-eaters are just so much more tolerant

I've never heard of a single person who thinks everyone should be banned from eating vegetables. I've heard of plenty, and actually met several, people who think everyone should be banned from eating meat. Who's more tolerant, the ones who eat a certain diet and don't try to dictate what anyone else does, or the ones who want to force everyone to eat the same diet as themselves?

GreNME

16th June 2009, 07:35 AM

Careful with your words here. You just said there is a biological need to eat meat, which is factually false.

No, that's NOT what I said, and your constant insistence to jump to conclusions is what makes your posts come off as pretentious and self-righteous, quite the antithesis of the reason you're claiming.

There is a biological drive to eat meat, sure. A biological advantage in eating meat, sure. But there is not a biological need to eat meat. Cats are obligate carnivores, they need to eat meat. We aren't obligate carnivores and we don't need to eat meat.

The reason your comments here are false is that this is not a binary, yes/no, on/off type of issue. Just because you insist it's black and white does not make it so. The only way "we don't need to eat meat" works is with caveats, which makes stating it without the caveats either false or misleading.

There's this intellectual construct some of us humans engage in called "rationality". We find "rationality" works out well for us so we like it. One of the hallmarks of rationality is something called "consistency". If you are being inconsistent, you are being irrational.

And here comes the typical black-or-white definitions of what is rational or irrational. In your next reply, I'd like for you to answer the following questions: do you accept that there is even the possibility that two (or more) opposing sides of an argument could both be rationally based? Further, do you think that they could have equal amounts of rationality?

Now if you are going to run an argument of the form "X is natural, therefore X is okay", and you want to be a rational human being, you have to be consistent about embracing this argument. You have to endorse the claim that this argument works for all X, not just the one or two cherry-picked instances of X you like.

So if you argument is "X feels good, I have an instinct to do X, X offers evolutionary advantages, therefore it follows from this that morally I can do X if I want", where X is meat, you have to also accept it where X is rape. If you are being rational and consistent, anyway.

You're making the typical black-or-white argument, which I tend to reject in almost every ideological argument (how's that for consistent?). That only works if you assume X covers everything, that there are no differences or degrees involved in situations, individuals, or context. In the real world, all of those different contributors, particularly context, must be taken into account. This is most evident when dealing with just humans in their various social circles-- family, community, larger society-- but also applies to how humans deal with the environment around them. Not sharing the same values as the example you argue against is one thing, but claiming inconsistency because you refuse to accept the contextual elements involved only makes your argument seem fundamentalist in nature-- like Cain's arguments-- and not really rational at all.

The rape example is a problem for you because you can't consistently argue for eating meat on evolutionary grounds without also being committed to endorsing rape, if it turned out that rape was instinctive and advantageous. Thus you try to get out of explaining what the difference is by saying "Oh, it's just an airy-fairy hypothetical". It's not an airy-fairy hypothetical, it's a direct challenge to your rationality and the basis for your concrete actions in the real world.

You really need to work on your assumptions, because now you are slipping into a strawman. The rape example doesn't work because rape as a behavior doesn't work in society. Trying to argue as if it does adds no credence to using the example, and instead works to display your argument as an emotional one instead of a rational one. You're basically making an equivocation fallacy and demanding it be taken seriously.

Now you've abandoned morality altogether. This is philosophically consistent, at least, which is in some sense an improvement over your earlier inconsistent position. If you stick to this you may be morally bankrupt but at least you aren't contradicting yourself.

More black-or-white prattle. Just because you disagree with the conclusion does not make it morally bankrupt. That tends to be the difference between my view toward vegetarianism or veganism (fine by me) and your argument toward eating meat (evil or morally bankrupt).

I think you're trying to pass off Volatile's conclusion as Volatile's argument.

I think you have a bad habit of deciding to argue against what you think will be intellectually easy for you instead of what people actually think. As I stated to mumblethrax many pages back, instead of assuming and jumping to conclusions you should instead ask for clarification.

If you asked Volatile for clarification I think you'd find that their actual argument is a little bit more involved than that, and looks something like this: "We do not need to eat meat, and there are compelling reasons X, Y and Z not to eat meat, therefore there is no rational reason for continuing to eat meat."

I'll forgive your ignorance on this (since you may not have known), but I've already had the clarification from Volatile. The argument is false for reasons I've already explained. It assumes far too much about human diets and ignores the cost/benefit ratio as not being meaningful (or to segue into another argument).

You may be surprised to learn this, but I (and I suspect Volatile) are aware that meat is convenient. Yes, and tasty too.

Yet making animals suffer and die so that your life is slightly more convenient, or so that you can have the momentary taste sensation of steak rather than mushroom, seems morally questionable to many people. It even seems inconsistent with their usual behaviour and moral attitudes towards animals.

This happens to be the problem I have with the "don't need to eat meat" arguments in the first place: they're just a segue for the "animals are suffering" argument, and are not meant to stand as their own separate argument. However, the problem with the suffering argument, as I've argued in the past with both Volatile and Cain, the black-or-white arguments only work if one counts the suffering of every animal (including humans) as completely equal and without any delineation or degrees of difference between poor living conditions and death.

And as I pointed out to Volatile (you must have missed that post of mine in this thread), I've already stated that I'm not in favor of the poor conditions in many mass-production meat facilities, and can even agree that this market needs to be either more strictly regulated (whole nother discussion) or done away with in lieu of more local ('organic') markets. However, I don't hold that opinion solely on the "animals are suffering" argument, and instead have a mix of animal welfare, conservationism, and dietary health arguments that I agree with to hold this conclusion.

But, hey, go ahead and keep jumping to conclusions and arguing against some construct you've built up. I'm sure it's easier for you to do that than actually try to understand my point of view.

Or to put in another way, so far I have not claimed "People who eat meat are bad people". I have been arguing the more subtle case that "People who claim that eating meat is moral because of reasons X, Y and Z are irrational, because reasons X, Y and Z are irrational".

I've not seen a lot of people stating that eating meat is morally positive. Instead, I see a lot of people making statements that are either morally neutral or disagreeing with claims that it's morally negative. But hey, if you want to stick to that hay-ride, you're more than welcome. Just remember that you're building a huge strawman if you come at me with that nonsense.

Personally I think that you're experiencing significant cognitive dissonance right now, and you're trying to twist what I said into something you can take offence at, in order to justify running away.

This is a prime example of what I mean when I remark about your comments being full of self-righteous drivel. You're so convinced that you are obviously so right and anyone disagreeing is so wrong that you've got some juvenile narrative already worked out in your head. Sorry to disappoint.

My arguments aren't petty, they go to the heart of how you justify your actions.

I'm not demonizing you, unless it's demonizing you to point out that you participate indirectly in the death and suffering of animals in order to satiate your desire to eat convenient meat, and you don't seem able to articulate any rational basis for why doing so is morally tolerable.

So, you're not demonizing, except for where you're demonizing for a supposed purpose. It's amusing how you claim your arguments aren't petty and then follow it with a petty argument to underscore your claim.

Here's a deal: If you want to ignore the line about the civil rights movement and just engage with the more intellectual arguments I have directed at you, you are at liberty to do that.

Please don't feel obliged to use that line as an excuse to run away. You can use it as an excuse if you wish to, of course, but you don't have to. The choice is yours.

No, here's the deal: try actually reading what I'm saying instead of building up some fantasy poster to argue against next time. You're presenting black-or-white arguments and expecting me to take the bait on them, while demanding that I ignore your constant poisoning the well of discussion as you build up this fictional argument you seem to think I'm making.

Unlike Volatile, whom I do respect, this attempt to try to catch me in some rhetorical nonsense has really shown me how intellectually dishonest you've been from the get-go in this thread, and not just with your stupid n****r comment earlier on. While I may not agree with Volatile, and I may not come to the same conclusions, I do think that he makes reasonable and rational arguments most of the time (none of us can do so all of the time), and is capable of accepting that we can come to different conclusions on the matter without being a raging douchebag about it.

Now remember, I'd like for you to answer the following questions: do you accept that there is even the possibility that two (or more) opposing sides of an argument could both be rationally based? Further, do you think that they could have equal amounts of rationality?

GreNME

16th June 2009, 07:36 AM

I've never heard of a single person who thinks everyone should be banned from eating vegetables.

You've obviously never spoken to seven-year-olds.

Cain

16th June 2009, 08:56 AM

Let's shift your quotes around to address matters in their order of priority.
Now onto morality :

The main problem with that is , morality is neither absolute, nor it is a non-personal thing. What you are doing ehre is define MORAL by what YOU think is moral. Some people think women showing their face is AMORAL. Do you agree ? I disagree. Well some people the same think eating meat is amoral and you apparently agree, but I disagree.

First off, "amoral" does not mean what you think it means. Second, you're now resorting to a common tactic seen in these types of threads: try to make morality appear as amorphous as possible. Certainly people disagree over what is moral and what is immoral, but we're also capable of achieving a broad consensus, as well as re-evaluating previous beliefs that once enjoyed wide support (e.g., the secondary status of women). What's disturbing about meat-eaters in this thread is that they seem to prefer leading an unexamined life -- not questioning basic beliefs and behaviors. And when very basic errors in their reasoning are pointed out, they act butt hurt, become self-righteous, and begin leveling all of the typical "you-think-you're-better-than-me" accusations rather than doing what they should, which is arguing fundamentals.

You and I and others can agree some acts of aggression are justified and others unjustified, so please stop with all of these silly red-herrings, invoking terms you probably do not yourself understand (such as moral absolutism).

Morality is a very very weak argument to hold for veganism or whatever, But this is the SOLE the argument you people have, because on the optimal rationality , you biologically lose.

This very argument assumes certain moral truths. Rationality and morality are inextricably linked, not opposed. If a person claims she should be allowed to do whatever she pleases in order to self-maximize her material circumstances, even at the expense of others, then her belief is likely irrational, and she must produce a compelling a reason. Your argument for "rationality" is similarly narrow as it does not bother to engage the notion that animals are moral patients.

I should also say biological arguments tend to be very, very weak, and unlike you I not only separate my verys with a coma, but I have an argument rather than mere assertion. See for instance the above exchanges on the "naturalistic fallacy" and the case of rape. Your is a failure to recognize the is-ought gap. Moreover, even if look at what's optimum -- and rational resource allocation is more the domain of economics, not biology -- you still lose because you look only at marginal private costs and benefits rather than marginal social costs and benefits.

Assume two automobiles identical in all respects except the following: 1) Car X costs less than car Y. 2) Car X pollutes more than card Y. An "optimal" self-maximizer would snap up car X because negative externalities have not been factored into costs. You're engaged in the same dubious accounting above.

If this was a vegan world we would not have this conversation. If Paris was small enough we could put it in a bottle. If Igf If. Well there is no IF ehre. We are omnivore. EAting mass farmed meat is easier and we are more adapted to it than having a full vegan diet. So it is more rational (as in : optimal) than a vegan or vegetarian or whatever diet. We evolved that way. What next ? Want us to have a citrate only diet to prove a point ?

You're hyperventilating. It also amuses me how so many people were busy working themselves up to get offended at my "vegan world" remark that they didn't bother to process the argument, which was intended to show your concerns here for what's "optimum" (observe the scare quotes) are totally irrelevant. A vegan world where the cost of meat is prohibitively high (prohibitive even) is not a good argument against the consumption of meat. If killing animals is OK, then it's, um, OK, and all of your "rationality" hokum is beside the point.

I hope you now understand why I "introduced HUNTING" to this debate. :rolleyes:

Cuddles writes:
Who's more tolerant, the ones who eat a certain diet and don't try to dictate what anyone else does, or the ones who want to force everyone to eat the same diet as themselves?

Frankly, I'm surprised to see more than one person in this thread repeat this same sentiment. Shall I christen this Hannibal Lecture argument? This sort of thing also reminds me of that fatuous bumper sticker, "If you don't like abortion then don't have one!"
----------
thaiboxer:
Cain was using an appeal to extreme to support his position that eating meat is wrong. I'd rather go to the core of the issue, is killing animals other than human, for consumption, wrong?

What is "appeal to extreme"? That's an interesting way of putting it. I consider my comment more of an observation, but I suppose some people would invariably argue that killing billions of animals is somehow necessary.

Painter:
Define "fun". Fun can mean a wide range of things to different people. A cow for example. Some people think cow tipping is fun. I not sure if this actually harms the cow but it does surprise it.Others think feeding a cow a handful of hay is fun, this can result in overfeeding and harm the cow.

So without your specific definition of "fun", It is impossible to answer. While you're at it, define "harm".

Pleasure and pain. Is OK to cause a cow pain for your own pleasure?

Cuddles

16th June 2009, 09:04 AM

Cuddles writes:

Frankly, I'm surprised to see more than one person in this thread repeat this same sentiment. Shall I christen this Hannibal Lecture argument? This sort of thing also reminds me of that fatuous bumper sticker, "If you don't like abortion then don't have one!"

So you're seriously claiming that trying to force everyone to eat the same as you is tolerant, while letting people eat their own choice of diet is intolerant? I strongly suggest you look up the word "tolerant" in a dictionary before you make any more of an idiot of yourself. Whether you think eating meat is wrong or not, allowing people to make their own choice is not intolerant under any possible definition of the word.

I'm also not entirely sure where Hannibal Lecter comes into it, assuming that's who you actually meant. Are you suggesting eating cows is cannibalism? Perhaps that's another word you need to look up. Of course, if you're merely trying to suggest, in a rather pointlessly ridiculous way, that the same argument would say that we are intolerant of cannibals, you would be entirely correct. In fact, we're so intolerant of them that we make laws against cannibalism and send people to jail for indulging in it. Intolerance isn't necessarily a bad thing. Of course, if you actually knew what the word meant you'd already understand that.

RandFan

16th June 2009, 09:50 AM

A vegan world where the cost of meat is prohibitively high (prohibitive even) is not a good argument against the consumption of meat. If killing animals is OK, then it's, um, OK...That's it? That's the Raison d'etre? You were arguing that it's a bad argument against the consumption of meat?

thaiboxerken

16th June 2009, 01:10 PM

Again, there is no need for people to defend their consumption of meat because it is the status quo. If PETAholes want to change the way people view meat, they have to actually convince meat-eaters. So far, I've yet to see a reasonable argument from the veggie side.

The_Animus

16th June 2009, 02:31 PM

Sorry for the delay things got hectic.:)

Well until you look up the figures, how can you make that call? (I haven't read the rest of the thread yet so sorry if you have and presented them.)

Several times in the past I've read information concerning how it takes more work, resources, land, and crops grown to support eating meat instead of just eating plants. I can't remember where I read it, but it seems someone else has posted an example of that information.

I'm stranded on a dessert island with my family and some strangers.
After a few months it becomes clear that water and other resources, while sufficient for my family to survive, are currently diminishing and will not hold out for everyone.
My moral sense is to protect my family.
This moral sense will likely lead me to conflict and even bloodshed in order for my family to survive.
That moral sense exists because it is natural.

Question: Are any of my sensed (evolved) rules of behavior (such as, it is moral to put the needs of my family above others) wrong simply because they are natural (please note: I'm not arguing that these rules are right because they are natural. I'm asking you if the argument X is wrong because it is natural is valid?

This scenario is different because in your hypothetical situation someone has to die. There simply is not enough resources to keep everyone alive and at that point killing them or depriving them of the water/food isn't being done for some unnecessary reason, it is being done for survival.

The problem with this premise is that even with modern technology and farming animals still suffer. Animals such as deer, rabbits, geese, etc. all need to be controlled or will overpopulate and decimate crops. Furthermore, the combine, plow, etc. does not brake for animals.
Animals in the wild suffer. Nearly all die (eaten alive) shortly after birth. Those that survive that little holocaust will likely die before maturity. Animals in the wild must contend with exposure, disease, predation, etc., etc. There isn't much of any dying of old age in the wild.

Factory farming of meat can and often does provide safe haven and medicine for animals. Though to be sure much of the factory farming isn't exactly paradise.

For the most part animal populations control themselves. If we stopped factory farming the animal populations would drop to a sustainable level. There would certainly be large short term suffering and death, but that still seems better than far larger, repeated, long term suffering and death. Some animal death is unavoidable, such as the combines. But as has been stated before, more combine death occurs with factory farming than without because of the extra crops that need to be grown to feed the animals we raise.

Raising of animals by humans for consumption can reduce disease, suffering, and premature death for animals if done in the right way. And this is why I'm not against eating meat in and of itself. I think it is possible to give them happier healthier lives than in the wild. But that isn't the way it works. With massive demand and our economic system there is very strong incentive for people to factory farm animals in the least costly way possible and this often leads to very poor treatment of the animals.

From: http://www.animalsuffering.com/resources/facts/factory-farming.php

Egg machines: Around 95% of the eggs available come from egg factories, where the birds are held in battery cages -very small with slanted wire floors. Five to eight birds are crammed in 14 square inches cages. To prevent aggression (due to the stress) chicks are debeaked. To lift the production up the hens live in constant light.
Broiler Chickens: As male chicks are not useful for the broiler industry, and 50% of chicks hatched are males, they need to be disposed and killed at birth. Broiler chickens are selectively bred and genetically altered to produce bigger thighs and breasts, the parts in most demand. This breeding creates birds so heavy that their bones cannot support their weight. As they are bred to grown fast they reach market weight of 3 1/2 pounds in seven weeks. Broilers are raised in overcrowded broiler houses instead of cages to prevent the occurrence of bruised flesh which would make their meat undesirable. Their beaks and toes are cut off and the broiler houses are usually unlit to prevent fighting among the birds.

So I'm not really against eating meat. I'm against raising techniques that cause much suffering to the animals such as in most modern factory farms.

My mother experiences pain and a good deal of suffering during her physical therapy and it has taken a great deal of prompting from my father and my siblings and I to keep her from quiting. Does the fact that her physical therapy is "bad" make her therapist immoral?

I think you bring up a good point. Suffering in an of itself doesn't constitute something being immoral. I would say that regardless it is unpleasant, but that in this case the perceived rewards outweigh the drawbacks to your mother and so she decides to continue with her therapy. This seems to bring us back to the point that an act is immoral when one entity makes a conscious decision to cause suffering to another conscious entity against its will. Stubbing my toe causes suffering, but it wasn't done to me intentionally against my will. An act such as rape is. Therefor perhaps suffering which comes about by accident or through ones own choice is not immoral, but suffering which is done to another intentionally against their will is immoral.

Again, there is no need for people to defend their consumption of meat because it is the status quo. If PETAholes want to change the way people view meat, they have to actually convince meat-eaters. So far, I've yet to see a reasonable argument from the veggie side.

Well I'm not a PETAhole but I think there have been some very good arguments made in this thread but if you aren't willing to explore the topic no argument in the world will matter. I'm sure people said the same thing about slavery back when it was starting to become an issue of division in the US. I'm sure people who were pro-slavery heard arguments against it and said the arguments weren't reasonable. But was that because there really weren't any arguments worth considering, or was it something else?

The_Animus

16th June 2009, 02:38 PM

So you're seriously claiming that trying to force everyone to eat the same as you is tolerant, while letting people eat their own choice of diet is intolerant? I strongly suggest you look up the word "tolerant" in a dictionary before you make any more of an idiot of yourself. Whether you think eating meat is wrong or not, allowing people to make their own choice is not intolerant under any possible definition of the word.

You are right, but you are also only looking at one portion of the issue in regards to intolerance. It is certainly more tolerant to let people make their own choice. In the same regard I could ask, which is more tolerant? Asking people to stop eating meat/trying to ban eating meat? Or slaughtering millions of animals because you like how they taste? I would say your example shows greater intolerance towards other people, but this thread is about the rights of all conscious living beings and in that regard which is being more intolerant of all living conscious entities?

thaiboxerken

16th June 2009, 02:53 PM

Well I'm not a PETAhole but I think there have been some very good arguments made in this thread but if you aren't willing to explore the topic no argument in the world will matter. I'm sure people said the same thing about slavery back when it was starting to become an issue of division in the US. I'm sure people who were pro-slavery heard arguments against it and said the arguments weren't reasonable. But was that because there really weren't any arguments worth considering, or was it something else?

I haven't seen any good arguments in this thread, only insinuations that eating meat is bad and insistence that meat eaters prove that it's not bad. People did say the same thing about slavery, and they were somewhat correct. The status quo is what is considered "right" at the time, and it's up to the minority opinion to change minds using reasoned debate and rationality. Reasoned debate changed minds about slavery. So far, I haven't seen that from the veggies.

Do you think you can give me one good reason as to why eating meat is immoral?

The_Animus

16th June 2009, 03:03 PM

Do you think you can give me one good reason as to why eating meat is immoral?

Many arguments have been given in this thread as to why it is okay to kill and eat a cow but not a person and I've given many counter-arguments to those. I've also already given reasons as to why eating meat is immoral, or rather not that eating meat is immoral, but that the way we currently raise most of the animals we eat is immoral. Either you missed them or you don't agree. In either case all I can ask is that you continue to consider the arguments presented here and any future arguments you come across. :)

Sword_Of_Truth

16th June 2009, 03:08 PM

What's disturbing about meat-eaters in this thread is that they seem to prefer leading an unexamined life -- not questioning basic beliefs and behaviors.

What evidence do you have that we have given no thought to the moral implications of eating meat? Are you a mind reader?

The use of animals in medical research is critical and absolutely irreplaceable. They are injured to test treatments for injuries, they are afflicted with diseases to test cures and treatments. In fact, new developments in genetics have resulted in the creation of strains of lab animals that are far more prone to certain diseases, thus creating a larger and more homogeneous group of test subjects for use in these kinds of research. Effectively, the advance of technology has expanded the use of animals in medical research, not shrunk it.

The crimes of Josef Mengele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mengele#Human_experimentation) or Japans Unit 731 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Vivisection) are horrific largely because they were done to humans. Yet the medical research community continues to carry out acts against animals which are at least superficially similar every day. If the legal status of animals were elevated even to that which african americans held before the civil war, it would still destroy the medical research community and end forever all future development and destroy hope for millions who wiat for cures and treatments.

Someday, someone close to me may need life-saving medical technology. Possibly one that hasn't been developed yet. PETAs advocacy of making animals equal to humans constitutes an attempt on the life of one or more of my loved ones. If they were ever to come close to that goal, for me, it would be worth taking up arms to prevent that from happening.

I love my dog, but I love my family more. That's moral.

As for the meat industry... their existence is an inevitable side effect of keeping animals in their proper place for the medical research community.

And I loooooove KFC too. ;)

thaiboxerken

16th June 2009, 03:09 PM

Many arguments have been given in this thread as to why it is okay to kill and eat a cow but not a person and I've given many counter-arguments to those. I've also already given reasons as to why eating meat is immoral, or rather not that eating meat is immoral, but that the way we currently raise most of the animals we eat is immoral. Either you missed them or you don't agree. In either case all I can ask is that you continue to consider the arguments presented here and any future arguments you come across. :)

I haven't seen a reasoned argument as to why raising animals to eat is immoral. I've only seen arguments built on premises that I don't agree with, which means the arguments are fallacious.

The Painter

16th June 2009, 03:22 PM

Painter:

Pleasure and pain. Is OK to cause a cow pain for your own pleasure?

Well now I see you have very conveniently left out plants. Why? Pleasure and pain??? It sounds like you're talking about S&M. As interesting or dull as your sex life may be, that is not the issue. You have not answered my question. Define "fun" and define "hurt".

Life feeds of life. It is the way of the world. Your very existence causes death to some type of organism. the only way not to kill anything is to kill yourself. Life feeds on life.

The_Animus

16th June 2009, 03:25 PM

The use of animals in medical research is critical and absolutely irreplaceable. They are injured to test treatments for injuries, they are afflicted with diseases to test cures and treatments. In fact, new developments in genetics have resulted in the creation of strains of lab animals that are far more prone to certain diseases, thus creating a larger and more homogeneous group of test subjects for use in these kinds of research. Effectively, the advance of technology has expanded the use of animals in medical research, not shrunk it.

It is entirely plausible to use humans in much of the research that is done and in fact would speed up medical research as it would not have to be tested first on animals and then later on humans before being able to go to market. Obviously this would be on a volunteer basis and some cash incentives could be provided. Of course we don't even allow people to do this if they wanted to because we not only get to decide what is acceptable for other creatures but we get to decide what people can do with their own lives. But why use willing people to test things meant for people when we can grab animals that don't get a choice in the matter and can't fight back.

I haven't seen a reasoned argument as to why raising animals to eat is immoral. I've only seen arguments built on premises that I don't agree with, which means the arguments are fallacious.

Almost every single argument in favor of raising animals to eat is based upon the premise that we have the right to do with animals as we please regardless of whether they feel pain or suffer, which I don't agree with.

Sword_Of_Truth

16th June 2009, 03:26 PM

Pleasure and pain. Is OK to cause a cow pain for your own pleasure?

Generally, no. Which is why beef cattle are usually killed by a pneumatic spike driven into their cerebral cortex so they don't feel a bloody thing.

shawmutt

16th June 2009, 03:34 PM

It is entirely plausible to use humans in much of the research that is done and in fact would speed up medical research as it would not have to be tested first on animals and then later on humans before being able to go to market.

Hmm...except some drugs we have tested have killed a couple dozen monkeys. Call me whatever you like, but I'd rather have monkeys die than humans.

What about the drugs that are made using animals?

Obviously this would be on a volunteer basis and some cash incentives could be provided.

I can't possibly see how we could run into moral issues by paying people to be lab rats.

Of course we don't even allow people to do this if they wanted to because we not only get to decide what is acceptable for other creatures but we get to decide what people can do with their own lives. But why use willing people to test things meant for people when we can grab animals that don't get a choice in the matter and can't fight back.

Again, the emotional appeal of animals vs humans doesn't really fly with me.

Almost every single argument in favor of raising animals to eat is based upon the premise that we have the right to do with animals as we please regardless of whether they feel pain or suffer, which I don't agree with.

We are the top of the food chain, and the meat we eat is killed a lot less painlessly than in nature. Your argument also applies to humans changing the ecosystem in order to grow crops.

The Painter

16th June 2009, 04:04 PM

Why does morality have to come into effect on food? Is eating a piece of veal worse that eating a piece of chicken? Is it worse to eat a carrot than a piece of lettuce? Either way something is going to die so you can eat it. Every breath you take kills micro organisms. You, more than likely kill hundreds of insects everyday just by walking. Life and death are intertwined. There is no separating them. Mocking someone or arguing with someone because of what they eat just seems petty. I wonder if they have this disagreement in Ethiopia and other sub-Saharan African nations?

thaiboxerken

16th June 2009, 04:14 PM

Almost every single argument in favor of raising animals to eat is based upon the premise that we have the right to do with animals as we please regardless of whether they feel pain or suffer, which I don't agree with.

And there it is again. Instead of giving an argument as to why raising animals to eat is wrong, you keep trying to shift the burden of conviction onto the status quo. It's generally accepted that raising animals to eat is ok.

I can see that you've fooled others into defending the status quo. But you won't fool me. There is nothing to defend until you can show a reasoned argument as to why it's wrong.

Silly Green Monkey

16th June 2009, 05:06 PM

We're the only predator out there that cares whether or not our prey suffers.

Cain

16th June 2009, 05:15 PM

So you're seriously claiming that trying to force everyone to eat the same as you is tolerant, while letting people eat their own choice of diet is intolerant?

No... "tolerant" was a term of mockery. I don't think we should refrain from eating meat in order to be tolerant -- that would sound off. The typical limit of tolerance is when others are harmed, and that harm is my central concern.

I'm also not entirely sure where Hannibal Lecter comes into it, assuming that's who you actually meant. Are you suggesting eating cows is cannibalism?

Yes, eating cows is cannibalism. That's exactly what I meant. :rolleyes:

Perhaps that's another word you need to look up. Of course, if you're merely trying to suggest, in a rather pointlessly ridiculous way, that the same argument would say that we are intolerant of cannibals, you would be entirely correct.

Well, there's that too, but I see it more about the enlightened tolerance cannibals observe.

In fact, we're so intolerant of them that we make laws against cannibalism and send people to jail for indulging in it. Intolerance isn't necessarily a bad thing. Of course, if you actually knew what the word meant you'd already understand that.

So do you now sort of see how the original argument spurring this exchange was moronic? The alleged intolerance of a vegan world where people who kill animals for food are punished.

----------------

I wrote:
What's disturbing about meat-eaters in this thread is that they seem to prefer leading an unexamined life -- not questioning basic beliefs and behaviors.

Sword of Truth:
What evidence do you have that we have given no thought to the moral implications of eating meat? Are you a mind reader?

Evidence? Um... the quality of posts in this thread. Was that not clear? I shall put it in bold.

The use of animals in medical research is critical and absolutely irreplaceable. They are injured to test treatments for injuries, they are afflicted with diseases to test cures and treatments. In fact, new developments in genetics have resulted in the creation of strains of lab animals that are far more prone to certain diseases, thus creating a larger and more homogeneous group of test subjects for use in these kinds of research. Effectively, the advance of technology has expanded the use of animals in medical research, not shrunk it.

The crimes of Josef Mengele or Japans Unit 731 are horrific largely because they were done to humans. Yet the medical research community continues to carry out acts against animals which are at least superficially similar every day. If the legal status of animals were elevated even to that which african americans held before the civil war, it would still destroy the medical research community and end forever all future development and destroy hope for millions who wiat for cures and treatments.

Someday, someone close to me may need life-saving medical technology. Possibly one that hasn't been developed yet. PETAs advocacy of making animals equal to humans constitutes an attempt on the life of one or more of my loved ones. If they were ever to come close to that goal, for me, it would be worth taking up arms to prevent that from happening.

I love my dog, but I love my family more. That's moral.

As for the meat industry... their existence is an inevitable side effect of keeping animals in their proper place for the medical research community.

And I loooooove KFC too

You should tag this post as being approved by the Non Sequitur Department. Only the second to last sentence attempts to bridge meat-eating and experimentation and I cannot say it's successful.

-----------------------
Painter:
Well now I see you have very conveniently left out plants. Why?

It's part of the conspiracy against you. I do apologize for the oversight. I think I figured the main focus was cows, and you had discussed only cows in your post, but I do apologize. So, yeah, plants too n' stuff.

Pleasure and pain??? It sounds like you're talking about S&M.

That's because I am. Some people regard pleasure and pain as the two basic emotions, but I was actually suggesting bizarre sex acts. I'm glad you picked up on that one. I wouldn't want people to think your perceptive insight says more about you than me.

As interesting or dull as your sex life may be, that is not the issue. You have not answered my question. Define "fun" and define "hurt".

If we want to be sticklers, I thought we were originally talking about "harm." With your humble permission, will you allow me to revise my original comment to "pleasure" and "pain?" If you have any difficulty understanding these terms you may want to check out that one book that keeps definitions for most words.

Life feeds of life. It is the way of the world. Your very existence causes death to some type of organism. the only way not to kill anything is to kill yourself. Life feeds on life.

I think you should get your posts stamped by the Non Sequitur Department as well.

---------
RandFan:
That's it? That's the Raison d'etre? You were arguing that it's a bad argument against the consumption of meat?

Check out the big brain on RandFan. You guys are on fire today. Everyone, I mean. Give yourselves a hand. Anyway, even though you no doubt picked up on this, but for others not as perceptive as you (or the kind posters above): I was saying it's a bad argument, period. Meaning, it's a bad argument if made against a meat-eater, or a vegan. It's just plain bad.

-----------------
Thaiboxerken writes:
Again, there is no need for people to defend their consumption of meat because it is the status quo. If PETAholes want to change the way people view meat, they have to actually convince meat-eaters. So far, I've yet to see a reasonable argument from the veggie side.

Fair enough. But in defense of PETAholes, you don't seem too bright. *shrug*

RandFan

16th June 2009, 05:31 PM

For the most part animal populations control themselves. If we stopped factory farming the animal populations would drop to a sustainable level. There would certainly be large short term suffering and death, but that still seems better than far larger, repeated, long term suffering and death. First, humans have encroached to such a degree on so many habitats that there will always need to be culls and control

Second, factory farming doesn't need to result in suffering. If that is your concern then let's do something about that. No, we can't stop the death. Period. It can't be stopped. Factory farming can provide many animals an opportunity to live until they mature before they are killed.

I'm happy with that. Let's stop the abuses of factory farming.

thaiboxerken

16th June 2009, 05:36 PM

Thaiboxerken writes:

Fair enough. But in defense of PETAholes, you don't seem too bright. *shrug*

Your tactic of getting meat eaters to try to prove to you why it's ok to eat meat really won't work on me, although you do have some others hypnotized by it. So, can you give me a reasoned argument as to why eating meat is wrong?

RandFan

16th June 2009, 05:45 PM

Check out the big brain on RandFan.

You guys are on fire today. Everyone, I mean. Give yourselves a hand. Anyway, even though you no doubt picked up on this, but for others not as perceptive as you (or the kind posters above): I was saying it's a bad argument, period. Meaning, it's a bad argument if made against a meat-eater, or a vegan. It's just plain bad. Good post. I wish I had a snappy rejoinder but I don't. Perhaps I'll get lucky and folks will mistake the big brain comment as a compliment.

dudalb

16th June 2009, 05:47 PM

Check out the big brain on RandFan. You guys are on fire today. Everyone, I mean. Give yourselves a hand. Anyway, even though you no doubt picked up on this, but for others not as perceptive as you (or the kind posters above): I was saying it's a bad argument, period. Meaning, it's a bad argument if made against a meat-eater, or a vegan. It's just plain bad.

God, the arrogance in the first couple of sentences is just astounding.

Kevin_Lowe

16th June 2009, 06:06 PM

And I've moved beyond that but it's obvious that you've got an ax to grind and don't care about anything but your own ego.

That's fine but it is this kind of stubborn arrogance that puts PETA types at odds with even many if perhaps not most liberals. Your not interested in anything more nuanced than a single argument that you blast away with. It's that simple minded "I'm only right and everyone else is only wrong and don't bother me" that puts you on par with the George Bushes of the world.

Don't engage me. You, with Cain, make for great examples of extremist arrogance.

Baby steps. Do you agree that the following argument-form is fallacious?

"(Premises) If A is true then B is true. B is true. (Conclusion) Therefore A is true".

Since we're using baby steps I'll give an example. "If Fred is a Golden Retriever, Fred is a dog. Fred is a dog. Therefore Fred is a Golden Retriever".

I think we can agree that this argument-form is flawed, because its premises can be true and yet its conclusion can be false, therefore we have no reason to accept the conclusion of this argument as true. Absolutely any argument of this form can be immediately discarded. There is no need to engage with it at all, beyond pointing out that it is fallacious.

Another argument-form is "(Premises) If A is natural, it is morally tolerable. A is natural. (Conclusion) A is morally tolerable". The problem here is slightly different, in that one of the premises is false, but the end result is the same, that this argument gives us no reason to accept the conclusion of this argument as true.

The premise is clearly false because rape, murder, gang warfare, theft, infanticide and many other crimes are natural behaviours in our near relatives.

Now you can noodle on at any length you like about how eating meat really, really is natural. Fill up a twenty-page thread just with that if you like. You can also noodle on at any length you like about how we have some instincts to behave morally under some circumstances. It's all utterly irrelevant to the moral question because we also have instincts to behave immorally under some circumstances, and the fact that something is an instinct tells us absolutely nothing about whether it is moral.

This is not extremist arrogance, it's basic critical thinking. The arrogance here is your own in thinking that the rules of logical argument don't apply to you, if only you yell your pet fallacy loud enough and long enough.

From your other post:

So, so far we have A.) personal suffering and our ability to experience the suffering of others (empathy) as a negative experience (bad) and this feeling of pain or discomfort exists to facilitate genes and B.) Our sense of morality exists for the self same reason.

Ok, so here is the clincher, if I sense that any behavior is bad why is that, or would that sense be wrong? (FTR: There is an answer as to why it could be wrong, I believe it could be wrong, but I'll let you respond. The point is that the issue is a bit more nuanced than many would like to consider or perhaps even admit).

It's not "nuanced", it's inane. Just as I may feel pain when my girlfriend stubs her toe, I may feel intense pleasure at watching someone else punch someone I hate right in the face. We have evolved instincts that are adaptive, not ones that are moral, and you need to get it straight in your head that the evolutionary psychology of moral behaviour is an interesting field of study but it tells us nothing about what is and is not actually moral.

In otherwords, moral sentiment is, in and of itself, a naturalistic fallacy.

You just gotta love that.

You're so close, but not quite there. Concluding that moral sentiment is proof of a moral truth is an instance of the naturalistic fallacy.

But here is the problem: Why do people apeal to our sense of morality at all if we divorce all emotion from the equation? So what if someone is suffering? Why should I care? If I don't suffer or "feel" any empathy or compassion then what on earth is the point? It's no sweat off of my back. Perhaps I can profit from it?

No, in the end, as Dawkins, Shermer, Pinker and others note, we must rely on our own internal sense of right and wrong. This isn't to say that we can't also reason to shape that sense. We can and should but reason alone is insufficient to formulate morality. Empathy, compassion, the desire (or as Dawkins states "lust") to do good. These are requisite for morality.

Dawkins, Shermer and Pinker are scientists, not philosophers. Assuming you are presenting their work correctly, on this topic they are working outside their field of expertise, and are at precisely the same kind of disadvantage a philosopher would be if they tried to do science without any relevant knowledge or training.

However I suspect you're actually appropriating statements of theirs meant to establish the point that moral instincts can be explained by evolution better than they can be explained by a supernatural source of moral wisdom, and trying to misuse them to support the claim that moral instincts are moral truths.

To GreNME
No, that's NOT what I said, and your constant insistence to jump to conclusions is what makes your posts come off as pretentious and self-righteous, quite the antithesis of the reason you're claiming.

The reason your comments here are false is that this is not a binary, yes/no, on/off type of issue. Just because you insist it's black and white does not make it so. The only way "we don't need to eat meat" works is with caveats, which makes stating it without the caveats either false or misleading.

Sorry, but it is very much black and white, at least for those of us in the First World. Cats in the First World still need to eat meat or they will die. People in the First World can just walk past the meat aisle and get more stuff from the other supermarket aisles, and they will not die as a result.

And here comes the typical black-or-white definitions of what is rational or irrational. In your next reply, I'd like for you to answer the following questions: do you accept that there is even the possibility that two (or more) opposing sides of an argument could both be rationally based? Further, do you think that they could have equal amounts of rationality?

Derail denied.

The nice thing about logical fallacies is that they [b]are/b] black and white. If your argument is flawed, your conclusion is not supported.

You're making the typical black-or-white argument, which I tend to reject in almost every ideological argument (how's that for consistent?). That only works if you assume X covers everything, that there are no differences or degrees involved in situations, individuals, or context. In the real world, all of those different contributors, particularly context, must be taken into account. This is most evident when dealing with just humans in their various social circles-- family, community, larger society-- but also applies to how humans deal with the environment around them. Not sharing the same values as the example you argue against is one thing, but claiming inconsistency because you refuse to accept the contextual elements involved only makes your argument seem fundamentalist in nature-- like Cain's arguments-- and not really rational at all.

On the contrary, you're engaging in the obfuscation typical of postmodernists and other woos.

Any moral argument or judgement has an implied "all other things being equal" attached to it. Murder is wrong - all else being equal. Under sufficiently extreme circumstances it can be justified, however.

If you're interested solely in wasting people's time, you can respond to any moral argument or judgement with the inane response "But what if all else isn't equal? What then, huh? You're just engaging in black and white thinking!".

Any sane person takes for granted that almost any act is conceivably justifiable under sufficiently bizarre circumstances. What you have to show is that eating meat is justifiable for you, under your circumstances.

You really need to work on your assumptions, because now you are slipping into a strawman. The rape example doesn't work because rape as a behavior doesn't work in society. Trying to argue as if it does adds no credence to using the example, and instead works to display your argument as an emotional one instead of a rational one. You're basically making an equivocation fallacy and demanding it be taken seriously.

So if I could find a way to make rape "work in a society" that would be okay? We could let husbands rape their wives, or let anyone who wanted rape a prostitute, and that could "work in a society". I tend to think that even if we could find a way to make it "work in a society" it would still be immoral.

So that attempt at getting out of the problem fails at the first hurdle. As someone (I think it was Volatile) said earlier, it would really help if you didn't post arguments that you could figure out were nonsense all by yourself, if only you thought about them for a couple of minutes before you posted them.

I'll forgive your ignorance on this (since you may not have known), but I've already had the clarification from Volatile. The argument is false for reasons I've already explained. It assumes far too much about human diets and ignores the cost/benefit ratio as not being meaningful (or to segue into another argument).

This is going to be good. Explain to us the cost/benefit ratio argument for, say, growing grain to feed to factory farmed pigs so you can eat bacon, compared to the "cost" of you pushing your shopping trolley past the bacon to the mushrooms.

This happens to be the problem I have with the "don't need to eat meat" arguments in the first place: they're just a segue for the "animals are suffering" argument, and are not meant to stand as their own separate argument. However, the problem with the suffering argument, as I've argued in the past with both Volatile and Cain, the black-or-white arguments only work if one counts the suffering of every animal (including humans) as completely equal and without any delineation or degrees of difference between poor living conditions and death.

No.

Once again, think for a minute or two before posting obvious nonsense. I'll provide counterexamples if you really need them, but really, given a room-temperature IQ and a moment or two this should not be a difficult problem for you to solve.

I've not seen a lot of people stating that eating meat is morally positive. Instead, I see a lot of people making statements that are either morally neutral or disagreeing with claims that it's morally negative. But hey, if you want to stick to that hay-ride, you're more than welcome. Just remember that you're building a huge strawman if you come at me with that nonsense.

Enjoy your straw man. Substitute "morally tolerable" for "moral" if it unbunches your undergarments.

So, you're not demonizing, except for where you're demonizing for a supposed purpose. It's amusing how you claim your arguments aren't petty and then follow it with a petty argument to underscore your claim.

Dismissing my argument as "petty" doesn't get you off the hook.

Now remember, I'd like for you to answer the following questions: do you accept that there is even the possibility that two (or more) opposing sides of an argument could both be rationally based? Further, do you think that they could have equal amounts of rationality?

It's possible in the larger scheme of things, but in cases where one side has nothing to offer but argumentative fallacies, hand-waving and taking offence I'm pretty certain we aren't dealing with such a scenario.

Rational arguments deserve respect, and if you want respect I suggest you go get some. Until then I'm more than happy to state with absolute conviction that you are wrong when you make irrational arguments, which so far is all we've seen from you.

GreNME

16th June 2009, 06:22 PM

Kevin, I'm not really inclined to play rhetorical tit-for-tat with you when all you're attempting to do is try to counter each part of what I'm saying while subsequently ignoring the whole of what I've been saying. You're arguing as if I'm advocating that the way the market for meat exists right now is acceptable to me, when I've already pointed out to you that I feel otherwise. That you're continuing to demand that I argue in favor of something I'm explicitly not in favor of shows how ridiculously off-kilter the position you're arguing from is.

RandFan

16th June 2009, 07:33 PM

Baby steps.Your patronizing really isn't necessary.

Another argument-form is "(Premises) If A is natural, it is morally tolerable. A is natural. (Conclusion) A is morally tolerable". I never made this argument. In fact, I said, an argument of the form (X is natural therefore X is moral) is invalid.

The premise is clearly false because rape, murder, gang warfare, theft, infanticide and many other crimes are natural behaviours in our near relatives.Yes, and they acted immoral by our standards but arguably moral by theirs.

The problem, Kevin, is that you are assuming that these things are, on their face, immoral. You must in order to get me to agree with the notion that (X is natural therefore X is moral) is an invalid argument. The problem is that your argument is circular. We must first determine whether or not these things are immoral absent our own confirmation bias. I might agree with you but we might both be wrong.

However, the point is moot as I'm willing to concede that the form of argument is invalid.

Now you can noodle on at any length you like about how eating meat really, really is natural.But I've not done that. You are so focused on your POV that you don't even know what it is that I'm arguing.

It's not "nuanced", it's inane. Just as I may feel pain when my girlfriend stubs her toe, I may feel intense pleasure at watching someone else punch someone I hate right in the face. We have evolved instincts that are adaptive, not ones that are moral, and you need to get it straight in your head that the evolutionary psychology of moral behavior is an interesting field of study but it tells us nothing about what is and is not actually moral. (emphasis mine) And there you go, error #1.

There is nothing that is or is not "actually moral".
Morality is not a priori.
Morality is not absolute.
Concluding that moral sentiment is proof of a moral truth is an instance of the naturalistic fallacy.(emphasis mine) Error #2

I do not subscribe to the concept of moral truth.
There is no more moral truth than there is art truth or music truth. We can make objective statements about morality and we can formulate logically consistent argument based on agreed premises but the idea that there is some "moral truth" is spurious.

However, there are near universal human sentiments that we can make objective statements about (see sociobiology, reciprocal altruism, mirror neurons, empathy and compassion).

Please consider the follow two statements.
The sky is blue because it is natural.
I percieve that the sky is blue.
Are either true? Why or why not?

We can construct arguments based on premises that take into account our near universal sentiments and construct rules of behavior to aid social cohesion and improve the social well being of humans and even other species.

So, skip the patronizing and arrogant assumptions. You and I have been around the block before. We can have a discussion without condescending to each other.

One more thing: Please address the following hypo.

I'm stranded on a dessert island with my family and some strangers.
After a few months it becomes clear that water and other resources, while sufficient for my family to survive, are currently diminishing and will not hold out for everyone.
My moral sense is to protect my family.
This moral sense will likely lead me to conflict and even bloodshed in order for my family to survive.
That moral sense exists because it is natural (doesn't justify the sense of morality but it explains it).
Question: Are any of my sensed (evolved) rules of behavior (such as, it is moral to put the needs of my family above others) wrong simply because they are natural (please note: I'm not arguing that these rules are right because they are natural. I'm asking you if the argument X is wrong because it is natural is valid?

Sword_Of_Truth

16th June 2009, 07:40 PM

Evidence? Um... the quality of posts in this thread. Was that not clear? I shall put it in bold.

Because our arguments haven't reached the place where you have shoved your head, they must poor quality? Brilliant thinking there sherlock.

If you can't back your claim up, at least be man enough to admit it.

You should tag this post as being approved by the Non Sequitur Department. Only the second to last sentence attempts to bridge meat-eating and experimentation and I cannot say it's successful.

More of the same, the point being made, you have nothing to dispute it with, so you go for the dismissive hand wave.

Fair enough. But in defense of PETAholes, you don't seem too bright. *shrug*

Your post finishes off with a personal attack against your opponents intellect.

I'd report you, but I think my side of the debate is best served by it staying right here, rather than sent to AAH where it will be removed from its context and forgotten.

GreNME

16th June 2009, 07:51 PM

I'd report you, but I think my side of the debate is best served by it staying right here, rather than sent to AAH where it will be removed from its context and forgotten.

Just a note: won't do any good. He did that for page after page the last time we went through this. Yet the arguments he's makes are the logical ones and the problems with his arguments are people getting all bent out of shape because they lack logic. Kevin seems to be taking the same rhetorical route.

Sword_Of_Truth

16th June 2009, 08:01 PM

The typical limit of tolerance is when others are harmed, and that harm is my central concern.

No one is harmed by the eating of meat, BTW.

Kevin_Lowe

16th June 2009, 09:33 PM

Your patronizing really isn't necessary.

I never made this argument. In fact, I said, an argument of the form (X is natural therefore X is moral) is invalid.

Yes, and they acted immoral by our standards but arguably moral by theirs.

The problem, Kevin, is that you are assuming that these things are, on their face, immoral. You must in order to get me to agree with the notion that (X is natural therefore X is moral) is an invalid argument. The problem is that your argument is circular. We must first determine whether or not these things are immoral absent our own confirmation bias. I might agree with you but we might both be wrong.

No. My argument is not circular.

It does assume that we agree that rape, murder, gang warfare, infanticide, theft and so on are, all else being equal, morally wrong. Now pretty much any useful moral philosophy will get to the conclusion that these things are wrong so typically this is not controversial.

I could get to the conclusion that rape, murder, gang warfare, infanticide, theft and so on are wrong by some utilitarian assumptions, or by some abstract logical maneuverings in the style of Kant, or via some form of virtue ethics, or just by mindlessly adopting the mores of my society. For the purposes of that point it doesn't matter as long as we both get to the conclusion that rape, murder, gang warfare, infanticide, theft and so on are morally wrong.

(emphasis mine) And there you go, error #1.

There is nothing that is or is not "actually moral".
Morality is not a priori.
Morality is not absolute.
(emphasis mine) Error #2

I do not subscribe to the concept of moral truth.
There is no more moral truth than there is art truth or music truth. We can make objective statements about morality and we can formulate logically consistent argument based on agreed premises but the idea that there is some "moral truth" is spurious.

Sure, if you define "moral" as being absolutely, knowably, a priori, eternally and objectively moral then congratulations, you've just defined morality out of existence as a useful word.

What you seem to be arguing for now is a kind of art-woo morality. Just as art-woos claim that anything is art if you think it is, and anything is good art if you think it is, you're claiming that anything is moral if you think it is. Or possibly if you feel it is due to your instincts.

The problem with that is that genocide is a recurring part of human history and hence has to be held to be as instinctive and natural as charity. So is genocide good if you feel that it would be okay to kill all the neighboring men and kidnap and rape their women? I submit that as a moral theory this has some serious failings which alternative moral theories do not share.

However, there are near universal human sentiments that we can make objective statements about (see sociobiology, reciprocal altruism, mirror neurons, empathy and compassion).

...and there are near universal human drives to commit rape, murder, gang warfare, infanticide, theft and so on.

Why, may I ask, do you list all the "morally good" instincts we have yet you keep ignoring all the "morally bad" instincts which we also have? I put it to you that you must covertly have assumed beforehand that certain behaviours such as altruism are good, and now you're trying to make your predetermined moral values map on to our instincts. Otherwise your list would read something like "However, there are near universal human sentiments that we can make objective statements about, see sociobiology, reciprocal altruism, mirror neurons, empathy, compassion, rape, murder, gang warfare, infanticide, theft and so on, all of which are good".

It may be that you aren't begging the question, but I can't see how else you got to that list you posted unless you'd determined beforehand what was and was not good.

Please consider the follow two statements.
The sky is blue because it is natural.
I percieve that the sky is blue.
Are either true? Why or why not?

Item 1 is nonsensical at face value and hence neither true or false. Item 2 is true assuming you have normal human vision and are looking at a clear sky on a sunny day.

We can construct arguments based on premises that take into account our near universal sentiments and construct rules of behavior to aid social cohesion and improve the social well being of humans and even other species.

So, skip the patronizing and arrogant assumptions. You and I have been around the block before. We can have a discussion without condescending to each other.

Okay. How many times do you expect me to explain the same argumentative fallacy to you, assuming you fail to get it, before I get tetchy? I lose my patience around the third or fourth time.

One more thing: Please address the following hypo.

Whether or not you have an instinct to do X tells us nothing about whether X is or is not moral. It's irrelevant.

Steelmage

16th June 2009, 09:48 PM

We don't need multi-chambered stomachs. It's not necessary for our survival.
True or we would have them.

I doubt this is true but I don't care. It's not relevant to the discussion. Most of us can survive without eating other animals.

It sounds like you are not familiar with physiology of living things. We are omnivores, but we have a single chamber stomach. So do carnivores. Herbivores have more then one chamber stomachs or have complex digestive tracts. Sorry, but if you are going to say humans do not need to eat meat this will come up.

There are different levels of vegetarian. Many societies have met many of these definitions.

You need to demonstrate (not simply state it) that humans cannot survive A.) without animal products and or B.) without beef.

FTR: I'm not a vegan or vegetarian. Ethical or otherwise.

I am not writting 10 plus pages of items for you to consider. If you are not wanting to hear about stomaches, or digestive systems, then I will doubt you will listen to much else.

RandFan

16th June 2009, 10:03 PM

Sure, if you define "moral" as being absolutely, knowably, a priori, eternally and objectively moral then congratulations, you've just defined morality out of existence as a useful word. Nonsense. Morality is a rule of behavior. It's a fact that morality has evolved over time and is different from society to society. It's demonstrable that it is contextual. It's also clear that morality is often in conflict. What is moral for society isn't always what is moral for the individual.

So, no, your contention is silly and absurd and doesn't follow from my position.

What you seem to be arguing for now is a kind of art-woo morality. Just as art-woos claim that anything is art if you think it is, and anything is good art if you think it is, you're claiming that anything is moral if you think it is. Or possibly if you feel it is due to your instincts.No. That would be a strawman. That is NOT what I'm arguing for.

The problem with that is that genocide is a recurring part of human history and hence has to be held to be as instinctive and natural as charity.Yes. You forgot slavery. Also a recurring part of human history. But yes.

So is genocide good if you feel that it would be okay to kill all the neighboring men and kidnap and rape their women? You are asking me "is it good"? From whose perspective?

Mine: No, it's not good.
Genghis Khan, Alexander, Attila the Hun, Cesar Augustus, Hannibal Barca: Good. Definitely good.

I submit that as a moral theory this has some serious failings which alternative moral theories do not share.Submit all you like but your flimsy strawman is a very small part of moral theory and does not represent the totality of any moral theory I would support.

...and there are near universal human drives to commit rape, murder, gang warfare, infanticide, theft and so on. Again, you forgot slavery. What is it with you and the failure to remember slavery?

There are objective reasons why individuals and society as a whole might choose to see these as counter productive to both the individual and society. Societies have evolved and we have evolved a moral zeitgeist that now prohibits this list. These things might have been necessary for the survival of small hunter gatherer groups but things have changed. That is the essence of evolution.

Let me give you an example. You mention "theft". Roman soldiers were at times intentionally under resourced when it came to food and clothing and they were encouraged to engage in petty theft of fellow countrymen. This freed up resources for weaponry and other needs and taught the soldiers to adapt.

This was good from the perspective of the army.

Why, may I ask, do you list all the "morally good" instincts we have yet you keep ignoring all the "morally bad" instincts which we also have?Because they have become anachronistic. Because we've reasoned them to be counter to social cohesion and increased social welfare and well being.

I put it to you that you must covertly have assumed beforehand that certain behaviours such as altruism are good, and now you're trying to make your predetermined moral values map on to our instincts. No, that is NOT what I've assumed.

I know something about history and societies.
I've studied the history of moral progress and note that some things improve society in ways that improve the overall quality of life for more peple and some things have not.
I know that the mortality rate has increased and the homicide rates have decreased and I know that objective measures of well being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) have increased among societies that adopt moral philosophies that favor some moral instincts over others.
I've seen the arguments and evidence that some instincts are overall counter to social cohesion, social welfare and the well being of individuals.
Also, I'm aware that I'm a product of the social zeitgeist of my time (as are you) and I value things that individuals in the past did not value.
Otherwise your list would read something like "However, there are near universal human sentiments that we can make objective statements about, see sociobiology, reciprocal altruism, mirror neurons, empathy, compassion, rape, murder, gang warfare, infanticide, theft and so on, all of which are good".Wrong (see above)

Item 1 is nonsensical at face value and hence neither true or false. Item 2 is true assuming you have normal human vision and are looking at a clear sky on a sunny day. It's of the form X is natural therefore it is true (your argument). Yes it is nonsensical but it serves a point.

Okay. How many times do you expect me to explain the same argumentative fallacy to you, assuming you fail to get it, before I get tetchy? I lose my patience around the third or fourth time.
How many times must I:

Acknowledge the argument?
Repeat the argument to you?
Concede the argument?
You are arguing ad nauseam against a position I DON'T HOLD! I ALSO get testy!

So back off and get down off of your high horse.

Whether or not you have an instinct to do X tells us nothing about whether X is or is not moral. It's irrelevant.Morality is not absolute. What is moral is what you reason and/or percieve as moral. Whether or not you have an instinct to do X tells you what you might perceive about X and why.

The problem dear Kevin is that what you are arguing against isn't what I'm arguing for.

RandFan

16th June 2009, 10:16 PM

It sounds like you are not familiar with physiology of living things.Sounds like you don't care about the facts.

We don't need to eat meat to survive.

Sorry, but if you are going to say humans do not need to eat meat this will come up. Sorry but it's a fact. We don't need to eat meat to survive.

We might have needed it at one time. Perhaps your point is valid that humans had to eat animals (I kinda doubt it) but I don't care.

We don't need to eat meat to survive.

I am not writting 10 plus pages of items for you to consider. If you are not wanting to hear about stomaches, or digestive systems, then I will doubt you will listen to much else.I would listen to proof that humans MUST eat meat to survive.

CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/) stats on diseases associated with malnutrition would be very nice.

This is the kind of evidence I use to prove to some that America doesn't suffer from starvation (there is stastitcally zero or near zero amount of disease associated with malnutrition in America).

There are a lot of Vegans in America. If what you are saying is true I would expect diseases associated with malnutrion to be listed with the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/).

No need for long winded explanations. Just proof. It's the skeptic in me. Sorry.

RandFan

16th June 2009, 10:20 PM

Kevin,

We could move forward much quicker if you would answer the questions.

I'm stranded on a dessert island with my family and some strangers.
After a few months it becomes clear that water and other resources, while sufficient for my family to survive, are currently diminishing and will not hold out for everyone.
My moral sense is to protect my family.
This moral sense will likely lead me to conflict and even bloodshed in order for my family to survive.
That moral sense exists because it is natural.
Let me make this easy. Is it moral for me to put the welfare of my family before the welfare of strangers?

Sword_Of_Truth

16th June 2009, 10:32 PM

It does assume that we agree that rape, murder, gang warfare, infanticide, theft and so on are, all else being equal, morally wrong. Now pretty much any useful moral philosophy will get to the conclusion that these things are wrong so typically this is not controversial.

How is a moral philosophy "useful" if it cuts us off from valuable resources?

Such a philosophy would be harmful and limiting to a society that develops it.

Steelmage

16th June 2009, 10:42 PM

To Steelmage
You're kidding, right? You just linked to a web site by a kook selling a fad diet book, who provides no citations and claims that anonymous "health authorities" are conspiring against us. Try again with a reputable source.

That source is bad while the "information" you are providing is good? Also if you closed the pop-up you can get to the article.
Then why did we evoluted as omnivores, if plants had all the so called nutrients for humans.
Human digest system is not as complex as a herbivore to get all the nutrients from plants.

But here is some more links:

Vitamin B12 cannot be found in plant foods, therefore inadequate intakes of B12 are a problem for strict vegetarians. Lacking vitamin B12 can adversely affect neurological function including memory and concentration.

http://www.mla.com.au/TopicHierarchy/InformationCentre/Red+meat+and+nutrition/News+and+information/Nutrients+in+red+meat.htm
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B12

Creatine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine

In humans and animals, approximately half of stored creatine originates from food (mainly from fresh meat). Since vegetables do not contain creatine, vegetarians show lower levels of muscle creatine. With the help of creatine supplementation vegetarians can compensate for this loss.[1]

Carnosine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnosine

Typical vegetarian diets are thought to be lacking in carnosine, but whether this has a detrimental effect on vegetarians is controversial. Carnosine was found to inhibit diabetic nephropathy by protecting the podocytes and mesangial cells.[14] Because of its antioxidant, antiglycator and metal chelator properties, carnosine supplements have been proposed as a general anti-aging therapy. [15]

The_Animus

16th June 2009, 10:47 PM

I'm happy with that. Let's stop the abuses of factory farming.

Agreed :)

RandFan

16th June 2009, 10:47 PM

No. My argument is not circular.

It does assume that we agree that rape, murder, gang warfare, infanticide, theft and so on are, all else being equal, morally wrong. Now pretty much any useful moral philosophy will get to the conclusion that these things are wrong so typically this is not controversial.

How is a moral philosophy "useful" if it cuts us off from valuable resources?

Such a philosophy would be harmful and limiting to a society that develops it. Bear in mind also that Kevin is arguing in a vacuum with the luxury of living in a society where there are plenty of resources.

How does this moral philosophy stack up when resources are not sufficeint and social cohesion breaks down.

Morality: Contextual, relative.

MikeSun5

16th June 2009, 11:00 PM

Several times in the past I've read information concerning how it takes more work, resources, land, and crops grown to support eating meat instead of just eating plants. I can't remember where I read it, but it seems someone else has posted an example of that information.

Humans are largely opportunistic. We like the path of least resistance. If it was cheaper and more efficient for people to eat exclusively plants, we'd be eating exclusively plants. The truth is, importing livestock feed and having a cattle farm is more cost effective than growing fields of grain -- and it can also be done in a smaller area. Livestock can also be raised on infertile land. I've posted all this before, but it was ignored. ;)

Almost every single argument in favor of raising animals to eat is based upon the premise that we have the right to do with animals as we please regardless of whether they feel pain or suffer, which I don't agree with.

Supply and demand justifies eating animals, not morality. Humans eat animals because they're an easy and available form of food. (I lived with a vegan - I know how much they have to eat to get their nutrition. It's a lot, and most of it tastes gross.) One thing that's remained constant from the time of tribal humans is the fact that it's quicker to catch and cook some critter than it is to plant and harvest a vegetable. Moving to modern times, the second it's convenient and cheaper for humans to eat vegan diets, we will eat vegan diets.

Some say that fat bottomed girls make the world go round, and others say it's the sun's gravitational pull... but it's really money.

Steelmage

16th June 2009, 11:15 PM

Sounds like you don't care about the facts.

We don't need to eat meat to survive.

Sorry but it's a fact. We don't need to eat meat to survive.

We might have needed it at one time. Perhaps your point is valid that humans had to eat animals (I kinda doubt it) but I don't care.

We don't need to eat meat to survive.

I would listen to proof that humans MUST eat meat to survive.

CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/) stats on diseases associated with malnutrition would be very nice.

This is the kind of evidence I use to prove to some that America doesn't suffer from starvation (there is stastitcally zero or near zero amount of disease associated with malnutrition in America).

There are a lot of Vegans in America. If what you are saying is true I would expect diseases associated with malnutrion to be listed with the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/).

No need for long winded explanations. Just proof. It's the skeptic in me. Sorry.

No, it not that I do not care about facts, it is that I do not have time to set around pulling up links and write up long pages to "prove" something to you. If you do not understand that the human body has a simple digestive system and a herbivore has complex one, then is nothing more I can do. If you do not care about the digestive system of humans, then there is little I can write to convince you as you will just brush away the facts. If humans no longer need meat then our bodies would have change to accommodate that ability. Vegetarians have to take a certain amount of supplements to get the requirements they need for their diet. That is why there is no malnutrion problem here.
The vegans I know typical get sick a lot but that is anecdotal information.
Humans are omnivores, that is how we developed. Unless our digestive system changes, our diet needs will still consist of meats, nuts, and vegetables.

Sword_Of_Truth

16th June 2009, 11:54 PM

No, it not that I do not care about facts, it is that I do not have time to set around pulling up links and write up long pages to "prove" something to you. If you do not understand that the human body has a simple digestive system and a herbivore has complex one, then is nothing more I can do. If you do not care about the digestive system of humans, then there is little I can write to convince you as you will just brush away the facts. If humans no longer need meat then our bodies would have change to accommodate that ability. Vegetarians have to take a certain amount of supplements to get the requirements they need for their diet. That is why there is no malnutrion problem here.
The vegans I know typical get sick a lot but that is anecdotal information.
Humans are omnivores, that is how we developed. Unless our digestive system changes, our diet needs will still consist of meats, nuts, and vegetables.

Steelmage - Randfan didn't say that our digestive tracts are different from many herbivores or that these differences were irrelevant. He merely said that we can survive on a vegetarian diet.

Which is true... we may not thrive on it, it may or may not be the best for us. But we can survive on it.

The_Animus

17th June 2009, 12:23 AM

If it was cheaper and more efficient for people to eat exclusively plants, we'd be eating exclusively plants. The truth is, importing livestock feed and having a cattle farm is more cost effective than growing fields of grain -- and it can also be done in a smaller area. Livestock can also be raised on infertile land. I've posted all this before, but it was ignored. ;)

Unfortunately I can't address all comments directed towards me as the time it would require from me would be even more enormous than it already is. :) Others are ignored for various reasons but generally I feel that discussion with them is unproductive.

You are correct that much of the economy is based around what is cost effective, however you have to take into account individuals tastes. The reason we don't exclusively eat plants is not because they are not the most cost effective but because people want other things to eat. This is why people are willing to pay $20+ for a lobster or steak when they could just eat some fruits and grains for $2. This sort of thing can be seen in most every part of the economy. People don't buy hummers and convertibles because they are really cheaper to produce than a small 2 or 4 door passenger vehicle, they buy them because they want them and are willing to pay the extra money. However, the cost that you pay for an item doesn't necessarily indicate the cost to produce it due to externalizing costs such as federal subsidies.

http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/health_pork.html
http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/images/pyramid.jpg

As another poster pointed out the amount of crops we GROW to feed livestock could feed over 8 billion people. Meat simply costs more to produce than most plants. I say most because I'm sure there are some exceptions.

Minadin

17th June 2009, 12:44 AM

When I was young, our family owned some cattle. My sister insisted on naming a few of them, once and the two we ended up butchering one year were named 'T-Bone' and 'Sir Loin'.

Sword_Of_Truth

17th June 2009, 01:06 AM

You are correct that much of the economy is based around what is cost effective, however you have to take into account individuals tastes. The reason we don't exclusively eat plants is not because they are not the most cost effective but because people want other things to eat. This is why people are willing to pay $20+ for a lobster or steak when they could just eat some fruits and grains for $2. This sort of thing can be seen in most every part of the economy. People don't buy hummers and convertibles because they are really cheaper to produce than a small 2 or 4 door passenger vehicle, they buy them because they want them and are willing to pay the extra money. However, the cost that you pay for an item doesn't necessarily indicate the cost to produce it due to externalizing costs such as federal subsidies.

That's freedom, baby! :D

Kevin_Lowe

17th June 2009, 01:21 AM

Nonsense. Morality is a rule of behavior. It's a fact that morality has evolved over time and is different from society to society. It's demonstrable that it is contextual. It's also clear that morality is often in conflict. What is moral for society isn't always what is moral for the individual.

That makes your position a little clearer but not completely clear. It seems like you're articulating some kind of mishmash of moral relativism and utilitarianism. I'll ask for clarification where necessary as we go along.

You are asking me "is it good"? From whose perspective?

Mine: No, it's not good.
Genghis Khan, Alexander, Attila the Hun, Cesar Augustus, Hannibal Barca: Good. Definitely good.

I'm assuming from the context that you not only think that this is what Genghis Khan, Alexander, Attila the Hun, Cesar Augustus and Hannibal Barca would say, but also that they would be right to say it.

That's moral relativism of some form - possibly cultural moral relativism (the thesis that moral behaviour is doing what your society says is moral) or possibly personal moral relativism (the thesis that moral behaviour is doing what you personally think is moral).

Regardless of what flavour of moral relativism you're endorsing, it's useless as a moral theory. Personal moral relativism makes literally any revolting behaviour moral if you think it is - under PMR, Ted Bundy was a highly moral guy. Cultural moral relativism is equally bad on that front, and in addition makes the idea of moral progress (which you seem to believe in) self-contradictory, since by definition anyone trying to change society's morals is acting immorally. CMR is also self-defeating in that it would be immoral to embrace CMR unless your culture did.

There are objective reasons why individuals and society as a whole might choose to see these as counter productive to both the individual and society. Societies have evolved and we have evolved a moral zeitgeist that now prohibits this list. These things might have been necessary for the survival of small hunter gatherer groups but things have changed. That is the essence of evolution.

Let me give you an example. You mention "theft". Roman soldiers were at times intentionally under resourced when it came to food and clothing and they were encouraged to engage in petty theft of fellow countrymen. This freed up resources for weaponry and other needs and taught the soldiers to adapt.

This was good from the perspective of the army.

This is where I need some more clarification.

Are you arguing that whatever your culture says is right, is right, and that what some cultures said was right changed over time as they learned more about what was an efficient way to run a nation?

Or are you saying that refraining from rape, murder etc is moral in and of itself?

Because they have become anachronistic. Because we've reasoned them to be counter to social cohesion and increased social welfare and well being.

Same clarification needed. If it turned out that spousal rape, press gangs or whatever were not counter to social cohesion and increased social welfare would they be morally okay? Or are spousal rape, genocide and whatnot always bad regardless of whether a given society thinks so?

No, that is NOT what I've assumed.

I know something about history and societies.
I've studied the history of moral progress and note that some things improve society in ways that improve the overall quality of life for more peple and some things have not.
I know that the mortality rate has increased and the homicide rates have decreased and I know that objective measures of well being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) have increased among societies that adopt moral philosophies that favor some moral instincts over others.
I've seen the arguments and evidence that some instincts are overall counter to social cohesion, social welfare and the well being of individuals.
Also, I'm aware that I'm a product of the social zeitgeist of my time (as are you) and I value things that individuals in the past did not value.
Wrong (see above)

Same again.

Sometimes it looks like you are advocating pure cultural relativism. Which is about the least useful moral theory around.

Sometimes it looks like you are advocating some form of utilitarianism, probably preference satisfaction utilitarianism or welfare utilitarianism, in which case you're actually arguing for a universalist, consequentialist moral system. This is a much more defensible moral theory, but one that very quickly leads to a strong animal rights position once you figure out that higher mammals have nervous systems very much like our own and are capable of happiness and suffering.

Morality is not absolute. What is moral is what you reason and/or percieve as moral. Whether or not you have an instinct to do X tells you what you might perceive about X and why.

The problem dear Kevin is that what you are arguing against isn't what I'm arguing for.

Okay, it looks like you're a moral relativist. Moral relativism is incoherent, useless, condones any atrocity you can talk yourself into committing and fails all the tests that a useful, coherent moral theory needs to pass.

Bear in mind also that Kevin is arguing in a vacuum with the luxury of living in a society where there are plenty of resources.

How does this moral philosophy stack up when resources are not sufficeint and social cohesion breaks down.

Morality: Contextual, relative.

Yeah, moral relativism.

Historically speaking moral relativism was a dumb idea anthropologists and sociologists came up with. Philosophers quickly pointed out that it was a useless moral theory and it's now mostly in the dustbin of intellectual history.

How is a moral philosophy "useful" if it cuts us off from valuable resources?

Such a philosophy would be harmful and limiting to a society that develops it.

Careful now. You're in danger of defining morality as "whatever works best", which is not morality at all, it's just self-interest. (The moral theory that doing whatever works best for you is moral is called ethical egoism, and as a moral theory it's literally useless).

However it's not "cutting us off from valuable resources" to, say, stop feeding edible grain to pigs so we can make bacon out of them. Making bacon that way is a straightforward expenditure of resources in any universe where the laws of thermodynamics apply, not a net gain of resources.

shawmutt

17th June 2009, 02:08 AM

Unfortunately I can't address all comments directed towards me as the time it would require from me would be even more enormous than it already is. Others are ignored for various reasons but generally I feel that discussion with them is unproductive.

Duly noted, Mr. [can't finish the sentence because of forum rules].

Sword_Of_Truth

17th June 2009, 02:23 AM

Careful now. You're in danger of defining morality as "whatever works best", which is not morality at all, it's just self-interest. (The moral theory that doing whatever works best for you is moral is called ethical egoism, and as a moral theory it's literally useless).

Absent a higher power that provides an absolute standard, that's what morality is. Basically whatever works best for society.

However it's not "cutting us off from valuable resources" to, say, stop feeding edible grain to pigs so we can make bacon out of them.

Yes it is... that would be cutting us off from bacon.

Making bacon that way is a straightforward expenditure of resources in any universe where the laws of thermodynamics apply, not a net gain of resources.

The current means of making bacon is the best, most efficient means that we have discovered. If better ways are discovered, we will use them. But efficiency of production has little to do with the morality of slaughtering pigs.

Tapio

17th June 2009, 04:03 AM

There is nothing to defend until you can show a reasoned argument as to why it's wrong.

Did you actually read through the link I posted earlier? For if you did, it's hard for me to understand how you still keep making the same argument. So I'll put forth another one, but before that, some thoughts.

I don't know where you live and how you acquire the meat you eat. But I'm guessing if you're not a rancher or (like me) live in a small town with ranchers nearby, you buy it from a shop/market. So where does the shop/market get the meat? From ranchers. Where are the ranches your meat comes from and how are the animals in these ranches handled?

Now, I'm not saying there is necessarily anything uncertain about where you get your meat, but there sure is a globally wide market for meat with a hideous background.

Example (http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0612-abras_beef_wal-mart.html)
Cattle ranching is the biggest driver of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, accounting for roughly 80 percent of forest clearing. More than 38,600 square miles has been cleared for pasture since 1996, bringing the total area occupied by cattle ranches in the Brazilian Amazon to 214,000 square miles, an area larger than France. The legal Amazon, an region consisting of rainforests and a biologically-rich grassland known as cerrado, is now home to more than 80 million head of cattle, more than 85 percent of the total U.S. herd.

I don't think anybody can give you a reasonable, evidence-based argument, for why eating meat is wrong. But I know the wheight of the evidence with regard to how the meat millions of people eat is raised* is against the "status quo". Or are you explicitly referring to the status quo of a certain people with adequate laws preventing these kinds of disasters? If so, I'd like to know who/where, because I must be ignorant of them.

*to be specific, what the modern (factory-style) raising methods are doing to our environment, how we could more efficiently use the land, feed and water now spent on raising meat, for the benefit of humans...

Now, do you think that people are morally obligated to take responsibilty for where their food comes from, so as to find out whom they are paying and what it means globally that they're favouring certain products over others?

Tapio

17th June 2009, 04:12 AM

The current means of making bacon is the best, most efficient means that we have discovered. If better ways are discovered, we will use them. But efficiency of production has little to do with the morality of slaughtering pigs.

Ah...but does it? Are you suggesting that, if by cutting down the amount of bacon you eat in a day by half (and all other bacon eaters doing the same) we could feed millions now starving, you wouldn't be performing a morally commendable deed?

I feel the question of how much meat eating per person is "morally acceptable" (because of what means are required to produce meat) can not be dissociated from the question of morals and eating meat per se.

realpaladin

17th June 2009, 04:13 AM

Hmmm, to me it seems we are mixing absolutes with percentages...

So, my suggestion would be... start cutting down on the number of human beings running around on the planet, then the whole of absolute figures will come down as well.

There was a nice NatGeo docu on what an average human consumes in a lifetime. It is called 'The Human Footprint'.

And after seeing that, one friend argued 'we should cut down on our intake', while I argued 'we should cut down on humans'.

I still stand by that.

Tapio

17th June 2009, 04:15 AM

And after seeing that, one friend argued 'we should cut down on our intake', while I argued 'we should cut down on humans'.

I still stand by that.

Starting with you and/or your loved ones? :rolleyes:

Kevin_Lowe

17th June 2009, 04:25 AM

Absent a higher power that provides an absolute standard, that's what morality is. Basically whatever works best for society.

No. You may want to look into a field of study called "moral philosophy". It's something that people have been working on for over 2000 years and it's taught in some form in virtually every major university.

Yes it is... that would be cutting us off from bacon.

Okay, so now you're defining "access to resources" as "access to whatever we want". If you make that move, it's easy to answer your question about how a moral philosophy might be useful. It might lead us on principled grounds to eschew things that we want but which are bad for us, or bad for others. Easy.

The current means of making bacon is the best, most efficient means that we have discovered. If better ways are discovered, we will use them. But efficiency of production has little to do with the morality of slaughtering pigs.

You started this subthread, not me.

realpaladin

17th June 2009, 04:29 AM

Starting with you and/or your loved ones? :rolleyes:
The loved ones part has already been done for me, so why not?

But as far as I can see it is a non-question trying to appeal to some form of attachment and not a rational way of finding a solution.

Cutting down the bio-industry would take time, one-child programs as well.

If I would have to pick between 'being nicer to animals' and 'making people just have sex for fun', well, I know what my standpoint is.

The Painter

17th June 2009, 04:46 AM

If we want to be sticklers, I thought we were originally talking about "harm." With your humble permission, will you allow me to revise my original comment to "pleasure" and "pain?" If you have any difficulty understanding these terms you may want to check out that one book that keeps definitions for most words.

Is death painful?? Is death "harm"??

Kevin_Lowe

17th June 2009, 05:38 AM

Kevin,

We could move forward much quicker if you would answer the questions.

Let me make this easy. Is it moral for me to put the welfare of my family before the welfare of strangers?

Separate post because I just noticed this one.

Randfan, I answered the original question when you first asked it, by explaining to you yet again that whether something was natural had nothing to do with whether it was morally good or bad. Now you're asking a totally different question, which is at best very tangentially related to the topic of the thread, and carrying on as if I was avoiding your question. Poor form.

The only answer you really deserve is "Whether it is right to put the welfare of your family before the welfare of strangers has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is natural to do so, do you get it yet? You keep claiming that you get it, but then you keep posting more stuff like this that makes it seem like you don't".

However to give a more complete answer to the new question in red text: utilitarians would say do whatever creates the best overall outcome, viewed dispassionately. Kant would say obey your usual moral rules come what may, which presumably excludes killing your fellow shipwreck victims so you can have their food. Virtue ethicists could conceivably go either way, depending on what they conceived of as a virtue. They would probably all agree that you should talk with your fellow islanders and trying to agree on a course of action rather than bash their heads in with a rock when they least expect it, which is what it looks like you are leading up to.

How this is relevant to the thread topic is beyond me, unless you are trapped on an island with a herd of cows who will kill you unless you kill them first.

GreNME

17th June 2009, 06:31 AM

However to give a more complete answer to the new question in red text: utilitarians would say do whatever creates the best overall outcome, viewed dispassionately.

Which is precisely why the utilitarian answer is so painfully and ridiculously misguided and/or mistaken. It also displays a fundamental rift between the Animal Rights groups and those who advocate Animal Welfare. It also shows the difference between an environmentalist and a conservationist, as a side note.

realpaladin

17th June 2009, 06:36 AM

Virtue ethicists could conceivably go either way, depending on what they conceived of as a virtue. They would probably all agree that you should talk with your fellow islanders and trying to agree on a course of action rather than bash their heads in with a rock when they least expect it, which is what it looks like you are leading up to.

Rrrright, so the virtue ethicists will be the first ones I will eat on the Island, as they will be the easiest to catch.

The rest I will have to hunt down later.

Drudgewire

17th June 2009, 06:53 AM

Cain

17th June 2009, 08:05 AM

Your tactic of getting meat eaters to try to prove to you why it's ok to eat meat really won't work on me, although you do have some others hypnotized by it. So, can you give me a reasoned argument as to why eating meat is wrong?

We've had these arguments many times on these boards. See for instance my thread, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120058&highlight=marginal+cases

You may wish to keyword search for "marginal cases" as well as "speciesism."

I think we also cover this argument that the burden of making a case rests with the animal rights/liberation crowd, and I accept it, much the same way I accept atheists are burdened with making a case against God. But one must realize most of the arguments will go back to the largely unexamined acceptance of eating animals/believing in God.

In an above post RandFan uses terms disregarding their meaning, but what he says is very interesting:

The problem is that your argument is circular. We must first determine whether or not these things are immoral absent our own confirmation bias.

How many meat-eaters here were raised as vegetarians or vegans? How many vegetarians/vegans were raised as meat-eaters? It's also worth noting you will occasionally encounter a person who claims to eat meat, but has serious reservations.
--------------------------

Sword of Truth:
Because our arguments haven't reached the place where you have shoved your head, they must poor quality? Brilliant thinking there sherlock.

If you can't back your claim up, at least be man enough to admit it.

It seems as though you think you're saying something substantive here -- and so goes this meaningless back n' forth exchange. As I said, judging by the quality of posts in this thread -- see quotes in my sig, which administrators limit to six lines -- the arguments from your "side," if you want to call it that, are embarrassingly weak. Naturally, I'd expect people to disagree with my view, but your "mind reading" comment, and similar nonsense here, does not seem to do you much good (nor do RandFan's posts). But anyway...

More of the same, the point being made, you have nothing to dispute it with, so you go for the dismissive hand wave.

Because it deals with animal testing, not meat-eating. I know of no hard and fast rules on digression, and it seems certain people like to revise them willy-nilly, but what else do you want me to say? If you want to argue for meat-eating, then argue for meat-eating. If you can. Instead you want to argue for animal testing, and then assert (without support), as an afterthought, that "[the meat industry's] existence is an inevitable side effect of keeping animals in their proper place for the medical research community."

Painter writes:
Is death painful?? Is death "harm"??

Death can be painful. It can also be a harm. Now, why don't we go back to your original comment:

Animus, I know this was touched on earlier, but if killing cows (animals) for food is wrong, how do you justify killing plants? Plants are a life form. Plants are possibly more widespread and diverse than people. It is life. Why is it OK to kill that life. If we are no better than a cow, why are we better that a tree?

Here you were engaged in a standard equivocation straw man, "life is life," but even vegetarians distinguish between different types of life forms. My Socratic questions attempted to nudge you into this direction, but it seems you're not much interested in arguments about ideas. Which is fine. If I took your position, I probably wouldn't be much interested in ideas either. But if you are genuinely interested in the differences between, say, plants and mammals, pleasure and pain plays a prominent role. "Diversity"... not as much.

GreNME:
Which is precisely why the utilitarian answer is so painfully and ridiculously misguided and/or mistaken. It also displays a fundamental rift between the Animal Rights groups and those who advocate Animal Welfare. It also shows the difference between an environmentalist and a conservationist, as a side note.

And how exactly does the utilitarian answer display a fundamental rift between animal rights and animal welfare groups? Based on your previous answers in this area, I advise you approach this question with caution.

RandFan

17th June 2009, 08:15 AM

I'm assuming from the context that you not only think that this is what Genghis Khan, Alexander, Attila the Hun, Cesar Augustus and Hannibal Barca would say, but also that they would be right to say it.What yardstick to I have to judge it by? Yes, they would be right to say it (from their perspective).

That's moral relativism of some form - possibly cultural moral relativism (the thesis that moral behaviour is doing what your society says is moral) or possibly personal moral relativism (the thesis that moral behaviour is doing what you personally think is moral).

Regardless of what flavour of moral relativism you're endorsing, it's useless as a moral theory. Personal moral relativism makes literally any revolting behaviour moral if you think it is - under PMR, Ted Bundy was a highly moral guy. Cultural moral relativism is equally bad on that front, and in addition makes the idea of moral progress (which you seem to believe in) self-contradictory, since by definition anyone trying to change society's morals is acting immorally. CMR is also self-defeating in that it would be immoral to embrace CMR unless your culture did. :) We ARE making progress. I really appreciate your thoughtful consideration of what I'm saying.

I accept the fact of personal and cultural relativism but I think we as a society, using reason, can formulate better and better morals. We can reason morals to allow more people to have greater well being and there is less suffering (with a number of other caveats and this is where the nuance comes in. I won't enumerate them all now.)
Humans have near universal adaptive traits for behavior (in part what we call our sensed morality)
Humans can judge history, what has worked in the past and what hasn't and given the facts we can reason better morals than our predecessors.
Are you arguing that whatever your culture says is right, is right, and that what some cultures said was right changed over time as they learned more about what was an efficient way to run a nation? Not quite but close.
My culture might accept slavery but I might find it morally repugnant.
I might accept slavery but my culture might find it morally repugnant.
Or are you saying that refraining from rape, murder etc is moral in and of itself? No. That cannot be. If it were then animals that rape, and they exist, would be immoral.

Same clarification needed. If it turned out that spousal rape, press gangs or whatever were not counter to social cohesion and increased social welfare would they be morally okay? Or are spousal rape, genocide and whatnot always bad regardless of whether a given society thinks so? To be honest I had to look up press gangs.

It's not as easy for me to answer as you might think because the basis for our morality isn't any single thing. What yardstick do I have to measure the morality of these things against? In the past people relied on religious texts. I don't accept those. so, what am I left with.
My own internal (and faliable) feelings.
Societal mores
History
Reason
I choose to follow my conscious and the customs, ethics and laws of my society and to lend my voice to others to argue in favor of what I deem to be better morals in the hopes of improving the moral zeitgeist.

Okay, it looks like you're a moral relativist. Moral relativism is incoherent, useless, condones any atrocity you can talk yourself into committing and fails all the tests that a useful, coherent moral theory needs to pass.No. I'm not a strict moral relativist. Believe it or not there is a middle ground between moral relativism and moral absolutism.

Humans were born with near universal adaptive traits. Among these are a group of feelings and behaviors we collectively call morals. Also, humans have reason and the ability to learn from the past. We can decide what is most important to us and reason what is the best path to reach our goals.

Historically speaking moral relativism was a dumb idea anthropologists and sociologists came up with. Philosophers quickly pointed out that it was a useless moral theory and it's now mostly in the dustbin of intellectual history. So is moral absolutism.

Careful now. You're in danger of defining morality as "whatever works best", which is not morality at all, it's just self-interest. (The moral theory that doing whatever works best for you is moral is called ethical egoism, and as a moral theory it's literally useless)."Best" at what? Isn't reduced suffering and increased well being a good moral goal? It's not quite that simple but if that, in part, is what works best then what is the problem with that? However, I DON'T simply define morality as that. Don't leave out our near universal and evolved sense of right and wrong.

Thank you very much for the excange and the tone of your post.

Damien Evans

17th June 2009, 08:24 AM

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/food/kfc.asp

Funny, the story I always got told was that it was because they started using rabbit instead of chicken. Must be an Aussie thing.

Damien Evans

17th June 2009, 08:26 AM

Ok. I have to say it. Some of the more vocal anti-meat folks remind me a little too much of the 'Horizon Corporation' from the Tom Clancy novel Rainbow Six.

Yeah, I notice a resemblance there as well.

RandFan

17th June 2009, 08:34 AM

In an above post RandFan uses terms disregarding their meaning, but what he says is very interesting: You were doing so well. Ego, aint it a bitch?

How many meat-eaters here were raised as vegetarians or vegans? How many vegetarians/vegans were raised as meat-eaters? It's also worth noting you will occasionally encounter a person who claims to eat meat, but has serious reservations.It's a very good point. I suspect that society is moving toward your view point. I'm not sure what that proves but given that in modern liberal societies enlightenment tends to increase it would seem something worthy of consideration.

Then again, the only active propaganda (that which moves the zeitgeist) is from the industries that profit from our consumption of animals and those opposed to that.

Take it for what it's worth.

RandFan

17th June 2009, 08:44 AM

Randfan, I answered the original question when you first asked it, by explaining to you yet again that whether something was natural had nothing to do with whether it was morally good or bad. Now you're asking a totally different question, which is at best very tangentially related to the topic of the thread, and carrying on as if I was avoiding your question. Poor form.I apologize but I never saw an answer.

The only answer you really deserve is "Whether it is right to put the welfare of your family before the welfare of strangers has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is natural to do so, do you get it yet? You keep claiming that you get it, but then you keep posting more stuff like this that makes it seem like you don't".Where do I use the word "natural"?

I would appreciate it very much if you would stop with the "natural" crap.

How this is relevant to the thread topic is beyond me...I didn't come up with the hypothetical. It's from a text on moral philosophy to demonstrate that what we often percieve as absolute morals break down under many circumstances. BTW: Did you notice that there AREN'T enough resources for everyone. Not unprecedented.

Hey Bill
Hey John
There's not enough food and water for everyone.
Well, let's calmly reason a solution.

No one is going to reason utilitarian vs kantian morality in such times. Sure we can look back in hindsight and reason what should happen. But what I think is telling is that you can't come up with an answer. You have to give me options for me to decide.

Why is that?

You scolded me for basing my morals on "what works best" and now you are telling me to choose from a menu as if morals were only based on algorythims, à la carte. Aren't morals absolute?

GreNME

17th June 2009, 08:46 AM

GreNME:

And how exactly does the utilitarian answer display a fundamental rift between animal rights and animal welfare groups? Based on your previous answers in this area, I advise you approach this question with caution.

Oh, get off this "caution" BS of yours, you have no authority here but the assumed self-righteous authority you continually claim arbitrarily.

The difference is two-fold, in its most basic make-up. First, the utilitarian approach described ignores any significance to the social and communal benefits of distinction between 'like' and 'not like', or more specifically the difference between a fundamentalist, unchanging approach and a heuristic, nuanced approach. For RandFan's statement, the difference is between 'family' and 'stranger', and while the utilitarian would make no differentiation between the two a more heuristic approach would acknowledge the difference in value, both philosophically and naturally. This particularly applies to the difference between the Animal Rights and Animal Welfare groups because the former ignores distinctions between different animals to make its case while the latter recognizes the distinctions in social, communal, and natural terms.

Essentially, the difference is one of a choice between a fundamentalist and a heuristic approach to things.

GreNME

17th June 2009, 08:48 AM

Aren't morals absolute?

Of course they aren't, which Cain and Kevin seem to keep refusing to comprehend.

TriskettheKid

17th June 2009, 09:11 AM

Of course they aren't, which Cain and Kevin seem to keep refusing to comprehend.

Even if morals were absolute, it'd make them just as culpable as those who ate meat.

thaiboxerken

17th June 2009, 09:21 AM

Now, I'm not saying there is necessarily anything uncertain about where you get your meat, but there sure is a globally wide market for meat with a hideous background.

This speaks to a different issue, which is the treatment of animals while they're being raised and abuse of animals. It doesn't address the core issue of why it's wrong to kill an animal to eat it.

People, like PETA, don't want humans to eat meat because they believe killing certain types of animals is wrong. They even think that having a pet is wrong, and would like people not to "enslave" animals in any way, shape or form.

thaiboxerken

17th June 2009, 09:29 AM

We've had these arguments many times on these boards. See for instance my thread, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120058&highlight=marginal+cases

Well that convinces me. I guess it's time to fight for animal suffrage.:rolleyes:

GreNME

17th June 2009, 09:37 AM

Well that convinces me. I guess it's time to fight for animal suffrage.:rolleyes:

Actually, that thread perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about between the fundamentalist and heuristic approaches. Cain's (and mumblethrax's) fundamental, black-or-white, all-or-not-moral-enough approaches in that thread are a pretty good example of that rift I was speaking to a few posts back.

RandFan

17th June 2009, 09:59 AM

tomwaits

17th June 2009, 10:17 AM

Aren't morals absolute?Of course they aren't,

They are if you're an Objectivist...;)

RandFan

17th June 2009, 10:28 AM

Please consider the follow two statements.
The sky is blue because it is natural.
I percieve that the sky is blue.
Are either true? Why or why not? I wanted to update this because the idea is lost in it's poor construction. As Kevin points out. It's non-sensical.

Humans evolved to percieve that:

Clear water from a moving creek or river is better than fouled standing water.

The perception isn't correct simply because it is natural.

However, we can understand the value of the perception. We percieve one as good and the other as bad because of its adaptive value to humans. Modern science has revealed that the perception (and rule of behavior), statistically, is correct but not absolutely. IOW: Our reason and gained knowledge can inform our adaptive perceptions.

So, if there should be some catastrophic change to the environment so that clear running water is more likely to be bad and fouled standing water is more likely to be good then we would not need to wait for evolution to correct our perception.

We have reason.

RandFan

17th June 2009, 10:31 AM

They are if you're an Objectivist...;)Or a member of one of many dogmatic religious sects and many that are not so dogmatic.

FWIW: I'm not an Objectivist now nor have I ever been.

dudalb

17th June 2009, 10:37 AM

The best description of Objectivism I have ever seen states it is a sort of Fudenmentalist Religon for Athiests.....

RandFan

17th June 2009, 10:42 AM

The best description of Objectivism I have ever seen states it is a sort of Fudenmentalist Religon for Athiests.....Sounds right.

Humans are fond of having a set of guidelines to inform them what is correct and they like to have organizations to formalize those guidelines and a figurehead is usually helpful. Monarchies, Dictatorships, Democrats and Republicans.

A thumb to suck isn't bad either.

GreNME

17th June 2009, 10:47 AM

They are if you're an Objectivist...;)
Or a member of one of many dogmatic religious sects and many that are not so dogmatic.

Yes, definitely. The ideology isn''t the determining factor of what I'm describing, it's the difference in approach and interpretation.

Minadin

17th June 2009, 10:50 AM

GreNME

17th June 2009, 11:35 AM

I do my best to avoid Factory-Farmed beef and pork by buying those products from local companies who are supplied by small-time area farmers. One reason is that I like the idea of supporting a local family instead of a huge corporate operation, another is that I think they take better care of the animals, but also, to be honest, I think that the cattle here which are allowed to graze grass and eat grain instead of a diet of almost pure corn just tastes a whole lot better.

That's a great example of both a communal and natural reason for shifting away from the mass-farmed meat market. In addition to those things, you're also contributing to lowered unnecessary use of carbon and greenhouse gasses. There is also the indirect result of supporting a market that keeps the land being used from instead developing into urban or suburban sprawl-- the latter of which is a huge contributor to greenhouse gas and carbon emissions. This also sets a model for what is currently dominated by mass-production industry for people who want to provide a good (or goods) to their local public and not have to move into tighter quarters of a city or even a suburb. The bonus is often that the meat isn't usually much different in cost to what you'd get in the meat aisles, and you can likely get more of the healthier types of meat instead of chops that are stuffed with preservatives, sodium, or full of fatty gristle.

Sword_Of_Truth

17th June 2009, 01:27 PM

Ah...but does it? Are you suggesting that, if by cutting down the amount of bacon you eat in a day by half (and all other bacon eaters doing the same) we could feed millions now starving, you wouldn't be performing a morally commendable deed?

We could feed those starving millions by other means without having to give up bacon.

In fact, our bacon consumption has notrhing to do with their starvation.

The_Animus

17th June 2009, 01:35 PM

Duly noted, Mr. [can't finish the sentence because of forum rules].

In the world there are people who it is better to ignore than to instigate. That is just the way of things. On this forum I frequently find people who based on their posting show to me it would be best for me not to respond and instead leave it be. Sometimes it's because their posts are irrelevant to the discussion. Sometimes it's that they choose to attack other posters instead of the arguments. Sometimes it's because they are incredibly rude and can't discuss something politely. And sometimes I feel they don't want a discussion they want a shouting match to stroke their ego. In all these cases I've found that discussion goes nowhere, nothing is gained, time is wasted, and I become annoyed and frustrated.

If you enjoy the back and forth of that type then by all means have fun. I don't.

The Painter

17th June 2009, 03:43 PM

Painter writes:

Quote:
Is death painful?? Is death "harm"??
Death can be painful. It can also be a harm. Now, why don't we go back to your original comment:

Quote:
Animus, I know this was touched on earlier, but if killing cows (animals) for food is wrong, how do you justify killing plants? Plants are a life form. Plants are possibly more widespread and diverse than people. It is life. Why is it OK to kill that life. If we are no better than a cow, why are we better that a tree?

Here you were engaged in a standard equivocation straw man, "life is life," but even vegetarians distinguish between different types of life forms. My Socratic questions attempted to nudge you into this direction, but it seems you're not much interested in arguments about ideas. Which is fine. If I took your position, I probably wouldn't be much interested in ideas either. But if you are genuinely interested in the differences between, say, plants and mammals, pleasure and pain plays a prominent role. "Diversity"... not as much.

Good for them. I can distinguish the difference between life forms too. So what. Is a mammal worth more than a carrot? worth more than a bacteria??? Without bacteria, mankind would not exist. We could not digest food without them. Hell billions of years ago they put oxygen into the atmosphere so we could breathe. Yes, Life is life. Each form serves it's own purpose. It is all intertwined. Ideas about the morality of food are absurd. You chose to eat vegan, fine. You chose to eat vegetarian, fine You chose to eat meat, fine. BFD it doesn't matter. Will the world blossom into a beautiful Utopia if we don't kill our food? No it won't. However if you want to think it will, I will try some of those mushrooms you must be eating.

PS My original comment was about pets, not food. Pay attention.

Kevin_Lowe

17th June 2009, 04:53 PM

To GreNME
Which is precisely why the utilitarian answer is so painfully and ridiculously misguided and/or mistaken. It also displays a fundamental rift between the Animal Rights groups and those who advocate Animal Welfare. It also shows the difference between an environmentalist and a conservationist, as a side note.

Ridicule isn't an argument, nor is a moral theory flawed just because some people, who under that theory are immoral, say "I would never observe the rules that follow from such a theory!".

Maybe you're assuming that living a moral life has to be easy, and that any moral theory that concludes that you have a moral obligation to do anything other than cruise through your life is automatically asking too much?

Of course they aren't, which Cain and Kevin seem to keep refusing to comprehend.

I said earlier you might want to look into something called "moral philosophy". Absolutism doesn't mean what you think it means in this context, and it's not the opposite of relativism. Nor is what Ayn Rand called objectivism the only moral philosophy which claims to be objective.

Seriously, go hit wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and read some of this stuff.

To RandFan
I apologize but I never saw an answer.

Where do I use the word "natural"?

I would appreciate it very much if you would stop with the "natural" crap.

Natural, instinctive, normal and whatnot are all synonyms, and you're still banging on exactly the same point, which is still as irrelevant as it was when we started.

See your point below, about how we evolved to like clear, running water? I said right back at the start that this exact argument was no good. Just because Fred really is a Golden Retriever doesn't mean that the argument-form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A" is a good argument-form. Occasionally it will be true that A is true but you couldn't know that beforehand. You're just counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

I didn't come up with the hypothetical. It's from a text on moral philosophy to demonstrate that what we often percieve as absolute morals break down under many circumstances. BTW: Did you notice that there AREN'T enough resources for everyone. Not unprecedented.

Hey Bill
Hey John
There's not enough food and water for everyone.
Well, let's calmly reason a solution.

No one is going to reason utilitarian vs kantian morality in such times.

If your criteria for a useful moral theory is that everyone has to behave morally in times of deadly crisis then once again you've just defined morality out of existence. As I said to GreNME, nobody ever said that acting morally was supposed to be easy, especially in extreme situations. If anything that's the point of morality, to get us to do the hard thing rather than the easy thing when the hard thing is morally right.

Sure we can look back in hindsight and reason what should happen. But what I think is telling is that you can't come up with an answer. You have to give me options for me to decide.

Okay: You're locked in a room which is shrinking so that you will soon be crushed and die horribly. The door will only open if you rape your own baby, or beat an innocent schoolchild to death using a baseball bat with a nail in it. Now if you want me to provide you with a "moral" answer that you're going to like, and that most people can actually live up to, you're out of luck, because I've just pulled a no-win situation out of my backside.

The fact that you would abandon morality in the crunch doesn't automatically mean morality is invalid, or useless, and the fact that it doesn't magically give you a "win" in every no-win situation isn't a meaningful criticism either.

In any case, I don't see the relevance to eating meat. You aren't trapped on an island with a herd of savage, man-eating cows that are hunting you and your family down.

You scolded me for basing my morals on "what works best" and now you are telling me to choose from a menu as if morals were only based on algorythims, à la carte. Aren't morals absolute?

Actually that was directed at Sword_of_Truth, who was arguing that no moral theory can be moral if it cuts him off from bacon. I've given up on engaging with him.

If I were to say that a moral rule was absolute, I'd mean that it applies without exceptions. So if I said "do not murder" was an absolute moral rule I'd mean that it is never morally tolerable to murder under any circumstances. Anyone with any consequentialist leanings rejects absolutism - absolutism is mostly for religious nutters, like Kant.

I'd say rather than moral rules should be objective. They should apply equally to all people in relevantly similar situations. So eating factory-farmed meat is either immoral for all comfortably well-off First World people, barring extenuating circumstances, or it's moral for all all comfortably well-off First World people, barring extenuating circumstances.

That's not absolutism, and it's not relativism, and it's not egoism, and it's not the utter abandonment of morality in favour of easy access to bacon.

As to the criticism of picking from moral rules à la carte, there are multiple coherent, objectivist moral theories. All of them are intellectually defensible, although my preference is for consequentialism. If you pick any of them and stick to it I have no major criticisms of your position. I'm just here to beat the heads of people who endorse indefensible moral theories.

I wanted to update this because the idea is lost in it's poor construction. As Kevin points out. It's non-sensical.

Humans evolved to percieve that:

Clear water from a moving creek or river is better than fouled standing water.

The perception isn't correct simply because it is natural.

Look, I know that you know what an argumentative fallacy is.

Just because a fallacious argument gets you to a factually correct conclusion once in a while doesn't redeem the argument. It's still a dumb argument, it just got lucky. Just as a psychic can get lucky without actually having any real predictive power.

Yes, sometimes our instincts guide us to do what is moral. Sometimes they guide us to do what is immoral. Sometimes they give us no guidance at all. That's why whether something is instinctive, or natural, or the result of mirror neurons or whatever-the-hell is meaningless morally. It tells us nothing.

I've been saying this over and over and over again.

GreNME

17th June 2009, 05:27 PM

Ridicule isn't an argument, nor is a moral theory flawed just because some people, who under that theory are immoral, say "I would never observe the rules that follow from such a theory!".

Right, and those who claim that the moral theory in question is the objective morality have no greater claim. Funny how that works. You see, I've already pointed out how you've been arguing a strawman against me, assuming I was advocating something I had already explained I was not, yet you persist down this rhetorical path as if you never missed a beat. That, going back to my points about not attributing authority to the self-righteous just because they say so, is why your constant requirements that I have to define or defend myself according to your own arbitrary morality really aren't getting you anywhere. Granted, I'll give you credit for at least admitting you are arguing in black-or-white terms on the subject (Cain repeatedly failed to admit as much in the past thread), but being black-or-white nonetheless makes your arguments no more or less valid than if I were to go shopping for my own self-deigned absolute morality.

Maybe you're assuming that living a moral life has to be easy, and that any moral theory that concludes that you have a moral obligation to do anything other than cruise through your life is automatically asking too much?

Maybe you need to stop trying to play mind-reader, because you're really bad at it. Your petty attempts to paint those who disagree with you as morons really shows the weak basis you're starting from.

I said earlier you might want to look into something called "moral philosophy". Absolutism doesn't mean what you think it means in this context, and it's not the opposite of relativism. Nor is what Ayn Rand called objectivism the only moral philosophy which claims to be objective.

Seriously, go hit wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and read some of this stuff.

That's really lame, man. Now you're not only grasping at straws, you're sneaking in a few personal insults as your rhetorical cherry on top. I'm not saying that absolutism is always the opposite of relativism, I'm saying that you're demanding I accept what you're claiming as a moral absolute without having provided me any reasoning outside of worthless utilitarianism as your basis. Since I've described a few posts ago why I reject utilitarian arguments, perhaps you should re-think your arrogant approach for a minute. While you're at it, it would be nice if you could admit that you were mistaken about the position regarding the market of producing meat, as well as the fact that I do indeed agree that a lowering of intake would be best. You can check this thread, I posted as much before you began addressing me. Honestly, I (personally) believe that you'll admit to such a mistake now that you're so committed rhetorically, but I'm willing to be wrong about your intellectual integrity on this matter and chalk it up to a mistaken impression on my part. Care to disappoint?

GreNME

17th June 2009, 05:28 PM

Just because a fallacious argument gets you to a factually correct conclusion once in a while doesn't redeem the argument.

Oh, the irony.

The_Animus

17th June 2009, 05:33 PM

2. Humans can judge history, what has worked in the past and what hasn't and given the facts we can reason better morals than our predecessors.
Not quite but close.

If it were then animals that rape, and they exist, would be immoral.

History is usually a useful tool for not repeating past mistakes. On occation the reason something failed in the past was not because it wouldn't work, but because of some other factor which was not yet developed enough to allow it to work. For example some people say that communism or socialism will never work and this can be seen from history. Others claim that we have not reached a point in our own evolution or we have not reached a technological level yet where the principles of communism or socialism can be applied without being distorted and abused.

Animals don't have the ability to choose to do otherwise. Morality cannot exist without choice. One of the problems that comes up in discussions of whether everything is already determines or a result of a set of natural laws is that then there is no accountability. Without the ability to make choices you cannot control your actions and therefor killing someone would not be your fault any more than a rock falling is the rocks fault. Our own justice system seems to agree as can be seen in cases of severe mental retardation or insanity.

GreNME

17th June 2009, 05:45 PM

History is usually a useful tool for not repeating past mistakes. On occation the reason something failed in the past was not because it wouldn't work, but because of some other factor which was not yet developed enough to allow it to work. For example some people say that communism or socialism will never work and this can be seen from history. Others claim that we have not reached a point in our own evolution or we have not reached a technological level yet where the principles of communism or socialism can be applied without being distorted and abused.

Well, some may argue that point regarding Communism, but in no way, shape, or form does that make the argument a fact. Plenty more argue that Communism failed because it doesn't scale to a national level the size of a nation like the USSR, and one could point to the fact that China has hybridized a free-market-based economy to its own government (while the USSR fell under its own weight) as an example of where this theory has played out. Making the argument is one thing, providing at least a practical enough proof-of-concept to the argument (as relating to our real lives) is quite another.

Animals don't have the ability to choose to do otherwise. Morality cannot exist without choice. One of the problems that comes up in discussions of whether everything is already determines or a result of a set of natural laws is that then there is no accountability. Without the ability to make choices you cannot control your actions and therefor killing someone would not be your fault any more than a rock falling is the rocks fault. Our own justice system seems to agree as can be seen in cases of severe mental retardation or insanity.

Now you're getting into the topic of person-hood. Do you, like Cain, feel that a being that has no moral responsibility is still entitled to a moral (and legal) person-hood?

Kevin_Lowe

17th June 2009, 05:56 PM

Right, and those who claim that the moral theory in question is the objective morality have no greater claim. Funny how that works. You see, I've already pointed out how you've been arguing a strawman against me, assuming I was advocating something I had already explained I was not, yet you persist down this rhetorical path as if you never missed a beat. That, going back to my points about not attributing authority to the self-righteous just because they say so, is why your constant requirements that I have to define or defend myself according to your own arbitrary morality really aren't getting you anywhere. Granted, I'll give you credit for at least admitting you are arguing in black-or-white terms on the subject (Cain repeatedly failed to admit as much in the past thread), but being black-or-white nonetheless makes your arguments no more or less valid than if I were to go shopping for my own self-deigned absolute morality.

Maybe you need to stop trying to play mind-reader, because you're really bad at it. Your petty attempts to paint those who disagree with you as morons really shows the weak basis you're starting from.

That's really lame, man. Now you're not only grasping at straws, you're sneaking in a few personal insults as your rhetorical cherry on top. I'm not saying that absolutism is always the opposite of relativism, I'm saying that you're demanding I accept what you're claiming as a moral absolute without having provided me any reasoning outside of worthless utilitarianism as your basis. Since I've described a few posts ago why I reject utilitarian arguments, perhaps you should re-think your arrogant approach for a minute. While you're at it, it would be nice if you could admit that you were mistaken about the position regarding the market of producing meat, as well as the fact that I do indeed agree that a lowering of intake would be best. You can check this thread, I posted as much before you began addressing me. Honestly, I (personally) believe that you'll admit to such a mistake now that you're so committed rhetorically, but I'm willing to be wrong about your intellectual integrity on this matter and chalk it up to a mistaken impression on my part. Care to disappoint?

Sorry, but I didn't order the word salad.

GreNME

17th June 2009, 05:58 PM

Thanks for not disappointing.

RandFan

17th June 2009, 06:15 PM

Natural, instinctive, normal and whatnot are all synonyms, and you're still banging on exactly the same point, which is still as irrelevant as it was when we started.What point?

I seriously doubt that you even know what point I'm making. "X is natural therefore X is moral" (hint: Not the point I'm making)

See your point below, about how we evolved to like clear, running water?

I said right back at the start that this exact argument was no good.What argument? That we evolved to like cleare running water? It's true. It's an adaptive trait. A good one that we can consider and not simply dismiss as you would suggest just because it is natural.

Adaptive traits aren't wrong just because they are natural. If existing is good then those traits allowed for you to be here.

Just because Fred really is a Golden Retriever doesn't mean that the argument-form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A" is a good argument-form.I DIDN'T make that argument!

If your criteria for a useful moral theory is that everyone has to behave morally in times of deadly crisis then once again you've just defined morality out of existence.A strawman.

The fact that you would abandon morality in the crunch...Hmmm.... very interesting statement. With this statement you seem to imply that morality is something significant. Perhaps transcendent. However, this would seem to be a contradiction with the rest of your post. On one hand, morality is something that can be "abandoned" as if it were sacrosanct. Something I should be embarrased to do. On the other morality is nothing more than a cold dry heuristic where ultimatly the only requirements is validity and coherency. If A then B.

As to the criticism of picking from moral rules à la carte, there are multiple coherent, objectivist moral theories. All of them are intellectually defensible, although my preference is for consequentialism. If you pick any of them and stick to it I have no major criticisms of your position. I'm just here to beat the heads of people who endorse indefensible moral theories.Why? No, really, why?

Take a deep breath. Count to 3. It's ok.

I think this is the elephant in the room.

Is moral theory really just cold, dry logic to you? Does (A = Not A) trouble you enough to spend time in a discussion forum in an attempt to correct errors in logic?

Or do you really care about sentient beings (animals included)?
Does it bother you when people suffer?
Do you feel good when you know people in distress have been helped?
Is dying for a moral cause a worthy sacrifice?
How about any error in logic, would you die for that?
Without moral sentiment, emotion, empathy and caring, morality is meaningless.

Be honest, you care about others. If you didn't you wouldn't even be here.

I've been saying this over and over and over again.Yes, but it misses the point. Perhaps soon you will at least understand my point.

The_Animus

17th June 2009, 06:57 PM

Well, some may argue that point regarding Communism, but in no way, shape, or form does that make the argument a fact. Plenty more argue that Communism failed because it doesn't scale to a national level the size of a nation like the USSR, and one could point to the fact that China has hybridized a free-market-based economy to its own government (while the USSR fell under its own weight) as an example of where this theory has played out. Making the argument is one thing, providing at least a practical enough proof-of-concept to the argument (as relating to our real lives) is quite another.

I agree completely. Unfortunately in such a case there would be no proof to give. If I made the argument that communism won't work yet because our society is not morally or technologically developed enough to make it work I can't exactly show that this is the case. At best I could provide a completely different example in which something from history failed and later worked because of some sort of improved development. Even then it could be said that I am comparing apples and oranges and so my different example doesn't apply to my argument. Which makes the argument pretty useless as far as support goes, though not necessarily wrong. Only time would be able to prove such an argument right.

Now you're getting into the topic of person-hood. Do you, like Cain, feel that a being that has no moral responsibility is still entitled to a moral (and legal) person-hood?

I don't really like the term person-hood as it implies it applies only to persons or that a person is already deemed a separate case as far as moral rules. But that is really irrelevant since I know what you mean.

That is a tricky subject because of the inability to clearly define and determine levels of consciousness of a being as well as how much choice or moral responsibility it has. In fact really this whole discussion is rather tricky and I can't say I have all the answers.

Are you refering to absolute moral responsibility, or moral responsibility in regards to our system of justice? Does having no moral responsibility imply that the being has no sentience, or self awareness?

I ask because I distinguish between various being such as say dogs, ants, and oak trees both in regards to whether it has any moral responsibility and as to whether it has moral rights.

A dog can be taught to go to the bathroom outside, and after it has learned this should it go inside the house it can be held accountable for its actions (depending upon circumstances). This is debateable of course as to whether it really has a choice in what it does. Ants and plants don't seem to have this ability.

As I mentioned previously...
Some species of animal have some sense of sentience, or consciousness, as they have the ability to differentiate themselves as an individual entity separate from that around it. A dog can look in a mirror and understand that what it sees is not another dog but itself. Some animals also share other characteristics with people. If you burn yourself or are attacked by someone else you will generally recoil, run away, or fight back. Some animals do this as well. My mom's dog loves interaction and attention, loves to play fetch and tug of war with a stuffed toy, and understands the difference between various words/phrases such as his name, get the toy, gotta go outside/go potty, who's here, food, and more. It's funny because if I ask him who's here he will run to the various windows and stairs trying to see where they are and who has arrived.

In a similar fashion it can be seen that some animals don't like being caged up or mistreated. I remember reading something about tigers in zoos, though I can't think of what it is called. A formerly wild tiger is put into a zoo, and for a time it continues to act like a wild tiger, it skulks around its cage, learning where it is and if there is a way out. Eventually however, after a period of time it becomes resigned to its circumstances, it's cage, and loses all zest for life becoming a lazy, depressed, uninterested tiger knowing that it is stuck in its little cell.

In certain animals I can see qualities that are all too similar to people, an awareness of themselves, of others, of the good and bad happenings to them, and their circumstances in life. And in seeing this consciousness of theirs I can't help but be reminded of people, if less complex/intelligent people.

And again this doesn't really apply to ants or plants. It is this sentience, quasi-consciousness, awareness, or whatever you'd like to call it that entitles a being to moral rights.

I guess I'd have to say yes, a being that has no moral responsibility is still entitled to a moral person-hood. A lack of moral responsibility doesn't justify someone who is capable of moral judgement treating that being immorally. This is why severely mentally retarded or insane persons still maintain moral rights.

Minadin

17th June 2009, 07:35 PM

Are people who proselytize vegetarianism any better than the one who push religion?

We haven't Godwin'ed this thread yet, so I'll just note that Hitler was a veggie, to get that started. Might as well.

The_Animus

17th June 2009, 07:41 PM

Are people who proselytize vegetarianism any better than the one who push religion?

Many of the reasons given for pushing vegetarianism can be shown to be fact. In the process of raising animals for consumption the animals usually suffer, and are killed.

Religion can't show that their God is fact, nor that said God made any of the decrees that they claim.

Minadin

17th June 2009, 07:41 PM

P.S. I'm grilling a steak right now.

It's a black angus strip steak - in most of the country it's called a N.Y. Strip but here we call it a KC strip. I expect it to be juicy and wonderful. I am going to add some potatos and onions from my victory garden with some other fresh herbs - also from my victory garden - and I think it will be wonderful.

Minadin

17th June 2009, 07:44 PM

Has anyone else here ever actually butchered a cow?

BTMO

17th June 2009, 07:49 PM

Has anyone else here ever actually butchered a cow?

I've seen it done a few times - when I was a kid, my dad worked as a butcher, we had friends who were farmers, and ... I went on a primary school trip to an abbatoir.

Where I come from they didn't dick about with where meat came from!

I haven't done it myself - but I live in hope of shooting a deer one day, and will have to do something similar.

I fish regularly and shoot rabbits occassionally, so I know how to do small mammals and fish - but haven't had to process 500kg of meat at once, all by myself...

TriskettheKid

17th June 2009, 08:02 PM

Many of the reasons given for pushing vegetarianism can be shown to be fact. In the process of raising animals for consumption the animals usually suffer, and are killed.

Religion can't show that their God is fact, nor that said God made any of the decrees that they claim.

And vegetarianism can be just as bad, in the morality department.

In fact, I'd say that they are just as likely to be immoral as you think meat-eaters are.

Ambrosia

17th June 2009, 08:08 PM

OK I give up - having lurked for a year or so I now feel compelled to post...

er Greetings people of JREF, and stuff.

Animal foods contain important nutrients that simply cannot be found in plant foods. The list includes carnitine, creatine, carnosine, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), vitamin B12 and (in the case of fatty fish) the critical long-chain omega 3 fatty acids EPA and DHA.

er actually....

of that list:

carnitine is synthesised by the body

creatine is synthesised by the body

carnosine is controversial at best and is usually touted as an anti ageing supplement, not required by the body

CLA's aren't required by the body in the slightest tho are said to have anti cancer properties, anti weight gain properties (and also a potential cause of diabetes depending on what flavour of research you prefer)

EPA and DHA (Omega 3) are available from vegetable sources. Linseed Oil is much richer in Omega 3 than most fish based sources in ALA which your body then converts quite happily to EPA and DHA

that leaves Vitamin B12.

B12 is the only nutrient that is required by the body that is usually derived from animal sources. It's the only thing that you cannot get from a purely vegetable based diet that your body needs to survive. However most of the things B12 does for you can also be done by B9 (folic acid) and leafy vegetables are a good source of B9.

B12 is produced neither by plants nor animals but by bacteria. It wasn't snythesised until 1973 - and it took a Nobel prize winning chemist 13 years to work out how to do it. AIUI most of the B12 used in supplements is derived from bacteria.

Humans at no point in history have *needed* to eat meat. Although if I am wrong about that and at some point in the past we did need to consume meat we are way past that point now.

Now if you want to argue that an optimal diet for humans might well include a ratio of about 10% meat to 90% vegetable and there are a bunch of nutrients in food like for example creatine which have a largely beneficial effect that are only found from animal sources - thats different :)

Oh and for the record I'm torn between whether I prefer a nice juicy (blue) ribeye or a lambshank served up in sauce that has extra bone marrow diced through it, I avoid intensively farmed meat like the plague and yes PETA are nucking futz.

GreNME

17th June 2009, 08:12 PM

I guess I'd have to say yes, a being that has no moral responsibility is still entitled to a moral person-hood. A lack of moral responsibility doesn't justify someone who is capable of moral judgement treating that being immorally. This is why severely mentally retarded or insane persons still maintain moral rights.

Well, that's where the idea gets into some bumpy territory. However, that was a better answer than has been previously given (particularly in the older thread), and I do admit jumping directly to this point to save some rhetorical time.

The main contention I'd have is that not all non-human animals are mentally disabled or insane, and if we were to only apply moral person-hood on the basis of cognitive function (or sentience), then that leaves open the ability to deny certain people the same level of person-hood as others depending on their ability to recognize some semblance of self or to function at an acceptable cognitive function-- this goes more into play when dealing with less 'Western' cultures where the value of 'self' versus the value of 'family' or 'my people' is somewhat different than our own. I know it sounds a bit like a slippery slope in my describing it, but keep in mind that we attributed moral value like that not much greater than 150 years ago. In the end, it's no more or less arbitrary than 'human' and 'not human', it's simply using different criteria. On top of that, it still does not designate moral value on sapience as well as sentience, because if it did we'd come right back around to it only applying to humans anyway (as far as we know, though cases could be made for limited sapience in some Great Apes).

Another contention I'd have is that those with mental disabilities, whether decreased function or insanity (or otherwise), have moral person-hood but have a legally protected status. Their moral person-hood is based on their being human (though is arguably different, like in cases where it can be argued "they don't understand what they're doing"), but their legal status is diminished because their judgment is impaired yet they still maintain a legal liability for their actions. Non-human animals do not, except if you want to count "is a danger" and "is not a danger" as liabilities. Now, granted, this goes back to the issue of sapience, but what I'm pointing out here is that stating those with mental disabilities still have moral person-hood as an example of why animals should isn't sufficient, because animals would still lack the facilities that are still expected to a nominal degree in the mentally disabled.

Now, if you want to talk about having certain levels of protected status, I don't necessarily disagree except possibly on the levels of degree. My dogs enjoy a protected status because they are dogs that live in my home, but that doesn't necessarily mean that society should expect from them the same moral status of even the mentally disabled-- as much as I love my dogs, they are simply not capable of handling that kind of responsibility. With every increased level of right or status conferred there is an inherent level of responsibility involved, because without it the proposed right or status is meaningless unless you are talking about strictly property (which I also reject, by the way). Where I would differ on degree, for one example, is that I have no problem with the status of livestock animals to include their being put to death for food, provided conditions for their welfare while alive meets a certain standard. Those degrees about status or rights conferred may be the sticking point here, but my contention is that the level of degree is ultimately going to be arbitrarily assigned by both, based on different value systems. I don't consider a more strict value system necessarily wrong, per se, but neither to I consider it an objective thing any more than I would consider my own an objective thing. Value systems just don't work that way.

If you can at least agree with that premise, particularly the last paragraph, then we have a starting point from which to assert that our own system is somehow more beneficial than the other, and avoid a lot of rhetorical pitfalls that Kevin and Cain have thus far been stuck in.

Kevin_Lowe

17th June 2009, 08:25 PM

What point?

I seriously doubt that you even know what point I'm making. "X is natural therefore X is moral" (hint: Not the point I'm making)

I'm pretty sure I do know what point you are making, actually.

What argument? That we evolved to like cleare running water? It's true. It's an adaptive trait. A good one that we can consider and not simply dismiss as you would suggest just because it is natural.

Adaptive traits aren't wrong just because they are natural. If existing is good then those traits allowed for you to be here.

Nobody's saying "they are wrong just because they are natural". One more time: they are irrelevant.

There is absolutely no point in bringing up our evolved instincts if what we are discussing is whether is something is actually wrong or right.

This is a discussion about whether eating meat is actually wrong or right.

Therefore there is absolutely no point in you continuing to bring up any of this guff related to what you think our natural instincts are in any situation.

I DIDN'T make that argument!

You bloody did. You said that we had an instinct to like clear running water, and that clear running water was good, in support of the (still silly) claim that our natural instincts have something to do with what is moral. You omitted to mention that we also have an instinct to punch up people who don't look like us, and every other instinct we have which disproves the thesis that our instincts are any kind of guide to morality.

Hmmm.... very interesting statement. With this statement you seem to imply that morality is something significant. Perhaps transcendent. However, this would seem to be a contradiction with the rest of your post. On one hand, morality is something that can be "abandoned" as if it were sacrosanct. Something I should be embarrased to do. On the other morality is nothing more than a cold dry heuristic where ultimatly the only requirements is validity and coherency. If A then B.

Appeal to emotion and straw man.

The straw man is pretending that the only requirements I have for a moral theory are "validity" (whatever the hell that means to you) and coherency. You are a quarter right however: coherency is necessary to an acceptable moral theory. If it's incoherent, it goes out the window immediately. It also goes out the window if it never, ever tells you to do anything that you don't want to do anyway, or which is not in your informed self-interest.

The appeal to emotion is trying to paint my position as "nothing more than a cold, dry heuristic". I could equally well describe your position in emotive terms that sound negative, but it wouldn't get us anywhere.

Disagreements about moral issues are best kept dispassionate. Generally speaking, the one to break off dispassionate discussion in favour of lengthy but semantically empty appeals to emotion is the one who has realised their position won't stand up to dispassionate scrutiny.

Why? No, really, why?

Take a deep breath. Count to 3. It's ok.

I think this is the elephant in the room.

Is moral theory really just cold, dry logic to you? Does (A = Not A) trouble you enough to spend time in a discussion forum in an attempt to correct errors in logic?

Or do you really care about sentient beings (animals included)?
Does it bother you when people suffer?
Do you feel good when you know people in distress have been helped?
Is dying for a moral cause a worthy sacrifice?
How about any error in logic, would you die for that?
Without moral sentiment, emotion, empathy and caring, morality is meaningless.

Be honest, you care about others. If you didn't you wouldn't even be here.

Appeal to emotion. Not interested. Your bolded claim is merely your assertion and I declare it to be stupid.

In any case, in my life I've done bad things and felt good about them at the time, and I've done things that I knew were right and still felt bad about doing them. One last time: Our feelings are not reliable moral guides.

Yes, but it misses the point. Perhaps soon you will at least understand my point.

I think it's safe to say that the problem is not that I don't understand your point. It's that I do understand it, and I still think it's nonsense for very good reasons, and that you just can't grasp this.

GreNME

17th June 2009, 08:25 PM

er actually....

of that list:

carnitine is synthesised by the body

Not without help.

creatine is synthesised by the body

Not without help, and with the above not in amounts necessarily needed in developing bodies (which is why supplements are suggested for veg[etari]ans who are raising children).

carnosine is controversial at best and is usually touted as an anti ageing supplement, not required by the body

Arguable, at best.

CLA's aren't required by the body in the slightest tho are said to have anti cancer properties, anti weight gain properties (and also a potential cause of diabetes depending on what flavour of research you prefer)

:eye-poppi Considering most research falls in the "good for you" category, I'll stick with the medical consensus, thanks.

EPA and DHA (Omega 3) are available from vegetable sources. Linseed Oil is much richer in Omega 3 than most fish based sources in ALA which your body then converts quite happily to EPA and DHA

Except you have to have it in much more concentrated dosages from the non-meat sources.

that leaves Vitamin B12.

B12 is the only nutrient that is required by the body that is usually derived from animal sources. It's the only thing that you cannot get from a purely vegetable based diet that your body needs to survive. However most of the things B12 does for you can also be done by B9 (folic acid) and leafy vegetables are a good source of B9.

Again, we're talking about amounts.

Humans at no point in history have *needed* to eat meat. Although if I am wrong about that and at some point in the past we did need to consume meat we are way past that point now.

Has been addressed. See my first few posts in the thread. Not a big deal, but it basically boils down to "from a nutritional standpoint, there's no overwhelming argument against eating meat and plenty of benefits from doing so."

Now if you want to argue that an optimal diet for humans might well include a ratio of about 10% meat to 90% vegetable and there are a bunch of nutrients in food like for example creatine which have a largely beneficial effect that are only found from animal sources - thats different :)

Oh and for the record I'm torn between whether I prefer a nice juicy (blue) ribeye or a lambshank served up in sauce that has extra bone marrow diced through it, I avoid intensively farmed meat like the plague and yes PETA are nucking futz.

Gotta agree with you there, on both paragraphs. There is definitely a huge over-consumption of meat compared to what nutritionists suggest as the optimal diet (on the whole, as a consensus, not talking about exceptions). There are definitely medical benefits to reducing consumption of meat, particularly for people with weight problems or digestive problems. Additionally, the predominance of red meat as the main source of meat is another nutritional contention-- though you're just as likely to find someone advocating red meat over fish, poultry, or pork as one of the others over the rest (I tend to err on the side of poultry and fish).

Ambrosia

17th June 2009, 08:26 PM

Many of the reasons given for pushing vegetarianism can be shown to be fact. In the process of raising animals for consumption the animals usually suffer, and are killed.

Define 'usually suffer'.

The process of raising animals for consumption means the animals actually get to exist.

If there was no raising animals for consumption then a lot of animals would never even get the chance to frolic around in a field, feel the sun on their backs, enjoy whatever passes in animal circles for social interaction, etc etc.

Yes at the end of the farming the animal dies, but what living thing doesn't die?

Why is it so much better to deny animals the chance to exist at all?

Would it not be a better option to advocate that farming practices that cause undue suffering should be outlawed, to educate the meat buying public of the huge gulf in quality between properly farmed produce where the animal doesn't suffer, and the intensively farmed produce where the animals in question often suffer greatly, perhaps provide farmers with incentives and education on how to farm better?

That way more animals get the chance to live - and less animals get badly treated.

Maybe my wishful thinking is in overdrive again or something...

GreNME

17th June 2009, 08:33 PM

You bloody did. You said that we had an instinct to like clear running water, and that clear running water was good, in support of the (still silly) claim that our natural instincts have something to do with what is moral. You omitted to mention that we also have an instinct to punch up people who don't look like us, and every other instinct we have which disproves the thesis that our instincts are any kind of guide to morality.

Aside from the instinct part (humans have no instincts, we lost them hundreds of thousands of years ago), most of our natural tendencies do serve as a good guide toward developing our morality. That doesn't mean that there's a 1::1 correlation of "we have proclivity X, therefore X is morally sound," but there's usually a sound reason that most proclivities have passed down from so far back, having primarily to do with our survival (there's even a few good arguments that homosexuality fills an evolutionary niche, but that's another subject). At several points in time in our history, the response of punching up people who looked different played an integral part in survival, and still does so in our military today. If you really want to play that tired game you can go ahead and pull up some of your list of examples you claim "disproves the thesis" and we can have a go, but on the whole I'm fairly certain you're either bluffing or sticking to your moral absolutism game.

MikeSun5

17th June 2009, 08:34 PM

In fact, I'd say that they are just as likely to be immoral as you think meat-eaters are.

GOOD POINT! The morality issue only came up because some people involved in this discussion seem to make no distinction between animals and people. In this thread, eating meat has been compared to slavery and rape, among other things. That's absurd. It's not the point that humans are morally superior, we are morally capable. Animals are not. A brown bear choosing to eat berries instead of a fish does so opportunistically, not because it feels bad about the pain and suffering of the fish.

To me, the furor surrounding this issue seems to be anthromorphism at it's finest.

RandFan

17th June 2009, 08:40 PM

You bloody did. You said that we had an instinct to like clear running water, and that clear running water was good, in support of the (still silly) claim that our natural instincts have something to do with what is moral.Please note bolded text.

Something to do with what is moral is not the equivelant of X is natural therefore X is moral. Not the same. I bloody did not.

The straw man is pretending that the only requirements I have for a moral theory are "validity"
Validity means a logically valid argument.

The appeal to emotion is trying to paint my position as "nothing more than a cold, dry heuristic". I could equally well describe your position in emotive terms that sound negative, but it wouldn't get us anywhere. Kevin, I'm trying to get to that elephant in the room. It's not meant to paint you with any brush. It's to draw you out. Your morality ISN'T a cold equation. If it were, IMO, you wouldn't be here.

Disagreements about moral issues are best kept dispassionate. Generally speaking, the one to break off dispassionate discussion in favour of lengthy but semantically empty appeals to emotion is the one who has realised their position won't stand up to dispassionate scrutiny. I'm not trying to appeal to emotion. I'm trying to get you to see the role emotions play in morality. Without feelings or emotion there is no morality.

Your bolded claim is merely your assertion and I declare it to be stupid. Ok, fine, make a compelling moral argument stripped of any and all emotion. BTW, "suffering" involves emotions so don't use that term. And don't use the term "care". Caring is an emotion.

Golden rule? What does that mean? I don't like to suffer. I like it when people treat me so that I have a sense of wellbeing, to be treated with kindness, dignity and respect. I don't want anyone to cause me unnecassary suffering. But all these things are emotions.

FWIW: I like to help people. I donate blood and volunteer in my community. It makes me feel good. I travel alot and I meet people in need at gas stations when I fill up. It feels good to help. Recently I was stranded a long way from home having lost my walet and unable to get ahold of my wife. I begged for money. It felt awful at first but I desperatly needed it. A kind hearted person seeing me in distress helped me. She was very nice and I felt good about the encounter and I think she did too.

You really think these are all for the wrong reasons? Really?

Our feelings are not reliable moral guides. I never once said that emotions, in and of themselves, were reliable moral guides! They're not entirely unreliable either. The fact is though that we all rely on them. When faced with a choice between helping a loved one or a stranger, whom do you help?

It's that I do understand it, and I still think it's nonsense for very good reasons, and that you just can't grasp this.We'll let's see what arguments you can formulate without any reference to feelings or emotions.

TriskettheKid

17th June 2009, 08:41 PM

GOOD POINT! The morality issue only came up because some people involved in this discussion seem to make no distinction between animals and people. In this thread, eating meat has been compared to slavery and rape, among other things. That's absurd. It's not the point that humans are morally superior, we are morally capable. Animals are not. A brown bear choosing to eat berries instead of a fish does so opportunistically, not because it feels bad about the pain and suffering of the fish.

To me, the furor surrounding this issue seems to be anthromorphism at it's finest.

While that is true, my point was different.

I'm willing to bet that those who profess vegetarianism buy their food from genetically non-diverse massive farming operations. Those that have found mutli-crop farm grown food, while better, are still not at the top of the "moral" argument.

In fact, if you want to drag morals into it, the only people who really ARE at the top of the "moral" argument are those who strictly gather their own food every day from what they find in the wild.

Even then, if you drag animal rights into it, you're still skating on morally thin ground.

RandFan

17th June 2009, 08:46 PM

Aside from the instinct part (humans have no instincts, we lost them hundreds of thousands of years ago), most of our natural tendencies do serve as a good guide toward developing our morality. That doesn't mean that there's a 1::1 correlation of "we have proclivity X, therefore X is morally sound," but there's usually a sound reason that most proclivities have passed down from so far back, having primarily to do with our survival (there's even a few good arguments that homosexuality fills an evolutionary niche, but that's another subject). At several points in time in our history, the response of punching up people who looked different played an integral part in survival, and still does so in our military today. Thank you.

I wanted to make the point Dawkins does in Selfish gene and Robert Wright does in Moral Animal.

Game theory.

If one understands game theory and one understands that a single individual will not significantly alter society then why not forgo reciprocal altruism? Why not game the system? Why be moral?

When I see people stranded on the side of the road I pull over and help them. Why?

I have been stranded on the side of the road and people have helped me. So what? There is no direct connection between the two. Dawkins and Wright tell us that we do it because morality is an evolutionary stable strategy and I feel good to help others and I feel a debt of gratitude when others help me.

I'm not sure if Kevin wants us to abandon our moral sentiments or simply be skeptical of them.

Kevin?

MikeSun5

17th June 2009, 08:55 PM

In fact, if you want to drag morals into it, the only people who really ARE at the top of the "moral" argument are those who strictly gather their own food every day from what they find in the wild.

Even then, if you drag animal rights into it, you're still skating on morally thin ground.

Even still, where would one draw the moral line (and who gets to draw it)? If it's the sanctity of life on the line, then what about stomping cockroaches and swatting at mosquitos? Consistency, anyone?

I wonder how many PETA folks have leather wallets and mousetraps in their homes?

Ambrosia

17th June 2009, 09:03 PM

carnitine is synthesised by the body
Not without help.

It's produced in your liver from two of the essential amino acids which are available from combining two LowBiologicalValue protein sources - and if I recall correctly Vitamin C helps it's synthesis....

Is that what you mean by "not without help"?

CLA's
:eye-poppi Considering most research falls in the "good for you" category, I'll stick with the medical consensus, thanks.

AIUI the jury is still out and more research is needed, tho I'd lean towards the good for you camp as well.

Linseed Oil as source of Omega 3
Except you have to have it in much more concentrated dosages from the non-meat sources.

true.

Not a big deal, but it basically boils down to "from a nutritional standpoint, there's no overwhelming argument against eating meat and plenty of benefits from doing so."

Would agree with that 100%

Additionally, the predominance of red meat as the main source of meat is another nutritional contention-- though you're just as likely to find someone advocating red meat over fish, poultry, or pork as one of the others over the rest

There are lots of contentions in nutrition I have found - "everything in moderation" seems to be a reasonable maxim to follow for me.

Redtail

17th June 2009, 09:21 PM

Has anyone else here ever actually butchered a cow?

Cows, deer, pigs, sheep...

I grilled some cowboy (bone in) rib eyes This past Sunday. One was extra rare as it was the last meal for the farm dog here. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12044499cf0a10f4a6.jpg (javascript:void(0))

18 years of protecting cats from coyotes. RIP Sheena.

The_Animus

17th June 2009, 09:24 PM

Now, if you want to talk about having certain levels of protected status, I don't necessarily disagree except possibly on the levels of degree. My dogs enjoy a protected status because they are dogs that live in my home, but that doesn't necessarily mean that society should expect from them the same moral status of even the mentally disabled-- as much as I love my dogs, they are simply not capable of handling that kind of responsibility. With every increased level of right or status conferred there is an inherent level of responsibility involved, because without it the proposed right or status is meaningless unless you are talking about strictly property (which I also reject, by the way).

I see what you are saying and in some cases the mentally handicapped/retarded still have cognitive ability and understanding above that of an animal. However, there are also cases in which people are mentally handicapped/retarded to the extent that for all intents and purposes they have the intelligence/decision making abilities of animals such as Apes, or dogs. In this instance they are still given greater rights despite not having and equal level of responsibility for no other apparent reason that they are a person rather than another species. Even people in vegetative (no pun intended) states have sparked debates concerning their right to life.

Also there seems to be an underlying rule in what you've said in that a beings rights are tied to what they are able to offer back in return such as their level of responsibility. Though you may not have intended to imply that. I'd need more time to articulate why, but this idea makes me uncomfortable.

Where I would differ on degree, for one example, is that I have no problem with the status of livestock animals to include their being put to death for food, provided conditions for their welfare while alive meets a certain standard.

I would be fine with that as well. Eating meat is fine with me so long as the animals involved are treated respectfully, undue suffering isn't put upon them simply to lower costs or improve quantities that can be raised, and they are allowed to live a full life.

Would it not be a better option to advocate that farming practices that cause undue suffering should be outlawed, to educate the meat buying public of the huge gulf in quality between properly farmed produce where the animal doesn't suffer, and the intensively farmed produce where the animals in question often suffer greatly, perhaps provide farmers with incentives and education on how to farm better?

That sounds great to me :)

MikeSun5

17th June 2009, 09:31 PM

RandFan

17th June 2009, 09:37 PM

Has anyone else here ever actually butchered a cow?No, but I worked on a dairy and I've seen cows killed.

I've butchered rabbits, chicken, turkey and many game birds.

I've killed 30 or 40 animals in a day.

Sometimes it bothered me.

Particularly when I was young.

Kevin_Lowe

17th June 2009, 09:38 PM

Please note bolded text.

Come on Kevin, that's a bit disengenous.

Something to do with what is moral is not the equivelant of X is natural therefore it is moral.

Okay, I think I'm about done banging my head on this particular brick wall.

You're gripped by this conviction that instincts are in some way relevant to morality. You don't have any argument for why this should be except that you can't conceive of anything different, nor do you have any response whatsoever to the real elephant in the room: the fact that many of our instincts are counterproductive, selfish, stupid or evil.

Validity means a logically valid argument

In that case, yes, that too is necessary (but not sufficient). If your argument relies on fallacies to get off the ground it's a bad argument and it too goes out with window without any further discussion.

I'm not trying to appeal to emotion. I'm trying to get you to see the role emotions play in morality. Without feelings or emotion there is no morality.

Nope. That's just your assertion.

Ok, fine, make a compelling moral argument stripped of any and all emotion. BTW, "suffering" involves emotions so don't use that term. And don't use the term "care". Caring is an emotion.

Golden rule? What does that mean? I want to be treated with kindness, dignity and respect. I don't want anyone to cause me unnecassary suffering. All these things are emotions. I don't think the golden rule is going to work here.

Since when are these emotions? Now it looks like you're trying to redefine "emotions" incredibly broadly so as to make your original dumb claim into a tautology. Your argument was that moral instincts are important, but now you seem bent on moving and stretching those goalposts.

You're also engaging in a significant bit of sleight of hand by trying to reframe suffering as an instinctive moral intuition, probably because you have some fuzzy awareness that utilitarian moral philosophy exists and you think you're trying to head me off from bringing it up.

The problem is, in utilitarian moral philosophy everyone's suffering counts as morally bad regardless of how any individual feels about it. Utilitarianism doesn't start from the premise that suffering is wrong because your mirror neurons make you feel bad when you perceive others suffering, or anything resembling that kind of appeal to the naturalistic fallacy. It starts from the premise that suffering is undesirable and should be minimised everywhere and at all times, and that happiness (or preference satisfaction, or welfare, or whatever) should be maximised in the same way. If you happen to feel good when someone's suffering is relieved that's just a bonus bit of utility.

You don't need to wrap yourself in a flag, jump on a soapbox and give an Oscar-hound speech to get to the basic premise that suffering is bad, you just have to observe that you personally prefer to avoid it and that other living creatures count morally too and are overwhelmingly likely to share that preference.

Well, go ahead. Give it to us.

I NEVER said emotions, in and of themselves were!

This is somewhat disengenous of you Kevin as I have taken pains to note that feelings alone are not reliable guids.

Yet you keep trying to drag them back in as both necessary and semi-reliable, which is why I have to keep calling you on it in post after post. Your feelings about what is moral are neither necessary nor semi-reliable, they are irrelevant.

Your feelings in general (as opposed to your feelings about what is moral, and damn right I'm going to keep that distinction clear if you try to blur it some more) are relevant from a utilitarian perspective only as one, non-determinative factor in the overall utilitarian calculation.

RandFan

17th June 2009, 09:41 PM

Cows, deer, pigs, sheep...

I grilled some cowboy (bone in) rib eyes This past Sunday. One was extra rare as it was the last meal for the farm dog here. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12044499cf0a10f4a6.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0))

18 years of protecting cats from coyotes. RIP Sheena.My condolences. I hate losing pets. I'm overly emotional.

Minadin

17th June 2009, 09:45 PM

Jimmy Fallon's bit on Obama swatting the fly was almost as awesome as my steak. PETA complained in either case.

RandFan

17th June 2009, 09:51 PM

You're gripped by this conviction that instincts are in some way relevant to morality.Because they are.

Read The Selfish Gene and The Moral Animal.

...the fact that many of our instincts are counterproductive, selfish, stupid or evil. And I've explained that humans are capable of reason and we can choose the good instincts from the bad ones. You are making a false dichotamy. You are in effect arguing that we either strip away all emotion or we must be slaves to all of our emotions.

Kevin, BS.

It starts from the premise that suffering is undesirable and should be minimised everywhere and at all times, and that happiness (or preference satisfaction, or welfare, or whatever) should be maximised in the same way.WHY?

Isn't it that you "care" about these things? "Suffering is undesirable". Oh boo hoo. If you are in pain why should anyone give a damn about you? Who cares that suffering is "undersirable"? What the hell does that even mean if we strip away all emotion?

I don't believe you are even being honest with yourself.

Otherwise, why do you even give a damn at all? So what if we all sit around the fire killing & eating animals. So there is suffering? What's it to you?

Redtail

17th June 2009, 09:55 PM

My condolences. I hate losing pets. I'm overly emotional.

Thanks. She wasn't really mine she was more the rescue site's dog. (Like I said her job was to protect the 300 cats here. Shoulda expanded on that.) But we bonded over a mutual love of BBQ.

ETA: If someone tries to get you to volunteer at a animal rescue don't. If you really are overly emotional you'll be on a prozac I V in a week.

RandFan

17th June 2009, 09:58 PM

Dawkins on morality.

"I think there is kindness, charity and generosity in human nature and I think there is a Darwinian explanation for this"

qCL63d66frs

Kevin,

Don't give me the BS that I never made an argument for my position. I gave you Dawkin's argument from the start. We are moral animals because we evolved to be moral animals. You don't have to agree but don't tell me it isn't an argument. You can even accuse me of an appeal to authority but I DID MAKE AN ARGUMENT!

Oh, and it's a damn good appeal so before you fall back on ad hominem and attack Dawkins why don't you watch the video and attack his arguments?

RandFan

17th June 2009, 10:08 PM

In addition to Dawkins, altruism and/or other moral sentiments are posited to have a Darwinian explanations by:

Steven Pinker (article The Moral Instinct (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html))
Robert Wright (book The Moral Animal (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0679763996))
Amotz and Avishag (book The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle (http://www.amazon.com/Handicap-Principle-Missing-Darwins-Puzzle/dp/0195129148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245301393&sr=1-1))
E.O. Wilson (book On Human Nature (http://www.amazon.com/Human-Nature-Edward-O-Wilson/dp/067463442X))
Michael Shermer (book The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule (http://www.amazon.com/Science-Good-Evil-People-Gossip/dp/0805077693/ref=pd_sim_b_5))
Laurence Tancredi (Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals about Morality (http://www.amazon.com/Hardwired-Behavior-Neuroscience-Reveals-Morality/dp/0521860016))

Some points.

I never confused "ought" with "is" in our discussion.
I argued that humans evolved moral sentiment.
I argued that empathy and compassion play a significant role in our morality.
I really do resent your attitude and dogmatic closedmindeness. I don't care if you don't agree with me. You needn't treat me as though I just made it all up and had no basis for my claims though. Demanding that any mention of evolution, adaptive behavior, empathy, emotion etc., automatically equated with the Naturalistic Fallacy was rather boorish. And the personal attacks were uncalled for.

17th June 2009, 10:09 PM

Has anyone else here ever actually butchered a cow?

only Chickens and Rabbits

Aepervius

17th June 2009, 10:36 PM

Has anyone else here ever actually butchered a cow?

At the farm of my parents, I butchered many things, up to a (small) pig, but never a cow or a horse. Mostly due to regulation it had to be done at the next slaughter house. We always tried to do it without stress for the animals, mostly out of consideration for those who would eat the meat (whether true or not, the thought/myth being that stressed meat taste less than unstressed one).

So far as I can see Cain and the other have failed to put forward an argument on their moral being the correct one, or even a good argument on vegetarianism being optimal.

Sword_Of_Truth

17th June 2009, 10:54 PM

Cows, deer, pigs, sheep...

I grilled some cowboy (bone in) rib eyes This past Sunday. One was extra rare as it was the last meal for the farm dog here. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12044499cf0a10f4a6.jpg (javascript:void(0))

18 years of protecting cats from coyotes. RIP Sheena.

I'm sorry for your loss, Redtail.

thaiboxerken

17th June 2009, 11:42 PM

Many of the reasons given for pushing vegetarianism can be shown to be fact.

Such as? A bullet list will be appreciated.

In the process of raising animals for consumption the animals usually suffer, and are killed.

So?

Kevin_Lowe

18th June 2009, 12:31 AM

Because they are.

Read The Selfish Gene and The Moral Animal.

...okay, you just don't get it. I officially give up.

And I've explained that humans are capable of reason and we can choose the good instincts from the bad ones. You are making a false dichotamy. You are in effect arguing that we either strip away all emotion or we must be slaves to all of our emotions.

This is exactly the same as the quasi-Christians who argue "a lot of moral wisdom comes from the Bible, you just need to pick and choose the moral bits and ignore the immoral bits". If you are picking and choosing, whichever mechanism you are using to pick and choose trumps the source you are picking and choosing from.

In the case of the quasi-Christians, the real moral decision-making is their own, because they use it to overrule the Bible whenever they feel like it. You're doing the same thing - you're trying to put instinct up on a pedestal as a source of moral wisdom, but you're simultaneously overruling it with reason every time you don't like what instinct says.

Why not skip the pointless indulgence in the naturalistic fallacy, and just say that reason is the source of moral guidance?

Kevin, BS.

WHY?

Isn't it that you "care" about these things? "Suffering is undesirable". Oh boo hoo. If you are in pain why should anyone give a damn about you? Who cares that suffering is "undersirable"? What the hell does that even mean if we strip away all emotion?

I don't believe you are even being honest with yourself.

Otherwise, why do you even give a damn at all? So what if we all sit around the fire killing & eating animals. So there is suffering? What's it to you?

Didn't I just say that whoever loses it and starts posting semantically empty appeals to emotion probably doesn't have an argument that stands up to scrutiny?

You started out talking about emotion, then you moved the goalposts to "involved with emotion" which covers far more ground, and now you've blurred the definition of "involved with emotion" to such a ridiculous extent that now everything anybody ever cared about, for any reason, is now "involved with emotion". Since morality inherently concerns matters people care about your thesis has just degenerated into tautological meaninglessness.

Don't give me the BS that I never made an argument for my position. I gave you Dawkin's argument from the start. We are moral animals because we evolved to be moral animals. You don't have to agree but don't tell me it isn't an argument. You can even accuse me of an appeal to authority but I DID MAKE AN ARGUMENT!

No, you just posted a lot of stuff that was utterly beside the point.

Do you remember me saying something like "You can noodle on at any length you like about our moral instincts and how moral instincts evolved, and it's completely irrelevant"? That's all you've been doing. You've just been saying "I'm not indulging in the naturalistic fallacy, honest!" and then diving back in for yet another helping of it, time and time again.

The question you needed to answer is "Why should be pay any attention to these instincts?". You haven't posted that vital link in the chain, and I think it's because there is no satisfactory answer. It can't be because they are adaptive to our current situation, because many of them are not. It can't be because they are reliable guides to moral behaviour, because many of them are not. You admit yourself that if you don't like the conclusions of any given appeal to instinct you just trump it by saying "Oh, reason says that's wrong, so I can ignore it". So why are they relevant in the first place, if reason trumps them?

I think it's just because you've gotten so exited with your own cleverness at reading Dawkins and Pinker, and so caught up in your exposition of your inchoate and self-contradictory moral philosophy, that you can't slow down, think, and realise you've made some fundamental errors in your thinking.

Appeals to nature and emotion are fallacies. Whereas you can develop a perfectly useful and consistent moral philosophy out of, among other things, dispassionately determined preferences and utilitarian maximisation. That's not the only coherent moral philosophy, but it's one, and it doesn't rely on appealing to emotions to make it work. You can weasel around and say it "involves emotions" as soon as anyone cares about anything, and claim that means you were right all along, but nobody who's kept their eye on the ball will buy that.

BTMO

18th June 2009, 01:20 AM

Cows, deer, pigs, sheep...

I grilled some cowboy (bone in) rib eyes This past Sunday. One was extra rare as it was the last meal for the farm dog here. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12044499cf0a10f4a6.jpg (javascript:void(0))

18 years of protecting cats from coyotes. RIP Sheena.

Well, that is just scary. There is a dog that looks pretty much *exactly* like that not five feet from me.

It is only 14 though, and doesn't look like it'll make 15...

Sword_Of_Truth

18th June 2009, 02:22 AM

You know what... screw all this, I'm going back to what I said earlier.

Animals rights nuts, you're outmanned and outgunned. Your talent for arson and anonymous threats tied to bricks are amusing, occasionally mildly impressive, but tactically and strategically useless. That $#!+ will never get you anywhere in a real fight. Whine if you must (we find it amusing), but drop the minor league terrorism and keep your hands to yourselves.

Roboramma

18th June 2009, 02:50 AM

:)

Damn, I was beginning to wonder.

Thank you very much for the response. Hey, yeah, sorry, these days I haven't been able to make much time to get on here. It's frustrating, particularly when I start to get involved in an interesting discussion.

BTW: The long post was not really necessary. I've posted many, many thousands of posts on this subject and nothing you've posted is new to me and nothing you've posted is anything that I haven't said myself many hundreds of times. But that's fine. Yeah, I sort of figured that, I've seen you post on this subject quite a bit, and I think we've even engaged each other here before as well. I admit it is tricky territory and my own thoughts aren't entirely clear. Just muddling my way through as best I can. I hope that a year from now I'll have some sort of fresh insight, because at the moment...

Ok, so:

Suffering is by definition bad (we evolved to experience certain things as painful or causing discomfort).
I assume that you would also agree that when others suffer, observers can also suffer because they experience the suffering of others (see mirror neurons) also an evolved sense.
Why?

Isn't it because this evolved sense helps to protect our genes and aid in social cohesion (see The Selfish Gene)? To the above two points, agreed. That those things exist because they evolved, again, I agree.
That they evolved specifically to protect our genes, not agreed: more to spread those genes (and note, "to" is not the correct term, rather, because they are associated with traits that tended, in our past, to help genes spread, these genes have become predominant). I think you agree to that.
The social cohesion part, unless I misunderstand you, I don't agree. At least, that may be one selective pressure, but then again, it may not.
I think this is a side point, however.

In this interview (http://richarddawkins.net/article,3941,Steven-Pinker---The-Genius-of-Charles-Darwin-The-Uncut-Interviews,Steven-Pinker-Richard-Dawkins) with Pinker. Dawkins notes, and Pinker agrees, that morality is an evolved sense (a lust as Dawkins states).
I think this is generally the case. However, I think this applies to our feelings of what is right and wrong. It is a good reason to doubt those feelings. And when we are basing our morality upon a feeling that "things that are gross are bad", then I think there is no objective foundation.

But I think when we are using a reasoned moral framework, one founded, for instance, on the idea that suffering is bad, this is not a moral system which relies on being "natural" to be right. That is, just because something feels wrong, doesn't make it wrong.

So, so far we have A.) personal suffering and our ability to experience the suffering of others (empathy) as a negative experience (bad) and this feeling of pain or discomfort exists to facilitate genes and B.) Our sense of morality exists for the self same reason. Well, again, I think that "ordinary" suffering, and suffering caused by empathising with the suffering of others can just be collapsed into suffering. Both are bad for the same reason.

Second, yes, suffering itself evolved, but it doesn't matter why it exists, it wouldn't matter if it had been created by some supernatural being or programmed into us by aliens, it is a bad thing in and of itself.

Third, our sense of morality may have evolved, but as I don't think that evolved sense is correct, I don't see how that bears on the question.

Ok, so here is the clincher, if I sense that any behavior is bad why is that, or would that sense be wrong? (FTR: There is an answer as to why it could be wrong, I believe it could be wrong, but I'll let you respond. The point is that the issue is a bit more nuanced than many would like to consider or perhaps even admit). I would say that it isn't wrong because you feel it is wrong, and even that your feeling that it's wrong tells us little if anything about whether or not it is actually wrong.

Robo, I'm happy to get back to the rest of your post but we need to resolve this issue first. Agreed.

Ok,
I'm stranded on a dessert island with my family and some strangers.
After a few months it becomes clear that water and other resources, while sufficient for my family to survive, are currently diminishing and will not hold out for everyone.
My moral sense is to protect my family.
This moral sense will likely lead me to conflict and even bloodshed in order for my family to survive.
That moral sense exists because it is natural.
Question: Are any of my sensed (evolved) rules of behavior (such as, it is moral to put the needs of my family above others) wrong simply because they are natural (please note: I'm not arguing that these rules are right because they are natural. I'm asking you if the argument X is wrong because it is natural is valid?

No, they are not wrong simply because they are natural. I think they are wrong, but practically, there isn't much that we can do about that. I would say we should try to care more about strangers than we do, but that's difficult.

I'm not advocating that people be perfect, just that they try to be better. For instance, I'm here in this thread talking about animal rights, but I had pork for lunch today.

My point is that from a practical standpoint I don't think you'll be able to avoid caring more about family than strangers. Moreover, because we all care about family, everyone (generally) has people who care about them, and this system works out, if not perfectly, quite well. It's probably the best we can do at present with our imperfect nature.

But, again to answer your question, while I think those feelings are wrong, it's not because they are natural. They could have come from Allah, and still they would be wrong. There is simply no connection between whether something is natural, and whether it is good.
好不好，自然不自然没有什么关系。

Belz...

18th June 2009, 04:38 AM

Humans are omnivores, that is how we developed. Unless our digestive system changes, our diet needs will still consist of meats, nuts, and vegetables.

And yet some people exclude one or the other from their diets and seem to live fine. I'm more of a meat-eater, myself, but I have nothing against people who eat vegetables only.

Hell, some vegans feed their cats vegetable meals. Imagine that.

Drudgewire

18th June 2009, 05:26 AM

And yet some people exclude one or the other from their diets and seem to live fine. I'm more of a meat-eater, myself, but I have nothing against people who eat vegetables only.

I couldn't agree more. Don't judge me for what's on the end of my fork and I PROMISE to return the favor. :)

Hell, some vegans feed their cats vegetable meals. Imagine that.

I will admit that annoys me. Your cat doesn't give a rat's ass about your stances on social issues, leave them out of it.

ETA: My cat responds "Mmmmmm, rat's ass." :drool:

shawmutt

18th June 2009, 05:30 AM

Has anyone else here ever actually butchered a cow?

I butchered a squirrel--after 999 more I'll get the equivalent of meat from a cow! :D

GreNME

18th June 2009, 08:28 AM

GreNME

18th June 2009, 08:49 AM

I see what you are saying and in some cases the mentally handicapped/retarded still have cognitive ability and understanding above that of an animal. However, there are also cases in which people are mentally handicapped/retarded to the extent that for all intents and purposes they have the intelligence/decision making abilities of animals such as Apes, or dogs. In this instance they are still given greater rights despite not having and equal level of responsibility for no other apparent reason that they are a person rather than another species. Even people in vegetative (no pun intended) states have sparked debates concerning their right to life.

Also there seems to be an underlying rule in what you've said in that a beings rights are tied to what they are able to offer back in return such as their level of responsibility. Though you may not have intended to imply that. I'd need more time to articulate why, but this idea makes me uncomfortable.

If I only seemed to imply the latter (about responsibility), then allow me to clear that up: I definitely mean that about the inherent responsibility that comes with rights. Much like how free speech does not absolve one of the responsibility to not shout "fire" in a crowded (and not-on-fire) theatre, having the basic human rights that humans are attributed comes with expectations and responsibilities. With the mentally handicapped, often what is done to make the responsibilities easier on them-- responsibilities that are already well below what one expects of a fully healthy adult-- is to have them under supervised care in facilities where they can be safe. That's not always the case, but it's often the case. However, if someone who very intellectually or emotionally (or both) stunted due to mental handicap winds up killing someone (think Lenny), they can still face legal consequences for their actions even if they don't fully understand them. Animals, on the other hand, do not face such consequences (though they do face other consequences depending on situations).

Now, to the first part, it's not that I'm saying that the mentally handicapped have intellectual capacity or capability above non-human animals, it's that I'm saying that the mentally handicapped are attributed a legal and moral status not much different than that of children, which is a protected status that still confers human rights and legal status while not considering them as capable or self-sufficient as a non-disabled healthy human adult. That non-disabled healthy human adult is the baseline here, from which these other statuses are conferred for the sick, the comatose, the mentally disabled, the children, and so on. It would be unfair to confer those statuses to non-humans primarily because they lack the human baseline. This doesn't negate the possibility of some level of appropriate protected status for animals, but it lacks the level of rights associated with humans based on the characteristic of being human in the first place.

As to the rest of your post, it doesn't look like we have much disagreement there, and I hope this post clears up any questions you had regarding the last quoted text.

-----

Retarded people = animals? Wow. See post 371.

...and here's a question for you: What makes a chicken's life equal to a humans?

That's really not quite what he's (she's?) arguing. What's being proposed is to use the model of legal and moral status we attribute to the mentally handicapped for a framework of moral status given to animals. While I've explained why I don't think that works above, it was proposed in a reasonable enough and non-hostile fashion that it deserves better than to have it shifted into snide hyperbole.

GreNME

18th June 2009, 08:55 AM

It's produced in your liver from two of the essential amino acids which are available from combining two LowBiologicalValue protein sources - and if I recall correctly Vitamin C helps it's synthesis....

Is that what you mean by "not without help"?

Yep, pretty much what I mean. There are a few combination chains in the human body that require raw material from outside sources to create them, and we're not completely in the know for how all of them work or what they all do (at least not completely), but yeah, that's what I mean.

Of course, all that really does is make the case for diversity in diet, not necessarily for or against meat specifically. Also, as to the rest of your post there's not anything I can really disagree on, so I think we're square. :)

Belz...

18th June 2009, 09:10 AM

It just hit me that under vegan standards even the salads I eat wouldn't pass muster since both creamy italian and blue cheese dressing have banned substances (as well as the roast beef shards I like to add but that was more obvious). :(

It's a good thing none of those people decided that plants have a right to live, too.

It's also a good thing that they don't try to save animals from cruelty from other animals.

Belz...

18th June 2009, 09:21 AM

Many of the reasons given for pushing vegetarianism can be shown to be fact. In the process of raising animals for consumption the animals usually suffer, and are killed.

Yes, but I want my protein and I like meat. Tough luck.

Belz...

18th June 2009, 09:25 AM

OK I give up - having lurked for a year or so I now feel compelled to post...

Welcome to the forum, then!

Humans at no point in history have *needed* to eat meat.

I'm pretty sure I can go without veggies, too.

Belz...

18th June 2009, 09:31 AM

You're gripped by this conviction that instincts are in some way relevant to morality.

Pray tell, what, in your view, is relevant to morality ?

JimBenArm

18th June 2009, 09:42 AM

Just to add to the damn stupidity...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31422688/ns/us_news-weird_news/

GreNME

18th June 2009, 09:44 AM

You're gripped by this conviction that instincts are in some way relevant to morality. You don't have any argument for why this should be except that you can't conceive of anything different, nor do you have any response whatsoever to the real elephant in the room: the fact that many of our instincts are counterproductive, selfish, stupid or evil.

I don't know how many times I can say this before it gets through: human beings have no instincts. We have not had that mechanism since before we recorded our own history, and likely much further back to pre-fire times. Stop using instincts as your pseudo-original-sin here.

GreNME

18th June 2009, 09:48 AM

Just to add to the damn stupidity...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31422688/ns/us_news-weird_news/

Friedrich is an insane person, and has openly advocated setting fires and blowing things up to advance their nutbag cause. In other words, he's about as credible a source on humane treatment as Ramzi Youseff would be for airline safety.

Sword_Of_Truth

18th June 2009, 10:24 AM

If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.
- PETA Spokesman Bruce Friedrich (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/peta_quote.wav)

Question for discussion: If every fast food restaurant, medical laboratory, and financial institution were to explode, what would be the death toll*?

*People, not animals. Animals aren't people

Steve

18th June 2009, 10:40 AM

ETA: My cat responds "Mmmmmm, rat's ass." :drool:

Not my cat. In the last week I have has to dispose of the back ends of two rodents. She seems to eat them from the head back to the hips and leaves the rest for me (or maybe the dogs).

And.... in the interests of making this post somewhat on topic - my cat is definitely not a vegetarian, and neither am I.

dudalb

18th June 2009, 10:55 AM

Friedrich is an insane person, and has openly advocated setting fires and blowing things up to advance their nutbag cause. In other words, he's about as credible a source on humane treatment as Ramzi Youseff would be for airline safety.

Agreed, but let's give credit where credit is due: Friedrich is just expressing the feeling of Ingrid Newkirk ,founder and Supreme All Powerful Ruler..excuse me, President of PETA. Newkirk is the #1 Wackjob, Friedrich is just the Second Banana.
I really hope that Law Enforcment finally find solid evidence of PETA giving material aid and support to the Eco terror groups,so that this bunch of nutbags can lose their tax exempt status. But so far Newkirk has been smart enough to cover PETA's tracks.

Tapio

18th June 2009, 12:14 PM

The loved ones part has already been done for me, so why not?

Sorry to hear that.

But as far as I can see it is a non-question trying to appeal to some form of attachment and not a rational way of finding a solution.

So because you have nobody you love alive, you're in the position of deciding rationally who are the ones who "get to go first" :eye-poppi ?

Cutting down the bio-industry would take time, one-child programs as well.

If I would have to pick between 'being nicer to animals' and 'making people just have sex for fun', well, I know what my standpoint is.

Why/when/how on earth would you have to make such a decision? I've had vasectomy for the reason (among others) you mentioned and I advocate better treatment for animals. I fail to understand how the two are related.

Tapio

18th June 2009, 12:19 PM

We could feed those starving millions by other means without having to give up bacon.

I didn't suggest you have to "give up bacon". Just cut down the amount.

In fact, our bacon consumption has notrhing to do with their starvation.

Now, based upon your previous posts I believe you to possess way more intelligence than that phrase holds in it. It's fine by me if you just don't want to discuss that part of the topic. If so, just say it. No need for underachievement ;).

linusrichard

18th June 2009, 12:22 PM

- PETA Spokesman Bruce Friedrich (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/peta_quote.wav)

Question for discussion: If every fast food restaurant, medical laboratory, and financial institution were to explode, what would be the death toll*?
Big difference depending on what time of day it happened. I'm not sure why it matters... take the lowest estimate, divide it by 10, and the guy's still advocating mass murder.

Animals aren't people

Some of us are.

thaiboxerken

18th June 2009, 12:40 PM

GreNME

18th June 2009, 12:42 PM

I've never met a person who wasn't human. I just found out today that the Humane Society has devolved into a PETA-like entity. Check out their website and you'll see that they are becoming a parrot to PETA, they're promoting vegetarianism and speaking out against leather products and such.

That's been happening since about 1980, when the previous board was voted out and a new, more AR activist board was brought in.

RandFan

18th June 2009, 01:03 PM

You're gripped by this conviction that instincts are in some way relevant to morality.No. I'm simply familiar with the facts. What's bizarre is that you could be presented with so much evidence that adaptive behavior is relevant to morality and you could simply dismiss it as beside the point.

Why not skip the pointless indulgence in the naturalistic fallacy, and just say that reason is the source of moral guidance? I can't say that "reason" is the only source of moral guidance because it is demonstrably untrue. Should it be? That's the distinction that you DON'T get.

You are going to ignore this like you do everything else but I'm going to repeat it and put the salient point in red to demonstrate your rank willfulness to ignore my point.

I can't say that "reason" is the only source of moral guidance because it is demonstrably untrue. The question is Should it be? That's the distinction that you DON'T get.

No, you just posted a lot of stuff that was utterly beside the point.Nice tactic. Hear no evil see no evil. What you ignore won't hurt you.

No, Kevin, it's demonstrably NOT beside the point. Asserting that something is so doesn't make it true. And, here's an idea, if it is beside the point perhaps you could explain why it is beside the point?

RandFan: Adaptive behavior has something to do with morality.
Kevin: Your claim is wrong.
Dawkins: Adaptive behavior has something to do with morality.
Wilson: Adaptive behavior has something to do with morality.
Wright: Adaptive behavior has something to do with morality.
Pinker: Adaptive behavior has something to do with morality.
Kevin: These claims are beside the point.
RandFan: :rolleyes:
RandFan: Are you just on autopilot now?

The question you needed to answer is "Why should be pay any attention to these instincts?".Asked and answered. They are the reason we are here. Since they are and they DO drive our behavior we ought to understand them and why they helped us survive.

...that you can't slow down, think, and realise you've made some fundamental errors in your thinking.Now you are projecting.

Appeals to nature and emotion are fallacies.The fatal flaw of your thinking (not that it's wrong per se but that it applies to what I've been saying).

I'm not appealing to nature and emotion to JUSTIFY behavior. I'm making a point that nature and emotions are explanations for our behavior.

Again, I know you will ignore this so I want to repeat it.

I'm not appealing to nature and emotion to JUSTIFY behavior. I'm making a point that nature and emotions are explanations for our behavior.

RandFan

18th June 2009, 01:17 PM

But, again to answer your question, while I think those feelings are wrong, it's not because they are natural. They could have come from Allah, and still they would be wrong. There is simply no connection between whether something is natural, and whether it is good.Great post. :)

BTW, did you watch the Dawkins video I linked to?

As I told Kevin, I can't categoricly state that there is no connection. There is simply too much evidence that there is a link.

We know that we behave, to some degree, according to adaptive behaviors given us by evolution. That's no longer in question.

The question becomes, how "ought" we behave given what we know about our nature and the consequences of that nature?

I'm willing to bet we can find some agreement.

Sadly I don't think that's possible with Kevin but I don't mean to drag you into that fight.

Rogue1stclass

18th June 2009, 01:27 PM

I don't think morality works the way that some seem to think it does.

Without a god, there is no pure morality that exists outside of Humanity. There isn't some logical puzzle that unlock the way to a perfectly moral life. Morality is simply a feature that allows people to function together as a society. It doesn't have to rational, logical, or even sane.

As a social control, morality isn't even particularly strong. As morals are created and enforced by the tacit consent of the population, and interpretation of them can vary wildly from one segment of that population to the other. As such, especially in larger societies, the lines between what is considered "morally bad" and "morally good" tend to be drawn arbitrarily, with lots of grey on either side.

In fact, even attempting to argue morality from logic is problematic. It leads to a host of slippery slope arguments as we've all seen in the abortion and gay marriage debates.

What I don't understand is how anyone can think that PETA is some benign organization that just likes animals. I generally like animals better than people, but even I can see that everything they do is drenched in misanthropic hatred. How does one get to hate their species, as well as its domesticated partners, so much? More importantly, how does one do that and get to be considered a somewhat credible voice?

RandFan

18th June 2009, 01:31 PM

You said that we had an instinct to like clear running water, and that clear running water was good, in support of the (still silly) claim that our natural instincts have something to do with what is moral.

I don't know how many times I can say this before it gets through: human beings have no instincts.

In a nod to GreNME let me clear up some confusion. I'm not sure if I'm the source of it or not. My point is and has been that humans have evolved adaptive behaviors. I don't believe I used the word "instincts" but if I did then I will retract that for this discussion. I believe that "instinct" is anachronistic from an anthropological POV.

In any event, Kevin, you are being disengenious to, on the one hand say that natural "instincts" play no role, and then claim that Dawkins, Wright, Pinker and Wilson's arguments for sociobiology and moral adaptive behavior are beside the point.

That's downright dishonest or willful cognitive compartmentalizing.

Beside the point isn't an argument. It's an assertion.

GreNME

18th June 2009, 02:08 PM

In a nod to GreNME let me clear up some confusion. I'm not sure if I'm the source of it or not. My point is and has been that humans have evolved adaptive behaviors. I don't believe I used the word "instincts" but if I did then I will retract that for this discussion. I believe that "instinct" is anachronistic from an anthropological POV.

It could be. Kevin has already twice (at least) tried to twist things into things I wasn't saying. But yes, evolved adapted behaviors we definitely do have.

In any event, Kevin, you are being disengenious to, on the one hand say that natural "instincts" play no role, and then claim that Dawkins, Wright, Pinker and Wilson's arguments for sociobiology and moral adaptive behavior are beside the point.

That's downright dishonest or willful cognitive compartmentalizing.

Beside the point isn't an argument. It's an assertion.

And a faulty assertion, at that.

dudalb

18th June 2009, 02:23 PM

How did this evolve from a discussion about Peta to "Philsophy 1A?":D

RandFan

18th June 2009, 02:27 PM

How did this evolve from a discussion about Peta to "Philsophy 1A?":DPETA is now going after Obama for killing a fly. (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/offbeat/2009/06/17/moos.most.famous.fly.cnn) @ :01:00

Rogue1stclass

18th June 2009, 02:29 PM

How did this evolve from a discussion about Peta to "Philsophy 1A?":D

Because someone made a racist joke.

It's really been a strange progression.

The Painter

18th June 2009, 04:06 PM

PETA is now going after Obama for killing a fly. (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/offbeat/2009/06/17/moos.most.famous.fly.cnn) @ :01:00

I heard the PETA sent him humane fly catcher. Sort of like a wind sock on a stick. You catch the fly and release it outdoors. IT'S A FLY PETA IS INSANE

technoextreme

18th June 2009, 07:04 PM

- PETA Spokesman Bruce Friedrich (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/peta_quote.wav)

Question for discussion: If every fast food restaurant, medical laboratory, and financial institution were to explode, what would be the death toll*?

*People, not animals. Animals aren't people
You know here is an interesting question that can keep this topic going on for another 10 pages. Why do you never hear about these types of whackjobs on the eastern coast of the United States? The people who primarily do the stuff that this guy quoted is in the western United States. Its probably an argument from ignorance on my part.

GreNME

18th June 2009, 07:12 PM

You know here is an interesting question that can keep this topic going on for another 10 pages. Why do you never hear about these types of whackjobs on the eastern coast of the United States? The people who primarily do the stuff that this guy quoted is in the western United States. Its probably an argument from ignorance on my part.

The problem there is that both PETA and the HSUS headquarters are on the East Coast.

Sword_Of_Truth

18th June 2009, 08:21 PM

Big difference depending on what time of day it happened. I'm not sure why it matters... take the lowest estimate, divide it by 10, and the guy's still advocating mass murder.

Well.. let's think about it. Let's say we leave out the medical labs and the fast food restaurants and focus on the financial institutions that lend or store their money. Instead of all of them, let's focus on a handful of the big ones. Let us again assume that our hypothetical PETA-approved terrorist is going to hit just a couple buildings containing some of the biggest financial institutions situated in a major financial center. We know that the weapon of choice for PETA agents is the molotov cocktail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBNUE-0rGcE), but just a bottle with a cup of gasoline isn't going to do it, so we need to scale it up a little... like say 140,000 pounds?

Based on these rough estimates, I would guess PETAs attack would result in some 2,800 human casualties.

Including 343 firefighters, 37 police officers and ironically... one or more bomb-sniffing dogs. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/24/attack/main507066.shtml)

This is what PETAs agenda looks like:
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/91104.jpg
...all to save a few lab rats, or some bacon.

Kevin_Lowe

18th June 2009, 08:46 PM

No. I'm simply familiar with the facts. What's bizarre is that you could be presented with so much evidence that adaptive behavior is relevant to morality and you could simply dismiss it as beside the point.

You have shown no such evidence, because no such evidence can exist. You can't get from an is to an ought, without an additional "ought" assumption of some kind. "We ought to do what we are naturally inclined to do" is the "ought" claim you need to make adaptive behaviour relevant, and it's demonstrably false, so you're stuck.

I can't say that "reason" is the only source of moral guidance because it is demonstrably untrue. Should it be? That's the distinction that you DON'T get.

You are going to ignore this like you do everything else but I'm going to repeat it and put the salient point in red to demonstrate your rank willfulness to ignore my point.

I can't say that "reason" is the only source of moral guidance because it is demonstrably untrue. The question is Should it be? That's the distinction that you DON'T get.

What other candidate do you have? You've already admitted that reason trumps inbuilt behavioural tendencies even for you, so what's left? Other than the Bible or tossing a coin?

Reason has the benefit of consistency and coherency at the very least, which puts it above the Bible, the coin-toss and mindless instinctive behaviour.

Nice tactic. Hear no evil see no evil. What you ignore won't hurt you.

No, Kevin, it's demonstrably NOT beside the point. Asserting that something is so doesn't make it true. And, here's an idea, if it is beside the point perhaps you could explain why it is beside the point?

Why is anything beside the point? Because it has no relevance. Because the premise does not lead to the conclusion.

RandFan: Adaptive behavior has something to do with morality.
Kevin: Your claim is wrong.
Dawkins: Adaptive behavior has something to do with morality.
Wilson: Adaptive behavior has something to do with morality.
Wright: Adaptive behavior has something to do with morality.
Pinker: Adaptive behavior has something to do with morality.
Kevin: These claims are beside the point.
RandFan: :rolleyes:
RandFan: Are you just on autopilot now?

What's disingenuous is posting the same nonsense over and over and over again, and then expecting novel answers.

Adaptive behaviour is not a source of information about what is morally right. That's the problem.

You can post a *********** encyclopaedia entry about adaptive human behaviour into this thread every day for the next hundred years and the answer you will get is not going to change on any of those days. Adaptive behaviour will still not be a source of information about what is morally right, no matter how much guff you bloat this thread with about it.

Asked and answered. They are the reason we are here. Since they are and they DO drive our behavior we ought to understand them and why they helped us survive.

What's that got to do with morality? Assuming they do drive our behaviour, there's no reason to think that they drive our behaviour in moral ways. In fact, we know that sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.

Knowing about them might be empirically useful in figuring out how to get humans to behave in ways that reason tells us are moral, sure, but that's utterly different.

Now you are projecting.

The fatal flaw of your thinking (not that it's wrong per se but that it applies to what I've been saying).

I'm not appealing to nature and emotion to JUSTIFY behavior. I'm making a point that nature and emotions are explanations for our behavior.

Again, I know you will ignore this so I want to repeat it.

I'm not appealing to nature and emotion to JUSTIFY behavior. I'm making a point that nature and emotions are explanations for our behavior.

What the **** does that have to do with what is actually morally right or morally wrong?

In a nod to GreNME let me clear up some confusion. I'm not sure if I'm the source of it or not. My point is and has been that humans have evolved adaptive behaviors. I don't believe I used the word "instincts" but if I did then I will retract that for this discussion. I believe that "instinct" is anachronistic from an anthropological POV.

In any event, Kevin, you are being disengenious to, on the one hand say that natural "instincts" play no role, and then claim that Dawkins, Wright, Pinker and Wilson's arguments for sociobiology and moral adaptive behavior are beside the point.

That's downright dishonest or willful cognitive compartmentalizing.

Beside the point isn't an argument. It's an assertion.

I can't extract any intelligent argument from this passage so I'm going to have to ask you to try again to convey whatever it is you mean.

It seems perfectly consistent to me to maintain that all information about adaptive behaviour is irrelevant to the question of what is actually morally right or wrong.

You can flood the thread with more name-dropping and links to videos, but frankly I think your attempt to appropriate good science to prop up an inane philosophical claim is, if anything, offensive to the good scientists whose names you are dropping and whose work you are misusing.

Sword_Of_Truth

18th June 2009, 08:59 PM

"A ruler should not listen to those who believe in people having opinions of their own and in the importance of the individual. Such teachings cause men to withdraw to quiet places and hide away in caves or in mountains, there to rail at the prevailing government, sneer at those in authority, belittle the importance of rank and emoluments, and despise all who hold official posts."

This quote in your sig is ironically amusing given your apparent attitude towards whose who have a different "morality" than you.

Corsair 115

18th June 2009, 09:14 PM

It's also a good thing that they don't try to save animals from cruelty from other animals.

Courtesy of Futurama:

"Animals eat other animals. It's nature."
"No it's not. We taught a lion to eat tofu."
*Lion coughs sickly*

RandFan

18th June 2009, 09:27 PM

You have shown no such evidence, because no such evidence can exist.Thank you.

You can't get from an is to an ought, without an additional "ought" assumption of some kind. "We ought to do what we are naturally inclined to do" is the "ought" claim you need to make adaptive behaviour relevant, and it's demonstrably false, so you're stuck.Oh, right. Dawkins, Wright, et al are just wrong.

You ought to let them know.

You can post a *********** encyclopaedia entry about adaptive human behaviour into this thread every day for the next hundred years and the answer you will get is not going to change on any of those days.Because you are like any dogmatic believer.

What's that got to do with morality? Assuming they do drive our behaviour, there's no reason to think that they drive our behaviour in moral ways. In fact, we know that sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.

You've got a contradiction in there.
You beg the question.
I never said that they necassarily "drive" our behaviour in good ways.
What the **** does that have to do with what is actually morally right or morally wrong? There is no such thing as "acuatlly" moral.

You can flood the thread with more name-dropping and links to videos, but frankly I think your attempt to appropriate good science to prop up an inane philosophical claim is, if anything, offensive to the good scientists whose names you are dropping and whose work you are misusing.? What philosophical claim? By your own words you admit that my claims is simply "something to do with morality".

RandFan: Darwinian evolution has something to do with morality.
Kevin: No it doesn't.
Dawkins et al: We can understand evolution through Darwinian evolution.

:rolleyes:

You are not being honest.

I've told you over and over that I'm not trying to derive an is from an ought. I'm trying to explain that morality isn't as divorced from our nature as you would suppose. It's demonstrable that Dawkins and others clearly believe that adaptive behavior can explain our sense of morality. Hell, Dawkins comes out and says it plainly and directly but you just stick your fingers in your ears and accuse me of missusing him when in fact I don't claim anything Dawkins doesn't claim.

If I did, you could state what it is. Hell, you could quote me and I would be unable to justify the quote with anything Dawkins has said.

How can I misuse them when they clearly state what I'm saying they state?

Roboramma

18th June 2009, 09:30 PM

Great post. :)

BTW, did you watch the Dawkins video I linked to? Tried to, but youtube is blocked in China these days. As a big fan of both Dawkins and Pinker, my inability to open it is annoying to say the least.

As I told Kevin, I can't categoricly state that there is no connection. There is simply too much evidence that there is a link.

We know that we behave, to some degree, according to adaptive behaviors given us by evolution. That's no longer in question. Agree, that's no longer in question. As to the link, yes, there's a link between our evolved nature and our morality: as you said, our moral instincts are evolved. I just think that those instincts are wrong, just like our evolved understanding of physics is wrong. I also think that, just as our intuitive physics manages to be correct about some things, our evolved moral instincts are also not too poor within a certain class of circumstances.

But that doesn't mean that because we evolved an instinct to, for instance, find incest disgusting, that incest is wrong. In particular, in situations and environments that are substantially different from those in which we evolved, our moral instincts become less and less useful.

But this is a side-point, as "useful" and "right" are no more synonyms than "natural" and "right".

The question becomes, how "ought" we behave given what we know about our nature and the consequences of that nature? That is a very good question. At present I still lack the understanding to give a good general answer, though I think I have some idea of how to approach specific cases.

One of the reasons that I say this is that while I suggest that "suffering is bad" is a good moral principle, it's not the only one that I am influenced by. I think things like honesty, justice, etc. are also, in general, good. But I find it difficult to explain that from first principles and am perhaps only being influenced by that evolved nature that I was in some ways disparaging a moment ago.

I'm willing to bet we can find some agreement. I think so too.

Roboramma

18th June 2009, 09:37 PM

There is no such thing as "acuatlly" moral.
RandFan, I think that this here is the basic point of disagreement. I, personally, believe that there is an objective morality*. That is, a particular action, done at a particular time in particular circumstances, is either good or bad (or something in between). And if two people disagree about the morality of that particular act, one of them is wrong.

*I think that I can back that belief up to a certain degree, though not perfectly, yet.

RandFan

18th June 2009, 09:48 PM

RandFan, I think that this here is the basic point of disagreement. I, personally, believe that there is an objective morality*. That is, a particular action, done at a particular time in particular circumstances, is either good or bad (or something in between). And if two people disagree about the morality of that particular act, one of them is wrong.

*I think that I can back that belief up to a certain degree, though not perfectly, yet.

I actually agree with this to some extent (it depends on the premises however)
To do so however you must rely on a number of assumption that are not a priori.
Otherwise What a priori yardstick would you use?
Let me ask you a hypothetical.

Many birds species evolved so that one sibling often kills the other.
Ornithologists have determined that it is because there is not enough time given gestation for a number of species to have a second offspring should the first one die in the crucial time after birth. So, an ESS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy) is to have two eggs and if both survive one kills the other because the parents are not likely to gather enough food to assure the survival of both (that's pretty close as I remember anyway).
What if humans had evolved like these birds so that one sibling was required to kill the other for the survival of the species?
Would that be moral?
Whats interesting about this hypo is that it gets at the very evolved sense of morality that we do have. The one that Kevin denies exists (or it exists and he claims is relevant).

RandFan

18th June 2009, 10:03 PM

Tried to, but youtube is blocked in China these days. As a big fan of both Dawkins and Pinker, my inability to open it is annoying to say the least.

Agree, that's no longer in question. As to the link, yes, there's a link between our evolved nature and our morality: as you said, our moral instincts are evolved. I just think that those instincts are wrong, just like our evolved understanding of physics is wrong. I also think that, just as our intuitive physics manages to be correct about some things, our evolved moral instincts are also not too poor within a certain class of circumstances.

But that doesn't mean that because we evolved an instinct to, for instance, find incest disgusting, that incest is wrong. In particular, in situations and environments that are substantially different from those in which we evolved, our moral instincts become less and less useful.

But this is a side-point, as "useful" and "right" are no more synonyms than "natural" and "right".

That is a very good question. At present I still lack the understanding to give a good general answer, though I think I have some idea of how to approach specific cases.

One of the reasons that I say this is that while I suggest that "suffering is bad" is a good moral principle, it's not the only one that I am influenced by. I think things like honesty, justice, etc. are also, in general, good. But I find it difficult to explain that from first principles and am perhaps only being influenced by that evolved nature that I was in some ways disparaging a moment ago.

I think so too.I'm sorry you are unable to view the videos.

There's a video where Dawkins interviews Peter Singer on his site. It's also a great one. I was going to post that one for Kevin since I'm reasonably sure he is a fan of Singer's. But I don't think any amount of links or evidence will sway him.

Of course I think he and I are, to some extent, talking past eachother. I should note that Dawkins makes quite clear the is/ought fallacy.

MikeSun5

18th June 2009, 11:12 PM

That's really not quite what he's (she's?) arguing. What's being proposed is to use the model of legal and moral status we attribute to the mentally handicapped for a framework of moral status given to animals. While I've explained why I don't think that works above, it was proposed in a reasonable enough and non-hostile fashion that it deserves better than to have it shifted into snide hyperbole.

...so "legally and morally," the retarded will be equal to animals... Snide, yes. Hyperbole, no.

MikeSun5

18th June 2009, 11:24 PM

an·thro·po·mor·phism
noun.
Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

Animals have no morals. That is a human characteristic that vegans and PETA people attribute to them to make the morality argument.

Comparing carnivores to murderers and rapists, farmers to slave owners, and animals to the mentally handicapped is absolutely ridiculous. :boggled:

Cain

18th June 2009, 11:24 PM

Oh, get off this "caution" BS of yours, you have no authority here but the assumed self-righteous authority you continually claim arbitrarily.

The difference is two-fold, in its most basic make-up. First, the utilitarian approach described ignores any significance to the social and communal benefits of distinction between 'like' and 'not like', or more specifically the difference between a fundamentalist, unchanging approach and a heuristic, nuanced approach. For RandFan's statement, the difference is between 'family' and 'stranger', and while the utilitarian would make no differentiation between the two a more heuristic approach would acknowledge the difference in value, both philosophically and naturally. This particularly applies to the difference between the Animal Rights and Animal Welfare groups because the former ignores distinctions between different animals to make its case while the latter recognizes the distinctions in social, communal, and natural terms.

Essentially, the difference is one of a choice between a fundamentalist and a heuristic approach to things.

Utilitarianism is an empirical philosophy and possesses mechanisms to generate all sorts of heuristics (e.g., work within the law). Indeed, one argument against utilitarianism is that it can be used to support almost any course of action, which is precisely why it's silly to say the utilitarian answer. There are two-tiered approaches. However, no specific moral doctrine is necessary when it comes to justifying restrictions on human use of animals. You have some Kantian advocating animal rights, and others (indeed, utilitarians are not so big on rights at all except as useful construct).

More interestingly your "explanation" for how "It also displays a fundamental rift between the Animal Rights groups and those who advocate Animal Welfare" is strained at best. You're basically speaking nonsense, which is why I advised caution, though perhaps I should have counseled you to withdraw your comment entirely.

This particularly applies to the difference between the Animal Rights and Animal Welfare groups because the former ignores distinctions between different animals to make its case while the latter recognizes the distinctions in social, communal, and natural terms.

You're just double-dipping in teh crazy sauce. Rather than ignoring them, animal rights philosophers confront (alleged) significant distinctions head-on. And you also still do not seem to understand what moral absolutism means.

-----------------
thaiboxerken:
Well that convinces me. I guess it's time to fight for animal suffrage. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should sue all of your school teachers because no one in that thread advocates voting rights for animals (see for instance post #556).
-----------------
Painter:
Good for them. I can distinguish the difference between life forms too. So what. Is a mammal worth more than a carrot? worth more than a bacteria??? Without bacteria, mankind would not exist. We could not digest food without them. Hell billions of years ago they put oxygen into the atmosphere so we could breathe. Yes, Life is life. Each form serves it's own purpose. It is all intertwined.

This is still more equivocation. Is bacteria "worth more" than John Q. Smith because "without bacteria, mankind [sic] would not exist." And presumably humankind includes John Q. Smith.

Ideas about the morality of food are absurd. You chose to eat vegan, fine. You chose to eat vegetarian, fine You chose to eat meat, fine. BFD it doesn't matter. Will the world blossom into a beautiful Utopia if we don't kill our food? No it won't.

Who is saying that it will become Utopian? And besides, if we go back to the spirit of your first post -- the one setting off this exchange -- we know vegetarians/vegans do all sorts killing: we're killing plants.

PS My original comment was about pets, not food. Pay attention.

More self-parody from you. This is another instance of the equivocation fallacy.

Kevin_Lowe

18th June 2009, 11:47 PM

Thank you.

Oh, right. Dawkins, Wright, et al are just wrong.

You ought to let them know.

Because you are like any dogmatic believer.

Yes, I'm a dogmatic believer in the fact that fallacies are fallacies, no matter how often you repeat them. In fact, I'm a complete fundamentalist about the matter, much as I'm a fundamentalist about 2+2 being 4. There's no scope for "nuance", they're just fallacies.

It looks to me like the fundamental problem is that you keep sliding back and forth between talking about "morality" in a strictly sociological sense, where "morality" is just whatever people think is moral (if you make any attempt to apply this it becomes moral relativism of some form), and talking about objectivist morality, where there are moral rules which apply to all people in relevantly similar circumstances regardless of what they think about the matter.

I'm talking purely about objectivist morality, obviously.

Now I don't think you even realise you are doing this sliding, because you haven't got a clear definition of "morality" in your head.

So you come out with these claims like "we can learn about morality by studying our adaptive behaviours, Dawkins says so!", or "there is no actual morality", which make not an iota of sense unless you're talking purely about morality as a sociological subject.

The problem, as I explained to you earlier, is that this sociological morality isn't morality in any useful sense. You seem to half-grasp this, because you're aware that societies and instincts can endorse genocide, rape and murder, and you want to appeal to reason to trump them when they do that. So you've got half a foot in the objectivist camp, or possibly you stick half a foot in there just to get out of that one argument and then slide your foot back into the moral relativist camp as soon as you think it's safe.

This sliding around seems to be preventing you from grasping these two points, however:

1. Relativism, egoism and other non-objectivist moral theories are self-defeating and hence incompatible with reason. If you're trying to use reason to get these theories out of trouble, you're already being inconsistent and hence objectively wrong.

2. Adaptive or customary behaviours are utterly irrelevant to the question of what is a consistent/useful/correct objectivist moral view on any given subject. Trying to drag any data from adaptive or customary behaviours into a discussion of objectivist morality is automatically an instance of the naturalistic fallacy and hence a waste of everyone's time.

RandFan

18th June 2009, 11:59 PM

Yes, I'm a dogmatic believer in the fact that fallacies are fallacies, no matter how often you repeat them. In fact, I'm a complete fundamentalist about the matter, much as I'm a fundamentalist about 2+2 being 4. There's no scope for "nuance", they're just fallacies.Kevin,

I'm sorry but that ship has sailed. There's no controversy here. I've given you ample evidence. I can't make you accept it.

My stance is the same stance as Dawkins and all of the others. If you don't like it then there's nothing more I can do for you. I'd recomend you read one of the books but you and I both know that that will never happen because they don't conform to your world view.

Then again, perhaps you could send them all letters to inform them why they are wrong. Demanding however that my views differ from theirs though just isn't going to fly and I'm not going to sit here and demand over and over that you accept what is so bloody obvious. I'd as easily convince a flat earther that the world was round.

Sorry.

Kevin_Lowe

19th June 2009, 12:27 AM

Kevin,

I'm sorry but that ship has sailed. There's no more controversy here than there is between evolution and creation.

I think you're right, but you're not on the side of the divide you think you are. If you rock in to a moral philosophy course at an accredited university some time I think you'll find that amongst the people whose job it is to study the topic, the naturalistic fallacy has no currency.

I've given you ample evidence. I can't make you accept it. So all this "put your left foot in absolutism and your right foot in relavatism is your dance not mine." I only reject your false dichotomy.

The dichotomy between sociological "morality" and objectivist moral philosophy is very real. You're not rejecting a false dichotomy, you're clinging to a self-contradictory mishmash position.

My stance is the same stance as Dawkins and all of the others. If you don't like it then there's nothing more I can do for you. I'd recomend you read one of the books but you and I both know that that will never happen because they don't conform to your world view.

You're assuming, possibly because you think having read those books makes you clever, that I don't already have some of them on my bookshelf. I assure you I'm well up to date on the topic, and there's absolutely nothing in them incompatible with my world view.

Your appropriation of their work to bolster your deeply confused foray into the realm of moral philosophy is the problem, not their work.

Then again, perhaps you could send them all letters to inform them why they are wrong. Demanding that my views differ from theirs though just isn't going to fly.

Sorry.

Okay then. Do one last thing for me.

Tell us what you mean when you use the word "morality".

Do you mean:

1. "Whatever people think is moral".
2."Objective moral rules that apply to all people in relevantly similar circumstances".
3."Both! Neither! Something in between! Whatever! Straw man false dichotomy! You just don't understand me because I'm so nuanced! I tell you I've read DAWKINS!".

RandFan

19th June 2009, 12:39 AM

I think you'll find that amongst the people whose job it is to study the topic, the naturalistic fallacy has no currency.{sigh}

Kevin, come on. This really doesn't become you. You know better.

Tell us what you mean when you use the word "morality".I'll answer that question if you will answer one of mine.

#1: In his discussion of morality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCL63d66frs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fforums%2Erandi%2Eorg%2Fshowthrea d%2Ephp%3Ft%3D145164%26page%3D10&feature=player_embedded) Dawkins says: "I think there is kindness, charity and generosity in human nature and I think there is a Darwinian explanation for this" what does he mean?

#2:
Many birds species evolved so that one sibling often kills the other.
Ornithologists have determined that it is because there is not enough time given gestation for a number of species to have a second offspring should the first one die in the crucial time after birth. So, an ESS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy) is to have two eggs and if both survive one kills the other because the parents are not likely to gather enough food to assure the survival of both (that's pretty close as I remember anyway).
Assume that humans had evolved like these birds so that one sibling was required to kill the other for the survival of the species.
Would that be moral?

It would be generous of you if you could answer both. If not I'd prefer question #1 but I'd accept #2.

Kevin_Lowe

19th June 2009, 01:45 AM

{sigh}

Kevin, come on. This really doesn't become you. You know better.

I'll answer that question if you will answer one of mine.

Deal.

#1: In his discussion of morality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCL63d66frs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fforums%2Erandi%2Eorg%2Fshowthrea d%2Ephp%3Ft%3D145164%26page%3D10&feature=player_embedded) Dawkins says: "I think there is kindness, charity and generosity in human nature and I think there is a Darwinian explanation for this" what does he mean?

He means that under certain circumstances humans, for biological reasons that evolved over time due to natural selection, tend to exhibit kindness, charity and generosity.

Note that he did not say that this is what morality solely consists of, nor that this is the sole reason anyone acts morally, nor that these adaptive behaviours imply anything about objective moral values. He is making absolutely no philosophical claim, merely stating what he thinks is a factual one about human behaviour and its origins.

#2:
It would be generous of you if you could answer both. If not I'd prefer question #1 but I'd accept #2.

#2 is not relevant to the topic under discussion.

Now can you answer my question?

RandFan

19th June 2009, 02:45 AM

He means that under certain circumstances humans, for biological reasons that evolved over time due to natural selection, tend to exhibit kindness, charity and generosity.

Note that he did not say that this is what morality solely consists of, nor that this is the sole reason anyone acts morally, nor that these adaptive behaviours imply anything about objective moral values. He is making absolutely no philosophical claim, merely stating what he thinks is a factual one about human behaviour and its origins. Thank you. FTR: I never said that adaptive behavior is what morality solely consists of nor that it is the sole reason anyone acts morally and I never claimed that adaptive behaviours imply anything about objective moral values.

However, it's arguable, that he is making absolutely no philosophical claims.

#2 is not relevant to the topic under discussion.It's relevant but a deal is a deal, unfortunate but fair enough.

Descriptive: Rules for behavior resulting from a complex dynamic and the interplay of society, individual conscience and philosophy that make up that dynamic (I would grudgingly include religion).

Normative: Moral skeptic. Morality is percieved and not a priori. There does not exist values independent of our subjective perceptions that is objective and axiomatic.

Meta-ethics: I think Shermer says it best. “…we can construct an ethical system that generates a morality that is neither dogmatically absolute nor irrationally relative — a provisional morality for an age of science that provides empirical evidence and a rational basis for belief.” -- The Science of Good and Evil

What Shermer means is that we can examine our human nature and reason morality based on our empathy, compassion, and near-universal moral perceptions (I know this is where your sticking point is and if you are just going to assert naturalistic fallacy without asking how this is possible then there really is nothing left to discuss). However, let me note that I'm not saying that empathy dictates what we should do but we can consider empathy when we decide what we ought to do.

Finally, from Peter Singer.

The Triviality of the Debate Over 'Is-Ought' and the Definition of 'Moral' (http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/197301--.htm)

"No definition of morality can bridge the gap between facts and action. Nor does any one definition of morality have any important overall advantages as against the other plausible definitions that have been suggested. It follows that the disputes over the definition of morality and over the "is-ought" problem are disputes over words which raise no really significant issues."

Kevin_Lowe

19th June 2009, 03:18 AM

Descriptive: Rules for behavior resulting from a complex dynamic and the interplay of society, individual conscience and philosophy that make up that dynamic (I would grudgingly include religion).

Normative: Moral skeptic. Morality is percieved and not a priori. There does not exist values independent of our subjective perceptions that is objective and axiomatic.

Meta-ethics: I think Shermer says it best. “…we can construct an ethical system that generates a morality that is neither dogmatically absolute nor irrationally relative — a provisional morality for an age of science that provides empirical evidence and a rational basis for belief.” -- The Science of Good and Evil

Hang on, you've just cut and pasted some stuff using terms you've never used before, in sentences which aren't even grammatical.

Which of those is supposed to be the definition of how you have been using the term "morality" throughout this thread?

Belz...

19th June 2009, 04:16 AM

I don't know how many times I can say this before it gets through: human beings have no instincts.

Depends what you define as instincts. I tend to get out of a speeding truck's way pretty instinctively. And my reaction to seeing this picture of Jessica Alba...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608046a8a93938239.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7273)

...is pretty instinctual.

Belz...

19th June 2009, 04:26 AM

#2 is not relevant to the topic under discussion.

:eye-poppi

Huh ?

RandFan

19th June 2009, 04:57 AM

Hang on, you've just cut and pasted some stuff using terms you've never used before, in sentences which aren't even grammatical.

You know, your act is getting real boring. If I thought for a moment that you were sincere and that you would like to have a conversation and this wasn't all about your ego then I'd happily accommodate you. However it looks like that all you want to do is play some gotcha game. I'm not really interested.

Welcome to ignore.

RandFan

19th June 2009, 05:38 AM

:eye-poppi

Huh ?He cherry picks what is and isn't relevant. It's a convenient way to avoid uncomfortable questions and facts.

Kevin_Lowe

19th June 2009, 05:45 AM

Nonsense. Besides the Shermer and Singer quotes I didn't cut and paste in anything and there isn't a single term I've that I've used that I've never used before. Pick a term and I'll show you that I've used it before. Is this a test of grammer? What is the purpose of your question?

You didn't give coherent answer, you just gave us word salad. I have no idea which, if any, of your bolded headings are supposed to represent your views and it looks to me very much like you googled "morality" and made a half-arsed attempt at summarising something you found without really understanding it.

There has been no single usage. I've told you that morality is contextual.

So you're not incoherent and inconsistent, you're just so contextual and nuanced that you can't explain yourself in plain English? And it's my fault for not correctly defining the "contextual" meaning of morality each time you used it, when you can't even explain that "contextual" meaning now yourself?

I've told you that I don't accept absolute morality.
I've told you that morality is not a priori.
I've told you that morality is simply rules of behavior.
I've used them all and they are not in conflict.
So what on earth is the problem Kevin?

This is very slightly better than word salad, but it's still nothing like an honest definition of what you've actually been meaning by "morality".

Almost nobody except religious kooks accept absolute morality. Almost nobody except Kant thinks morality is a priori. So those two statements eliminate almost nothing - it's like describing your political views by saying "Well I'm not a communist, and I'm not a libertarian. Am I being unclear? What on Earth is the problem?".

Saying that "moraity is simply rules of behavior" is progress towards an intelligible statement, but it's so vague as to be useless. Are these rules objective ones that apply to all people in relevantly similar circumstances, are they mere social conventions, or what?

Since this is the third time I've asked this very specific question I find it hard to believe you don't understand what I'm asking you. Yet you give dot points and evasive, unclear responses instead of a straightforward answer. What's on Earth is the problem?

RandFan

19th June 2009, 05:51 AM

Depends what you define as instincts. I tend to get out of a speeding truck's way pretty instinctively. And my reaction to seeing this picture of Jessica Alba...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608046a8a93938239.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7273)

...is pretty instinctual.I could be persuaded to believe in instincts. :)

GreNME

19th June 2009, 07:05 AM

Utilitarianism is an empirical philosophy and possesses mechanisms to generate all sorts of heuristics (e.g., work within the law). Indeed, one argument against utilitarianism is that it can be used to support almost any course of action, which is precisely why it's silly to say the utilitarian answer. There are two-tiered approaches. However, no specific moral doctrine is necessary when it comes to justifying restrictions on human use of animals. You have some Kantian advocating animal rights, and others (indeed, utilitarians are not so big on rights at all except as useful construct).

You're just backpedaling now, because as you've repeatedly droned on about in the other thread and this one, the utilitarian 'answer' (according to you) has one conclusion. So, are you applying this utilitarian concept you're claiming I don't understand in a mistaken fashion? That you don't believe a utilitarian approach misses some of the forest through the trees isn't going to be a very convincing argument that it isn't.

More interestingly your "explanation" for how "It also displays a fundamental rift between the Animal Rights groups and those who advocate Animal Welfare" is strained at best. You're basically speaking nonsense, which is why I advised caution, though perhaps I should have counseled you to withdraw your comment entirely.

Yes, more of your pretending to be some authority figure in this thread. Cain, I don't really care about your cautions or counsel. You seem to grow more and more self-righteous with every post, like some kind of Incredibly Hulk-like creature where it's only your head that grows to immense proportions. In all honesty and with all due respect, I don't give a damn about your assumed self-righteousness except that it gets in the way of you constructively contributing to the conversation.

You're just double-dipping in teh crazy sauce. Rather than ignoring them, animal rights philosophers confront (alleged) significant distinctions head-on. And you also still do not seem to understand what moral absolutism means.

You mean like Sztybel, who repeatedly produces papers (like The Rights of Animal Persons) that essentially (in long form) dismiss those distinctions? Or like Gary Francione, who consistently argues that there should be little to no legal distinction? Rather than just tossing personal insults when you have no fact-based refutation, you may want to check your 'animal rights philosophers' to see what they're actually arguing. Or not, if you want, since it's really a decision only you can make. However, don't try to play these "you don't know what you're talking about" games with someone who has read plenty of these 'animal rights philosophers' (which I tend to call 'liberationists').

As to moral absolutism's definition: the position that certain actions are absolutely wrong or absolutely right regardless of context. That pretty much describes your position on eating meat to a 'T'. Sure, you use 'utilitarian philosophy' as your excuse to ignore context-- which I'm sure works for you, but obviously it ain't working for most of the rest of us-- but you're pretty much consistent on the absolutely wrong part.

Now, your turn to reply back about how I obviously have no clue what I'm talking about. :rolleyes:

GreNME

19th June 2009, 07:09 AM

#2 is not relevant to the topic under discussion.

That really tops it as your most intellectually dishonest statement in this thread, Kevin. In fact, this may very well be the most intellectually dishonest statement from anyone in this thread (and I'm even including quotes from elsewhere used here). The irony, considering your numerous comments regarding the 'what if' and rape, is completely staggering.

RandFan

19th June 2009, 12:05 PM

That really tops it as your most intellectually dishonest statement in this thread, Kevin. In fact, this may very well be the most intellectually dishonest statement from anyone in this thread (and I'm even including quotes from elsewhere used here). The irony, considering your numerous comments regarding the 'what if' and rape, is completely staggering.I've got him on ignore. He's really left the reservation.

RandFan

19th June 2009, 12:22 PM

Since this is the third time I've asked this very specific question I find it hard to believe you don't understand what I'm asking you. Yet you give dot points and evasive, unclear responses instead of a straightforward answer. It couldn't be any more clear Kevin.

I edited my previous post because I'm bored of your game. And it is a game to be sure. I don't know why you are playing it but it's one in which there is no end. You want me to give you a simple answer where there is none to give. I've told you what morality means to me in a descriptive sense. I've to told you that I don't accept normative statements about morality and I've told you how I think we should formulate our ethics.

If you can't deduce from that my position then you are just being obtuse.

I can't prove that the moon exists to one who won't even look up.

There's nothing more for me to say.

You are on ignore.

thaiboxerken

19th June 2009, 12:29 PM

He's trying to trick you into thinking that eating meat is immoral. Did it work?

RandFan

19th June 2009, 12:35 PM

He's trying to trick you into thinking that eating meat is immoral. Did it work?For tonight I've got a choice between home barbecued pork tenderloin, Tri-tip, or short ribs.

What do you recommend?

RandFan

19th June 2009, 12:47 PM

BTW: I noticed Kevin that you conveniently ignored my quote from Singer.

The Triviality of the Debate Over 'Is-Ought' and the Definition of 'Moral' (http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/197301--.htm)

"No definition of morality can bridge the gap between facts and action. Nor does any one definition of morality have any important overall advantages as against the other plausible definitions that have been suggested. It follows that the disputes over the definition of morality and over the "is-ought" problem are disputes over words which raise no really significant issues." I agree with Singer that the debate over the definition of "moral" and "Is-Ought" is trivial. But that doesn't square with your adenda. Oh well.

Find someone else for your game. Hey, perhaps you could have a debate with Singer. :)

quixotecoyote

19th June 2009, 12:48 PM

You are on ignore.

I bet you can't last 3 new KL posts in this thread. :p

I'll even spot you this first one you responded to after declaring your ignore use.

RandFan

19th June 2009, 12:49 PM

I bet you can't last 3 new KL posts. :p:) We'll see. If I don't I'll give you credit. Fair enough?

dudalb

19th June 2009, 01:05 PM

GreNME

19th June 2009, 01:16 PM

Cain said

You're just double-dipping in teh crazy sauce. Rather than ignoring them, animal rights philosophers confront (alleged) significant distinctions head-on. And you also still do not seem to understand what moral absolutism means.

Animal Rights is a school of philosophy????

Guess it does not take much to be called a philosopher nowdays.

To be fair to Cain, there are people who write philosophical or ethical papers on Animal Rights nowadays-- the two names I mention in my reply to him as an example-- but to call it a school of philosophy is like saying that the large number of JFK conspiracy theory literature out there constitutes a school of historical study all on its own. About the closest you're going to come is a bio-ethicist (most of which are not of the types that would be useful to Cain's liberationist approach), which is a soft-science application to a hard science.

Kevin_Lowe

19th June 2009, 03:53 PM

He cherry picks what is and isn't relevant. It's a convenient way to avoid uncomfortable questions and facts.

That really tops it as your most intellectually dishonest statement in this thread, Kevin. In fact, this may very well be the most intellectually dishonest statement from anyone in this thread (and I'm even including quotes from elsewhere used here). The irony, considering your numerous comments regarding the 'what if' and rape, is completely staggering.

Since RandFan has bravely put me on ignore, I feel entitled to respond to this dishonest parting shot of his. I guess GreNME piled on out of lingering resentment and the optimistic thought that even if he didn't understand what was going on, he could still try to get a cheap shot in.

What it looked like RandFan was trying to do was throw a lifeboat-type moral dilemma up as a distraction. Conventional ethics tends to assume that there is enough food and water to go around, and then work out the details of how to be nice to each other. "Lifeboat ethics" deals with more problematic situations, such as what you do when a thirteenth person tries to climb into a lifeboat that can only safely seat twelve. Do you push them out to die, or do you risk the boat capsizing and killing all thirteen of you? Most people say "That's a horrible situation, but if it's a choice between thirteen dying and one dying, the moral thing to do is not to let person #13 on to the lifeboat".

In this case the nest is just a one-person lifeboat, which sometimes has two people in it.

So what's the relevance? It's clearly not relevant to the problem of eating meat, unless you are in a one-person lifeboat when a cow tries to climb on board. As we've painfully established eating meat is a matter of pleasure and convenience, not a matter of life and death. Whatever it is relevant to, it's clearly not relevant to the naturalistic fallacy RandFan was wallowing in.

In addition, the question he asked as his big clincher was straightforwardly meaningless. He asked "Is this moral?", without specifying what the hell he meant by "this", but it's hard to find an interpretation that makes any sense. If he asking if the chick's actions are moral? If so it's a stupid question, it's a baby bird, it's not capable of moral thought. It's no more moral or immoral than an asteroid or a virus. Humans are capable of moral thought - or at least we usually think so, although this thread has plenty of counter-evidence.

He could have meant "Would it be moral if the chicks were both fully rational adult humans, somehow, and one decided to kill the other?", but that just reduces straight back to the two-person lifeboat problem, and the point I was pressing RandFan on, to define his egregiously mobile use of the word "morality" so he would have to stop playing his semantic shell games, had absolutely nothing to do with this little instance of lifeboat ethics.

I'm disappointed in RandFan overall, as in the past one of his better traits has been that when he's clearly in the wrong he's been able to admit it. Ah, heck, who am I kidding? He'll read this, and then he'll probably respond to it, since it gives him something to respond to that gets off the point.

I edited my previous post because I'm bored of your game. And it is a game to be sure. I don't know why you are playing it but it's one in which there is no end. You want me to give you a simple answer where there is none to give. I've told you what morality means to me in a descriptive sense. I've to told you that I don't accept normative statements about morality and I've told you how I think we should formulate our ethics.

If you can't deduce from that my position then you are just being obtuse.

Well what do you know? It was like pulling teeth and he put me on ignore before he posted it, but finally something resembling a straight answer comes out.

I nailed it a few posts ago - what RandFan calls "morality" is nothing to do with objective morality. He's using the term solely to mean whatever people think is moral. So to him if people think eating meat is moral, it's moral. If they think raping is moral, it's moral.

In that context, adaptive behaviours are relevant to morality, as long as they shape what people think is moral. So if we're adapted to protect our families, or kill and eat animals, or commit genocide, these are all more likely to be considered moral-in-the-RandFan-sense.

The problem he won't face is that I already explained to him, several posts ago, that his moral relativism is incoherent and hence utterly useless as a moral theory to guide our actions. RandFan can consistently talk about what people think is moral, but his definition gives him no basis for talking about how we should act.

If he was honest and consistent he could boil his whole screed down to "It's natural for humans to eat meat, so it's natural for humans to think it's okay to eat meat". That's it. That's the end of RandFan's moral and intellectual journey.

He can't consistently say anything beyond that. He has nothing to bring to a discussion of whether we should eat meat, except to deny that the concept of should has any meaning, and then hide that denial under page after page of irrelevant name-dropping.

Cain

19th June 2009, 04:04 PM

You're just backpedaling now, because as you've repeatedly droned on about in the other thread and this one, the utilitarian 'answer' (according to you) has one conclusion.

Emphasis added. Can you please show me where I said such a thing? I am guessing you did not bother to read through the thread again, and made this statement based on recollection... If you're interested, I did bother searching under my name for the terms "utilitarian" and "utilitarianism." I can produce the quotes if you want because they explicitly testify the distinctions I have made here.

So, are you applying this utilitarian concept you're claiming I don't understand in a mistaken fashion? That you don't believe a utilitarian approach misses some of the forest through the trees isn't going to be a very convincing argument that it isn't.

Are you trying to give a clear example of your muddled process?

You mean like Sztybel, who repeatedly produces papers (like The Rights of Animal Persons) that essentially (in long form) dismiss those distinctions? Or like Gary Francione, who consistently argues that there should be little to no legal distinction? Rather than just tossing personal insults when you have no fact-based refutation, you may want to check your 'animal rights philosophers' to see what they're actually arguing. Or not, if you want, since it's really a decision only you can make. However, don't try to play these "you don't know what you're talking about" games with someone who has read plenty of these 'animal rights philosophers' (which I tend to call 'liberationists').

It's not a personal insult to say philosophers arguing for animal rights address these distinctions head-on. Whether or not you (or I) agree with their conclusions is another matter. Unlike yourself, I do have a pretty good memory of the threads you like to reference, and I remember asking you umpteen times to identify significant differences between humans and animals. (See for instance this post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3954796&highlight=pulling#post3954796 )

As to moral absolutism's definition: the position that certain actions are absolutely wrong or absolutely right regardless of context. That pretty much describes your position on eating meat to a 'T'. Sure, you use 'utilitarian philosophy' as your excuse to ignore context-- which I'm sure works for you, but obviously it ain't working for most of the rest of us-- but you're pretty much consistent on the absolutely wrong part.

Your definition is correct (surprisingly) but your description of my view is incorrect (not surprisingly). So you're saying I have never claimed that I think it's OK to eat roadkill? You're saying that my posts here do not give any indication that I think it's OK to eat meat if it means avoiding starvation? Therefore, I would never ever write something like:

"Eating roadkill is fine; dumpster diving for double cheeseburgers outside McDonald's is fine. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with eating meat."

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3921864&highlight=roadkill#post3921864

Someone named "Tranewreck" posited a situation where "the herd will have to be periodically culled in order to protect the integrity of the ecosystem. Should we just destroy the carcasses and not eat the meat?"

And I answered:
"No, we can eat that meat. As I may have said earlier, I'm a fan of roadkill. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with eating meat."

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4259820&highlight=road#post4259820

Those quotes are about four months apart, but the search generator has me expressing a similar view back in 2004:

"I see nothing morally wrong with eating humans, just as I see nothing morally wrong with eating roadkill."

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=448233&highlight=roadkill#post448233

And then there are all of the other times where I expressed the same sort of view without using the specific term "roadkill" (e.g., animals dying of natural causes, meat grown in a lab) as well as gaps in the JREF's poorly maintained archives. So, in other words, my position on this basic, basic point has been well-established, and given clear expression in at least one thread you have read (well, pretended to read), and I'm pretty sure you acknowledged it at least once (and I can search for that post too, though it would take more effort).

While I always try to avoid aligning myself with others to prevent people such as yourself from smearing them with the same brush, I can say other so-called "black-and-white fundamentalists" on these boards have expressed more or less the same position with regard to meat-eating. That is to say, they allow circumstances where it's perfectly fine.

I should add that I have a natural advantage when it comes to describing Cain's belief system on account of the fact I am Cain. I'm familiar with my own views, so when you start in with "utilitarian" this or that, I can confidently say you're making a complete fool out of yourself.

Now, your turn to reply back about how I obviously have no clue what I'm talking about. :rolleyes:

Yep.
----------------------
Dudalb:
Animal Rights is a school of philosophy????

How do you get school from "philosophers?" As I have long maintained the fight for increasing the status of animals need not come from any particular point of view (utilitarian, Kantian, or other).

Guess it does not take much to be called a philosopher nowdays.

And yet you would never, ever cut it.

The_Animus

19th June 2009, 05:31 PM

It would be unfair to confer those statuses to non-humans primarily because they lack the human baseline. This doesn't negate the possibility of some level of appropriate protected status for animals, but it lacks the level of rights associated with humans based on the characteristic of being human in the first place.

What characteristics determine the baseline a species receives in the first place?

GreNME

19th June 2009, 05:36 PM

Since RandFan has bravely put me on ignore, I feel entitled to respond to this dishonest parting shot of his. I guess GreNME piled on out of lingering resentment and the optimistic thought that even if he didn't understand what was going on, he could still try to get a cheap shot in.

There's nothing cheap about the shot: you've come full circle in your argument, and are now showing how you're willing to discard arguments that are inconvenient to your conclusions. It's a common failure of the moral absolutism you've been arguing from.

I nailed it a few posts ago - what RandFan calls "morality" is nothing to do with objective morality. He's using the term solely to mean whatever people think is moral. So to him if people think eating meat is moral, it's moral. If they think raping is moral, it's moral.

In that context, adaptive behaviours are relevant to morality, as long as they shape what people think is moral. So if we're adapted to protect our families, or kill and eat animals, or commit genocide, these are all more likely to be considered moral-in-the-RandFan-sense.

The problem he won't face is that I already explained to him, several posts ago, that his moral relativism is incoherent and hence utterly useless as a moral theory to guide our actions. RandFan can consistently talk about what people think is moral, but his definition gives him no basis for talking about how we should act.

For someone arguing like a philosophy student, you show a huge lack of understanding of the difference between "is" and "ought" here.

If he was honest and consistent he could boil his whole screed down to "It's natural for humans to eat meat, so it's natural for humans to think it's okay to eat meat". That's it. That's the end of RandFan's moral and intellectual journey.

You go to great lengths to misunderstand, even after this mistaken assumption you've proposed has been explicitly denied by RandFan himself. The only intellectual dishonesty going on is with your own obtuse responses to more than one attempt by RandFan to correct you.

He can't consistently say anything beyond that. He has nothing to bring to a discussion of whether we should eat meat, except to deny that the concept of should has any meaning, and then hide that denial under page after page of irrelevant name-dropping.

These are just petty excuses on your part to ignore his point. If he was simply name-dropping he would be relying only on the names as the basis of the argument, while he's specifically pointed out the statements and concepts presented by the names he's mentioned as his bases. Just because you don't like his point doesn't mean there isn't one present.

The Painter

19th June 2009, 05:45 PM

I can't believe this crap about food is still going on. Half the world is starving and you erudite argue about the morality of food. You are All idiots.

GreNME

19th June 2009, 05:58 PM

What characteristics determine the baseline a species receives in the first place?

It usually depends on the species and their relationship to us (humans), their local ecosystem, and the environment. As an example, the mute swan (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/resshow/perry/muteswan.htm)-- this animal was brought into the Chesapeake Bay area by people, sure, but what to do with them now? How do we determine their status compared to the status of the other plant and wildlife in the area? How about rabbits in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia)? Those are extremes, but they give you a clear basis from which to understand what I'm saying. There is no 'A+B results in conclusion C' in what I'm saying, so if it's that you're looking for then you'll be disappointed.

GreNME

19th June 2009, 06:02 PM

Cain: nice backpedaling. You're not really debating at this point, you're just arguing to disagree and insult. Again.

RandFan

19th June 2009, 06:13 PM

RandFan can consistently talk about what people think is moral, but his definition gives him no basis for talking about how we should act.
(emphasis mine) I hadn't intended on responding but I'll take one more bite.

If that is true you could point to where I said that our nature should or could dictate how we should act.
You can't because I didn't.
On the contrary I said it shouldn't.

So you are just being dishonest demonstrating why I tired of your repeated refusal to pay attention to what I was saying.

Kevin_Lowe

19th June 2009, 06:21 PM

There's nothing cheap about the shot: you've come full circle in your argument, and are now showing how you're willing to discard arguments that are inconvenient to your conclusions. It's a common failure of the moral absolutism you've been arguing from.

Didn't you just try this exact same lie on Cain and get called on it? I'm not a moral absolutist and I think moral absolutism is silly. In fact I recently stated in this very thread that moral absolutism is a view almost exclusively held by religious kooks.

For someone arguing like a philosophy student, you show a huge lack of understanding of the difference between "is" and "ought" here.

"Arguing like a philosophy student" is not an insult when we're talking about philosophy. Unless of course you are claiming to be a philosophy lecturer?

You go to great lengths to misunderstand, even after this mistaken assumption you've proposed has been explicitly denied by RandFan himself. The only intellectual dishonesty going on is with your own obtuse responses to more than one attempt by RandFan to correct you.

I guess it could look like that, to someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that they can't actually follow the arguments being made.

These are just petty excuses on your part to ignore his point. If he was simply name-dropping he would be relying only on the names as the basis of the argument, while he's specifically pointed out the statements and concepts presented by the names he's mentioned as his bases. Just because you don't like his point doesn't mean there isn't one present.

I just summarised his point, hence I can't be "ignoring" it.

Cain: nice backpedaling. You're not really debating at this point, you're just arguing to disagree and insult. Again.

Nice try, but Cain just linked to chapter and verse showing that either you were lying, or you've got the memory of a pop-science goldfish combined with a habit of making up straw men.

I think your credibility here is done.

RandFan

19th June 2009, 06:23 PM

There's nothing cheap about the shot: you've come full circle in your argument, and are now showing how you're willing to discard arguments that are inconvenient to your conclusions. It's a common failure of the moral absolutism you've been arguing from.

For someone arguing like a philosophy student, you show a huge lack of understanding of the difference between "is" and "ought" here.

You go to great lengths to misunderstand, even after this mistaken assumption you've proposed has been explicitly denied by RandFan himself. The only intellectual dishonesty going on is with your own obtuse responses to more than one attempt by RandFan to correct you.

These are just petty excuses on your part to ignore his point. If he was simply name-dropping he would be relying only on the names as the basis of the argument, while he's specifically pointed out the statements and concepts presented by the names he's mentioned as his bases. Just because you don't like his point doesn't mean there isn't one present.Thanks.

Someone gets it. I couldn't have said it better myself.

For Kevin it never was about what I meant but only about his strawman of what he wanted me to mean. He will never be able to demonstrate where I said that we ought to do something because of our nature.

Oddly enough, his explanation of what Dawkins meant by his statement is pretty much what I believe. Odd that Dawkins can hold such a view without making a naturalistic fallacy but if I even mention Darwinism and adaptive behavior in the same breath as morality I'm commiting a fallacy.

Poor form Kevin.

The_Animus

19th June 2009, 06:26 PM

Quote:
If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.
- PETA Spokesman Bruce Friedrich (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/peta_quote.wav)

Question for discussion: If every fast food restaurant, medical laboratory, and financial institution were to explode, what would be the death toll*?

Well it is exactly stuff like this which lead to the release of the Rage Virus which killed almost the entire population of the UK. :D

The spokeman is not refering to exploding the buildings with the people in them. Think of it like the movie Fight Club. They do various acts of destruction as a way to fight consumerism and when they blow the major credit card company headquarters they make sure there are no people inside. Or another way to think of it would be to relate it to people who were against slavery. I'm sure that many would have had no problem advocating burning cotton fields, destroying whips and other impliments used to beat/torture slaves, and freeing slaves. But that doesn't mean they'd also advocate shooting the white slave owners in the process (though I'm sure some may have advocated that as well).

PETA and the spokeman you quoted has a completely different ethical viewpoint than you and many others. They believe that animals have the right to be free from suffering/killed for food. They see it as the same as torturing and killing millions of people. Despite their efforts to bring about change peacably they see us continue to torture and kill millions year after year. Unhappy with the incredibly slow pace of improving rights in this way, they feel that more drastic measures may need to be taken. Each time they smash a labratory or destroy a slaughterhouse they are stopping some animals from having to be tortured/killed and also raise awareness through the media and bring the issue into sight. After all if it's out of sight it's out of mind. I'm sure this was the same mindset as some anti-slavery people. They were likely fed up with the slow pace of change and improved rights and so took matters into their own hands.

Which brings me to my point. While I may not agree with their methods, nor even all of their stances, I can at least say I genuinely understand how they feel, what they believe, and why they do what they do. True understanding of anothers perspective is the first step to resolving conflicts. Calling their beliefs and actions nuts, bloody dam stupid or saying things like "I'm going to eat 2 stakes for every one you don't", only says to them that drastic measures are their only option. After all why would you bother wasting your time talking to people who say things like that to you?

Kevin_Lowe

19th June 2009, 06:33 PM

(emphasis mine) I hadn't intended on responding but I'll take one more bite.

If that is true you could point to where I said that our nature should or could dictate how we should act.

This claim ("If that is true you could point to where I said that our nature should or could dictate how we should act") does not follow from the claim I made.

In fact, in the post you replied to I characterised your position as "it's natural for humans to think it's okay to eat meat", not as "nature dictates that humans think it's okay to eat meat" or "we should believe it's objectively okay to eat meat because it's natural for humans to eat meat".

You can't because I didn't.
On the contrary I said it shouldn't.

Oh really? It looks like you're trying to sneak a toe back into the objectivist camp, long enough to make a "should" claim.

What is your basis for your "should" claim, seeing as you are on the record as claiming that "morality is simply rules of behavior"? Is this "should" claim true for all people in relevantly similar circumstances, or is it a relativist "should" claim?

So you are just being dishonest demonstrating why I tired of your repeated refusal to pay attention to what I was saying.

Actually you're giving an excellent demonstration of the inconsistency I was trying to iron out of you.

You want to be a moral relativist when it suits you, but then you want to sneak back and help yourself to objectivist thinking whenever you're confronted with a problem with your moral relativism. Yet you don't see this as the blatant inconsistency it is, because you haven't absorbed the fact that your moral relativism is strictly incompatible with rationality.

I called you on this before, you denied it vigorously, and now you're doing it again.

The_Animus

19th June 2009, 06:35 PM

I can't believe this crap about food is still going on. Half the world is starving and you erudite argue about the morality of food. You are All idiots.

World hunger has nothing to do with an inadequate supply of food.

RandFan

19th June 2009, 06:37 PM

I can at least say I genuinely understand how they feel...Kevin will tell you that how they feel is irrelevant. Conscience, caring, feeling, these are fallacious.

Redtail

19th June 2009, 06:52 PM

For tonight I've got a choice between home barbecued pork tenderloin, Tri-tip, or short ribs.

What do you recommend?

The tenderloin with a maple mustard glaze.

GreNME

19th June 2009, 06:53 PM

Didn't you just try this exact same lie on Cain and get called on it? I'm not a moral absolutist and I think moral absolutism is silly. In fact I recently stated in this very thread that moral absolutism is a view almost exclusively held by religious kooks.

Considering you and Cain are making similar absolute arguments (if X then Y, no exception), one could infer based on your arguments alone that you were religious about this matter.

"Arguing like a philosophy student" is not an insult when we're talking about philosophy. Unless of course you are claiming to be a philosophy lecturer?

It's an insult when you fail to understand something as basic as the difference between "is" and "ought" like you insist on doing.

I think your credibility here is done.

Since I don't think you were ever arguing in good faith, it's not my credibility you should be concerned with at this point. You've refused to acknowledge the strawman you demanded I address earlier, and now you're outright ignoring whole arguments RandFan is making. You should be more concerned with anyone taking you seriously at this point.

Kevin_Lowe

19th June 2009, 06:55 PM

Kevin will tell you that how they feel is irrelevant. Conscience, caring, feeling, these are fallacious.

Putting me on ignore and then trying to snipe like this doesn't make you or your argument look any better.

The Painter

19th June 2009, 07:02 PM

World hunger has nothing to do with an inadequate supply of food.

Can I quote this as the stupidest thing I've ever read? Please???

The_Animus

19th June 2009, 07:34 PM

It usually depends on the species and their relationship to us (humans), their local ecosystem, and the environment. As an example, the mute swan (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/resshow/perry/muteswan.htm)-- this animal was brought into the Chesapeake Bay area by people, sure, but what to do with them now? How do we determine their status compared to the status of the other plant and wildlife in the area? How about rabbits in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia)? Those are extremes, but they give you a clear basis from which to understand what I'm saying. There is no 'A+B results in conclusion C' in what I'm saying, so if it's that you're looking for then you'll be disappointed.

I didn't mean how do we decide the baseline for other species, but in general, for people too. For example what characteristic is used for people in determining/justifying our right to life, as in the right to not be killed?

Do you think that there is some absolute rights that are based on sound reasoning/principles or that the only real rights are those that a society decides on. As an example, was slavery okay back when a vast majority of people and society felt it was okay, or was it always wrong? If it was always wrong, what characteristics/principles determine if something is moral or a right?

Can I quote this as the stupidest thing I've ever read? Please???

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2008/2008-08-22-01.asp
"More than enough food is produced to feed a healthy global population. Distribution and access to food is a problem - many are hungry, while at the same time many overeat," the brief states. But, it says, "we are providing food to take care of not only our necessary consumption but also our wasteful habits."

Also please stop insulting other posters as it is against forum rules.

MikeSun5

19th June 2009, 08:39 PM

I can't believe this crap about food is still going on. Half the world is starving and you erudite argue about the morality of food. You are All idiots.

:D Awesome. :clap:

World hunger has nothing to do with an inadequate supply of food.

:eek: Pardon?

The_Animus

19th June 2009, 08:55 PM

:eek: Pardon?

*Points to the post right above yours*

GreNME

19th June 2009, 09:07 PM

I didn't mean how do we decide the baseline for other species, but in general, for people too. For example what characteristic is used for people in determining/justifying our right to life, as in the right to not be killed?

Ahh, okay. Well, the answer to that is we're still working on it. For people, the usual starting point right now tends to be "is a human being," and then from there it gets a little fuzzy depending on a few things, mostly having to do with the current "terrorism" buzz and all that, but on the whole many people have come to an agreement of certain self-deterministic rights (though there seem to be exceptions for certain crimes). How do we do it? Mostly consensus and agreement to a minimum level of acceptability.

Do you think that there is some absolute rights that are based on sound reasoning/principles or that the only real rights are those that a society decides on. As an example, was slavery okay back when a vast majority of people and society felt it was okay, or was it always wrong? If it was always wrong, what characteristics/principles determine if something is moral or a right?

I don't believe there are absolute rights, no, nor do I believe there are absolute principles. I don't think slavery was either right or wrong on a moral level. Slavery was a symptom of a type of rule that was autocratic and exclusive, and the practice went on for longer than suited the type of rule (as that level of autocracy died out long before it). What seems wrong is that the practice outlasted the model that created it. But asking if it was always wrong? That question only parses in absolute terms, so I can't answer it with the kind of 'yes' or 'no' it requires. I mean, sure, in today's terms it was wrong, but some during the time slavery was active would have argued otherwise. So, are you asking me personally or are you asking for a consensus, or something different altogether?

MikeSun5

19th June 2009, 09:16 PM

*Points to the post right above yours*

To make that statement at all correct, you're going to need to remove the word "supply." The whole reason people are starving is because WE CAN'T SUPPLY IT TO THEM. I get your point, but your original statement is insane. Sure wealthy countries have food to feed the starving, but we can't supply the demand.

GreNME

19th June 2009, 09:26 PM

Sure wealthy countries have food to feed the starving, but we can't supply the demand.

Actually, we can, but in some countries (like the US) we choose to try in some of the most inefficient ways possible. The fact that most of the cash crop produce out there is patented (which stops us from sending just the seeds) happens to be one of the problems.

MikeSun5

19th June 2009, 09:31 PM

Actually, we can, but in some countries (like the US) we choose to try in some of the most inefficient ways possible. The fact that most of the cash crop produce out there is patented (which stops us from sending just the seeds) happens to be one of the problems.

Okay, sure it's possible to send food to the starving countries, but remember Rwanda and Ethiopia? Even when we get the food there, it gets "rerouted" by greedy bastards. So no, we actually can't supply them. Not even with PlumpyNut. :(

The_Animus

19th June 2009, 09:36 PM

So, are you asking me personally or are you asking for a consensus, or something different altogether?

You personally. I was trying to understand what you base your view of morality/rights on. If two people have a different fundamental base for their view of morality/rights then there is likely to be disagrement as to what is moral/right especially concerning the finer details. It also makes it difficult to present arguments, as one persons argument may be based upon a different fundamental base. This is what I would guess is the cause of a lot of the disagreement between people in this thread.

I'm not really talking about specifically us as we've been able to pretty much agree that a certain level of protected status which ensures good treatment of animals raised for consumption would be good. I was just curious about how you view morality.

I'd say I believe in fundamental rights but that such rights cannot be reasonably expected to be instituted at will. People's ability to gather knowledge, learn from past mistakes, and continually improve old systems is a slow process. Improvement comes baby step by baby step and I think that is how fundamental rights come about.

The_Animus

19th June 2009, 09:46 PM

To make that statement at all correct, you're going to need to remove the word "supply." The whole reason people are starving is because WE CAN'T SUPPLY IT TO THEM. I get your point, but your original statement is insane. Sure wealthy countries have food to feed the starving, but we can't supply the demand.

Okay, sure it's possible to send food to the starving countries, but remember Rwanda and Ethiopia? Even when we get the food there, it gets "rerouted" by greedy bastards. So no, we actually can't supply them. Not even with PlumpyNut. :(

The Painter was trying to say that we do not have enough food to feed the world population, yet we are complaining about meat consumption. I was pointing out that is misinformed. We have more than enough food by far to feed every single person on the planet. The reason there are still starving people has nothing to do with the food supply (amount of food we produce). Starvation is a result of waste, the inability to get the food to the people who need it (distribution) because of corrupt governments/organizations (as you mentioned), and other factors such as what GreNME mentioned.

It seems there was just confusion about the terms being used. Perhaps I should have used food production rather than food supply.

quixotecoyote

19th June 2009, 10:07 PM

Credit please.

You can PM me for who to write it out to...

:chores019:

GreNME

19th June 2009, 10:08 PM

Okay, sure it's possible to send food to the starving countries, but remember Rwanda and Ethiopia? Even when we get the food there, it gets "rerouted" by greedy bastards. So no, we actually can't supply them. Not even with PlumpyNut. :(

That's not the only reason we can't supply them. You see, with the foodstuffs we do send over, there are only so many things they can do with the food. They can't try to re-grow any of the grain or corn or anything we would send over, because it would end what few agricultural trade agreements that they already have with Europe, and they haven't the production and storage facilities to make the food last.

But really, that's a whole nother subject, so I digress.

GreNME

19th June 2009, 11:06 PM

You personally. I was trying to understand what you base your view of morality/rights on.

Personally, it's a mixture of things. Part of it has to do with what's best for me, part my family, part my community, and part larger society.

If two people have a different fundamental base for their view of morality/rights then there is likely to be disagrement as to what is moral/right especially concerning the finer details. It also makes it difficult to present arguments, as one persons argument may be based upon a different fundamental base. This is what I would guess is the cause of a lot of the disagreement between people in this thread.

That's a good observation. I don't have a whole lot of fundamental bases. For example, I don't have a "do no harm" fundamental base, but I do have a "don't do a lot of wanton harm if you can control it," or something to that effect.

I'm not really talking about specifically us as we've been able to pretty much agree that a certain level of protected status which ensures good treatment of animals raised for consumption would be good. I was just curious about how you view morality.

I view it (morality) in a sort of fluid manner, constantly evolving. Usually, it's evolving into something that is better for a wider group of individuals, and sometimes it's self-serving aggrandizement or mysticism (or some other 'woo'). Regarding animals that we eat, I agree that a reasonable level of treatment during their existence. I also feel that there's a certain level of a moral quid-pro-quo that can reasonably be expected as useful for social, environmental, and ecological benefit.

I'd say I believe in fundamental rights but that such rights cannot be reasonably expected to be instituted at will. People's ability to gather knowledge, learn from past mistakes, and continually improve old systems is a slow process. Improvement comes baby step by baby step and I think that is how fundamental rights come about.

I think that's a reasonable enough belief, even if I might not agree on rights being quite so fundamental. I think I agree that it's a slow-progressing type of process, though. As to the finer details you mention earlier, I think we can agree it makes sense that there's not always going to be a synergy in the whole of our beliefs, and the best course is finding a level of agreement and working from there. Your approach seems pretty reasonable, so I don't really begrudge the finer details. Just like I don't see anything wrong with a veg[etari]an diet, I don't begrudge those who want to follow that diet their choice in the matter. It seems only reasonable to me (personally).