Does all life have equal value?

[Tricky]

(This thread is started to squelch a major derailment in the I-Ching thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870267608#post1870267608) over in the paranormal forum.)

Does all life have equal value? The egalitarian in me wants to shout "yes" immediately, but the rationalist in me knows that this is hypocritical.

All humans obviously value some life more than others, and human life the most (with rare exceptions). Humans culltivate and harvest certain living plants, they raise and slaughter certain animals, they even use some of their closest relativess, chimpanzees, for laboratory research.

My own feeling is that humans try to protect those most like themselves. (Credit to Richard Dawkins for eloquently fleshing this out in The Selfish Gene (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0192860925/qid=1073747605/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-2591566-3779330). We care more about our immediate family than our distant relatives, more about our kin than our other countrymen, more about our country than the rest of humanity, and more about humanity than other living things.

Additionally, we care more about things with which we share traits than we do about other things. We like smart animals, like dolphins. We like animals that look like us, like chimpanzees. We like animals that behave according to our wishes, likes dogs, cats and horses. We like "cute" animals, like pandas, koalas and almost any baby animals.

But what about the "other" organisms? Is it all right to kill a pig, a very intelligent animal, in order to eat it's flesh? Most folks, including myself, say yes. We don't even have second thoughts about killing a carrot. Because all of us, to some extent are blatant specists. We care about and protect our species to the detriment of other species (and sometimes to their benefit).

Where do you draw the line at what it is okay to kill for our benefit?

[El Greco]

myself > my family > my friends > social groups I belong to > humans > mammals > other animals > plants > bacteria etc.

There are also other scales which would list my reasons for killing each of the above in order of importance.

Anything varies according to society, legislation, education etc.

So, the reason you kill becomes very important. Is your question limited to "kill in order to eat" ?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by El Greco
So, the reason you kill becomes very important. Is your question limited to "kill in order to eat" ?
Not at all. The thread was inspired by a sig line from T'ai Chi that said, "I would never keep a pearl if I had to throw away the oyster". I regarded that as silly, since we use animals (and plants) for a variety of reasons other than just as food. He (she?) seemed to think that because we were only killing the oyster for a useless bauble, that it was wrong. I disagree.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Tricky

Not at all. The thread was inspired by a sig line from T'ai Chi that said, "I would never keep a pearl if I had to throw away the oyster". I regarded that as silly, since we use animals (and plants) for a variety of reasons other than just as food. He (she?) seemed to think that because we were only killing the oyster for a useless bauble, that it was wrong. I disagree.

My exact quote is below.

[Zombified]

Who says baubles are useless? They attract mates.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Zombified
Who says baubles are useless? They attract mates.

Well they are given to mates anyway. ;)

[Yahweh]

Well, I wouldnt know where to draw the line.

I know I wouldnt believe the equality of life can be determined by one's own personal circumstances. For instance, I would be more concerned if something bad happened to Sister Yahweh than if something happened to a nameless faceless stranger in Afghanistan. But that doesnt make Sister Yahweh more important, because I'm sure stranger in Afghanistan couldnt care less what happens to stranger Sister Yahweh in America. And that is where stalemate comes from, the personal bias cant be used to verify imporance of life.

How about numbers? The endangered Condors have more protection than an animal such as mice. Well, I think the condors (human-labeled) endangered status would tie into "personal circumstances", but I havent fully decided whether importance is inversely proportional to numbers. One possible motive to think otherwise is the humans Specist motivation (there are certainly more human organisms on the planet than some other species of organisms, yet humans give much less value on the equality of life for those other organisms than humans). The Rationalist Pixies which fly through the inside of my head speak to me sometimes, they tell me its almost morbid to think importance of life is inversely proportional to numbers.

Personally, I would find killing an animal for its flesh to borderline on immoral, but its very hard to live in a world where all decisions are moral absolutes. Humans killing an animal for its flesh is probably a "necessary evil" (Note: I would consider killing animals for sport to be immoral).

As for the rest of the animal kingdom who kill other animals for survival, I choose think of it as a demonstration that Nature is mercilessly indifferent.

[Igopogo]

A quote from Tricky:
"Where do you draw the line at what it is okay to kill for our benefit?”

This is a very good question. I’d say for most folks, the general answer would be:

“We will kill that which we gain even the slightest benefit from killing, as long as we don’t notice or acknowledge any direct negative effect to ourselves.”

IMO, common sense, skepticism & 'value' have nothing to do with most peoples' views on killing stuff.

[FireGarden]

RE: "I will never keep a pearl if it means discarding the oyster."
--T'ai Chi 12/24/03

I had a few goes at rephrasing this, but failed to come up with anything good.

Does T'ai mean an oyster in particular, or oysters in general? As in "The white rhino is close to extinction"

My best attempt at rephrasing:
"I will never fish for cod if it means depleting the fish stocks to such a level that they will never recover."



If you want to agree with something, then you just have to twist and bend it for long enough. A kind of reverse-Strawman.

In fact....







Wait for it....












A Wartsman!

[sorgoth]

I'm going to begin by saying I don't know.

But, now I'm going to try to explain how I see things:

Death doesn't matter. When something is dead, it does not care that it is dead. However, it is while it is alive that it matters.

I have nothing against people who hunt wild deer for food. The deer did deer-y things all it's life, might have been able to mate a couple of times, and overall had a life it was happy to have. It died, so what? It happens in nature.

However... When you keep a cow in a tiny pen, treating it badly, not giving it affection, freedom, etc. that is MUCH worse than killing it. It is merciful to kill the cow when it is in that situation.
In fact, killing the deer for sport is more moral, IMO, than keeping the cow a prisoner all it's life.

If something doesn't care whether it lives or dies (Carrots, bacteria, etc), then there is nothing wrong with killing it, unless it brings pain to things that DO care.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by sorgoth
However... When you keep a cow in a tiny pen, treating it badly, not giving it affection, freedom, etc. that is MUCH worse than killing it. It is merciful to kill the cow when it is in that situation.
There are situations where this happens (the rasing of veal for example) but in for the most part, cattle are in much better condition than they would be if they were kept in the wild. They are treated for diseases, they have plenty to eat, they are, in general, taken care of. You don't see herds of cows breaking down the fences to return to freedom and/or escape their horrible living conditions. Or chickens. Or pigs. They are domesticated. Death comes quickly and relatively painlessly. Yes, they are our slaves, but not necessarily unwilling slaves. If you took down all the fences, probably most would still return to the barn at night.

Some animals do not do as well in domestication, and so we go to their (relatively) wild environment to harvest them. But I don't think that it is wrong to use animals, wild or tame, for our purposes. You can be sure that no lion or crocodile would have a second thought about eating a human because they had a streak of empathy. Animals (and plants) compete. That is the essence of nature. We are not violating nature by using animals, we are honoring it.

Sometimes animals are so stupid that they hunt their food species to near extinction, then the predators die too. As the "big brained" animal, I'd like to think we are smart enough to realize that we need to protect the environment we live in if we wish to continue to use it. Here is where we fall down as a species. We have hunted some species to extinction and caused others to become nearly extinct by destroying their habitats. We can no longer use those species because of our short-sightedness. We need to protect our environment for our own good, not because of empathy, but because of self preservation. Humans are my first priority, but because I take the long view of humanity, I realize the need to care about other species as well if we want to survive for long.

[elliotfc]

Nice topic.

I think it is simply not possible to believe that all life has equal value, for the simple fact that all life will eventually die. All lives are lived at the expense of other lives, so you have an inherent contradicition if you believe that all life is equal. Even the most idealistic person has killed ants or swallowed bugs in their sleep. The interaction of living beings, and the fact that individuals would rather live than die, dictates that a hierarchy of life be established.

It's a nice idea though, if applied reasonably. This is where morality kicks in, right and wrong and all that. But the decree that "all life has equal value" can't possibly stand on its own as an end all be all to existence.

-Elliot

[neutrino_cannon]

I'd say that there's quite a bit of life that is both important and unimportant. Take, for example, the bacteria in the bowels of Shemp, or anybodie's bowels if you can't stand to think of Shemp's.

They die, billions upon billions. There are more bacteria in your gut than there are people on this world, and they die on a massive scale all the time. When one dies, I could care less. it makes little, if any, discernable difference to my metabolism, no important difference tto be sure, if a million of them were to die at once. In fact, a large proportion could die off, and all I would suffer is a little gas at the worst. That doesn't make them unimportant, I am quite fond of my ability to digest food, and were it not for the little guys down there, I would waste away and the poor world would be denied my enlightening presence.

My heart would go out to them, but if it did it would be in entirely the wrong place, and they'd probably eat it anyhow.

As for macroscopic life, I think that at the very least we should attempt to leave representatives in place. there's no way to have no impact, whatever that impact turns out to be, even if we were all to vanish, that would have an impact. We are part of the environment of Earth, whether we like it or not. It is in our intrest, and of course the intrest of the rest of the biosphere if you attribute any importance to their plight, to ensure that a level of biodversity is maintained, and that extant ecosystems remain intact.

I do not know, or even pretend that anyone knows, what the correct amount of meddling in the environment is. On the one hand, I would love to see thylacines resurected, and there seems to be some justice in it, since it was our species that killed them off. But what about the dingo pups that get displaced by the new thylacines? What if the thylacines don't make it for some or another reason (including but not limited to aforementioned dingos)? Are we responsible for their suffering since we resurected them?

This is why I hate ethics. Too many questions, all effectively (but perhaps not absolutlely) unanswerable.

[sorgoth]

The thing about ethics is, though, that many of those questions NEED to be answered. I guess what ethicists try to do is answer in a way that benefits the most people.

[Zero]

I'll tell you what, if it came down to it, I'd kill and eat any one of you...



*shrugs* I'm picky, but if it comes down to me starving or eating your arm...well, you had better get used to the nickname 'Lefty', ok?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Zero
I'll tell you what, if it came down to it, I'd kill and eat any one of you...

*shrugs* I'm picky, but if it comes down to me starving or eating your arm...well, you had better get used to the nickname 'Lefty', ok?

For shame!

Legs have more meat and are easier to roast.

[Zero]

Originally posted by epepke


For shame!

Legs have more meat and are easier to roast.

Yeah, but I thought 'Lefty' was funnier than 'pegleg'...

Screw you guys...I value my life, you folks can fend for yourselves...:D

[epepke]

Originally posted by Zero


Yeah, but I thought 'Lefty' was funnier than 'pegleg'...

How about "Gimpy"?

[Zero]

Originally posted by epepke


How about "Gimpy"? No, that's just not cool...I would never cut a slice off someone named 'gimpy'...

[Dorian Gray]

Does all death have equal value? Ahh, that's what you meant to say, I know it!

[max]

I believe that all life should be equal. I also believe we should be vegetarians and not breed animals for slaughter/food
I watched a prog on travels in Siberia recently and the people there have herds of deer. It showed how they lassooed the antlers of one deer to capture and then kill it. The deer struggled and struggled for a long time to get away from its captor, to no avail. I felt terribly sad and sorry for the beast that in effect was enjoying life with the rest of the herd but was needed for someones dinner. I felt the same sorrow when I watched a prog on how fishermen cast their nets and in doing so, sharks become entangled. At least there are divers who do all they can to free these unfortunate fish. I realise also that one false move and the shark would have the diver for dinner but it doesn't know any better.
If we continue to kill off our wild animals even if it's just one at a time, it's like unpicking a stitch in a sweater. Bit by bit the sweater would disintegrate and there'd be no sweater at all.
There's a Cree saying:
Only when the last tree has been felled.
Only when the last animal has been slaughtered.
Only when the last fish has been caught and the last river has been polluted.
Only then, will we realise that man cannot live on money alone.

[FireGarden]

There's a Cree saying:
Only when the last tree has been felled.
Only when the last animal has been slaughtered.
Only when the last fish has been caught and the last river has been polluted.
Only then, will we realise that man cannot live on money alone.

I wasn't aware that the Cree were vegetarian

I think the point of the quote was to make sure that when you harcest from nature you make sure that what you do is sustainable.


Agriculture can be bad for the environment. You can overwork the soil, and clearing forests for land can leave with you with desert. (Or is that dessert? :))

[max]

Firegarden
I am well aware of what the Crees were intending to say with the quote, they didn't need to be vegetarian. What they were pointing out is that the white man willy-nilly kills, hunts for the sake of it, in exess of what he needs to eat to sustain him. Doesn't mind polluting rivers with chemicals etc, doesn't mind felling rain forests.
Didn't mind slaughtering nearly to extinction the buffalows. In fact man has brought many species to extinction which the Indians didn't. They looked after the earth/plants/animals
They are in effect saying that man will ultimately be responsible for his own downfall because we will kill everything and pollute everything by the time a few more centuries have passed. One day it will be far too late to correct any of it.
And as the Crees said.......we can't eat money

[FireGarden]

Max,
I also believe we should be vegetarians and not breed animals for slaughter/food

OK, max, sorry for taking the vegetarian bit further than you wanted.

I'll just say that I agree with the sustainablility idea you brought up, but not with the bit I just quoted above.

[max]

Do you not feel anything for the animals we slaughter,though?
They're happy grazing away in the meadows minding their own business chewing their cuds and then suddenly a human or two herds them into a slaughter house, and before they can say moo or baa, they're on someones plate.
Now if we didn't breed them for food, that would be fairer. I wonder if part of mans' comeuppance is mad cows disease

[Christian]

The materialist/atheist (MA) view presents a huge moral contradiction in this subject.

It is immoral to kill another human being but it is perfectly moral to kill a cockroach.

From the MA perspective, both are living things that have evolved throught time in different paths. Why should they be qualitative different?

Most MA live like if the Christian premise is correct (supremacy of humans over all other life forms) but, intellectually live with said contradiction.

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by Christian
The materialist/atheist (MA) view presents a huge moral contradiction in this subject.

It is immoral to kill another human being but it is perfectly moral to kill a cockroach.

From the MA perspective, both are living things that have evolved throught time in different paths. Why should they be qualitative different?

Most MA live like if the Christian premise is correct (supremacy of humans over all other life forms) but, intellectually live with said contradiction.


Not quite. You see, we show and express emotions, we show that we CARE if we die or not. As far as we know, we are the animals who can do this the most.

[jimmygun]

Max...Pick one of your closests and dearest aquaintances..mother, father, sister, brother, wife, child. If any of them became sick and were at death's door would you willingly let them die rather than administer a drug which would kill the germs which were killing them? Would you kill an animal to keep one of your loved ones from starving to death?

Death comes to every living thing. Without exception. Nothing man can do will keep any animal from dying.

To quote a comedian I heard the other day..."If hooking a monkey's brain to a car battery leads to the cure for aids then I only have two words...Postitive and negative!"

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Christian
The materialist/atheist (MA) view presents a huge moral contradiction in this subject.

It is immoral to kill another human being but it is perfectly moral to kill a cockroach.

From the MA perspective, both are living things that have evolved throught time in different paths. Why should they be qualitative different?

Most MA live like if the Christian premise is correct (supremacy of humans over all other life forms) but, intellectually live with said contradiction.
Not necessarily true, as I explained in my first post. I believe that it is morally correct for humans to attempt to use other species. Each organism has as its primary obligations to its own species, even if that means harming other species. If I was faced with a man-eating shark, I would expect no mercy from it, and I would not sacrifice myself or any of my fellow humans in order to preserve its life. There is no moral ambiguity whatsoever.

I'm not sure what MA people you have been talking to, but the stance you describe sounds more like animal activists, who are just as likely to be Christian as MA. Probably moreso.

[Dancing David]

All life is equal, all non life is equal, all life equals non life.

Some are just more equal than others.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

All humans obviously value some life more than others, and human life the most (with rare exceptions). Humans culltivate and harvest certain living plants, they raise and slaughter certain animals, they even use some of their closest relativess, chimpanzees, for laboratory research.And there you have it. Even animals are finicky about what they eat.

[Christian]

sorgoth wrote:
Not quite. You see, we show and express emotions, we show that we CARE if we die or not. As far as we know, we are the animals who can do this the most.

So what you are saying is that humans are qualitative superior to other living things because we can show and express more emotion?

Tricky wrote:
Not necessarily true, as I explained in my first post. I believe that it is morally correct for humans to attempt to use other species. Each organism has as its primary obligations to its own species, even if that means harming other species. If I was faced with a man-eating shark, I would expect no mercy from it, and I would not sacrifice myself or any of my fellow humans in order to preserve its life. There is no moral ambiguity whatsoever.

I'm not questioning the ambiguity. In practice I also see that there is none whatsoever.

My question (at the heart of the MA contradiction IMHO) is why are humans qualitatively superior? What is your logical justification for it?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Christian
tsoever.

My question (at the heart of the MA contradiction IMHO) is why are humans qualitatively superior? What is your logical justification for it?

They aren', there aren't. An atheist should see nothing special about the anthro centric view.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky
Is it all right to kill a pig, a very intelligent animal, in order to eat it's flesh? Most folks, including myself, say yes.

Would you still think that if you were a pig?

[scribble]

This thread got me wondering how it is that human beings choose all the time to take their own lives. Do we ever see that behavior in other animals?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Zero
No, that's just not cool...I would never cut a slice off someone named 'gimpy'...

Why not?

It's not as if he's going anywhere.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Christian
sorgoth wrote:
[b]Not quite. You see, we show and express emotions, we show that we CARE if we die or not. As far as we know, we are the animals who can do this the most.

So what you are saying is that humans are qualitative superior to other living things because we can show and express more emotion?

:con2: There's not much choosing here on principle, as the other side also relies on the idea of humans being qualitatively superior in showing and expressing emotion. They just interpret it differently to mean that because humans can empathize with life (well, life with cute widdwe faces, anyway--carrots don't count, and I'm not sure about Brussels Sprouts) there's a special obligation not to kill it.

At least it does not seem to entail the homo fecit that if humans were simply to curb their appetites, ecology would just magically work out. I remember when clubbing baby seals (cute widdwe faces again) was considered tantamount to anything the Nazis did. Now, the seal population in the Pacific Northwest is wrecking the ecology, to the extent that park rangers have to go out and kill seals to control the population.

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by Christian
sorgoth wrote:
[b]Not quite. You see, we show and express emotions, we show that we CARE if we die or not. As far as we know, we are the animals who can do this the most.

So what you are saying is that humans are qualitative superior to other living things because we can show and express more emotion?
]


Yes. And we can assume from this that almost all humans have this capacity for emotion, and we have pretty much no way of really reading the differences between humans scientifically, so we can assume most human life is fairly equal (Equal enough to receive equal rights).

[Chareen]

Originally posted by scribble
This thread got me wondering how it is that human beings choose all the time to take their own lives. Do we ever see that behavior in other animals?

The answer to that question doesn't answer what you are looking for. It could be a question of intelligence. Take monkeys for example, depending on the type of monkey, if you put food out of reach of a monkey and sticks long enough to reach the food in the cage with him no matter how much he wants the food he won't use the sticks to get it. No other animal comes close to our intelligence. It takes a great deal of intelligence to even have a sence of self, let alone the idea of removal of onesself.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Would you still think that if you were a pig?
No, but if I were a pig, I would guess that I would have no qualms about killing humans to eat. And that's as it should be. Each species must consider their own species first.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Christian
My question (at the heart of the MA contradiction IMHO) is why are humans qualitatively superior? What is your logical justification for it?
MAs (at least this one) do not claim qualitative superiority. The are only trying to protect the package carrying their genes.

Christians (some of them) claim dominion over the animals because God said so. Humanists exert dominion over the animals because they want humans to survive. To me, the latter stance is much more logical.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Would you still think that if you were a pig?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, but if I were a pig, I would guess that I would have no qualms about killing humans to eat. And that's as it should be. Each species must consider their own species first.

I thought we were talking about ethics here? Either it is, or is not, unethical to kill a pig and eat it. Now which is it?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Christian
The materialist/atheist (MA) view presents a huge moral contradiction in this subject.

It is immoral to kill another human being but it is perfectly moral to kill a cockroach.

From the MA perspective, both are living things that have evolved throught time in different paths. Why should they be qualitative different?
Worldviews do not dictate morals, you're point is non-existence because of that.

Welcome to Moral Relativism: My morals are not going to be identical with the morals of another person with the same Materialist/Atheistic perspective.

Your presumption is that Materialist/Atheistic perspective is universal, that is not true. Therefore, your presumption is contradictory.


Another note: Origins have nothing to do with morality.

Most MA live like if the Christian premise is correct (supremacy of humans over all other life forms) but, intellectually live with said contradiction.
Non sequitor.

The Materialist/Atheist tends to live with an assertion that humans are more superior than everything on the planet. However, human superiority over nature is found in nearly all religions, it is not Christianity specific.


And when did "materialist" become equivelant to "atheist"?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I thought we were talking about ethics here? Either it is, or is not, unethical to kill a pig and eat it. Now which is it?
Oh, you want moral absolutes? Boy, you sure don't ask for much.

According to my ethics, it is okay to kill and eat a pig.
According to my wife's ethics, it is not.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I thought we were talking about ethics here? Either it is, or is not, unethical to kill a pig and eat it. Now which is it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh, you want moral absolutes? Boy, you sure don't ask for much.

According to my ethics, it is okay to kill and eat a pig.
According to my wife's ethics, it is not.. [/B]

You think ethics is just a question of taste?? :eek: This necessitates we can't condemn the Nazis then right?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You think ethics is just a question of taste?? :eek: This necessitates we can't condemn the Nazis then right?
You think everybody should have exactly the same ethics?? So we should condmen those cultures that allow fox hunting, right? :eek:

(There's plenty of straw here for everyone.)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You think ethics is just a question of taste?? This necessitates we can't condemn the Nazis then right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You think everybody should have exactly the same ethics?? So we should condmen those cultures that allow fox hunting, right?

(There's plenty of straw here for everyone.)

Yes of course everyone should have the same ethics. You can't say killing a pig for food is ok for one culture (or person) and reprehensible for another culture (or person). Ethics is universal. If killing a pig is unethical (maybe because it shortens its life and robs the pig of future pleasurable experiences, and because of the pain and fear the pig undergoes etc), then simply because we move to a different part of the world, or a different time, this doesn't mean to say killing a pig is ok! :eek: This is because the same arguments apply regardless of where you happen to be. You seem to misunderstand what people are talking about in questions of ethics.

This applies not just to killing pigs but absolutely everything (such as fox hunting, picking your nose in public or whatever).

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes of course everyone should have the same ethics. You can't say killing a pig for food is ok for one culture (or person) and reprehensible for another culture (or person). Ethics is universal. If killing a pig is unethical (maybe because it shortens its life and robs the pig of future pleasurable experiences, and because of the pain and fear the pig undergoes etc), then simply because we move to a different part of the world, or a different time, this doesn't mean to say killing a pig is ok! :eek: This is because the same arguments apply regardless of where you happen to be. You seem to misunderstand what people are talking about in questions of ethics.

This applies not just to killing pigs but absolutely everything (such as fox hunting, picking your nose in public or whatever).
Really? There are moral absolutes? Well then let me ask you. Who decides? Would you be willing to abide by their decisions?

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Tricky
Each species must consider their own species first.But in moral terms, why must they? Isn't that bigotry? I was reading about this recently in a book called The Philosophy Gym by Stephen Law. The author[a meat eater himself by the way] argues that eating animals is morally indefensible. Unless you can find a morally relevent difference between eating animals and eating people, meat eaters are guilty of a form of bigotry...speciesism. None of the arguments for eating animals seem to stand up...

Humans are superior beings and thus more important.

Maybe so, but how does that morally justify eating an inferior?

Animals are stupid, so we it's okay to eat them.

What about humans with limited intellect. If low intelligence is your justification then it must be okay to eat them too.

They taste good

If humans tastest good would it be okay to eat them?

Animals are breed to be eaten. If we didn't eat them, they wouldn't exist.

So if those humans who were born with a brain impairment had an inherited disease which affected their children and their children's children it would be morally okay to breed them for the dinner table.

Meat is a rich source of protein.

So? Millions of people eat no meat at all and stay healthy. Meat is not essential for a healthy diet.

Most people think its okay to eat animals.

Just a few hundred years ago most people used to think slavery was okay.

Eating meat is natural.

All sorts of behaviour which comes naturally to us is not morally acceptable. Naturalness doesnot equal moral right.

Animals eat other animals. If it's okay for them, why not us?

Animals do not know the difference between right and wrong....we do.

Why worry about animals when human babies are starving to death and famines and earthquakes are killing millions of people?

Does being concerned about animals mean you cant be concerned about humans too? If I pointed out a company was stealing pensions off its employees you wouldn't say "how dare you bang on about pensions when millions of people are dying in Rwanda" would you? Why should animal welfare be a non-topic?


It's hard then, to morally justify eating animals. Yet even some of us who accept that eating animals is immoral are still prepared to eat them! I know I am. Poor animals.

Conclusion: many humans would rather satisfy their desires than act morally.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
But in moral terms, why must they? Isn't that bigotry? I was reading about this recently in a book called The Philosophy Gym by Stephen Law. The author[a meat eater himself by the way] argues that eating animals is morally indefensible. Unless you can find a morally relevent difference between eating animals and eating people, meat eaters are guilty of a form of bigotry...speciesism. None of the arguments for eating animals seem to stand up...

And, of course, plant eaters are guilty of an even greater form of bigotry: phylumism!

The only morally pure diet that people actually live on is the one adopted by the Masai: milk and blood from cattle curdled with urine. Getting the blood doesn't kill the cattle, although I'm sure they don't like it much.

To this, one could add fruit and honey.

So? Millions of people eat no meat at all and stay healthy. Meat is not essential for a healthy diet.

Actually, this is untrue. Those millions of people eat insects, which are high in protein. They just don't think about it. Lots of places where "vegetarian" diets are common, such as India, had big problems with protein deficiency when pesticides were introduced. Even with the most modern methods, there are still an awful lot of insect eggs and parts in a cup of flour. I used to have to keep my plain unbleached Pillsbury's in the refrigerator to keep them from hatching. Nowadays, that doesn't seem to happen as much: perhaps they irradiate it?

Furthermore, not all populations have evolved to do even that well. I've known plenty of vegetarians of European stock, even ovo-lacto vegetarians, who have wrinkled faces and joint problems by the time they're 35. In the American South, where black-eyed peas and grains are common, pellagra still happens.

[Jessica Blue]

And, of course, plant eaters are guilty of an even greater form of bigotry: phylumism!Hahaha...let's face it, the only moral thing to do is to starve!

Law only considers those animals capable of suffering or happiness worthy of moral consideration. He singles out pigs for special mention....what is it about pigs?

I've known plenty of vegetarians of European stock, even ovo-lacto vegetarians, who have wrinkled faces and joint problems by the time they're 35. In the American South, where black-eyed peas and grains are common, pellagra still happens.But does it have to be meat which makes the difference? Perhaps that's just an inadrequate diet which could be rectified by a broader range of better vegetarian food. Meat eating has it's problems too.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes of course everyone should have the same ethics. You can't say killing a pig for food is ok for one culture (or person) and reprehensible for another culture (or person). Ethics is universal. If killing a pig is unethical (maybe because it shortens its life and robs the pig of future pleasurable experiences, and because of the pain and fear the pig undergoes etc), then simply because we move to a different part of the world, or a different time, this doesn't mean to say killing a pig is ok! This is because the same arguments apply regardless of where you happen to be. You seem to misunderstand what people are talking about in questions of ethics.

This applies not just to killing pigs but absolutely everything (such as fox hunting, picking your nose in public or whatever).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Really? There are moral absolutes? Well then let me ask you. Who decides? Would you be willing to abide by their decisions?

No one person decides. It's something which needs to be argued about isn't it? Ethics is, after all, a major branch of philosophy ;). And what is philosophy but argumentation? So let's take killing and eating pigs. We need to discuss all the relevant factors before deciding whether it is ethical or not, and the degree of ethicality or unethicality involved here.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No one person decides. It's something which needs to be argued about isn't it? Ethics is, after all, a major branch of philosophy ;). And what is philosophy but argumentation? So let's take killing and eating pigs. We need to discuss all the relevant factors before deciding whether it is ethical or not, and the degree of ethicality or unethicality involved here.
But even if were decided by committee, you might still feel that your were right, even if you differed from the majority. Certainly we all have decided to live by moral/legal codes that are decided by others (sometimes with our input), but they vary widely from place to place. Is one right and all the others wrong? I don't believe so.

And I would be very surprised if in the study of ethics that many people argued that dietary rules could ever be agreed on as always moral or always immoral.

By my moral code, it would be unethical to eat certain plants, if they were endangered.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue

Originally posted by Tricky
Each species must consider their own species first.

Jessica
But in moral terms, why must they? Isn't that bigotry?



Oh yes most certainly.




I was reading about this recently in a book called The Philosophy Gym by Stephen Law. The author[a meat eater himself by the way] argues that eating animals is morally indefensible.



I'm a meat eater too, although I tend to eat fish and chicken rather than pig due to the ethical implications. I kinda agree with the author, but we really need a great deal of expansion on this bare statement. For example one thing we need to bear in mind is that there are degrees of unethical behaviour.



Unless you can find a morally relevent difference between eating animals and eating people, meat eaters are guilty of a form of bigotry...speciesism. None of the arguments for eating animals seem to stand up...



Without wishing to go into it at this stage, I certainly think that killing our fellow human beings for food is more unethical than killing say pigs. And if you didn't agree with that, what about fish or insects?



Humans are superior beings and thus more important.

Maybe so, but how does that morally justify eating an inferior?

Animals are stupid, so we it's okay to eat them.

What about humans with limited intellect. If low intelligence is your justification then it must be okay to eat them too.



You have to take into account peoples feelings about the matter. There are ethical repercussions regarding eating stupid people in terms of our natural repugnance and the way we regard our fellow human beings. There is also the issue of the potentiality of human beings. But this is all an immensely complex topic.



They taste good

If humans tastest good would it be okay to eat them?

Animals are breed to be eaten. If we didn't eat them, they wouldn't exist.



If we assume both humans and animals don't exist before we are born, then not ever coming into existence cannot possibly be deemed a undesirable thing. Again this is an immensely complex topic. But briefly this ethical justification for eating animals comprehensively fails in my opinion.



So if those humans who were born with a brain impairment had an inherited disease which affected their children and their children's children it would be morally okay to breed them for the dinner table.

Meat is a rich source of protein.

So? Millions of people eat no meat at all and stay healthy. Meat is not essential for a healthy diet.



People eat too much protein as a rule in any case. You can get as much protein from a combination of wholemeal bread and beans as you would for steak.




Most people think its okay to eat animals.



They would need to argue for this, not simply state it's OK.



Just a few hundred years ago most people used to think slavery was okay.

Eating meat is natural.



Utterly irrelevant.



Animals eat other animals. If it's okay for them, why not us?



Who is saying it is OK? Of course if they are carnivores then they are compelled to eat meat. We are not carnivores (we're omnivores)




Why worry about animals when human babies are starving to death and famines and earthquakes are killing millions of people?



Because of the ethical implications. Should we stop saying please and thank you, and pick our noses in public because of all the bad things happening in the world? Briefly, simply because there are a lot of bad things happening in the world, this has no implications for things which we would deem as not being so bad happening in the world. We should strive to be ethical regardless.



Does being concerned about animals mean you cant be concerned about humans too? If I pointed out a company was stealing pensions off its employees you wouldn't say "how dare you bang on about pensions when millions of people are dying in Rwanda" would you? Why should animal welfare be a non-topic?



Yes indeed. You put it better than me. :)


It's hard then, to morally justify eating animals. Yet even some of us who accept that eating animals is immoral are still prepared to eat them! I know I am. Poor animals.

Conclusion: many humans would rather satisfy their desires than act morally.

Well, it's a bit more involved than that. It's a question of balance since it would be unrealistic to be ethically perfect in ones behaviour. It's not simply a question of a person's behaviour being immoral or not being immoral. Our ethical conduct rather lies on a continuum. Complex subject though.

[Titus Rivas]

I'm with Jessica (and Peter Singer) on this issue. I believe that skeptics and non-skeptics (like myself) can easily agree about this when we consider the relevant aspects of the issue. The pleasures of eating meat (or other animal produce) can never morally justify the unnecessary suffering and death of another sentient being. Biologically speaking, humans are omnivores. So we do have a choice and it is immoral to eat animals if it is not absolutely necessary for our own survival.

The classical "plant have rights too"-argument is worthless, as especially skeptics have no reason to believe in sentient plants. Even if some plants are sentient, this does not mean we should be eating meat instead. We should limit ourselves to eating non-sentient plants.

These considerations have in my case led to veganism.

Titus

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by epepke
And, of course, plant eaters are guilty of an even greater form of bigotry: phylumism!



Plants are generally not regarded as sentient.



The only morally pure diet that people actually live on is the one adopted by the Masai: milk and blood from cattle curdled with urine. Getting the blood doesn't kill the cattle, although I'm sure they don't like it much.

To this, one could add fruit and honey.



You need to argue for this, not just make the bare assertion.


Jessica
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So? Millions of people eat no meat at all and stay healthy. Meat is not essential for a healthy diet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Actually, this is untrue. Those millions of people eat insects, which are high in protein. They just don't think about it.



If vegetarians ate insects, then I'm not sure they would be called vegetarians. Certainly vegans don't eat insects.


Lots of places where "vegetarian" diets are common, such as India, had big problems with protein deficiency when pesticides were introduced.


They shouldn't do. It is more difficult to obtain perfect protein that is all. BTW a combination of milk and eggs gives you perfect protein by definition I believe.



Furthermore, not all populations have evolved to do even that well. I've known plenty of vegetarians of European stock, even ovo-lacto vegetarians, who have wrinkled faces and joint problems by the time they're 35. In the American South, where black-eyed peas and grains are common, pellagra still happens.



No one is denying that it might be slightly more difficult to get perfect nutrition. I don't really see the relevance of your post.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
The pleasures of eating meat (or other animal produce) can never morally justify the unnecessary suffering and death of another sentient being.
Titus [/B]

Well when we eat eggs the creature in question hasn't yet come into existence. And what about eating insects? We kill off billions of them by pesticides anyway. In my opinion we can't claim eating humans, eating pigs, eating chicken, eating fish, eating insects are all equally unethical. That would be highly implausible.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by scribble
This thread got me wondering how it is that human beings choose all the time to take their own lives. Do we ever see that behavior in other animals?

To answer the first part, humans kill thems elves when they are overwhelmed with pain and feel hopeless, that is why crisis intervention can prevent suicide. Most people don't want to kill themselves, they want the pain to stop, the other question , I don't know.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well when we eat eggs the creature in question hasn't yet come into existence

Vegans argue that using any animal products, especially from domestic animals, constitutes enslavement of the animals, and is therefore unethincal. They have a point, but I still disagree.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And what about eating insects? We kill off billions of them by pesticides anyway. In my opinion we can't claim eating humans, eating pigs, eating chicken, eating fish, eating insects are all equally unethical. That would be highly implausible.
To quote a locally-known philosopher:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Either it is, or is not, unethical to kill a pig and eat it. Now which is it?
---
Ethics is universal. (sic)
Now it seems that you are arguing that there are degrees of morality. Sounds a bit like my position.

A lot of us here seem to be using sentience as the guidline for what it is okay to kill. Again, the boundary is fuzzy. Without the ability to communicate, it would be hard to say for sure what is sentient and what is not. Certainly almost all animals are aware of what is around them and will respond to stimuli. But the same can be said of most plants. Who draws the line? Am I morally bound to honor the line that someone else draws?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Plants are generally not regarded as sentient.

Yo, Ian. Read the title of the thread. It's not that difficult. I'll repeat it for you: "Does all life have equal value?" The word "sentient" does not appear.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
It's hard then, to morally justify eating animals. It is with that crappy list of justificiations!

First, the difference between us and animals is not that we know right from wrong. It isn't wrong for animals to eat other animals! If animals don't eat animals, they die. If preventing the death of animals is the criteria for "right", then there is no right answer. Obviously, the death of an animal is not definitively a "wrong" in any system of morality that makes sense.

The reason we hold it wrong to kill each other is that we have come to an understanding for our common benefit that we will prohibit murder, as we don't want to be murdered ourselves. We know the best way to avoid our own murder is to support a community-wide prohibition. We can not reach this understanding with other species.

There may be reasons to prohibit killing certain animals for our own good as well, and disobeying this prohibition would be unethical. However, I haven't come across any convincing arguement that there is some good basis on which to base a general ethic of prohibition on the killing of animals. The idea that each individual life has value worth protecting is simply in direct conflict with overriding nature of life itself. Only humans value individuals. Nature values population, and often uses the death of individuals for the benefit of populations. Nature isn't "wrong" in this regard.

Would anyone argue that it was unethical for a hungry bear to kill and eat a human?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
But does it have to be meat which makes the difference? Perhaps that's just an inadrequate diet which could be rectified by a broader range of better vegetarian food. Meat eating has it's problems too.

:con2: Maybe. But it doesn't really bear going into; that way lies flame war.

The point is that everybody makes judgements about what kinds of life they are willing to kill and not kill for food. Almost all the time this is based on similarities to the self; life perceived similar to the self is not killed and eaten, and life perceived as different from the self is killed and eaten. Now, I did see a Dr. Who episode about a guy who only ate animals and considered Bonzai cruelty to plants, which would be a reversal, but I haven't met anyone like that in real life. Also, religious and cultural taboos put some different life also on the "do not eat" list.

But, basically, everybody draws a possibly fuzzy line somewhere, largely based on comparisons to the self, or as you have called it, bigotry. Where is the best place to draw the line we could argue until the tofu hamburger substitute comes home. Besides, it's all been said before.

But people should admit it. They should admit that they're making distinctions between different kinds of life based on their personal or religious or cultural or whatever judgements. I don't even care if they justify it, because it's no skin off my nose, unless they actually want to eat the skin off my nose, which they probably don't anyway.

But I do think it's worth pointing out when some people go around as if they, precious they, are the ones who respect all life. It's a bit like Tom Lehrer put it in "The Folk Song Army":

Oh, we are the Folk Song Army.
Every one of us cares!
We all hate poverty, war, and injustice,
Unlike the rest of you squares.

It's reasonble to conclude that they are lying, delusional, stupid, or lacking in some nutrients essential for basic brain function.

Of course, it isn't limited to the vegetarian-aligned crowd. I personally don't think much of the Kosher and Hallal practice of killing animals by sawing through their necks and then watching while they bleat and bleed to death. If someone says, "This is what we do, because we believe that God made us and knows the best way for us to live and told us to do it that way," then I can swallow my gorge and respect that. Even though I still don't like it, I'm not going to go around saying that it makes me a moral, compassionate person, unlike them. But if, as Hebrew National does, they put on their label that they answer to a "higher authority," that's just supercilious pablum down the bib.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
[B]It is with that crappy list of justificiations!

First, the difference between us and animals is not that we know right from wrong. It isn't wrong for animals to eat other animals! If animals don't eat animals, they die. If preventing the death of animals is the criteria for "right", then there is no right answer. Obviously, the death of an animal is not definitively a "wrong" in any system of morality that makes sense.



Sure, other considerations come into play. Carnivores have to kill in order to survive. This has nothing to do with the issue of whether, for human beings, it is ethical, or unethical, to kill non-human animals for food. And if it is unethical, to what extent it is unethical, and whether it can be outweighed by other considerations.



The reason we hold it wrong to kill each other is that we have come to an understanding for our common benefit that we will prohibit murder, as we don't want to be murdered ourselves. We know the best way to avoid our own murder is to support a community-wide prohibition. We can not reach this understanding with other species.



That's not an ethical reason you've outlined but rather one of convenience. You're surely not suggesting it is not unethical at all to kill other people?? :eek:



There may be reasons to prohibit killing certain animals for our own good as well, and disobeying this prohibition would be unethical.



Ummm . . I think you've got rather a perverted notion of ethics! LOL


However, I haven't come across any convincing arguement that there is some good basis on which to base a general ethic of prohibition on the killing of animals.


Well, what about the issue of the pain, suffering and fear of the animals concerned? What about the notion we're using them for a means to an end rather than respecting them as living sentient beings in their own right? What about denying them the chance to have future pleasurable experiences?



The idea that each individual life has value worth protecting is simply in direct conflict with overriding nature of life itself.



How so? I don't understand.



Only humans value individuals.



How do you know and what relevance has this?




Nature values population, and often uses the death of individuals for the benefit of populations. Nature isn't "wrong" in this regard.



What's nature got to do with anything?? We're discussing ethics.

[Michael Redman]

Ethics are artificial rules we create to impose a standard of conduct we want people to obey. My position is that we base these rules on what we perceive as being in our best common interest. I don't see how this is perverted.

Rights don't exist in nature. If animals have rights, it's only because we create those rights. I see no rational reason to extend the rights we have created for ourselves to other species that don't participate on our system of mutual respect and protection.

The reason I bring up nature is that it is clear that the "ethic" of not killing animals does not come from nature, and, in fact, is opposed to nature's practice. It must therefore be our own creation. However, I haven't seen any explanation of why such an ethical system should be adopted, or any benefit it might bring.


(If something is both necessary and unethical, then your ethical system is faulty.)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Ethics are artificial rules we create to impose a standard of conduct we want people to obey. My position is that we base these rules on what we perceive as being in our best common interest. I don't see how this is perverted.



Because ethics is concerned about doing that which is good and right. This is what you said:

{quote}
The reason we hold it wrong to kill each other is that we have come to an understanding for our common benefit that we will prohibit murder, as we don't want to be murdered ourselves. We know the best way to avoid our own murder is to support a community-wide prohibition. We can not reach this understanding with other species.
{/quote}

It is clear however that we do not simply desist from murdering people so that we ourselves won't get murdered! We do not murder people because we care about other people. We recognise that they have interests, hopes, fears, desires and especially a desire to continue to have experiences. Thus, unless we're b*stards, we will not murder them even though we could be certain we'd get away with it.





Rights don't exist in nature. If animals have rights, it's only because we create those rights. I see no rational reason to extend the rights we have created for ourselves to other species that don't participate on our system of mutual respect and protection.



I have made no mention of rights. I said that we surely should consider the animals suffering, and fear, and the thwarting of unfulfilled experiences in deciding whether killing and eating them is ethical. Of course we should also take into account the arguments in favour of eating animals. What we shouldn't do is just ignore the arguments on one side or another (or all arguments).



The reason I bring up nature is that it is clear that the "ethic" of not killing animals does not come from nature,



Indeed they don't.



and, in fact, is opposed to nature's practice. It must therefore be our own creation.



No, I believe they have a transcendental origin.



However, I haven't seen any explanation of why such an ethical system should be adopted, or any benefit it might bring.



Because one of the ultimate goals in life is to learn to have complete empathy and compassion and understanding of our fellow sentient beings. Thus we do not wish to do them harm unless there are other reasons outweighing the distress and thwarting of their desires. Benefits ought not to be calculated in the crude and crass way you suggest.

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue


Humans are superior beings and thus more important.

Maybe so, but how does that morally justify eating an inferior?


Animals are stupid, so we it's okay to eat them.

What about humans with limited intellect. If low intelligence is your justification then it must be okay to eat them too.

Conclusion: many humans would rather satisfy their desires than act morally.


Ok... Let's say there was a super advanced alien race. Each one of these aliens could feel emotions beyond our wildest dreams. They would be to humans as humans are to lizards.

If them eating us would save their lives, then it would be morally ok for them to eat me. My self-preservation instinct would kick in, of course, and I'm sure it would take control of me, but from a neutral standpoint it would be perfectly okay for the alien to eat me. (In my opinion, anyway.)

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
What about humans with limited intellect. If low intelligence is your justification then it must be okay to eat them too.


Canibalism is dangerous because whatever disease that the meal might have had has a much better chance of being transfered to the eater than if the meal was from a different species.



If humans tastest good would it be okay to eat them?



No, see above.

So if those humans who were born with a brain impairment had an inherited disease which affected their children and their children's children it would be morally okay to breed them for the dinner table.



Again, no, see above.



So? Millions of people eat no meat at all and stay healthy. Meat is not essential for a healthy diet.



Only because of the wide variety of plants available due to modern harvest techniques. Third world countries have no access to the different plants that we do.



Animals do not know the difference between right and wrong....we do.



Who said eating meat is wrong?



Does being concerned about animals mean you cant be concerned about humans too? If I pointed out a company was stealing pensions off its employees you wouldn't say "how dare you bang on about pensions when millions of people are dying in Rwanda" would you? Why should animal welfare be a non-topic?



Already been covered. It is more important to look out for your own species. All other species are important only in how they are needed to keep us alive.



It's hard then, to morally justify eating animals. Yet even some of us who accept that eating animals is immoral are still prepared to eat them! I know I am. Poor animals.

Conclusion: many humans would rather satisfy their desires than act morally.

False conclusion, you haven't shown meat eating to be immoral.

[Jessica Blue]

I should mention all those points were Stephen Laws. I just made a summary of his arguments.

Originally posted by Tricky
A lot of us here seem to be using sentience as the guidline for what it is okay to kill. Again, the boundary is fuzzy. Without the ability to communicate, it would be hard to say for sure what is sentient and what is not. Certainly almost all animals are aware of what is around them and will respond to stimuli. But the same can be said of most plants. Who draws the line? Am I morally bound to honor the line that someone else draws?It is fuzzy, this is true. If you're not sure about a fly or an oyster...okay, keep your options open. But where it IS clear that animals are capable of suffering or happiness why not give them moral consideration? Because the line is blurry should that give us carte blanche to eat those animals we know are capable of happiness and suffering?


Originally posted by sorgoth
Ok... Let's say there was a super advanced alien race. Each one of these aliens could feel emotions beyond our wildest dreams. They would be to humans as humans are to lizards.

If them eating us would save their lives, then it would be morally ok for them to eat me. My self-preservation instinct would kick in, of course, and I'm sure it would take control of me, but from a neutral standpoint it would be perfectly okay for the alien to eat me. (In my opinion, anyway.)What if it wasn't necessary for their survival to eat us. Would it still be perfectly okay?


Originally posted by Dragonock
Canibalism is dangerous because whatever disease that the meal might have had has a much better chance of being transfered to the eater than if the meal was from a different species.That's neither here nor here. We dont farm and kill people for food because it's unethical...we still wouldn't do it even if were harmless.

Animals do not know the difference between right and wrong....we do.

Who said eating meat is wrong?That wasn't what I was saying there. My point was that because animals kill for food we are not therefore justified in doing the same, as, unlike animals, we are capable of forming ethical conclusions. Whether meat eating is moral or immoral, that *nature is brutal* cannot be used as an ethical defence for meat eating.

Already been covered. It is more important to look out for your own species. All other species are important only in how they are needed to keep us alive.In whose opinion? Are you saying animals have no other reason for existence than to be at our service? That's not true. Animals existed before humans evolved into the complex beings they are now and would continue to exist without us. We are not their raison d'etre.

We dont have to eat meat to keep us alive, so we don't "need" to kill them and eat them to ensure our survival.

False conclusion, you haven't shown meat eating to be immoral.You haven't shown that it isn't.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
It is fuzzy, this is true. If you're not sure about a fly or an oyster...okay, keep your options open. But where it IS clear that animals are capable of suffering or happiness why not give them moral consideration? Because the line is blurry should that give us carte blanche to eat those animals we know are capable of happiness and suffering?
It is precicely because the line is fuzzy that to draw a line at all is hypocritical. How can we, as humans, know and decide which animals (or even which plants) are capable of suffering. We cannot comprehend what plant suffering might be like or what makes a hyacinth happy. Trees heal their wounds and develop scars that never can grow again. Put a worm on a fishook and then tell me it is not suffering. In our anthropocentric way, we only know that kind of suffering which resembles ours. In my opinion, that is merely an extension of the wrongs you might do to "higher species", meaning those more like us. You must discrimminate somewhere, so to arbitrarily pick one level at which it is "okay" is pure egotism (and playing God to boot).

So to avoid this kind of hypocrisy, I simply accept that I will do whatever I think is best for my species. If that includes eating non-endangered species that are similar to us in some ways, then so be it. Harming our planet by destroying vital ecological links, or indeed any ecological links, even if we are unsure how vital they are, is dangerous to my species. Eating certain individuals of well-populated species is not, or at least it is less so.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue

You haven't shown that it isn't.

But claiming that eatiing animals is immoral is no different thatn any other claim in that the burden of proof is on the claimant. You claim that eating animals is immoral so.......

[Dorian Gray]

Because one of the ultimate goals in life is to learn to have complete empathy and compassion and understanding of our fellow sentient beings. According to who? Some peoples' ultimate goal is to get to Nirvana, Heaven, Utopia, Valhalla or some other such place, while other people wish to rejoin the Earth Mother. Could you have somehow forgotten to include billions of people when making your statement?


Note to Jessica Blue: I will be considering your words of compassion while dining at Longhorn Steakhouse tomorrow night.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Because one of the ultimate goals in life is to learn to have complete empathy and compassion and understanding of our fellow sentient beings. Thus we do not wish to do them harm unless there are other reasons outweighing the distress and thwarting of their desires. Benefits ought not to be calculated in the crude and crass way you suggest. That only makes sense if you assume your value system. I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree that there is any objective reason to assume those values, and I don't think it's a particularly useful world view.

I don't think we judge right an wrong on a completely cold, rational basis. However, I think our empathy for our fellow is a creation of evolution that makes us more likely to obey the ethic of common good. I believe that people in our culture lately have been anthropomorphizing a wider range of species, and extending their sympathy to them. I believe that this is misguided. It demonstrates a broad compassion, which is a good thing, but I think it takes it to an illogical extreme.

[Interesting Ian]

You know, I said a few weeks ago that although people on this board seem to be pretty stupid when it comes to discussing skepticism, and materialism, and the paranormal, in any other subjects I've generally been very impressed with their intelligence compared to the general population. It seems though that a lot of people have a similar blindness when it comes to the subject matter of ethics.

A lot of people on here seem to fail to grasp what ethics is about. Most people on here are saying that a pig's suffering, and fear, and curtailment of life, and therefore any future experiences, should have no influence at all on our decision to kill it and eat it! :eek: They think that what is ethical only encompasses that which could effect them. So we don't murder and eat other human beings because then other human beings might do the same to us. But this is not ethics, this is a purely selfish calculation of the maximisation of ones own well being!

This discussion cannot get off the ground until we acknowledge the universal nature of ethics, that the welfare of other beings apart from ourselves, whether other human beings or non-human animals, is not only important so far as it might impinge on our own welfare, but has intrinsic importance.

Thus we should not be wholly indifferent to a pig's suffering because it doesn't effect our own welfare. The suffering is of intrinsic concern in and of itself. In reaching a decision on whether it is ethical to kill a pig and eat it, we should not therefore leave the pig's suffering out of the equation, just as we should not leave out that we enjoy eating its flesh out of the equation. And no, I'm not being flippant here. Ethics is universal, but that doesn't mean to say we completely ignore what gives us personal pleasure either.

Now on a personal note, I don't think the pleasure of eating pork can be ethically justified when we take into account the suffering undergone by the pig. But the question of say eating fish might be a more controversial one. But as I say, this discussion can't get off the ground until people understand that the subject matter of ethics is not simply a tool to work out the maximisation of ones own well being.

[Tricky]

Ian, if you think ethics are universal then what, in your opinion, makes humans the arbiter? Why do you get to decide that fish suffering is okay but pig suffering is not? Are there any fish on your advisory board?

You are just as guilty of anthropcentrism as the most voracious pork-eater, because you impose a human ethical system on other organisms. How do you "ethically" claim the right to do so?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky
Ian, if you think ethics are universal then what, in your opinion, makes humans the arbiter? Why do you get to decide that fish suffering is okay but pig suffering is not? Are there any fish on your advisory board?



I'm not getting to decide anything. As I said, it's up for discussion. The only thing I'm saying is that we shouldn't leave out any possible relevant considerations such as the suffering undergone by a conscious being.



You are just as guilty of anthropcentrism as the most voracious pork-eater, because you impose a human ethical system on other organisms. How do you "ethically" claim the right to do so? [/B]

I haven't advanced any ethical system, and I certainly haven't advanced a human one. Indeed, if anything, it's you and a few others who are advancing a human "ethical" system. I said that ethics has to be universal, not just concerned with what benefits human beings.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A lot of people on here seem to fail to grasp what ethics is about. The problem you are having is not that we don't grasp ethics, it's that we don't concur with your view of ethics. You certainly haven't proven that ethics must be universal, or that a universal ethic must treat this question as you seem to assume it must.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
What if it wasn't necessary for their survival to eat us. Would it still be perfectly okay?

I would have a problem with it, but then it would be up to me to prevent it.

Wait! Now that I think about it, it's not necessary for lions, bears, or cougars to eat humans, but they do it. So, smart people have learned not to do the things that put themselves in the situation where they might be eaten.



That's neither here nor here. We dont farm and kill people for food because it's unethical...we still wouldn't do it even if were harmless.

agreed



That wasn't what I was saying there. My point was that because animals kill for food we are not therefore justified in doing the same, as, unlike animals, we are capable of forming ethical conclusions. Whether meat eating is moral or immoral, that *nature is brutal* cannot be used as an ethical defence for meat eating.

All herbivores have lives that end horribly, either torn apart by predators or injuring themselves. Nature is brutal and we are a part of nature, humans are not an affront to mother earth.



In whose opinion? Are you saying animals have no other reason for existence than to be at our service? That's not true. Animals existed before humans evolved into the complex beings they are now and would continue to exist without us. We are not their raison d'etre.

Yes, animals existed before humans and they would continue to exist if humans were gone. Then, after a while another creature would go through the evolutionary requirements to bring about sentience. Chances are that they would be omnivorous or carnivorous as one of the things that allowed us to develop our brains was a high protein diet.



We dont have to eat meat to keep us alive, so we don't "need" to kill them and eat them to ensure our survival.

True for some, but others must. And since when has need been the sole arbiter of what we are allowed to do?



You haven't shown that it isn't.

I don't need to. I don't force people to eat meat, animal rights advocates try to use force to prevent me from eating it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm not getting to decide anything. As I said, it's up for discussion. The only thing I'm saying is that we shouldn't leave out any possible relevant considerations such as the suffering undergone by a conscious being.
Why should being conscious have anything to do with it? Besides, who decides what is and what isn't conscious. That would be showing our cultural bias towards organisms more like us, i.e. that have the same way of "thinking" and "feeling" as we do. How do we know that an onion doesn't do the equivalent of screaming when we rip it out of the ground? There is no fair way to do this that is not based on our preconceived notions of what "feeling" is.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I haven't advanced any ethical system, and I certainly haven't advanced a human one. Indeed, if anything, it's you and a few others who are advancing a human "ethical" system. I said that ethics has to be universal, not just concerned with what benefits human beings.
You most certainly have.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now on a personal note, I don't think the pleasure of eating pork can be ethically justified when we take into account the suffering undergone by the pig. But the question of say eating fish might be a more controversial one.
These are your own personal ethics. If you are going to maintain your own personal ethics system, then I do not see how you can argue that there is a universal one.

[Acrimonious]

The same animal rights activists that tell me that eating cow and pig that has been specially raised and slaughtered humanely is MURDER do not seem to care that threshers and combines leave millions (every year) of small fuzzy mammals slashed to tiny bits and left dead or dying so they can have their plant matter.

Yes, a quick, painless death via rod to the spine for a "cute" farm animal is somehow worse than being viciously slashed apart by hundreds of rotating blades for an "ugly" possum or "dirty" raccoon.

Hypocrites, all of them.

[Acrimonious]

Oh yeah, you might want sources:

Animals suffer and die whether you eat meat or go vegan (http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html)

Least Harm principle = Eat Meat (http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm)

Thanks to Maddox, the probably Not Safe For Work site, who gave the original rant:
Maddox (http://maddox.xmission.net/grill.html)

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You know, I said a few weeks ago that although people on this board seem to be pretty stupid when it comes to discussing skepticism, and materialism, and the paranormal, in any other subjects I've generally been very impressed with their intelligence compared to the general population. It seems though that a lot of people have a similar blindness when it comes to the subject matter of ethics.

(snipped)

Ad hominem... how predictable.

And yet Ian's own philosophy... well, it is personal Ian, or Universal? And if it's Universal, how so?

[Jessica Blue]

originally posted by Tricky
It is precicely because the line is fuzzy that to draw a line at all is hypocritical. How can we, as humans, know and decide which animals (or even which plants) are capable of suffering.That just sounds like a moral cop out to me. "We dont know enough about the natural world to say precisely which lifeforms are capable of suffering so lets not give moral consideration to any...otherwise we're hypocrites". Is that what you call an ethical position?

As mere humans with limited knowledge we can only act according to what we know or think we know. We know a pig is capable of suffering or happiness, we dont know a plant is. I'm no biologist but I would have thought to suffer or experience happiness a lifeform would need at least a brain. It might be morally imperfect, but I still dont see why a fear of hypocrisy should outweigh giving moral consideration for those animals whose capacity for suffering/happiness is not so blurry.


In our anthropocentric way, we only know that kind of suffering which resembles ours. In my opinion, that is merely an extension of the wrongs you might do to "higher species", meaning those more like us. You must discrimminate somewhere, so to arbitrarily pick one level at which it is "okay" is pure egotism (and playing God to boot). We can only be expected to understand the kind of suffering which resembles our own. How can we apply human morality in human terms to things beyond our perception? Most people would chop down a tree without flinching yet few would think it was okay to torture a pig with a hot poker. In the case of a chopped down tree we reason that moral considerations are not significant to lifeforms which are impervious to their effects or rather what we perceive to be beyond their effects? We might be wrong...but we are not ethically wrong because we are not all-seeing.


So to avoid this kind of hypocrisy, I simply accept that I will do whatever I think is best for my species.Cop out.


Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Note to Jessica Blue: I will be considering your words of compassion while dining at Longhorn Steakhouse tomorrow night.Enjoy your meal you vile speciest!


I do eat meat...I recently finished a delicious chicken sandwich without too much guilt, yet I don't feel like an immoral monster [but maybe the slave owners didn't feel immoral or guilty either]. I'm only taking this position because I'm wondering if Stephen Law is correct when he claims meat eating cannot be morally defended by philosophical argument.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
I'm wondering if Stephen Law is correct when he claims meat eating cannot be morally defended by philosophical argument. It obviously can't if you assume a morality that finds humans and animals to be morally equivilent. If you assume such a system of morality, why ask the question? Without an agreed morality, there can't be an agreement on whether eating animals is moral. From what you have presented, it seems like Law has assumed a system of morality with which I do not agree.

[Dancing David]

The point of the Law argument is that there is no philosophical reason that you can give for the difference between preference in species. That is a bogus misundertsanding of evolution.

There is no difference between eating animals and eating humans, it is just a thing we do when we say there is a difference, morally it is the same as raising and breeding humans to eat them.

There is no difference, just words.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
That just sounds like a moral cop out to me. "We dont know enough about the natural world to say precisely which lifeforms are capable of suffering so lets not give moral consideration to any...otherwise we're hypocrites". Is that what you call an ethical position?

There's another way of looking at this: "So humans are hypocritical. So what? Big deal."

Lying is a great human accomplishment. Our nonhuman relatives can sometimes pick up a bit of sign language, but they lie only infrequently and not well.

There's a word for people who have significant trouble with lying: autistics. There's another word for people who have less but still some trouble: geeks. Both have social problems.

You, yourself. I'm sure there have been times when your pheremones were positively reeking "Let's do it like they do on the Discovery channel," but for whatever reason, you wanted to say "no." How can you do that without lying?
[/B][/QUOTE]

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
That just sounds like a moral cop out to me. "We dont know enough about the natural world to say precisely which lifeforms are capable of suffering so lets not give moral consideration to any...otherwise we're hypocrites". Is that what you call an ethical position?

As mere humans with limited knowledge we can only act according to what we know or think we know. We know a pig is capable of suffering or happiness, we dont know a plant is. I'm no biologist but I would have thought to suffer or experience happiness a lifeform would need at least a brain.
Like others here, I'm only talking about trying to enforce your moral code on others. If you don't want to eat pigs, that's fine with me. I have a personal moral code too, and believe me, it doesn't include torturing pigs. I would only consider it moral to torture animals if it somehow benefitted the human race, and I cannot see that this is the case.

However, some Jews have a much more brutal way of preparing animals which amounts to torture. I refuse to condem them for their moral code, since they believe it is what God has said is right for the human race. Neither do I subscribe to it.

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
It might be morally imperfect, but I still dont see why a fear of hypocrisy should outweigh giving moral consideration for those animals whose capacity for suffering/happiness is not so blurry.
You don't worry about being a hypocrite? Well, that goes against my moral code, but as I say, I will not try to enforce my moral code on you. I realize that you believe that such empathy with selected species is a good thing, just as Orthodox Jews believe Kosher type slaughter is a good thing.

However, in truth, my moral system allows such anthropocentric empathy. I'll let you think about how, then we'll discuss it.

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
We can only be expected to understand the kind of suffering which resembles our own. How can we apply human morality in human terms to things beyond our perception? Most people would chop down a tree without flinching yet few would think it was okay to torture a pig with a hot poker. In the case of a chopped down tree we reason that moral considerations are not significant to lifeforms which are impervious to their effects or rather what we perceive to be beyond their effects? We might be wrong...but we are not ethically wrong because we are not all-seeing.
You're getting close. One more step and you will have reached the same position that I have, but via a more emotional route.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Originally posted by Jessica Blue
I'm wondering if Stephen Law is correct when he claims meat eating cannot be morally defended by philosophical argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It obviously can't if you assume a morality that finds humans and animals to be morally equivilent.



Well no, it's if you assume any form of morality whatsoever. But you don't, so there's nothing to discuss.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by epepke


There's another way of looking at this: "So humans are hypocritical. So what? Big deal."

Lying is a great human accomplishment. Our nonhuman relatives can sometimes pick up a bit of sign language, but they lie only infrequently and not well.

There's a word for people who have significant trouble with lying: autistics. There's another word for people who have less but still some trouble: geeks. Both have social problems.

You, yourself. I'm sure there have been times when your pheremones were positively reeking "Let's do it like they do on the Discovery channel," but for whatever reason, you wanted to say "no." How can you do that without lying?


There's no point in talking to people who are wholly indifferent to the suffering of other conscious beings and who consider lying a virtue. You're completely screwed up.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
There's no point in talking to people who are wholly indifferent to the suffering of other conscious beings and who consider lying a virtue. You're completely screwed up.

Only you would conclude that because I said "There's another way of looking at this:" and "Lying is a great human accomplishment." that I must consider lying a virtue. Or even like it. Or even be able to do it.

I've said this afore, and I'll say it agin. I think you're great. This site could not hope for a better mascot, and the wonderful thing is that you perform these services for us voluntarily. You teach us great lessons. You go so far beyond sarcasm-impairment that it isn't even funny. You remind us what happens when a person lacks the ability to distinguish between "should be" and "is," between value and factual judgements, between wishful thinking and reality. If you were not here, we would have to recreate you from anecdotes, and I don't think we would have a hope of coming up with so fine a specimen. Thank you.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by epepke
It obviously can't if you assume a morality that finds humans and animals to be morally equivilent. So if we are to eat meat guilt free we have to accept that moral consideration need only apply to ourselves. In that case why isn't it okay to torture a pig with a hot poker? Or do you think it is?

Or is it that animals are due some moral consideration but not as much as us. If they are due some...why are they?

In order to give moral consideration to animals and humans I dont think we need to assume that animals and humans are morally equivalent. The moral consideration we give them should extend to letting a pig lead a pigs life[which wouldn't include slaughter]. Moral superiorty shouldn't be a justification for ignoring the interests of others. It's unethical to say "I'm superior, so that means I can kick you in the teeth."

There's another way of looking at this: "So humans are hypocritical. So what? Big deal."

Tell Tricky that. But isn't that a bit like saying "so humans are immoral. So what? Big deal." Where does that get us...?

"Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue".

Lying is a great human accomplishment. Our nonhuman relatives can sometimes pick up a bit of sign language, but they lie only infrequently and not well.

Lying is not always unethical. It can be a virtue.



Originally posted by Tricky
You don't worry about being a hypocrite? Not when it's not my intention. If I afford moral consideration to animals which in my understanding are capable of suffering or happiness and dont to give such consideration to a plant or an insect because I as far as I know they are incapable of benefiting from it, where is the hypocrisy?

Like others here, I'm only talking about trying to enforce your moral code on others. If you don't want to eat pigs, that's fine with me. I have a personal moral code too, and believe me, it doesn't include torturing pigs. I would only consider it moral to torture animals if it somehow benefitted the human race, and I cannot see that this is the case.

However, some Jews have a much more brutal way of preparing animals which amounts to torture. I refuse to condem them for their moral code, since they believe it is what God has said is right for the human race. Neither do I subscribe to it.

I'm not sure how, in a logical discussion about ethics, faith can be used as a defence. If cruelty to pigs is right or wrong, it's right or wrong independent of claims to faith in God. If I fail to condemn an action doesn't that mean I implicitly endorse it?


I will not try to enforce my moral code on you. I realize that you believe that such empathy with selected species is a good thing, just as Orthodox Jews believe Kosher type slaughter is a good thing.

However, in truth, my moral system allows such anthropocentric empathy. I'll let you think about how, then we'll discuss it.

Does your anthropocentric empathy also extend to regarding clitoredechtomies, stoning for adultery and flying airoplanes into buildings in the name of Allah as valid moralities? All these actions may be regarded as legitimate by the the perpetrators. Does that make them ethical?

If you saying "morality is relative" then you are beginning your argument with an absolute, which is in inconsistent.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky

Like others here, I'm only talking about trying to enforce your moral code on others. If you don't want to eat pigs, that's fine with me.



Obviously. But if for whatever reason one were to conclude that killing and eating pigs is unethical, then clearly it is just as important to get other people to stop killing and eating pigs.

And it's not a question of enforcing ones moral code. It's a question of philosophically thinking through and debating what would best constitute a "moral code" (some form of consequentialism perhaps), and mutually agreeing upon that. This was what I was forlornly attempting to do in this thread. Instead people have no interest in discussing ethics at all, but what most benefits them. :rolleyes:



However, some Jews have a much more brutal way of preparing animals which amounts to torture. I refuse to condem them for their moral code, since they believe it is what God has said is right for the human race. Neither do I subscribe to it.



You ought to condemn them. Ideally we all ought to stand up and condemn those that act in a despicable unethical manner. Torturing mammals is one of them.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well no, it's if you assume any form of morality whatsoever. But you don't, so there's nothing to discuss. Actually the correct answer is that I do, but you're unwilling to engage in an honest exchange of ideas.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And it's not a question of enforcing ones moral code. It's a question of philosophically thinking through and debating what would best constitute a "moral code" (some form of consequentialism perhaps), and mutually agreeing upon that. This was what I was forlornly attempting to do in this thread. Instead people have no interest in discussing ethics at all, but what most benefits them. :rolleyes: You say you want to discuss the basis for a moral code, and then offhandedly reject any discussion of utility. You have been completely unreceptive to discussion about what would best constitute a moral code other than your own. If someone holds a different view, it's "perverted".

[Acrimonious]

So if we are to eat meat guilt free we have to accept that moral consideration need only apply to ourselves. In that case why isn't it okay to torture a pig with a hot poker? Or do you think it is?

Or is it that animals are due some moral consideration but not as much as us. If they are due some...why are they?

I agree with this statement. I'm perfectly fine with eating meat. There is evolutional precedent for me eating meat. If you want to get religious, there's Biblical precedent for me eating meat.

It is up to the Animal Rights groups to prove that A) Animals have rights, and B) One of those rights is that animals have the right not to be food.

Even if they manage to convince the world that animals have the right not to be eaten, they are still stuck with the fact that modern agricultural machinery murders millions of animals per year. Millions of animals more than the ones specifically raised to be food.

If livestock have the right not to be slaughtered painlessly and eaten, why don't other animals have the right not to be cut to bloody ribbons in a combine?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well no, it's if you assume any form of morality whatsoever. But you don't, so there's nothing to discuss.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually the correct answer is that I do, but you're unwilling to engage in an honest exchange of ideas.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And it's not a question of enforcing ones moral code. It's a question of philosophically thinking through and debating what would best constitute a "moral code" (some form of consequentialism perhaps), and mutually agreeing upon that. This was what I was forlornly attempting to do in this thread. Instead people have no interest in discussing ethics at all, but what most benefits them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You say you want to discuss the basis for a moral code, and then offhandedly reject any discussion of utility. You have been completely unreceptive to discussion about what would best constitute a moral code other than your own. If someone holds a different view, it's "perverted".

But we have nothing to discuss. You have laid out your "ethics" which simply extends to anything which directly or indirectly impinges upon you; and only that. So you take into consideration the welfare of others, be it your immediate family, your country, or the whole human race, only in as much that if you do not, then there might be undesirable consequences for yourself. So it's a purely selfish "ethical code" you subscribe to. You do not care and are not interested in the suffering of conscious beings whose existence cannot impinge upon your own. Presumably, if you could get away with the perfect crime, you would do so because it would benefit you, yet there would be no chance of getting caught.

This is not ethics in my book, and if you genuinely feel this way then there is nothing to discuss. If you care absolutely nothing about the pig's suffering, its fear, its unhappiness and furthermore you don't think you should care then there's nothing I can say, because in my book ethics extends beyond the consideration of ones self into the consideration of others. Not because the way I treat them will effect the way they will treat me (although obviously this plays a role), but because their welfare is of intrinsic concern.

Actually, I was just going to post the above, and I read it and I thought I'm making myself out to be much more of a good person than I actually am! I eat loads of fish and chicken (although very little red meat), I'm rude to people, I like to deliberately wind people up. Basically I'm a decent person as a whole, but I'm far from perfect!

Hmmmm . .come to think of it, my behaviour as a whole is of such a nature (being rude for eg) that it actually is often disadvantageous to me in my dealings with other people, rather than benefits me. So, as you can see, I do not subscribe to your "ethical" system! LOL

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Acrimonious


I agree with this statement. I'm perfectly fine with eating meat. There is evolutional precedent for me eating meat. If you want to get religious, there's Biblical precedent for me eating meat.

It is up to the Animal Rights groups to prove that A) Animals have rights, and B) One of those rights is that animals have the right not to be food.

Even if they manage to convince the world that animals have the right not to be eaten, they are still stuck with the fact that modern agricultural machinery murders millions of animals per year. Millions of animals more than the ones specifically raised to be food.

If livestock have the right not to be slaughtered painlessly and eaten, why don't other animals have the right not to be cut to bloody ribbons in a combine?

The concept of "rights" is an extremely obscure one. No-one has mentioned rights apart from you. We might argue against indifference to animal welfare from the ethical position of utilitarianism for example. Utilitarianists do not concern themselves with rights. Utilitarianism means simply the maximisation of happiness (it might or might not extend that to animals as well as humans). Not that I'm personally a utilitarianist, although in practise my position may turn out to be rather similar.

[Acrimonious]

Ok, Ian, I'll put it another way:

Why is slaughtering animals to eat them unethical?

Why is slaughtering millions more animals as a side-effect of modern agricultural methods of harvesting grain more ethical?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Acrimonious
Ok, Ian, I'll put it another way:

Why is slaughtering animals to eat them unethical?

Why is slaughtering millions more animals as a side-effect of modern agricultural methods of harvesting grain more ethical?

We cannot address the question of whether it is unethical to kill animals until we answer the prior one, namely ought we to have any concern over animal welfare at all?. In other words, in proposing an ethical system, should animal welfare be entered into the equation? Even if it does enter into the equation, it does not necessarily follow from that that we ought not to kill animals for food. You see, many arguments then come into play, and this discussion can get off the ground! But as it is most people are saying that animal welfare should not play any role whatsoever in our ethics! :eek: We ought to have no concern with animal suffering whatsoever. If people hold that then this somewhat kills the debate doesn't it?

[Acrimonious]

We cannot address the question of whether it is unethical to kill animals until we answer the prior one, namely ought we to have any concern over animal welfare at all?

False Dilemma.

You are treating this issue as if there are only two real options. No concern, or some concern.

You conveniently ignore the fact that simply by answering my questions in a manner that implies animals deserve even the tiniest amount of ethical treatment, a person would no longer need to consider the "NONE AT ALL" stance.

Obviously Some > None.


How would you go about deciding animal welfare deserves absolutely no concern at all, anyway? Wouldn't you have to go through all the hypotheticals and answer "No" to them first?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But as it is most people are saying that animal welfare should not play any role whatsoever in our ethics! :eek:


Most people ? Who? Where ?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So you take into consideration the welfare of others, be it your immediate family, your country, or the whole human race, only in as much that if you do not, then there might be undesirable consequences for yourself. So it's a purely selfish "ethical code" you subscribe to. You do not care and are not interested in the suffering of conscious beings whose existence cannot impinge upon your own. I don't think anyone is ever motivated by other than selfish concerns. I bet you don't care about the suffering of beings of which you are not aware. You only care because you are aware, and it makes you feel bad. Stopping the suffering makes you feel better. Selfish. You only follow your ethical code becasue you thing it benefits you to do so. Yes, that's greatly oversimplified. but I'm tiring of this.

I think much of our aversion to animal suffering is anthropomorphized empathy, due to our living lives almost totally out of touch with the reality of nature. Contrary to your assertion, however, I do have compassion, and hate to see suffering, even in animals. Still, if I have to endure the sight of suffering to protect humanity, my ethics say I should. (I'm speaking more broadly than simply meat) It holds our survival and prosperity as higher goals the the prevention of painfull death for animals (which is the natural way of things, anyway).

In the long run, I think this is a better basis for morality, and will, I think, also lead to less overall suffering than simply fixating on the obvious, notorious suffering of certain individual beings. I don't think it's less compassionate, just less unrealistic. That said, I'm leaving this discussion. I don't see it going anywhere.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I don't think anyone is ever motivated by other than selfish concerns. I bet you don't care about the suffering of beings of which you are not aware. You only care because you are aware, and it makes you feel bad. Stopping the suffering makes you feel better. Selfish. You only follow your ethical code becasue you thing it benefits you to do so. Yes, that's greatly oversimplified. but I'm tiring of this.

I think much of our aversion to animal suffering is anthropomorphized empathy, due to our living lives almost totally out of touch with the reality of nature. Contrary to your assertion, however, I do have compassion, and hate to see suffering, even in animals. Still, if I have to endure the sight of suffering to protect humanity, my ethics say I should. (I'm speaking more broadly than simply meat) It holds our survival and prosperity as higher goals the the prevention of painfull death for animals (which is the natural way of things, anyway).

In the long run, I think this is a better basis for morality, and will, I think, also lead to less overall suffering than simply fixating on the obvious, notorious suffering of certain individual beings. I don't think it's less compassionate, just less unrealistic. That said, I'm leaving this discussion. I don't see it going anywhere.
Yeah, that's a good way of putting it, sort of like Azimov's Laws of Robotics

Zeroth Law - Humans must do all that they can to protect humanity.
First Law - Humans must do all that they can to protect individual humans, inasmuch as it does not conflict with the Zeroth Law.
Second Law - Humans must do all that they can to protect creatures that are like us inasmuch as it does not conflict with the first two laws.
Third Law - Humans must do all that they can to protect creatures that are unlike us inasmuch as it does not conflict with the first three laws.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I'm serious meditation doesn't exist! Prove me wrong! Any evidence that can withstand hard-core skeptical debunking!? I didn't think so! Nothing exists unless if it has been proven by science!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Acrimonious

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We cannot address the question of whether it is unethical to kill animals until we answer the prior one, namely ought we to have any concern over animal welfare at all?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



False Dilemma.

You are treating this issue as if there are only two real options. No concern, or some concern.



{Shrugs}

I'm afraid that's all the options there are matey.



You conveniently ignore the fact that simply by answering my questions in a manner that implies animals deserve even the tiniest amount of ethical treatment, a person would no longer need to consider the "NONE AT ALL" stance.

Obviously Some > None.



I'm sorry, your sentence conveys no meaning to me. Are you disputing the fact that either we ought to have some concern over animal welfare, or we ought not to have some concern over animal welfare? I do not understand any "middle" position. Please explain to me.


How would you go about deciding animal welfare deserves absolutely no concern at all, anyway?


Well, this is what my opponents are arguing. Ask them . . or . . better still . . . ask yourself since you are disagreeing with me :rolleyes:

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Skeptics: You can debunk anything you put your natural selection made material minds to!!!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

The unscientific disproved notion of something existing beyond material matter is outside of reality and sanity! – mother f**king science

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I don't think anyone is ever motivated by other than selfish concerns.



I emphatically disagree. I do, however, think that a lot of people think this way.




I bet you don't care about the suffering of beings of which you are not aware.



Indeed I don't "care" as in an emotional empathy.




You only care because you are aware, and it makes you feel bad. Stopping the suffering makes you feel better. Selfish. You only follow your ethical code becasue you thing it benefits you to do so. Yes, that's greatly oversimplified. but I'm tiring of this.



I feel "bad" if some conscious being is suffering, and I could easily have done something about it. But to claim that one always acts "ethically" because it makes one feel good, or to avoid bad feelings, is to apply an extremely crass interpretation on ones behaviour.

As I mentioned, I sometimes act in a way to deliberately annoy people. I might be rude, or I might even try to wind people up. Because of this, and because I am fairly contemptuous of the everyday preoccupations of "normal" people, I am not well liked by a lot of people. I emphasise this so that you will appreciate that I don't get pleasure from acting in a way which I consider to be ethical because of the approval of other people. Perhaps, you would argue, I get some sort of self-satisfaction from acting ethically anyway? All that I can say is that it certainly doesn't seem so. I act ethically, in certain contexts (because I certainly don't act ethically all the time) because of ineffable reasons. Basically it's instinctual. But not in a sense of an evolutionary trait (or at least I don't believe so), but because of an innate sense of rightness and goodness. Even though no one will ever know if I acted in a wholly altruistic way, I might well do so anyway. And no feeling of smugness would accompany this altruistic act. Rather my behaviour in this context would be an expression of what I intrinsically am. To sum up, I would basically say I am a nice person, but not in the stereotypical sense. People have to get to know me to appreciate my "niceness" and soul, but in practise people don't see past surface appearances :(




I think much of our aversion to animal suffering is anthropomorphized empathy, due to our living lives almost totally out of touch with the reality of nature. Contrary to your assertion, however, I do have compassion, and hate to see suffering, even in animals. Still, if I have to endure the sight of suffering to protect humanity, my ethics say I should. (I'm speaking more broadly than simply meat) It holds our survival and prosperity as higher goals the the prevention of painfull death for animals (which is the natural way of things, anyway).



Well now you're changing your story! :) You do care about animal welfare, but human interests should always dictate our actions. You recognise this is a slightly different position you previously adopted? ;)

[Jessica Blue]

Tricky didn't answer my questions. Too sticky Tricky...?

I think this question of moral relativism is really important. It's true no-one can prove the existence of an absolute morality, but unless we are to accept all kinds of bizarre and destructive *moralities* as valid we have to work on the assumption that there is such a thing a right and wrong. Since it's not written in the sky the only way we can reach ethical conclusions is by rational thought, philosophical debate and consensus.

Should we just say, like Tricky, "its okay for certain religious folk to practice cruelty because their religious beliefs demand it" ?Wouldn't we then logically have to say, it's okay for people with certain beliefs to stone women to death or even "Nazism is okay because to the Nazis it's okay" or should we foster the idea that ethics should transcend culture...that right and wrong exists, even though there's no way to prove it?

Pretty difficult.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I myself see the question as rather easy to answer with a "no."

That is because for me questions or value are completely dependent on the composition of the mind/brain making the judgment. It's all just chemical reactions telling a brain what it likes or dislikes, (how to get it I put into a different category). Wolves, gorillas, cows and humans all value different things and different lives more then others. This is because their genes and environments have given them physically different types of brains. And since our brain is the only cause for any action or judgment we make, it is ultimately the final authority on this matter.


So basically then in short all lives are not equal to me, to society (a collection of organisms) or all life forms.

What you do value depends on genes and environment, and our genes/environment simply do not prorgram us to see life forms as equal.


Now this is not relativism, more like an objective situationalism. This is because I am not saying values are mere social constructs (made up ex nihilo via a random choice), nor meaningless (whatever that would mean). Nor am I saying all ethical statements are equally true, as the physical/psychological characterstics of the organism in question determine what the organism values, and those are real, material things.

I am simply saying that what drives an organism must be something in its physical make-up (genes or environment), values can be listed under something that drives an organism, so values are determined by how our brains/physical make-up is structured.

And different brains will simply value some things more highly then others, including life forms. For me these life forms are first friends/family, then people I admire or see as good for society, then people I like, then humans I don't know, then animals of various kinds, all the way down to bacteria (which I don't care about at all). Of course favoritism plays a role here, as I care about my dog more then other animals and perhaps even strangers.

A psychopath, genetically inclined to be callous, might not care about anyone, for him other life could have no value. And an intelligent ant, may care about all members of his colony equally, but not about those outside it at all.

It's all simply a matter of our genes and our memes.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Tricky didn't answer my questions. Too sticky Tricky...?

I think this question of moral relativism is really important. It's true no-one can prove the existence of an absolute morality, but unless we are to accept all kinds of bizarre and destructive *moralities* as valid we have to work on the assumption that there is such a thing a right and wrong. Since it's not written in the sky the only way we can reach ethical conclusions is by rational thought, philosophical debate and consensus.

Should we just say, like Tricky, "its okay for certain religious folk to practice cruelty because their religious beliefs demand it" ?Wouldn't we then logically have to say, it's okay for people with certain beliefs to stone women to death or even "Nazism is okay because to the Nazis it's okay" or should we foster the idea that ethics should transcend culture...that right and wrong exists, even though there's no way to prove it?

Pretty difficult.
Sorry about not answering sooner, JB.

It is a difficult question. Of course, moral relativism means that things we find abhorrant, like cannibalism and Nazi death camps, would be acceptable under other moral codes. I have to fall back on the old question of "is it good for humanity". In the question of Nazi death camps, I have to say it absolutely is not. In fact, so not-good for humanity that I would feel obliged to try to stop the practice for the benefit of humanity.

On the other hand, I don't object to the killing of certain humans (like Hitler) who are definately bad for humanity, in my judgment. Moral relativism does not mean I have no moral code, merely that I recognize other moral codes. I think that attitude promotes discussion before bloodshed, but not absolutely ruling out the possibility that I might try to enforce my moral code on others.

In the case of Kosher meat preparation, I cannot say that it has a severe impact on humanity. I believe that the rabbis (and others?) who oversee this practice do respect the life they are taking (with great religious ceremony) but feel that their method is necessary to please their god. My moral code would object to this as useless torture, but not so much I feel that I would have the duty to stop them from doing it.

Being an atheist, I find most religious ceremony to be pointless, but I believe that most religious dietary restrictions were based on health reasons. Pigs carried trichinosis. Meat kept longer if bled first. Now that those reasons are gone, I cannot see any good reason to keep the restrictions, but again, I am not about to start a religious war over it. Though we might spare some animal pain, the overall cost to humanity would not be worth it. However, I heartily approve of lobbying to change these "rules". I know a number of Jews who reject them outright.

By the way, in case you think I am some sort of heartless monster, I am a regular contributer and occasional volunteer with the Special Pals, a group that tries to minimize euthanization of pets by finding them homes, though I admit that most of my charitable donations go to human causes.
----
Edited to add:
BTW. Probably the most brutal meat industry in the US is the poultry industry. I have been inside slaughterhouses and I can say without reservation that chickens are tortured more than cows or pigs. Of course, being less closely related to humans, we tend not to worry as much about their suffering. And yes, I still eat poultry.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I believe Tricky makes some excellent points for the above. Ultimately the codes are situational, but that does not make them relative (in the postmodernist sense) but based on varying objective properties. It all depends on the nature of the organism in question. In the case of man, certain acts are better for the welfare of mankind and certain acts are worse. This basically holds because humans, despite all their superficial differences, tend to share the same fundamental values via our evolved biology.

I myself in many ways think this likewise comes down to a similiar morality, even for the Nazis.

The Nazis for example never said in their propoganda things like "Kill Jews for fun", or "Genocide is fashionable."

Nobody would support that. Instead they had to work around, and distort an already present moral system.

Thus they said "Jews are not human", "Jews will harm us", "Getting rid of Jews would make us rich and happy" and "It is a mission from God."

And those claims would be a lot stronger, IF they were true. If human character was determined by race, and IF there was a race of people literally out to get me, to destroy and enslave me and those I care for, I'd advocate some precautions as well. Especially if Utopia and God were at stake.

But the problem is the Nazi's issue was not true, making the problem a cognitive issue, not an emotive. And the emotive standard is ultimately the element I appeal to when discussing morality, as I find it identical to values. What helps me avoid extreme relativism on this issue is the fact that many of mankind's basic emotions are pretty similiar (nobody likes being cheated, we all feel pain when shot, and we all grieve when we lose a loved one, or almost all of us do to be more accurate), what tends to differ imo, is cognition, and how we try to thus satisfy what values we have.

Note, that I do recognize differences in personality, but that is usually a matter of degree, not kind. And with regards to that I still think certain fundamentals tend to remain the same, i.e. nobody really likes being deprived of food, being opressed or being murdered.

If you could show that all Hitler's and the Nazi Party's claims were factually wrong, I doubt many people would have been Nazis.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
If you could show that all Hitler's and the Nazi Party's claims were factually wrong, I doubt many people would have been Nazis.
I'd like to believe this is true, but knowing humans, I'm betting there would still have been Nazis. After all, Jesse Owens pretty much demolished Hitler's "master race" theory at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, but it didn't stop WWII from occurring.

[Dorian Gray]

!Xx+- Rational -+xX! - Do me a favor and go to this forum, using your amazing skeptical religion powers, and argue with RedjunkOpera, who is an antagonistic contrarian.
http://forums.crgaming.com/eqbb/viewtopic.php?t=90862&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=225

I would be interested in seeing which debate tactic prevailed.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Tricky

I'd like to believe this is true, but knowing humans, I'm betting there would still have been Nazis. After all, Jesse Owens pretty much demolished Hitler's "master race" theory at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, but it didn't stop WWII from occurring.

Well I'm not so sure that others so much kept doing even though they knew the claims of Hitler were false. More likely they just simply didn't believe people like Jesse Owens. More likely still, they didn't even listen to him. For them that was easier, and the issue thus seems to remain a matter of cognition. If they had believed Jesse Owens, and admitted that Jews are people, that Jews were not responsible for their problems, that no God wanted Jews harmed and that killing Jews would get them nothing: I doubt history would have remained the same.

I bet if you asked any of them "What if the Jews were just ordinary people, and racist theories were not true, just hypothetically what IF, would you support laws against them as a group?"

Most would likely say "no." They have the same basic values then, just different beliefs (most of them.)


Basically when questions of value and faith are at stake, people will sooner dismiss an argument then change their beliefs, if such is more conveniant. By conveniant, I mean not only painful on the emotional level, but contradicting many strongly held beliefs.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Tricky
It is up to the Animal Rights groups to prove that A) Animals have rights, and B) One of those rights is that animals have the right not to be food.I don't think it's a question of animal rights so much as animal interests. It's easy to show animals have interests, so then the question becomes "is it ethical to show consideration for those interests"?

Since we already do show consideration for animals to some extent [there are laws against cruelty, etc.]we must think it is. So if we recognize they have interests and think it's ethical to show consideration for those interests, why do we eat them and deny them the most important interest of all....their animal life? Because they taste good and they're a source of protein. But other, vegetarian foods taste good and are a source of protein too so we dont need to eat them....we could choose not to and survive quite well. We eat them because we want to.

So, we pull the plug on consideration for an animals interests when those interests begin to interfere with our own desires. I think Stephen Law is probably right when he says this is ethically indefensible, in the strictest sense, but it wont stop me eating meat. He has made me think about it though.


Even if they manage to convince the world that animals have the right not to be eaten, they are still stuck with the fact that modern agricultural machinery murders millions of animals per year. Millions of animals more than the ones specifically raised to be food.
I didn't consider that, wasn't even aware of it and it's a good point. It does seems hypocritical to jump and down about eating animals when so many die as a result of farming practices. That might give us a *moral out* on the meat eating issue, except that a purely meat diet would be unhealthy so it's not like we'd stop the farming by continuing to eat meat. Though I suppose farming would increase if we all suddenly became vegetarians [thinking about it]. Perhaps it would be ethically sound to improve farming practices to minimize harm AND stop eating meat.[dont ask me how]

Originally posted by Tricky
By the way, in case you think I am some sort of heartless monster, I am a regular contributer and occasional volunteer with the Special Pals, a group that tries to minimize euthanization of pets by finding them homes, though I admit that most of my charitable donations go to human causes.Lol, I never thought you were a heartless monster. And just in case you think I'm a self-sacrificing animal defender with exemplary morals...I'm not.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by DialacticMaterialist
That is because for me questions or value are completely dependent on the composition of the mind/brain making the judgment. It's all just chemical reactions telling a brain what it likes or dislikes, (how to get it I put into a different category). Wolves, gorillas, cows and humans all value different things and different lives more then others. This is because their genes and environments have given them physically different types of brains. And since our brain is the only cause for any action or judgment we make, it is ultimately the final authority on this matter. Bertrand Russell once said ethics is like a spectrum of colours on a rainbow....and some people see more colours than others. What I wonder though, is, does the rainbow really exist at all...or is it just a by-product of human consciousness?

In mathematics we try to work things out and come up with right or wrong answers. Does mathematics exist apart from humans? Is it a thing which is "out there" independent of us, though we have given it a language?

In morality we try to work things out but the conclusions are not so precise. Are there right and wrong answers to ethical questions and does morality exist outside of us? I can't imagine how, but I feel there are right and wrong answers to ethical questions, with morality rather like a puzzle we are always trying to unravel...yet how could there be if we just "invented" it?

[stumped]

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
I don't think it's a question of animal rights so much as animal interests. It's easy to show animals have interests, so then the question becomes "is it ethical to show consideration for those interests"?

Since we already do show consideration for animals to some extent [there are laws against cruelty, etc.]we must think it is. So if we recognize they have interests and think it's ethical to show consideration for those interests, why do we eat them and deny them the most important interest of all....their animal life? Because they taste good and they're a source of protein. But other, vegetarian foods taste good and are a source of protein too so we dont need to eat them....we could choose not to and survive quite well. We eat them because we want to.
This is true, and my defense of meat-eating is partially motivated by my taste for meat. I might also put in though, that although it is possible to survive on a non-meat diet, it would make many humans unhappy to do so. I count human happiness as another thing about which I am a specist. I care about animal interests, but not as much so as human interests.

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
I didn't consider that, wasn't even aware of it and it's a good point. It does seems hypocritical to jump and down about eating animals when so many die as a result of farming practices. That might give us a *moral out* on the meat eating issue, except that a purely meat diet would be unhealthy so it's not like we'd stop the farming by continuing to eat meat. Though I suppose farming would increase if we all suddenly became vegetarians [thinking about it]. Perhaps it would be ethically sound to improve farming practices to minimize harm AND stop eating meat.[dont ask me how]
It is indeed a good point, and not one that I had considered. Under my system of morals, rodents and such are not as close in my interest as animals more like ourselves, though I make an exception for flying squirrels. (I used to have a dear pet flying squirrel. I still miss him.) Still, they are mammals, and closer to us than any member of the plant kingdom, thus, by my system, I ought to care about them more. Damn, this is complicated!

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Lol, I never thought you were a heartless monster. And just in case you think I'm a self-sacrificing animal defender with exemplary morals...I'm not.
Well, surely your virginity gives you extra points on the morality scoreboard. ;)

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Bertrand Russell once said ethics is like a spectrum of colours on a rainbow....and some people see more colours than others. What I wonder though, is, does the rainbow really exist at all...or is it just a by-product of human consciousness?

In mathematics we try to work things out and come up with right or wrong answers. Does mathematics exist apart from humans? Is it a thing which is "out there" independent of us, though we have given it a language?

In morality we try to work things out but the conclusions are not so precise. Are there right and wrong answers to ethical questions and does morality exist outside of us? I can't imagine how, but I feel there are right and wrong answers to ethical questions, with morality rather like a puzzle we are always trying to unravel...yet how could there be if we just "invented" it?

[stumped]


To somewhat illlustrate how I think the above is somewhat like a false dillemma, we should look into the concept of pleasure and pain.

If someone were to for example, ask if pleasure and pain were real, absolute things existing apart from consciousness, or mere inventions, I would be very puzzled, as would most of us.

That is because we easily recognize that pleasure and pain neither exist apart from humans, but that it was also not invented by humans. It was inherited by humans via our evolution.


I think the same is true for morality. I do not think morals exist apart from humans like a rainbow, I can't even see such an ideal as coherent. To me that means morals would have to be agent independent, like a sort of ether, and we have no evidence of such an ether at all.

That is where the flaw with comparing morals to math lies, we do see quantitative relationships in nature, in respect to non-living objects, and rules that apply universally. We do not unfortunately see the same for morals.


That being said, I don't discount the objective basis for morality entirely. I do think there is an objective standard to it all, but it is not something outside us, instead it is something intrinsic to us.


To make an analogy, with regards to health and pleasure; these are all agent dependent goals. And there are agent dependent objects/processes like brain mechanisms and genetics. They are part of humanity, and dependent on its composition but not invented.

And because they are based on physical composition, we can apply objective standards to issues regarding such things. We can say for example, which diets are more or less healthy. We can say, which type of brain is working, and can thus percieve objects correctly and which type of brain is damaged and thus prone to delusion, like those of schizophrenics.

In this regards, we can say, given what moral and ethical norms we're predisposed to given our genes, and our common biology (as well as environments), certain rules, actions, character, and practices are better then others. Certain acts violate our intrinsic morals in fundamental ways, and certain acts satisfy them in fundamental ways.

Given this model morals can be seen as normative, emotive mechanisms. Evaluative information.

And this means that the door is wide open on the issue of how we try to satisfy these emotions. That is where cognition comes in, i.e. what we believe about the world. And that imo, provides a satisfactory explanation for why we vary in our moral practices.

Why some for example will see dying for Allah in a suicide attack as wise, and others see it as foolish.

To absolutists and extrinsic objectivists, this is simply a matter of not seeing enough of the rainbow. But why they are not seeing enough remains a matter of question. As does whether there confusion comes more from a lack of caring about morality, or a lack of knowledge of what morals are. Given that model, we can't even decide if morals are a matter of cognition i.e. fact (what is true) or value (what we feel.)

All such questions cannot be answered until such a "rainbow" or objective moral ether is found, and so far we have not found such a thing.

My explanation though would be that we differ not in our basic morals, but what we believe. We all thus see the same rainbow, we just differ in how we all try to get to the top.


The Muslims believe that doing what they did helped serve a being named Allah. And punish evil imperialist, satanic agents who have intentionally harmed there people in service of evil spirits. Their rewards for this act is 72 virgins, helping their people and serving justice. To any man, that would sound like a good deal, IF it were true. And as for the people who died, they are victims of war that go to an afterlife, i.e. where they deserve to go anyways. Would any many man refuse the above IF it were true?

I doubt it.

But the problem is it isn't true. Their beliefs are false. It's not that we want radically different things, or have a different intrinsic moral sense, but that we have different beliefs, which causes us to serve our moral sense in different ways.


Now I'm not saying there are no gray areas. Or that there is no variation in moral sense. A good example of a gray area is whether or not vengeance is acceptable. Many strongly feel it is a powerful corner stone for justice, many feel that it is a barbaric standard left over from an archaic time.

To many this may not be so much a matter of knowledge i.e. statistics and facts, as it is a matter of basic preference. A preference set by genes and environment.

Sulloway for example has shown that attitudes toward this issue may be influenced by birth order for example. It seems as though first born people, more prone to being authoritarian and tough minded tend to be more inf avor of the death penalty and latter borns, more prone to rebelion and being tender minded, tend to more likely be against it. For me the rainbow model cannot make sense of this. We cannot for example say who is closer to the rainbow. But the intrinsic objectivist model can, as the people may just have different brain structures. And thus finding the right answer is a matter not of getting more statistics on vengeance, philosophical speculation, finding a rainbow but studying people's brains, to see what punishment would literally satisfy the moral senses of the majority more often.

I also think though that along with the gray areas there are areas of obvious good and bad for almost all people, and that disagreement here is over what we believe, not what we value.

Almost all will agree for example that killing innocent people under normal circumstances (barring war and such) is wrong, destroying societie's rescources for no reason is wrong, being lied to for malicious/selfisg reasons is wrong, genocide is wrong, etc.

The confusion is not about, is the harming of those person's wrong, but about whether we are harming people. Whether the circumstances are normal (will an omnipotent deity punish us for not doing so), and whether the act occurs as reported.


So to reply to the question of whether morals are independent, and absolute or inventions, I say "neither".

They are not independent because they are intrinsic (like genes, neurons, anatomy), but they are also not inventions like agriculture, religion, and creationism.


Studying morals then can be done, but not in the same way as math, biology and astronomy is. More like in the way anatomy, psychology, human genetics and neurology is. As an objective enterprise, not set apart from, but determined by the human condition.

[Schizobunny]

I am a vegetarian, but I believe that killing an animal to eat it or using an animal for medical and pharmicutical reasons is alright, but I don't agree with using an animal for frivolous reasons such as cosmetics, cleaning products, etc. is unfair and wrong.

[Jessica Blue]

DialM,

I think the same is true for morality. I do not think morals exist apart from humans like a rainbow, I can't even see such an ideal as coherent. To me that means morals would have to be agent independent, like a sort of ether, and we have no evidence of such an ether at all. I see that problem too. I'm just speculating...I cannot conceive of where morality could come from, if not from us, either. You're right, there's no evidence at all for an independent morality.

Is morality just a pysiological response from the brain then..like pain or pleasure? What is it responding to? Part of the survival instinct I suppose...complex beings require complex systems of living.

So if humans cease to exist *right and wrong* cease to exist too. Because we give morality meaning it exists, without us it wouldn't, just as pleasure and pain would cease to exist if there were no living entity to experience it. Yet, if humans ceased to exist wouldn't 2 and 2 still make 4 even though we weren't there to articulate it and draw meaning from it? I know mathematics and morality are very different but if mathematics can exist without us when seemingly we are the only creatures to make sense of it, why not morality? Morality seems to have have objective properties in as much as we seem to recognize wrong moralities which harm us.

Or would 2 and 2 still make 4 without us? Did we invent mathematics or did we just discover it and give it a language? When we perform a mathematical calculation are we exploring a realm of numbers which is *out there* or is maths and its truths just made by us? Maths does seem to measure accurately how things stand *out there*. Is it at all possible that we could have *discovered* morality and given it a language even though we can't measure it's truth in the same way as mathematics? I'm not saying it is, I'm just asking the question.

make an analogy, with regards to health and pleasure; these are all agent dependent goals. And there are agent dependent objects/processes like brain mechanisms and genetics. They are part of humanity, and dependent on its composition but not invented.

And because they are based on physical composition, we can apply objective standards to issues regarding such things. We can say for example, which diets are more or less healthy

So we can proscribe moralities which are good for us, objectively, like healthy diets.


It's not that we want radically different things, or have a different intrinsic moral sense, but that we have different beliefs, which causes us to serve our moral sense in different ways. I agree. And I also agree that if some of us dont see as many colours on the ethical spectrum as others it may be just because we haven't had them illuminated to us.


Sulloway for example has shown that attitudes toward this issue may be influenced by birth order for example. It seems as though first born people, more prone to being authoritarian and tough minded tend to be more inf avor of the death penalty and latter borns, more prone to rebelion and being tender minded, tend to more likely be against it. For me the rainbow model cannot make sense of this. We cannot for example say who is closer to the rainbow. But the intrinsic objectivist model can, as the people may just have different brain structures.And thus finding the right answer is a matter not of getting more statistics on vengeance, philosophical speculation, finding a rainbow but studying people's brains, to see what punishment would literally satisfy the moral senses of the majority more often.But what if we did such a study and it turned out the moral senses of the majority favoured vengeful torture as punishment? After all, the question of vengeance is not like me liking the colour blue and you not liking it...it has ethical ramifications which reach beyond personal preference.

It's hard to accept that right or wrong answers to ethical questions should hinge on the moral sensibilities of the majority. Wouldn't it be fair to say that the moral senses of the majority at one time in history were satisfied that say, slavery was ethical or leaving people to languish in the stocks was ethical? If that's true and I think it is, then we already know that the moral senses of the majority can be horribly fallible so we can't use that as a reliable source from which to draw ethical conclusions. I dont see why some ethical questions should be tackled through reason and others through measuring moral senses??

Our moral sense, or rather how we use our moral sense, as you said earlier, depends in large part on our beliefs. We aren't born with ethical insight, we learn it and as a species we keep on learning it and transforming it. If we find an ethical standard wanting we can reject it and hopefully improve upon it, so whether an independent morality exists or not, it's only through human tools like reason, experience, knowledge that we can hope to come close to the right answers to ethical questions. If there ARE right answers that is. Even if we cant prove there are, would you agree we have to proceed as though there are...otherwise we're left in a relativist vacuum.