What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Brocolis]

(first of all I don’t mean to be flaming, just discuss nicely)

I guess most people here believe in the golden rule… meaning that they generally will avoid doing to others what they don’t want others doing to them.

I also guess most people here believe in evolution… meaning they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.

So I’m curious to know what you critical thinkers tell yourselves so you can conciliate the Golden Rule and the evolutionary perspective and still justify an action that will directly harm something whose only fault is in context being weaker than you?

[Professor Yaffle]

They taste nice.

[Aepervius]

prof yaffle beat me :(

And the golden rule only apply to human.

[Brocolis]

prof yaffle beat me

And the golden rule only apply to human.

how so?

[chum]

As long as the animal doesn't understand its situation — it's about to die or is being kept alive to be eaten — I don't think it matters. It's also important that other animals aren't affected by its death.

This would even apply to humans. For example, imagine you're having a nice day, walking down the street and then... nothing. A car coming from behind hits you, instantly killing you, you have absolutely no concept of your impending death and therefore it's meaningless to you — not your family and loved ones. And therefore no harm is done to the person.

[Ron_Tomkins]

What is your excuse for killing animals?

Lack of empathy and/or hunger.

[Cavemonster]

I also guess most people here believe in evolution… meaning they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.


There is something special about the human race from my perspective.

I'm a part of it.

That's where the "golden rule" and most morality comes from, they are tools to construct a society that we all participate in. Animals don't interact with out society in that way.

Now if I were to kill someone's pet, that would be messing with a human, someone part of this whole crazy fabric I have to interact with.

[I Ratant]

Up until the Chinese found that humans can eat plastic... for awhile, anyway.. humans had to eat -something-.
Animals are handy for that.
Back in the Garden, before the Fall, everything ate fruits and nuts and grass, no animals were harmed by ingestion, nor harmed each other.
Lions and lambs were the best of pals.
Then, things went to... hell, I guess... and latent carnivores turned from broccoli to brook trout and bovines for food.
Then came the Redemption, and all of that was reversed... wonnit?
I killed animals for sport. Quail, dove, duck, rabbit, deer, woodchuck, beaver, copperhead; the usual stuff for a growing boy in a normal family living in the boonies.
I will avoid killing most of everything now, it became too easy way when to go out, get the animal, bring it home, clean it, eat it...
The butcher does that for me now, I don't need no steenken' license to buy skinless chicken thighs.

[Mirrorglass]

Actually, you are making some assumptions about our positions.

I guess most people here believe in the golden rule… meaning that they generally will avoid doing to others what they don’t want others doing to them.

I don't really believe in the golden rule as more than a generally good idea. I don't like hurting others, and I know it pays to consider the well-being of others. Still, in some situations I would do unto others something I wouldn't want done to myself.

I also guess most people here believe in evolution… meaning they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.

That I believe in evolution doesn't mean I can't consider the human race to be special. It's perfectly logical to know we share ancestors with animals and still care less about the animals than other humans. The reason I don't care about animals as much is mostly that they don't have minds as effective as humans, and as such I don't consider them to have a "soul".

So I’m curious to know what you critical thinkers tell yourselves so you can conciliate the Golden Rule and the evolutionary perspective and still justify an action that will directly harm something whose only fault is in context being weaker than you?

Well, that's just it. I don't follow the Golden Rule, and even if I did, the evolutionary perspective doesn't mean all beings are equal. I don't harm something because they have faults; I harm them to gain something.

[Sledge]

Vegetables are so bland.

[shadron]

The law of nature is that carnivores eat other animals. We primates are omnivores, which does mean that we're to a greater or lesser extent meat-eaters as well, and therefore it is not against nature to kill and eat animals. With our intellect and an evolutionarily-driven sense of justice and fairness, we have become somewhat desirous of lessening that impact as a contribution to the world around us, but it is not by any means yet a requirement. Perhaps at some point in the future that will happen, we'll see it as part of the requirement of a sentient being to avoid eating other animals - perhaps. At this point, they are still in our diet and without extraordinary means are a requirement for us. There seems to be no other point in trying to deny that the world does operate as a food chain, and therefore no reason to exclude one's self from it.

[PbFoot]

Just as cats eat mice, frogs eat flies, humans will eat other more simple/less intelligent animals.

-PbFoot

[Ron_Tomkins]

The law of nature is that carnivores eat other animals. We primates are omnivores, which does mean that we're to a greater or lesser extent meat-eaters as well, and therefore it is not against nature to kill and eat animals. With our intellect and an evolutionarily-driven sense of justice and fairness, we have become somewhat desirous of lessening that impact as a contribution to the world around us, but it is not by any means yet a requirement. Perhaps at some point in the future that will happen, we'll see it as part of the requirement of a sentient being to avoid eating other animals - perhaps. At this point, they are still in our diet and without extraordinary means are a requirement for us. There seems to be no other point in trying to deny that the world does operate as a food chain, and therefore no reason to exclude one's self from it.

That is a much more succinct and eloquent way of putting it. I think nothing else needs to be said after that.

[shayes666]

In the immortal words of one Maynard James Keenan "Life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life".
I hunt to put meat in my freezer. While hunting most certainly isn't my primary source for meat, as I do buy meat from the store, it is my preferred way to acquire animal protein. I'd much rather have a freezer full of game meat, for several months, than to be continually buying meat, from numerous animals, from the slaughter house. I can literally have meat in the freezer for up to a year from one animal, say a large deer or an elk.
Also, when I say "hunt" I mean hunting for food. Not trophy hunting, not large fenced-in outfitter hunting, but boots on the ground in public woods, using my senses, tracking critters that ARE afraid of humans and are far more weary. It's not easy and is not a given that I will harvest an animal. The "success" rate is not high.

[chum]

That is a much more succinct and eloquent way of putting it. I think nothing else needs to be said after that.

No, it doesn't answer the question (most of the posts here don't). Which is: if you believe in the golden rule and assuming you believe the golden rule applies to species other than humans, how can you justify killing animals?

[shayes666]

The law of nature is that carnivores eat other animals. We primates are omnivores, which does mean that we're to a greater or lesser extent meat-eaters as well, and therefore it is not against nature to kill and eat animals. With our intellect and an evolutionarily-driven sense of justice and fairness, we have become somewhat desirous of lessening that impact as a contribution to the world around us, but it is not by any means yet a requirement. Perhaps at some point in the future that will happen, we'll see it as part of the requirement of a sentient being to avoid eating other animals - perhaps. At this point, they are still in our diet and without extraordinary means are a requirement for us. There seems to be no other point in trying to deny that the world does operate as a food chain, and therefore no reason to exclude one's self from it.

Straight and to the point. Good job!:)

[Brocolis]

The law of nature is that carnivores eat other animals

The law of nature is not an actually law. Following natural instincts is not an ethical way to live your life. You don’t rape somebody when you want sex or steal candy from a child when you are hungry. You should not kill an animal when you want to barbecue their flesh.

Well, that's just it. I don't follow the Golden Rule, and even if I did, the evolutionary perspective doesn't mean all beings are equal. I don't harm something because they have faults; I harm them to gain something.

That is a pretty good argument. Kinda selfish though :D

[I Ratant]

Watch seagulls or ravens fighting over food.
Lions chasing hyenas from their kills. (Lions are mostly scavengers.)
That's natures way.
We don't have to fight for it, mostly, is the only difference.

[Ron_Tomkins]

No, it doesn't answer the question (most of the posts here don't). Which is: if you believe in the golden rule and assuming you believe the golden rule applies to species other than humans, how can you justify killing animals?

It has nothing got to do with the Golden Rule, and if anything, what his and my answer implies is, "we don't believe in the golden rule". The Golden Rule is another made up thing by humans. Nature does not have any moral rules. If you don't believe me, just take a look at nature. Animals killing other animals out of hunger or fear of being attacked.

[Twiler]

The intellectual capacities of humans make them equipped to extend the lifetimes of animals on a large scale, via:

1. Arranging favourable living conditions.
2. Controlling the environment.
3. In the long-term, colonising other worlds.

Thus, killing animals indirectly furthers their species, by furthering humanity.

I suppose we could get the nutrients found in flesh from soy and the like, but it has been argued that this would lead to a reduction in the number of animals on earth, as their presence on farms wouldn't be required. I don't know, haven't considered it.

Anyway, I think that it may be justified from a utilitarian stance (as described above). I'd say that it may or may not contradict the golden rule, depending on whether you consider it to apply to animals, as others have suggested. Personally, I'd say that the utilitarian position is more important, as the golden rule is more of a simplification of morality, a short-cut.

[chum]

It has nothing got to do with the Golden Rule

What do you mean by "It", the question or your answers?

and if anything, what his and my answer implies is, "we don't believe in the golden rule".

Which means you can't answer the question.

The Golden Rule is another made up thing by humans. Nature does not have any moral rules. If you don't believe me, just take a look at nature. Animals killing other animals out of hunger or fear of being attacked.

Yes, this is painfully obvious.

[Wolrab]

The law of nature is not an actually law. Following natural instincts is not an ethical way to live your life. You don’t rape somebody when you want sex or steal candy from a child when you are hungry. You should not kill an animal when you want to barbecue their flesh.


That is a pretty good argument. Kinda selfish though :D
Okay. How do I keep it on the grill with it writhing in pain?
Do I just barbecue the part I want to eat?
If it dies on the grill, do I throw it all out or continue cooking it?

Many animals would have no problem eating me whether I was dead or alive. Can I barbecue them?

[John Jones]

I don't kill 'em. They're already dead when I buy them.

[Brocolis]

Many animals would have no problem eating me whether I was dead or alive. Can I barbecue them?

you are not an animal. you are a critical thinking human. and you have other options for nutrition that don't involve killing
the nature argument is just a bad argument. as civilized beings we drift away from natural instincts
but if you want level you logic with the dumber beings, feel free to do so

[shadron]

The law of nature is not an actually law. Following natural instincts is not an ethical way to live your life. You don’t rape somebody when you want sex or steal candy from a child when you are hungry.

No, it's not a legislation. It is the way that evolution has shaped our species and its ancestors, so I guess one would say that it is not a violation of nature to proceed in that manner, if you are really desirous of avoiding "law". I think following natural instincts IS an ethical way to live. Yes, we have hemmed in our behavior in some matters by our ethics, particularly in our relationships with other sentient beings, and perhaps eating meat will at some point in the future also become unethical. Again, perhaps. But it is not yet.

You should not kill an animal when you want to barbecue their flesh.You're opinion. Perhaps you are in the vanguard; perhaps not. To barbecue or not to barbecue seems to be off the point.

[Sun Countess]

I've never heard anyone apply the golden rule to animals before. How far does it extend? Should I be allowed to treat a bacterial infection or kill the wasps that get into the house?

[sphenisc]

... We primates are omnivores...

Several of us primates are herbivores... Yes, I'm trolling for colobines.

[Denver]

I read the OP as asking which supercedes the other: the law of nature or the human golden rule.

It seems like a being is obligated to the law of nature unless it can choose not to be. Animals do not seem to be able to choose not to be.

Humans can so choose. And one result of this choice is the golden rule.

Those under the law of nature are in a sort of contract with each other: each could expect to live and die by it. Those under the golden rule are also in a sort of contract with each other: they could expect others to treat them like they treat others.

However, there does not seem to be any type of contract between a being under one system, and a being under the other. A human under the golden rule has no expectation of being treated fairly under the law of nature, and an animal under the law of nature has no expectation of being treated fairly under the human golden rule.

There is no ethical duty across these two systems, and therefore no ethical dilemma eating an animal.

[JWideman]

When a tiger takes down a gazelle, do you think it has to justify its actions first?

[SonOfLaertes]

Quite simply, I feel that your perspective on the natural world is more harmful to the long term viability of natural ecosystems than the perspective of a meat-eater.

I'm sure you have heard all of these arguments before so I'm not sure where your confusion originates.

Humans evolved as an important cog in every ecosystem on earth. Animals evolved as either direct competition with us for food resource's or as a food resource in their own right. So evolution, or to be more precise adaptive flexibility, is on the side of those of us who view animals in the more traditional sense. Hunting , for instance, is the only true way to cull dangerous overpopulation in a species and ensure that the least fit to survive are culled.

Brocolis, I guess my answer could be boiled down to the answer you give to a few questions.

When you see a lioness pull down prey on an arid plain and therefore feed ravenous, growing cubs - is that wrong? Does the lioness have no right to ensure it's species survival? I would say to you that the lioness has not only a right but an obligation. And that right is but one facet of a beautiful, elegant system, a clockwork mechanism honed over geologic time to ensure the continuation of life on this planet.

And if you can see the beauty, terrible though it may be in it's parts but awe-inspiring in it's whole, than do you deny humanity's long, crucial, interwoven role in that passion play? This fact you can't honestly deny so the second question is rhetorical.

Therefore where do you draw the line, Brocolis? Do you believe that we should step in and somehow separate the carnivore's from their prey, and erase the chilling reality of the bloody, grisly feast on that arid plain? Or do you grudgingly accept that reality, and draw the line just under Homo Sapiens, and say that here, look above this line, we are the special ones, we are no longer a part of nature's grand scheme?

I believe that attitude to be dangerous. The natural way is the best way. we should seek to enhance our natural role in the ecosystem; not hold ourselves above it.

[Brocolis]

Those under the law of nature are in a sort of contract with each other: each could expect to live and die by it. Those under the golden rule are also in a sort of contract with each other: they could expect others to treat them like they treat others.

However, there does not seem to be any type of contract between a being under one system, and a being under the other. A human under the golden rule has no expectation of being treated fairly under the law of nature, and an animal under the law of nature has no expectation of being treated fairly under the human golden rule.

Social Contract is not a good way to justify killing animals. Penn&Teller did that on their PETA episode.
The premise that the protection of a social contract only extends to the people who are able to ratify it is just false. Mentally ill people(and kids) have the same protection as any normal person, yet they cannot be convicted and punished in the same way when they break the law.

[Sledge]

I'm just not seeing the problem here. We're at the top of the food chain, so we get to eat everything else. Big whoop, wanna fight about it?

[Denver]

Social Contract is not a good way to justify killing animals. Penn&Teller did that on their PETA episode.
The premise that the protection of a social contract only extends to the people who are able to ratify it is just false. Mentally ill people(and kids) have the same protection as any normal person, yet they cannot be convicted and punished in the same way when they break the law.

In your example, the social contract extends to the entire society UNDER that contact. The animal kingdom is not part of the society which agreed to the contract, and so is not under it, and puts no obligations on those that are.

[George152]

I kill them I eat them

[Brocolis]

Quite simply, I feel that your perspective on the natural world is more harmful to the long term viability of natural ecosystems than the perspective of a meat-eater.

I'm sure you have heard all of these arguments before so I'm not sure where your confusion originates.

Humans evolved as an important cog in every ecosystem on earth. Animals evolved as either direct competition with us for food resource's or as a food resource in their own right. So evolution, or to be more precise adaptive flexibility, is on the side of those of us who view animals in the more traditional sense. Hunting , for instance, is the only true way to cull dangerous overpopulation in a species and ensure that the least fit to survive are culled.

Brocolis, I guess my answer could be boiled down to the answer you give to a few questions.

When you see a lioness pull down prey on an arid plain and therefore feed ravenous, growing cubs - is that wrong? Does the lioness have no right to ensure it's species survival? I would say to you that the lioness has not only a right but an obligation. And that right is but one facet of a beautiful, elegant system, a clockwork mechanism honed over geologic time to ensure the continuation of life on this planet.

And if you can see the beauty, terrible though it may be in it's parts but awe-inspiring in it's whole, than do you deny humanity's long, crucial, interwoven role in that passion play? This fact you can't honestly deny so the second question is rhetorical.

Therefore where do you draw the line, Brocolis? Do you believe that we should step in and somehow separate the carnivore's from their prey, and erase the chilling reality of the bloody, grisly feast on that arid plain? Or do you grudgingly accept that reality, and draw the line just under Homo Sapiens, and say that here, look above this line, we are the special ones, we are no longer a part of nature's grand scheme?

I believe that attitude to be dangerous. The natural way is the best way. we should seek to enhance our natural role in the ecosystem; not hold ourselves above it.

There is nothing wrong with nature’s way per say, but we don’t live in the wild anymore. We grew above it.
Don’t you believe in human rights? Once you acknowledge that your personal pleasure should not harm others then you are out of the wild and into the civilized world. There is no reason why a man should have more rights than a woman, or a white man should have more rights than a black man, so why we stop at the human race? So why not animal rights? Where is the threshold? There is none.
Let nature be nature, but once you are in the civilized world you live without the hypocrisy of keeping your own interests above the interest of other beings who live and suffer just like you do.

In your example, the social contract extends to the entire society UNDER that contact. The animal kingdom is not part of the society which agreed to the contract, and so is not under it, and puts no obligations on those that are.

how did that make any sense?

[Denver]

Social Contract is not a good way to justify killing animals. Penn&Teller did that on their PETA episode.
The premise that the protection of a social contract only extends to the people who are able to ratify it is just false. Mentally ill people(and kids) have the same protection as any normal person, yet they cannot be convicted and punished in the same way when they break the law.

In your example, the social contract extends to the entire society UNDER that contact. The animal kingdom is not part of the society which agreed to the contract, and so is not under it, and puts no obligations on those that are.

how did that make any sense?

Your example seems like a straw man argument. We are talking about the difference between those living under the law of nature, vs those living under the golden rule. Once under either system, there are no doubt many details and exceptions made as to the rights and duties of everyone under that contract. The question I am exploring (and that I thought you were asking) is how the rights and duties under one system extends to the other. And my reply is that they do not.

[Cavemonster]

There is no reason why a man should have more rights than a woman, or a white man should have more rights than a black man, so why we stop at the human race? So why not animal rights? Where is the threshold? There is none.

So, do you ever wash your clothes, vacuum? If you do, you're killing dust mites and other small animals. If there is no threshold whatsoever, then the only acceptable lifestyle if like the Jains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism).

Is that how you live?

[JohnG]

ETA: It's remarkable how much of what I put in my original post below has already been touched on by others here while I was writing it. I guess I should have checked to see what had been posted in the last half hour before I hit Submit, but whatever, I don't want all that typing to go to waste:p:

I was once a faithful and sincere (though occasionally reluctant) vegetarian for about five years. There was no one reason why I became a vegetarian and no one reason why I went back to being a meat eater, so to get into the details of it would take too long and probably veer into derail territory. Suffice it to say that I think I can see both sides of the argument.

While I believe that vegetarians/vegans are more right than wrong in their beliefs and motivations, I also think that they have to get their stories straight when they are trying to convert others to the cause. There's a bit of contradiction in their stance that seems to boil down to this:

1. Humans, being animals themselves, have no claim to any sort of "high ground" (moral or otherwise). So saying "it's OK to eat animals because God said so" or "it's OK to eat animals that aren't as intelligent as ourselves" doesn't cut it because we are no "better" (in the cosmic scheme of things) than a chicken, cow, fish or pig.

2. Animals (i.e., animals other than the animal known as "human") eat other animals at worst as a necessary evil. Humans being the intelligent, broadminded species that they are have found alternate forms of nutrition and are no longer reliant on other animals for sustenance which means that they are morally obligated to abandon meat eating entirely.

I've found both of these arguments used side by side by vegetarians who seem blissfully unaware that there's at least a partial contradiction between the two. Are humans (in some senses, anyway) "superior" to other animals or aren't they? If they are, why can't they see that humans are in fact slowly (arguably too slowly) progressing from omnivore to herbivore? I'd argue that there is a greater proportion relative to population of vegetarians in the world than there has been in any point in history. Vegetarians who are so by choice, rather than it being forced upon them by the simple fact that there are no animals to be had. There are millions of years or evolutionary conditioning that hardwire a human's love for meat. That kind of conditioning can't be overridden across the entire species in a few decades. Many vegetarians are so simply because they don't like the taste of meat. I don't eat fish, not necessarily because of any superior morals, but simply because I hate the taste of fish, always have. There are other factors that go into my decision not to eat them, like the fact that many species are being fished into extinction as we speak, with grave consequences for the ocean's ecosystem. If I'm honest with myself though, I acknowledge that the main reason I don't eat fish is I simply don't like to, which means I don't exactly hold any superior moral high ground with my "no fish eating" stance.

If humans aren't in any way "superior" to other animals, why isn't a human eating a salmon the same "necessary evil" as a bear eating a salmon? If a bear is offered the choice between a fish and a granola bar, is it being "immoral" if it chooses the fish?

Let me be clear here, lest vegetarians think I'm some omnivore apologist: I believe that if the human race is going to evolve and prosper, it will inevitably (whether its 50 years or 500 years from now) become more or less completely vegetarian. There will come a time when our descendants will look back with disgust on us eating (cooked) meat as we do with relative disgust with our earlier ancestors who may have eaten raw carrion.

Whether the planet's ecosystem can weather our long, slow evolutionary "learning curve" from omnivore to herbivore (or some completely synthetic form of nutrition?) is another question and the sort of question that vegetarians should pragmatically focus on in the short term. In other words, they are more likely to get people on their side by talking about sustainability (e.g., tighter regulations on commercial fishing) and environmental impact in general (livestock consuming water and food that could go to people. Or the fact that cows add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere) than they are by trying to talk others into quitting their meat eating habits, uh, "cold turkey".

[Bob Blaylock]

My ancestors didn't spend thousands of years fighting their way to the top of the food chain just so that I could eat broccoli and bean sprouts.

[JJM 777]

I guess most people here believe in the golden rule…
(...)
they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that
Except that humans seem to be the _only_ species whom you can expect to follow the Golden Rule (on a good day, in a prosperous region of one of the more prosperous societies). That might be why it is so natural to think about humans only when talking about the Golden Rule.

This is quite much what I would tell myself, if it felt necessary to tell this to myself.

I don't ignore the feelings of animals, if we kill them we must do it instantly, without causing any unnecessary suffering. Hunting in the wild does not qualify as such, you shoot a bird from distance and then the bird maybe dies to its painful wounds or maybe not, and your dog maybe finds it or then not.

[lionking]

Gee the moral high ground's getting mighty crowded nowadays. I'm supposed to feel guilty about driving a car, turning on my air conditioning, owning a large TV etc, etc.

Sorry I don't have an "excuse" for eating meat, I just do it.

[jiggeryqua]

My ancestors didn't spend thousands of years fighting their way to the top of the food chain just so that I could eat broccoli and bean sprouts.

They spent thousands of years eating broccoli and bean sprouts - and meat. (I'm no vegetarian, but you should work on your juvenile aversion to vegetables, broccoli and beansprouts are excellent - factory crops are as bland as factory meat, but real vegetables are an enjoyable part of an omniverous diet).

Your ancestors (and mine) spent thousands of years domesticating animals to help grow crops, defending said crops against rapacious animals, birds and insects, grazed some of those animals on land that would not support crops (or on which they didn't have the labour to grow or protect a crop) and butchering those animals for all the useful things a carcass provides...blood and bones, hoof and horn, hide and hair, sinew and so on.

Focus on factory farming if you're concerned about animals or ethical eating. Melanie (of the brand new roller skates) used to sing "I don't eat animals, and they don't me" - but they do...or many of them would, given half a chance. You're only on top of the food chain when you're in the middle of the herd.

[ynot]

What is your excuse for swatting and/or spraying flies and other insects? If you ate them there would be some excuse. Bloody mass murderer!

What is your excuse for killing vegetables. They have feelings too y'know.

What is God’s excuse your creating life forms that have to kill other life forms to survive?

[Pup]

if you believe in the golden rule and assuming you believe the golden rule applies to species other than humans, how can you justify killing animals?

If I met a hungry tiger, I wouldn't expect it not to try to kill me.

[cyborg]

Let me be clear here, lest vegetarians think I'm some omnivore apologist: I believe that if the human race is going to evolve and prosper, it will inevitably (whether its 50 years or 500 years from now) become more or less completely vegetarian.

No, that is not inevitable at all.

There will come a time when our descendants will look back with disgust on us eating (cooked) meat as we do with relative disgust with our earlier ancestors who may have eaten raw carrion.

Disgust is cultural as such is flexible.

It's our attitudes to death - the sanitation and denial of it - that probably contribute to this attitude. Not anything fundamental about human nature since it's not a universal attitude and reflects a Western cultural bias.

Or the fact that cows add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere) than they are by trying to talk others into quitting their meat eating habits, uh, "cold turkey".

Western Cultural bias again - the narrowness of the fauna on sale in supermarkets and the methods by which they are farmed don't all have the same implications.

There's loads of insects to eat without even having to try hard to stop them.

(Besides, this argument does pretty much say we should make cows extinct).

[GrandMasterFox]

Simple, to help the animals.

Why are the dodos extinct? Because they are not tasty.

Cows are tasty, therefore, human beings have an intrest to keep them around for a very long time.

If you don't eat your meat, it's only a matter of time till human beings will have no intrest in their protection and wipe them out.

[Soapy Sam]

(first of all I don’t mean to be flaming, just discuss nicely)

I guess most people here believe in the golden rule… meaning that they generally will avoid doing to others what they don’t want others doing to them.
By "others" I take it you mean "other humans"?


I also guess most people here believe in evolution… meaning they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.
"Dominant " species? "Our" ecosystem?



So I’m curious to know what you critical thinkers tell yourselves so you can conciliate the Golden Rule and the evolutionary perspective and still justify an action that will directly harm something whose only fault is in context being weaker than you?

Why do you feel these two suppositions require "conciliation"?
Cows are not weaker than you. Go push one over and check. If everyone on the planet becomes vegan tomorrow, every cow on the planet will be extinct next month.
But where would we stop? What gives a cow rights that a stalk of wheat does not have? Both are alive and the wheat "weaker than "the cow.

Yeasts and algae are alive too. We should stop eating mushrooms? Drinking beer?
What evolution tells me is that things eat other things. I eat cows, bacteria eat people (and most other things) and that opting out of this to satisfy a moral assumption which some people hold strongly and others reject completely makes no sense for most of the folk in the middle.

Of course any defense will appear self-serving if it comes from a meat eater. I see no way to answer the OP's question without running that risk.

[Morrigan]

They taste nice.

Why didn't the thread get locked right after this? Good enough answer. :D

The law of nature is not an actually law. Following natural instincts is not an ethical way to live your life.
- You don’t rape somebody when you want sex
- or steal candy from a child when you are hungry.
- You should not kill an animal when you want to barbecue their flesh.


Hey, one of those statements is not like the other... try to guess which.

[Staropeace]

Cows and chickens taste nice....humans are too gamey.

[Primus]

Originally Posted by Brocolis
The law of nature is not an actually law. Following natural instincts is not an ethical way to live your life.
- You don’t rape somebody when you want sex
- or steal candy from a child when you are hungry.
- You should not kill an animal when you want to barbecue their flesh.

Hey, one of those statements is not like the other... try to guess which.

Also I would be totally comfortable stealing candy from a cow,

[Trent Wray]

Cows and chickens taste nice....humans are too gamey. Some humans I've eaten have definitely been gamey. :)

[Achán hiNidráne]

you are not an animal. you are a critical thinking human.

Somebody better inform the biologists! A wimpy, squeamish, vegetarian prat has declared that humans are NOT animals.

and you have other options for nutrition that don't involve killing

Tell that to the plant. Life consumes life.

as civilized beings we drift away from natural instincts but if you want level you logic with the dumber beings, feel free to do so

Ah! The grand hypocrisy of the animal-rights retards! A pig is a dog is a boy is a mosquito is a rat is a small pox virus... but we humans are sooooooo superior to those dirty, filthy, beasts with their predation!

Tell you what, why don't you go wave a "Meat is murder" sign in front of pack of lions. I won't make me take your inane sentimentalism seriously, but I'll certainly enjoy watching you get torn limb from limb and devoured.

[Wolrab]

Until they perfect growing meat in labs I will be happy to eat what is available now, like slow cooked ribs....yum.

[Trent Wray]

The law of nature is not an actually law. Following natural instincts is not an ethical way to live your life. You don’t rape somebody when you want sex or steal candy from a child when you are hungry. You should not kill an animal when you want to barbecue their flesh. I could argue that ethics and morality are illusionary, and that no other animals exhibit the need to accuse another animal of murder, rape, or stealing. And they still enjoy their lives, feel hunger and pain, pleasure, etc and so forth.

If you could do away with ethics and morality completely to where we were not even aware of "good" and "evil" as concepts .... we could still live our lives and enjoy sex, food, play, empathy, fear, pain, etc and so forth. I don't see how rape, murder, stealing would come into the picture because we would not have the capacity to be aware of those concepts. We would just do them and move on and get over it, continuing to live our lives. Possibly.

Ethics and morality are "necessary" evils because people think they deserve to have "good" things happen to them and not bad things, and people should be held accountable for their actions. Reality, is that the universe doesn't care about what we deserve or justice being issued. I don't see other animals doing it either. Just us. I view it as a detriment, not a evolutionary benefit.

Now, don't forget that barbecued meat is an aroma pleasing to the Lord ... the Most High is a glutton for mutton.

[Grimes]

Some humans I've eaten have definitely been gamey. :)

The most dangerous gamey?

[Trent Wray]

The most dangerous gamey? Something like that ;)

Some humans taste like slightly sweet kitten, while others surprisingly taste like twice-dead road possum. Don't eat those. :)



Yes. TMI ;)

[temporalillusion]

Until they perfect growing meat in labs I will be happy to eat what is available now, like slow cooked ribs....yum.

This.

Growing meat would be much better, less space taken up, no need to grow the rest of the animal, no messy slaughter, probably much more efficient, etc...

[Juniversal]

(first of all I don’t mean to be flaming, just discuss nicely)

I guess most people here believe in the golden rule… meaning that they generally will avoid doing to others what they don’t want others doing to them.

I also guess most people here believe in evolution… meaning they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.

So I’m curious to know what you critical thinkers tell yourselves so you can conciliate the Golden Rule and the evolutionary perspective and still justify an action that will directly harm something whose only fault is in context being weaker than you?My response is inline with what JohnG says but i'm no vegitarian. Let me explain. Initially I would mention that human beings ARE animals. Also I prefer the designation "non-human animals" when refering to other non-human creatures. The humans centric view that the world revolves around us and we owe nothing to nature leaves a bad taste in my mouth. We are indeed a part of nature and as far as "mother nature" is concerned we have no greater instrinsic value then any other organmism, no matter how large or small. The natural disasters that have plagued us recently being testement to this.

Mind you I eat as much meat as any american but I don't claim it's because "we're at the top of the food chain" but that simply in the natural order of things, organisms consume others to survive. We are no different. We are food to other creatures (fly larvae consume our flesh after death, lions would make a quick meal out of us given the opportunity). Other creatures are food to us. Simple.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

They taste nice.

Whut he sed.

[dasmiller]

Some humans taste like slightly sweet kitten, while others surprisingly taste like twice-dead road possum. Don't eat those. :)


I've never tasted road-possum, let alone twice-dead road possum, so the comparison doesn't really improve my understanding.

But I suspect that's for the best.

[Achán hiNidráne]

This.

Growing meat would be much better, less space taken up, no need to grow the rest of the animal, no messy slaughter, probably much more efficient, etc...

It could even be possible to create fur and leather that way.

[I Ratant]

I've never heard anyone apply the golden rule to animals before. How far does it extend? Should I be allowed to treat a bacterial infection or kill the wasps that get into the house?
.
Think of the smallpox virus... It's been eradicated, except for a couple samples held hostage in labs!
The horror!

[Cainkane1]

Meat, shoes, leather apparel.

[Dragoonster]

I don't hold to any reasons it's immoral to kill ants, or spiders, even though I try to avoid doing so. But I am a meat-eater, and eat pigs, which are pretty damned smart. I'd also eat anything below humans--dolphin, elephant, dog, cat, if it was tasty.

This conflicts with my thinking that high sentience is the only thing which should or does/should grant other humans rights. I try to stay consistent, and particularly with an abortion argument based on sentience--for example if the state wouldn't take babies off the hands of mothers I'd support the mothers' murdering them, because the baby is not terrificly more sentient than a fetus, no more than a fetus of 7 months is terrifcly more than one at 6 months. Luckily the state does take the baby. Problem is, in my lay opinion pigs and others are still a lot more sentient than a baby.

So for further justification I just say I'm a moral subjectivist/egoist of some kind and that this "allows" me to be a hypocrite or throw out conflicting axioms if what I find moral is mostly what I find appealing. But that's not much of an excuse!

It's definitely problematic, at least for me who doesn't see anything innately unique or rights-granting about humans except for our high sentience...which of course allows us to form language which allows ourselves to declare superiority and to set morals.

[Dragoonster]

Oh, I do object to infliction of pain on any sentient being, with margin of error on the dumb side of the scale. So torturing dogs, or even insects is out.

To everyone flippantly defending eating meat or not bothering to explain why this is morally acceptable, I'm interested in why you'd object to eating human babies (if you would, to be consistent I guess I wouldn't object). Just because it's illegal or some other reason?

[Arcade22]

I am a Human supremacist. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d51a947b60.gif

[BTMO]

I shoot them. Or stick steel hooks in their mouths to drag them out of their watery world.

Or step on them. Depends what you mean by "animals".

In the case of the animals I shoot, I eat them. This includes rabbits, deer and goats. Soon, it will include ducks and other game birds. In the case of the steel hooks, I eat them. I enjoy eating fish, crustaceans and molluscs.

I step on insects and spiders as required.

I also unknowingly ingest trillions of eukaryotes of various sorts, including protists.

In the case of cows and sheep, I usually use some sort of contract killer to do my dirty work for me - farmers, butchers, supermarkets. It is just too hard to shoot these animals, and quite frankly, I don't have the freezer space to justify killing an animal that weighs several hundred kilos.

[BTMO]

Also I would be totally comfortable stealing candy from a cow,

I wouldn't. It is too easy. Try stealing meat from a dog. THAT is a challenge!

[The_Animus]

As long as the animal doesn't understand its situation — it's about to die or is being kept alive to be eaten — I don't think it matters. It's also important that other animals aren't affected by its death.

This would even apply to humans. For example, imagine you're having a nice day, walking down the street and then... nothing. A car coming from behind hits you, instantly killing you, you have absolutely no concept of your impending death and therefore it's meaningless to you — not your family and loved ones. And therefore no harm is done to the person.

This would seem to imply that if you unknowingly get killed by a car but have no loved ones or family then nothing wrong was done. Further most meat comes as a result of factory farming in which the conditions the animals are kept in it terrible.

At this point, they are still in our diet and without extraordinary means are a requirement for us. There seems to be no other point in trying to deny that the world does operate as a food chain, and therefore no reason to exclude one's self from it.

Actually we go to extraordinary means in order to supply meat products to everyone. It would require less effort, less resources, less land, less water, less just about everything if we all stopped eating meat.

The intellectual capacities of humans make them equipped to extend the lifetimes of animals on a large scale, via:

1. Arranging favourable living conditions.
2. Controlling the environment.
3. In the long-term, colonising other worlds.

Thus, killing animals indirectly furthers their species, by furthering humanity.


Really? You are proposing that us breeding, raising, and slaughtering large numbers of animals furthers their species?

We don't arrange favourable living conditions. Again, most animals for consumption are raised under factory farm conditions, which are usually extremely poor. Please read up on factory farming chickens.

They certainly continue to live and reproduce in large numbers, but only for our own purposes. That is less like life and more like a resource than anything. We use them as a resource, and we find ways to breed them or genetically modify them or shoot them full of various substances soley for the purpose of increasing their yield. This is not what a reasonable person would consider furthering a species. Would you consider pumping all women full of fertility drugs, and increasing the output of their breast milk as furthering the women species?

There is no reason or justification for the way we treat other animals aside from 'Might equals right" and while that is certainly a reality of the world I dream that intelligent species would find better justification for their actions or not do it at all.

Despite this I eat meat, which makes me a hypocrit. Like most people I've grown up with eating meat and it has become a habit, a preference based on taste, and dare I say an addiction.

Now if we cut back on our overall meat consumption and allowed animals to live good full lives before finally using them for food that would be much better.

[Saraffina]

As far as I know they have no self. No thoughts, opinions, emotions. That is just my opinion though.

[SonOfLaertes]

[QUOTE=Brocolis;5761222]There is nothing wrong with nature’s way per say, but we don’t live in the wild anymore. We grew above it.
Don’t you believe in human rights? Once you acknowledge that your personal pleasure should not harm others then you are out of the wild and into the civilized world. There is no reason why a man should have more rights than a woman, or a white man should have more rights than a black man, so why we stop at the human race? So why not animal rights? Where is the threshold? There is none.
Let nature be nature, but once you are in the civilized world you live without the hypocrisy of keeping your own interests above the interest of other beings who live and suffer just like you do.



QUOTE]

Hypocrisy? You miss the point of my post. Treating animals as animals is in their best interest.

We did not grow "above" nature. We shielded ourselves from some of it's ferocity, but we are still quite at the mercy of most of it's denizens.

The problem that you don't acknowledge is you have no way to control the consequences of the unnatural order you propose. What will you do with all the cows, sheep, pigs, etc. that must be cared for in a vegetarian world? Will you allow them to breed, or simply sterilize the lot so you don't have to deal with the problem of exploding populations? How would you manage the wild populations that are already eating themselves out sustenance? What will step into the gap to manage these animals -your good intentions? They will breed profusely, eat out there environment, and die horribly.

Populations of domestic and wild animals are managed because they are a resource. Without that imperative these populations will collapse under there own weight - no matter how many well meaning people attempt half-cocked sterilization programs or other unnatural solutions. There is simply no better or more powerful solution than the one we and the animals are programmed for - the natural solution. Any other "plan" will reduce nature to a mockery of itself.

[Ron_Tomkins]

What do you mean by "It", the question or your answers?

My answers.
Regardless, the fact that you're asking me this, is a very good indicative that you haven't been paying attention to what I'm telling you.

Which means you can't answer the question.

I just did. That you don't agree, that's another issue. But I answered your question.
Yes, you clearly haven't been paying attention and/or you have a huge thirst for arguing for the sake of arguing.

Yes, this is painfully obvious.

Yes. So we both agree.

[Trent Wray]

I've never tasted road-possum, let alone twice-dead road possum, so the comparison doesn't really improve my understanding.

But I suspect that's for the best. Yes you haven't missed out then. Now don't even ask me about thrice dead chum pablum. *shudders*

[The_Animus]

The problem that you don't acknowledge is you have no way to control the consequences of the unnatural order you propose. What will you do with all the cows, sheep, pigs, etc. that must be cared for in a vegetarian world? Will you allow them to breed, or simply sterilize the lot so you don't have to deal with the problem of exploding populations? How would you manage the wild populations that are already eating themselves out sustenance? What will step into the gap to manage these animals -your good intentions? They will breed profusely, eat out there environment, and die horribly.


For a very long time nature has done a great job of maintaining balance long before people decided they could do it better. If we didn't specifically breed them and cram as many as we can into as small a space as we can there wouldn't be nearly so many in the first place.

[Fnord]

I need no excuse to kill an animal.

[politas]

It is impossible for humans to survive without killing something. We must kill some life to exist.

We also kill other life forms just automatically. Our immune system is constantly killing life forms.

All life is related, ultimately. All life. That includes bacteria and plants. Any division we place between different life forms is ultimately arbitrary.

What is your excuse for killing bacteria?
What is your excuse for killing plants?
What is your excuse for killing insects?

You don't need an "excuse" for killing any of those, any more than I need an "excuse" for killing animals (or having them killed for me). "The Golden Rule" is insufficient argument to declare killing animals as something that would need to be excused.

Killing an animal to eat is is perfectly justifiable. It is natural. It has utility.

If you wish to argue that raising animals for eating is inefficient, that's entirely different, but the moral argument is invalid.

[JimBenArm]

I only kill icky animals like spiders and mosquitoes. And only because the voices in my head told me it was my civic duty to do so.

[Twiler]

Really? You are proposing that us breeding, raising, and slaughtering large numbers of animals furthers their species?

We don't arrange favourable living conditions. Again, most animals for consumption are raised under factory farm conditions, which are usually extremely poor. Please read up on factory farming chickens.

They certainly continue to live and reproduce in large numbers, but only for our own purposes. That is less like life and more like a resource than anything. We use them as a resource, and we find ways to breed them or genetically modify them or shoot them full of various substances soley for the purpose of increasing their yield. This is not what a reasonable person would consider furthering a species. Would you consider pumping all women full of fertility drugs, and increasing the output of their breast milk as furthering the women species?


What's the alternative?

I certainly don't agree with all the ways animals are treated, but is releasing them into the wild going to improve matters? And how would the economic impact be mitigated?

[politas]

This.

Growing meat would be much better, less space taken up, no need to grow the rest of the animal, no messy slaughter, probably much more efficient, etc...

It would be good. The big trouble, as I understand it, is getting the meat excercised in order to grow proper fibres.

[Trent Wray]

Another thing to consider, is that life itself is almost an aberration. The moment it manifests the potential for it to end is present at almost every moment. It doesn't seem to be the "natural" state of what the universe is "all about".

[Marduk]

So I’m curious to know what you critical thinkers tell yourselves so you can conciliate the Golden Rule and the evolutionary perspective and still justify an action that will directly harm something whose only fault is in context being weaker than you?

well firstly because God said it was what they were for

28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.

and secondly because I am a human being and one thing that we excell at is killing and eating other animals for food

;)

[Juniversal]

As far as I know they have no self. No thoughts, opinions, emotions. That is just my opinion though.Well of course they have thoughts and emotions. A human being that's a so-called vegetable doesn't have any thoughts because they're unconcious (i.e. quite literally there's an absence of conciousness). But the same emotions that drive us, drive other creatures. We're an amalgamation of our mental processes just as any other animal is (and I think we percieve these combined processes as being a "soul"). We have the fight or flight response when presented with impending harm as well do dogs or pigs. Mothers are naturally defensive and agressive towards those who seemingly want to harm their children and if you've ever been around a dog that's happy to see you, you'd swear they were smiling (clearly experiencing the same emotion we describe as happiness or excitement).

Now (especially for the more primative of creatures) i'd imagine their thoughts aren't paticularly complex by a long shot. Clearly many animals aren't near as "deep" or emotional as we are in terms of forming emotional attachements to their peers or but I don't doubt that they do have emotions and aren't empty emotionless shells. They might not have a strong concept of self if any at all but neither does a new born baby.

[The_Animus]

What's the alternative?

I certainly don't agree with all the ways animals are treated, but is releasing them into the wild going to improve matters? And how would the economic impact be mitigated?

I don't really understand your questions. Releasing them into the wild probably wouldn't do much either. Our dominance of the world and the fact that we continue to take up more and more space leaves less and less room for other life to survive let alone upwardly evolve (as in increased biological complexity and intelligence) and flourish.

Which economic impact are you referring to? My feeling concerning most issues involving economics is that humanity is utterly retarded. I mean seriously if you look at how humanity acts collectively it's not unreasonable to consider our whole species as insane. But that's really a whole separate topic...

[SonOfLaertes]

For a very long time nature has done a great job of maintaining balance long before people decided they could do it better. If we didn't specifically breed them and cram as many as we can into as small a space as we can there wouldn't be nearly so many in the first place.

It doesn't matter how many there are in "the first place". Even a small population released into the wild with no natural predators would breed to unmanageable numbers in the blink of an eye.

A small number of pigs have escaped farms in my area and are now feral. In a blink of an eye we have a feral pig problem. They are extremely aggressive and destructive to the environment. Soon the hunters will be allowed to have a go at them and - problem partially solved.

Coincidentally, There is an article in today's Philadelphia Inquirer about Pennsylvania's deer population. The gist of the article is that under-hunting has led to a population explosion with devastating environmental consequences(from the article) -

Foresters warn that Pennsylvania's mature woodlands are fast approaching the end of their life cycles and are in dire straits. A U.S. Forest Service inventory indicates that half of the harvested trees in Pennsylvania are not being regenerated.

Walter Carson, a University of Pittsburgh biologist who has been studying the impact of uncontrolled deer populations, says deer have collapsed the diversity of Pennsylvania's forests. "The only surviving plants are shade-tolerant and are either unpalatable to deer or able to regrow quickly after browsing," he says. "It's a real tragedy that continues even though the science is no longer in question."

Increasingly, Pennsylvania woodlands are being taken over by plants unappetizing to deer. Carson's research shows that the hay-scented fern, which once covered only 3 percent of the forest floor, now takes up one third of the forested area of Pennsylvania.

So the forests of PA are doomed - because of only one browsing animal. Add pigs, cows, etc. - no matter how many at the start - and what do you get? Slow, painful, agonizing death by starvation.

[Dragoonster]

It is impossible for humans to survive without killing something. We must kill some life to exist.

We also kill other life forms just automatically. Our immune system is constantly killing life forms.

All life is related, ultimately. All life. That includes bacteria and plants. Any division we place between different life forms is ultimately arbitrary.

What is your excuse for killing bacteria?
What is your excuse for killing plants?
What is your excuse for killing insects?

You don't need an "excuse" for killing any of those, any more than I need an "excuse" for killing animals (or having them killed for me). "The Golden Rule" is insufficient argument to declare killing animals as something that would need to be excused.

Killing an animal to eat is is perfectly justifiable. It is natural. It has utility.

If you wish to argue that raising animals for eating is inefficient, that's entirely different, but the moral argument is invalid.

Those are all fine arguments but they apply equally as well to eating other humans. That's the problem with eating animals for most people, they must morally justify why that's okay but eating human animals isn't.

So, what is your excuse for not eating humans? If that excuse (say, "we're sentient") can be potentially applied to non-human animals as well, then it gets more complicated.

oops, replace "eating" in the above with "killing". Guess I'm hungry!

[SonOfLaertes]

For a very long time nature has done a great job of maintaining balance long before people decided they could do it better. If we didn't specifically breed them and cram as many as we can into as small a space as we can there wouldn't be nearly so many in the first place.

Linky to quoted article -

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20100327_Experts__Pa__s_deer_population_is_out_of_ control.html

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Hmmm, in awnser to the OP, while I do follow your 'golden rule' I apply it only to humans, as I have no illusions about the fact that most animals we currently eat would have no problems in killing me. Large herbivores, especially in herds, are actually quite dangerous to humans, just because we've trained them and keep the more agressive gender away, doesnt change that. You go pet a bull left unattended and see if its friendly to you.

I also resent the concept that what we do is somehow unnatural. Humans are a part of natural evolution and our civilisation is appearantly a natural progression. Yes we set the earth to our hand, but we are the only species that seems to care what happens to other species at all. Only some insects keeps some herd animals and from observation they don't care for them any more than needed to get what they want, which is similar to how we treat milk cows.

I agree that forcing humanity to go fully vegetarian probably would create less impact on nature, but that does not mean that suddenly we live in tune with nature. To feed our current population the land used for agriculture and the rest of our activities would still force animals to live in shrinking habitats and into problems described earlier in the thread.
Milk cows are unable to exist without humans due to the genetic engineering (sorry breeding) done by our ancestors millennia ago, so they'd all have to be removed or die in agony. Sheep are equally unable to live normal lives as similar techinques have given them too much wool to live in nature. Not to mention there is no real room for flocks of sheep to wander in most of the western world.
Not to mention the fact that these animals are native to europe/asia and thus would all need to be killed on any other continent.

I also accept the fact that I'm an omnivore and that our digestive system is geared towards supplementing our diet with meat products (although this was originally probably more along the lines of small rodents and bugs as those are less likely to stomp you to death).
We just managed to use the talents our evolution gave us to be more efficient and able to survive as a species. And as everything natural, that means other species pay the price, as has happened countless other times in nature.
Unlike earlier natural causes however we at least try to some extent to limit this impact.

But to your original question again. The golden rule exists only for humans, as only humans abide by it as we made it up. No such thing exists in nature, not even for close relatives of humans.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Those are all fine arguments but they apply equally as well to eating other humans. That's the problem with eating animals for most people, they must morally justify why that's okay but eating human animals isn't.

So, what is your excuse for not eating humans? If that excuse (say, "we're sentient") can be potentially applied to non-human animals as well, then it gets more complicated.

For me, the same excuse for not eating my pets when they died. ie, a purely emotional one.
Its along the lines of treating terminally ill patients rather than shooting them so they don't take up resources, and not beating the pre-existing children of a previous marriage to death because that would ensure your genes are propagated. All of which are perfectly rational things to do and which happen with high frequency in nature.
Besides, there were and maybe still are, cultures around that do not have the don't eat humans taboo.

Culture and upbrining would be the best awnser I guess.

[SonOfLaertes]

Those are all fine arguments but they apply equally as well to eating other humans. That's the problem with eating animals for most people, they must morally justify why that's okay but eating human animals isn't.

So, what is your excuse for not eating humans? If that excuse (say, "we're sentient") can be potentially applied to non-human animals as well, then it gets more complicated.

You're joking, I hope.

Eating animals is ingrained in our biology and evolutionary development. Not so eating each other. If humans had evolved while eating each other as prey animals, we would not have survived as a species. We had a heard enough time avoiding being eaten by the bigger, stronger, faster predators around us.

A big part of the success of Homo Sapiens is our ability to organize and cooperate. Cannibalism, though not unheard of in human history, is understandably psychologically abhorrent to our species in general.

[The_Animus]

Coincidentally, There is an article in today's Philadelphia Inquirer about Pennsylvania's deer population. The gist of the article is that under-hunting has led to a population explosion with devastating environmental consequences(from the article) -


So the forests of PA are doomed - because of only one browsing animal. Add pigs, cows, etc. - no matter how many at the start - and what do you get? Slow, painful, agonizing death by starvation.

Nature maintains balance. Not perfect balance mind you, but generally when a species becomes overpopulated the preditors also increase to thin out that population or food becomes scarce and the population drops down to a reasonable level. Of course many animals natural preditors are kept to minimal numbers thanks to people. You cannot point to something like overpopulation of deer as an example when it's our fault that animals such as wolves are in such low population numbers. Assuming we left them alone and with enough space for an extended period of time it would eventually manage itself.

Further, that natural cycle of predator and prey, of the ebb and flow of populations, of the survival of the fittest, is what drives adaptation and evolution. This beautiful process is what ensured the diversity and survival of life for millions of years. It is thanks to this process that we exist, and yet I feel that we are destroying that very process because of our greed.

[Dragoonster]

For me, the same excuse for not eating my pets when they died. ie, a purely emotional one.
Its along the lines of treating terminally ill patients rather than shooting them so they don't take up resources, and not beating the pre-existing children of a previous marriage to death because that would ensure your genes are propagated. All of which are perfectly rational things to do and which happen with high frequency in nature.
Besides, there were and maybe still are, cultures around that do not have the don't eat humans taboo.

Culture and upbrining would be the best awnser I guess.

That makes sense. And is some of my reasons too, emotional egoism or something. Still may not be morally consistent.

You're joking, I hope.

Eating animals is ingrained in our biology and evolutionary development. Not so eating each other. If humans had evolved while eating each other as prey animals, we would not have survived as a species. We had a heard enough time avoiding being eaten by the bigger, stronger, faster predators around us.

A big part of the success of Homo Sapiens is our ability to organize and cooperate. Cannibalism, though not unheard of in human history, is understandably psychologically abhorrent to our species in general.

Why would I be joking?

I'm just trying to find some consistent arguments. Basing an argument against cannibalism based on evolution/biology is fine (if it's the real reason, more on that below), but to be consistent one might have to support something like rape for the same reasons.

So if presented with a plate of fresh human meat, the reason you wouldn't eat it is because cannibalism isn't ingrained in our development? Evolutionary advantage is your morality?

[JohnG]

No, that is not inevitable at all.


Quite right. "Inevitable" was a poor choice of words on my part, at least without adding so many qualifiers that there would be no point in using the word in the first place.

Disgust is cultural as such is flexible.


It's our attitudes to death - the sanitation and denial of it - that probably contribute to this attitude. Not anything fundamental about human nature since it's not a universal attitude and reflects a Western cultural bias.


I'm just saying that culturally speaking, if you like, there will be certain behaviors that will fall in and out of fashion based on a variety of factors. To go back to my example of modern humans being disgusted by the thought of eating raw carrion, I don't think I'm oversimplifying things by saying that most individuals in our culture would find such a practice disgusting and objectionable. Having said that, I also understand that if we were faced with eating raw carrion vs. starving to death, even some hard core vegans amongst us would eventually tuck in. That doesn't mean though that there hasn't been a long but steady trend over history for our species to favor fresh, cooked meat over borderline rotten, raw meat. Or even in the last century a taste for well done steak over rare steak. As we progress away from a taste for raw flesh, the more, um distasteful it becomes and possibly to a point where the average person will prefer a well made veggie burger over the real thing?


Western Cultural bias again - the narrowness of the fauna on sale in supermarkets and the methods by which they are farmed don't all have the same implications.


True, but irrelevant to my main point.

There's loads of insects to eat without even having to try hard to stop them.


You are welcome to them, I just had a double whopper with cheese so, I'm good, thanks.

(Besides, this argument does pretty much say we should make cows extinct).


Maybe, but not necessarily, just that they'd reach population levels closer to other large land mammals like deer, elk or bison if they were introduced into the wild. The fact that they are so placid and relatively unaggressive would no doubt be a problem, but the modern cow is probably so different from its feral ancestors that they might as well be considered a human engineered animal. You might as well fret over the morality of introducing poodles to the wild.


I don't know why people insist on making these sorts of discussions a zero sum game where it isn't enough that you're completely in the right, your "opponent" must be proved completely in the wrong.

No animal rights group is going to convince the entire world to stop eating meat within a year, or a decade or probably even within a century. What they can do though is press for policy changes that improve not only the lot of animals, but for the entire ecosystem. It's in omnivore's best interests, too. For example, you can argue until you are blue in the face that you're entitled to eat all the fish you want because you find them tasty, end of discussion, but that isn't going to do you much good when your favorite species gets fished into extinction in the next decade.

[Fnord]

Oh, good grief!

Killing animals is heinous only for those who consider animals to have souls, rights or a human-like intellect.

The first is in error due to the lack of proof for any individual of the Kingdom Animalia to have a soul, or for even the existence of the soul.

The second is in error because animals have no rights not granted to them by humans with nothing better to do than enact frivolous laws.

The third is in error because while some animals may be trained to mimic human-like mentations, their level of "thinking" is more instinctive than intellectual.

Just how much intelligence is needed to stalk and kill a blade of grass?

[Dragoonster]

Oh, good grief!

Killing animals is heinous only for those who consider animals to have souls, rights or a human-like intellect.

The first is in error due to the lack of proof for any individual of the Kingdom Animalia to have a soul, or for even the existence of the soul.

Granted.

The second is in error because animals have no rights not granted to them by humans with nothing better to do than enact frivolous laws.

Neither do humans.

The third is in error because while some animals may be trained to mimic human-like mentations, their level of "thinking" is more instinctive than intellectual.

More or less than human babies who mimic their parents? If a chimp is as smart as a 2-month human why can't we kill/eat both?

Just how much intelligence is needed to stalk and kill a blade of grass?

Apparently enough for at least one species to develop human-level intellect. No reason other species might not be headed towards the same, or are already very close to it. An adult chimp is closer to an adult human's intelligence than a baby human is, imo.

[devnull]

They taste nice.

1st response won it.

[Iamme]

They taste nice.

Or target practice.

I get two outdoor channels now. There is some beautiful huge stately creature minding it's own business, and the 2 guys on the show talking in a whisper, under the cover of the surroundings, take aim and take out the poor defenseless thing, from some far off distance. How would THEY like to be the one shot at and kiilled, for the sport of it?

[Mirrorglass]

An adult chimp is closer to an adult human's intelligence than a baby human is, imo.

The thing is, the reason we don't eat babies isn't their dazzling intelligence. There are two reasons: 1) it's pretty much biologically impossible for us to not consider a baby something that must be protected and 2) a baby will eventually become a proper human being.

A chimp will always be a chimp, and I'll never consider a chimp a part of my family. Also, I don't eat chimps.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Gee the moral high ground's getting mighty crowded nowadays. I'm supposed to feel guilty about driving a car, turning on my air conditioning, owning a large TV etc, etc.

Sorry I don't have an "excuse" for eating meat, I just do it.

Me too, I'm sick of these constant demands that I act morally. Don't rape, don't steal, don't murder, don't drink and drive, don't embezzle, don't beat children with a stick, don't torture cats, blah blah blah...

Don't these bleeding heart, pencil neck wimps realise that if they ask too much of me I'm entitled to ignore them completely? Their mistake! Now I'm off the hook and I can do whatever I want. Heh heh, feels good.

[Dragoonster]

The thing is, the reason we don't eat babies isn't their dazzling intelligence. There are two reasons: 1) it's pretty much biologically impossible for us to not consider a baby something that must be protected

Not me, but okay.

and 2) a baby will eventually become a proper human being.

Yeah, but so will a fetus, and there are plenty of pro-choicers. Could be a real moral argument though, thanks.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, but this is in Religion/Philosophy so I'm more interested in moral justifications (or excuses, as in mine since I'm a hypocrite) for eating/killing animals, not biological or psychological reasons.

[politas]

I'm just trying to find some consistent arguments. Basing an argument against cannibalism based on evolution/biology is fine (if it's the real reason, more on that below), but to be consistent one might have to support something like rape for the same reasons.That seems unlikely. In any case, I base my arguments against cannibalism in the same way that I base my arguments for all moral choices about human beings - What makes for a harmonious, supportive society.

My basic position is that any boundary for which life forms we grant "rights" to is entirely arbitrary. Given that, it makes perfect sense to me to set the boundary in a place we can at least clearly and simply identify - The species boundary.

[Juniversal]

Oh, good grief!

Killing animals is heinous only for those who consider animals to have souls, rights or a human-like intellect.

The first is in error due to the lack of proof for any individual of the Kingdom Animalia to have a soul, or for even the existence of the soul.

The second is in error because animals have no rights not granted to them by humans with nothing better to do than enact frivolous laws.

The third is in error because while some animals may be trained to mimic human-like mentations, their level of "thinking" is more instinctive than intellectual.

Just how much intelligence is needed to stalk and kill a blade of grass?Not a good rationale imo. I don't believe in a thing called a "soul". But I do believe in a thing called pain. And you make a distinction between humans and animals when there is none. Also feral childrens behavior might be more in line with what we'd describe as animal like behavior or have what we'd describe, in western terms, human intellect. And your belief that thinking is more is instinctive them intellectual might hold true for certain animals. Certainly not all...

[GenghisKhan]

I just recently became a meat-eater after about 6 years of vegetarianism (with a short stint of veganism thrown in there). However, during that time I still never had a problem with OTHER people eating animals. What I object to the most is the harsh conditions of slaughterhouses and I found it easier to simply stop eating meat rather than go through the hassle of finding responsible meat producers.

I also felt guilty. I have worked on farms for quite a while and I always develop a close connection with the animals there. I couldn't imagine eating a potential friend.

But then I realized I was simply putting the weight of the world on my shoulders. I can't be friends with EVERY animal on earth. I can fight for their right for a clean and healthy life, but I shouldn't have to feel guilty for doing something perfectly natural to me. I like spaghetti and meatballs, and darn it I am not going to make more things a moral burden on myself than I have to.

[Cavemonster]

My basic position is that any boundary for which life forms we grant "rights" to is entirely arbitrary. Given that, it makes perfect sense to me to set the boundary in a place we can at least clearly and simply identify - The species boundary.

I personally take Doug Hofstaedter's view that we don't have as much a boundary, but a softer edged decreasing progression. Those organisms most similar to us we generally have the strongest contract with, those most distant get the least protection.

Think about whose life you'd do the most to save/defend.
1) Your own/ your spouse and children
3) Your broader family and friends
4) People who are genetically, philosophically or geographically similar to you.
5) All humans everywhere.
6) Those mammals we interact with most.
7) Primates.
8) Birds and reptiles.
9) Fish and amphibians
10) bugs
11) plants and other less complex life.
12) viruses

If you're like most humans, you have fairly distinct differences in how you feel about the things on this list being harmed or killed, and the amount you care about each is probably somewhat similar to the order they're listed in.

It isn't a matter of drawing an arbitrary line, but about where the curve described by decreasing empathy dips below the value you place on what you can gain by killing each of these things on this list.

[Dragoonster]

That seems unlikely. In any case, I base my arguments against cannibalism in the same way that I base my arguments for all moral choices about human beings - What makes for a harmonious, supportive society.

My basic position is that any boundary for which life forms we grant "rights" to is entirely arbitrary. Given that, it makes perfect sense to me to set the boundary in a place we can at least clearly and simply identify - The species boundary.

Thanks, that's very reasonable. I like that hierarchy Cavemonster provided too. Well, like it in that it's sensible.

[Delvo]

Following natural instincts is not an ethical way to live your life.as civilized beings we drift away from natural instincts Once you acknowledge that your personal pleasure should not harm others then you are out of the wild and into the civilized world.Any social animal has instincts to treat members of its own species differently from other species. In humans, we call it ethics or morality, but it's still simply a set of instincts to serve the interests of the social group, just the same as is observed in other social species and in "uncivilized" populations of our own species.

[lionking]

Me too, I'm sick of these constant demands that I act morally. Don't rape, don't steal, don't murder, don't drink and drive, don't embezzle, don't beat children with a stick, don't torture cats, blah blah blah...

Don't these bleeding heart, pencil neck wimps realise that if they ask too much of me I'm entitled to ignore them completely? Their mistake! Now I'm off the hook and I can do whatever I want. Heh heh, feels good.
Wow, I've seen some mighty fine strawmen displayed in this forum, but this just about takes the cake.

[Slimething]

... and you have other options for nutrition that don't involve killing...

No one has challenged this part of Brocolis' foundation argument? It's not ever remotely true!

BTW, Brocolis, I've never met anyone who applies the Golden Rule to non-humans. As the Golder Rule is "treat others as you would be treated", applying that to other species is simply ridiculous. Let me know the next time you hold the door for an ant, m'kay?

[bruto]

No, it doesn't answer the question (most of the posts here don't). Which is: if you believe in the golden rule and assuming you believe the golden rule applies to species other than humans, how can you justify killing animals?That's the flaw right there. We don't all assume that. The golden rule is a maxim humans have made up concerning how we ought to behave with each other. It's a very good one too, but there is no reason to assume that it applies to other species of animals if we don't choose it to.

I justify killing animals because it's inhumane to eat them alive.

[SonOfLaertes]

Nature maintains balance. Not perfect balance mind you, but generally when a species becomes overpopulated the preditors also increase to thin out that population or food becomes scarce and the population drops down to a reasonable level. Of course many animals natural preditors are kept to minimal numbers thanks to people. You cannot point to something like overpopulation of deer as an example when it's our fault that animals such as wolves are in such low population numbers. Assuming we left them alone and with enough space for an extended period of time it would eventually manage itself.

Further, that natural cycle of predator and prey, of the ebb and flow of populations, of the survival of the fittest, is what drives adaptation and evolution. This beautiful process is what ensured the diversity and survival of life for millions of years. It is thanks to this process that we exist, and yet I feel that we are destroying that very process because of our greed.

That point is irrelevant to this discussion. I agree completely with you here; I would love to see better balanced ecosystem's in as many areas as possible.

So we are in agreement. Prey animals population's are healthiest when they are culled in a natural way - hunting by apex predators. This insures not only the maximal health of predator and prey; it also ensures the health of their environment.

Man is, was, and should always be an involved partner in this dance. In fact, in areas where wolves are scarce, deer are spared the sight of their young being singled out by ravenous packs, pulled down and consumed, sometimes still alive, right in front of their parents.

[Aepervius]

how so?

About golden rule applying only to human :
Firstly there is nothing amoral in eating what you evolved for to eat, as long as you don't do it to fellow human. "Cat, the other white meat".

Secondly the golden rule is a generic GUIDANCE rule in case you don't know how to handle yourself in a situation, and this is not needed for most obvious situation. I don't inflict gratuitiously pain on animals , but I don't do that because I would not like it if they inflicted me pain. No : I don't do that because it is morally wrong, period.

Finally, you can push the situation ad absurdum "I don't eat animal because I would not like it if they ate me". You can apply the reasonment ad-infinitum until you reach the conclusion you don't eat bacteria because you would not like it if they did it to you. So the only stuff you can eat is sugar and protein synthetised out of non-living material. Absurd ? You would put a cut over somewhere ? Then you are not applying the golden rule.

Those 3 combined make it quite clear to me the golden rule as a guidance is only really applyable for comportement betwen human.

[cyborg]

That doesn't mean though that there hasn't been a long but steady trend over history for our species to favor fresh, cooked meat over borderline rotten, raw meat.

Sure, but that's probably because its more nutritional - the disgust follows after you sanitize your food so that your kids thinks chicken comes from McDonalds magically in the shape of chicken McNuggets and have no mental connection between that and birds.

Probably the shock of learning that connection in later life is what can prompt vegetarianism. It's just not the sort of thing that happens when one grows up with knowledge of animal husbandry.

Or even in the last century a taste for well done steak over rare steak.

Is there? Personally I think that's probably more to do with a general decline in food knowledge as people in the US and UK in particular rely more and more on processed goods (although as Americanism spreads so does it).

My steaks are still done proportional to the frequency at which I have them nowadays: rarely.

As we progress away from a taste for raw flesh, the more, um distasteful it becomes and possibly to a point where the average person will prefer a well made veggie burger over the real thing?

Not until veggie burgers fail to taste like ****.

I've tried these products out of curiosity.

How the hell do vegetarians convince themselves this meat replacement is even remotely edible is beyond me.

You are welcome to them, I just had a double whopper with cheese so, I'm good, thanks.

But this is my point: much of the world is quite happy to eat from this branch of the tree of life.

You might as well fret over the morality of introducing poodles to the wild.

Or cute fluffy little bunny rabbits?

They couldn't possibly do any damage to an environment they were introduced to could they?

No animal rights group is going to convince the entire world to stop eating meat within a year, or a decade or probably even within a century. What they can do though is press for policy changes that improve not only the lot of animals, but for the entire ecosystem. It's in omnivore's best interests, too.

Sure, I fully support anything that is simply better.

It does appear to me however than animal rights' arguments starts from the emotive and only moves to the economical if it fails to convince. See the below vids.

For example, you can argue until you are blue in the face that you're entitled to eat all the fish you want because you find them tasty, end of discussion, but that isn't going to do you much good when your favorite species gets fished into extinction in the next decade.

No indeed, which is why all kinds of non-traditional fish species are being offered up on plates. But sustainable resource management is a problem no matter what it is - there are just different problems for plants (they still take up land, they still modify the natural environment, etc...) as opposed to animals.

Here's some vids on the matter from Jonathan Meades on vegeterians which I'm sure people will find interesting:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jonathan+meades+j%27accuse+vegetarians&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=cHp&rls=com.ubuntu:en-GB:official&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=0B-vS8aPGoa80gSc3IyNDg&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBEQqwQwAA

[Staropeace]

Thought the golden rule was survival of the fittest. "Excuse" sorta makes me think you want us to justify our bad behavior of eating flesh ....I would ask a murderer what is his excuse for committing homocide. I dont feel the need to defend my right to a lovely steak...as long as it isnt human tenderloin. I am wondering when animals were given sanctified grace...or equal rights. Being humane doesnt mean I cannot have the odd steak or chicken leg.

It is not unnatural for human beings to eat meat. Ask an Inuit why he isnt buying lots of fruit or a spring mix of salad from the nearest shopping centre. Some cultures would be hard done by if they were strictly vegetarian. In certain places,a side of meat on the plate usually means having to take a firearm,trap or hook to track it down. Nothing unnatural about it if one wants enough to eat.

[BTMO]

Just so you all know...

I will be hunting a block in the local water supply catchment area in a couple of weeks time. I will be shooting everything I see - deer, goats, pigs. I won't be using any restraint.

It is a pest removal exercise. I won a ballot to get access to the block. I will slice off the nicer parts of any healthy animals I shoot, and take them home for the freezer.

A couple of weeks after that, I will be hunting fallow deer on private property. I fully expect to get one or possibly two depending on the weather and the animals moods.

A week or so after that, duck season starts...

:D

[lionking]

Not to mention the need to cull kangaroos and rabbits, which are in plague proportions at the moment around here.

[BTMO]

We shoot possums here, too...

OOH! Did you get the news in Australia about the Norwegian tourists who outraged NZ by shooting native birds? They very foolishly posted their footage to youtube.

[Zep]

No, it doesn't answer the question (most of the posts here don't). Which is: if you believe in the golden rule and assuming you believe the golden rule applies to species other than humans, how can you justify killing animals?You can't get rump steak out of a pumpkin.

The idea of the "Golden Rule" is pragmatic: It is (or should be) prudent farming of available resources.

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is probably one of the most depressingly stupid vegetarianism/meat threads in some time.

People, people, people. The naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy. The fact that something is "natural" is in absolutely no way an argument for it being morally good. Any argument that starts waffling on about what behaviour or diet is "natural" for humans has nothing to say about what is moral for humans.

That applies to protecting your genetic relatives, eating meat, raping people, committing genocide, dying of polio, you name it. "Nature" has nothing to say about morality.

[PixyMisa]

We shoot possums here, too...
Good for you! Little bastiches got into my roof a couple of years back.

OOH! Did you get the news in Australia about the Norwegian tourists who outraged NZ by shooting native birds? They very foolishly posted their footage to youtube.
I read that the penalty in NZ can include up to a year of jail time - but it could also be prosecuted as a criminal offence in Norway, with up to six years of jail time. Oops.

Anyway, back to the subject.

My sister-in-law grew up on a sheep farm, so I've had a chance to meet some sheep.

They're dumber than most varieties of rock, but at the same time, easier to cook and lower in sodium. So I eat them, rather than the rocks.

Simple.

[Damien Evans]

Fishing is fun, and many varieties of fish taste excellent. That's why.


Though I do throw back anything either too small or inedible. And stingrays, because I'm not risking getting caught by their tail for some mock scallops.

[Doubt]

They're dumber than most varieties of rock, but at the same time, easier to cook and lower in sodium. So I eat them, rather than the rocks.

Simple.

Well, there is the matter of your teeth being optimized to not eat rock.....

[Michael Redman]

No, it doesn't answer the question (most of the posts here don't). Which is: if you believe in the golden rule and assuming you believe the golden rule applies to species other than humans, how can you justify killing animals?The Golden Rule obviously does not apply to other species.

The golden rule is, more or less, the basic requirement for living a society. It applies to others in our society, because we expect the others in our society to apply it to use. This lets us go on with out daily lives and not worry that every passing person is going to try to kill us and take our stuff.

The golden rule is followed for self interest. There is simply no reason to apply the golden rule to anything or anyone who doesn't participate in our society. In fact, we do not apply the rule to people who refuse to reciprocate. It would be foolish to do so.

Why on earth would it be "moral" to apply a social rule to beings outside the possibility of our society?

[catsmate1]

What is your excuse for killing animals? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5760924#post5760924)


It would be cruel to eat them while they're still alive. And quite difficult.

(first of all I don’t mean to be flaming, just discuss nicely)Really...

[Dragoonster]

It does seem similar to the golden rule, in that the golden rule isn't just predicated on a non-violent contract for self-interest, but because it requires empathy. We assume and have first-hand knowledge of why other people don't like to be tortured, though some actually do in a limited fashion, because we know what it feels like to be in pain. Same for animals, most of us don't torture them because we empathize with their pain. But this wouldn't matter unless we implicitly recognized that their self-hoods were developed enough that it morally matters.

The difference between why we freely carve our initials into a tree, but balk at carving them into a dog must mean something, morally. And not just something that can be easily dismissed as existing but not enough to afford them at least some limited legal/moral rights.

[MRC_Hans]

(first of all I don’t mean to be flaming, just discuss nicely)

I guess most people here believe in the golden rule… meaning that they generally will avoid doing to others what they don’t want others doing to them.

I also guess most people here believe in evolution… meaning they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.

So I’m curious to know what you critical thinkers tell yourselves so you can conciliate the Golden Rule and the evolutionary perspective and still justify an action that will directly harm something whose only fault is in context being weaker than you?

I condone killing animals for the following reasons (in individual cases, the reason may be a combination):

1) For food.
2) For various other produce and rational purposes (e.g medical experimentation).
3) To euthanize suffering animals.
4) To eliminate animals that pose a threat, or sometimes just a nuisance.
5) To regulate a population that has for whatever reason been removed from natural regulation.

The actual mode of killing of kill can take the form of a sport, which I, within certain limitation, find acceptable, except for purpose #3.

In all cases, I feel that one should go to considerable lengths to avoid unnecessary suffering, and to use the killed animals as wel las possible.

Hans

[Ron_Tomkins]

The difference between why we freely carve our initials into a tree, but balk at carving them into a dog must mean something, morally. And not just something that can be easily dismissed as existing but not enough to afford them at least some limited legal/moral rights.

Yes. That difference is, basically, empathy.

It's the reason you wouldn't walk on grass and/or maybe some other types of vegetation with the same indifference you would walk over sleeping cats. We empathize more with the creatures that are closer/more similar to our species. We are obviously more eager to carve on a plant, which has no nervous system and which doesn't scream; than we are on a dog, who resembles our species a lot more than a plant, bleeds just like us, wimps and screams out of pain.

[megaresp]

So I’m curious to know what you critical thinkers tell yourselves so you can conciliate the Golden Rule and the evolutionary perspective and still justify an action that will directly harm something whose only fault is in context being weaker than you?

Several things occur at this point...


Your 'question' implies that it may be OK to harm a thing if it's at fault in some way. If it is, then that is a breech of the golden rule for any thing capable of showing contrition and seeking forgiveness.
Depending on how the word 'harm' is defined, your altruism could extend to plants. Yesterday I ate 7 unborn lifeforms - 4 of them raw!
When I eat meat I rationalise it in exactly the same way other predators do (i.e. I don't). I think it's natural to eat meat.

Despite the above, I do have an emotional response to some animal rights issues. For example, I pay more and get free range meat and eggs. I don't buy fish because I don't want to reward commercial fishing, and I can't find a way to tell where a fish has come from. I do these things purely to satisfy an emotional need in myself. They're not rational decisions, though I can think of ways to rationalise them.

Likewise, I think a decision to avoid exploiting animals (e.g. vegan) is emotional rather than rational. In my view, taking such a decision satisfies the decision maker in some personal way. I personally don't consider such a decision to be virtuous or correct or whatever term a vegan might wish ascribe.

[Doubt]

I kill animals that annoy me. No mosquito is safe if it tries anything.
I am perfectly willing to kill bigger animals for protean that tastes good.
I am not willing to kill humans for protean. I expect the same from other humans. If other humans do not do the same civilization is finished. I do not expect the same from bears, larger cats and sharks.

The boundary of what is food and what is not food is a necessary social construction. No killing people or their pets if avoidable. Animals that are wild and unowned are not part of any social contract. They also have no reason to expect a pleasant end to their life regardless of human actions.

[Brocolis]

Likewise, I think a decision to avoid exploiting animals (e.g. vegan) is emotional rather than rational.

Do you think human rights are also emotional?

You can either follow your natural impulses to maximize pleasure or you can acknowledge that there are other sentient who should be considered.

Can't logically do both. You can't grant rights for some people and harm others based on the fact that nature made you that way. You are picking and choosing the values you want to apply. Eating meat has the logical consistency of slavery. Some get rights, some don't, based on...gibberish

[Sledge]

Do you think human rights are also emotional?

You can either follow your natural impulses to maximize pleasure or you can acknowledge that there are other sentient who should be considered.

Can't logically do both.
Funny, I do both everyday. Every decision I make is based on what I want balanced against consideration for others. What would make you think it's an either/or situation?

[Morrigan]

Me too, I'm sick of these constant demands that I act morally. Don't rape, don't steal, don't murder, don't drink and drive, don't embezzle, don't beat children with a stick, don't torture cats, blah blah blah...

Don't these bleeding heart, pencil neck wimps realise that if they ask too much of me I'm entitled to ignore them completely? Their mistake! Now I'm off the hook and I can do whatever I want. Heh heh, feels good.

Wow, so much straw. What are you going to do with all of it.

Eating meat has the logical consistency of slavery. Some get rights, some don't, based on...gibberish
Oh dear. Do you think bacteria should have rights? If not, how are you consistent?

[tsig]

No, it doesn't answer the question (most of the posts here don't). Which is: if you believe in the golden rule and assuming you believe the golden rule applies to species other than humans, how can you justify killing animals?

My golden rule:

Do unto others as they would do unto you but do it first.

Applies to all species.

[tsig]

Watch seagulls or ravens fighting over food.
Lions chasing hyenas from their kills. (Lions are mostly scavengers.)
That's natures way.
We don't have to fight for it, mostly, is the only difference.

Never seen my workplace have you?:)

[Michael Redman]

The difference between why we freely carve our initials into a tree, but balk at carving them into a dog must mean something, morally. No.

It may or not be immoral to carve your initials in a tree. Empathy has nothing to do with it.

It may or may not be immoral to kill a dog. A cop, in the line of duty, might shoot a rabid dog that is threatening a person, despite the fact that the cop loves dogs, and feels empathy for this particular dog. Or the cop may hate dogs. Or not think of the dog at all. Empathy has nothing to do with the morality of the situation.

Serial killers do not empathize with the victims. Their acts are immoral regardless.

Once captured, these killers receive very little empathy from the general public. Few would object to seeing them tortured. But that doesn't make it moral.

Empathy is a terrible basis for a system of morality.

[SonOfLaertes]

This is probably one of the most depressingly stupid vegetarianism/meat threads in some time.

People, people, people. The naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy. The fact that something is "natural" is in absolutely no way an argument for it being morally good. Any argument that starts waffling on about what behaviour or diet is "natural" for humans has nothing to say about what is moral for humans.

That applies to protecting your genetic relatives, eating meat, raping people, committing genocide, dying of polio, you name it. "Nature" has nothing to say about morality.

"Nature" has everything to say about morality, if it is more moral to hunt game than allow it to destroy it's environment.
If you have a different opinion, that's just your opinion. It doesn't make you automatically right, and it doesn't solve the problem of wildlife management.

Give me a viable, natural alternative to hunting, that doesn't assume the fallacious argument that humans are not natural apex predators in the food chain, and I will listen.

[Thunder]

i eat meat, because it is natural for humans to eat meat.

[Ron_Tomkins]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TPxi5wzmPRA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TPxi5wzmPRA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[I Ratant]

Never seen my workplace have you?:)
.
Worked with a guy who had a phobia for food!
If you left a partially eaten anything on your desk and left the room, when you returned, it would be gone!
Spare lunches from the chow hall would be stored in a refrigerator in the break room.
He could be seen standing in front of it for long periods, just gazing at the contents.
Ate 5 hot dogs and 3 hamburgers at one sitting at a barbecue.. and denied it, although all of us were counting. :)
And then went to chow for dinner.

[Mirrorglass]

Eating meat has the logical consistency of slavery. Some get rights, some don't, based on...gibberish

I hardly think "they are of a different, intellectually inferior species" is gibberish. Oh, and I'm referring to animals here, not slaves.

My golden rule:

Do unto others as they would do unto you but do it first.

Applies to all species.

So.. you shout, then sit still, staring at your dog, hoping it will give you food?

[tsig]

.
Worked with a guy who had a phobia for food!
If you left a partially eaten anything on your desk and left the room, when you returned, it would be gone!
Spare lunches from the chow hall would be stored in a refrigerator in the break room.
He could be seen standing in front of it for long periods, just gazing at the contents.
Ate 5 hot dogs and 3 hamburgers at one sitting at a barbecue.. and denied it, although all of us were counting. :)
And then went to chow for dinner.

Good thing he didn't like food then.:)

Or did you mean he was so scared of it he made it disappear by eating it?

[tsig]

I hardly think "they are of a different, intellectually inferior species" is gibberish. Oh, and I'm referring to animals here, not slaves.



So.. you shout, then sit still, staring at your dog, hoping it will give you food?

Yes, I go to the supermarket open the door and shout "fetch bacon" then wait and the dog comes running out with bacon! Now if he can be trained to give it to me I'm home free.

[Juniversal]

I kill animals that annoy me. No mosquito is safe if it tries anything.
I am perfectly willing to kill bigger animals for protean that tastes good.
I am not willing to kill humans for protean. I expect the same from other humans. If other humans do not do the same civilization is finished. I do not expect the same from bears, larger cats and sharks.

The boundary of what is food and what is not food is a necessary social construction. No killing people or their pets if avoidable. Animals that are wild and unowned are not part of any social contract. They also have no reason to expect a pleasant end to their life regardless of human actions.Question out of curiosity. What do you feel about "Micheal Vick style" dog fighting?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Question out of curiosity. What do you feel about "Micheal Vick style" dog fighting?

I´ll jump in, if I may, and answer from my point of view: I feel really hurt when I see animals such as dogs, cats, bears, mice, squirrel, dolphins, foxes, wolves..... suffer.

I do not feel the same way at all (and/or remain quite indifferent) when I see bacteria, cockroaches, ants, fungus, mosquitoes, plants, fish, silverfish...... suffer.


My question to you is: do you?






(Clarification: Do you feel "the same way"?)

[Iamme]

Just so you all know...

I will be hunting a block in the local water supply catchment area in a couple of weeks time. I will be shooting everything I see - deer, goats, pigs. I won't be using any restraint.

It is a pest removal exercise. I won a ballot to get access to the block. I will slice off the nicer parts of any healthy animals I shoot, and take them home for the freezer.

A couple of weeks after that, I will be hunting fallow deer on private property. I fully expect to get one or possibly two depending on the weather and the animals moods.

A week or so after that, duck season starts...

:D

Nothing wrong with such motives. Enjoy!

But what about big game hunters who hunt for trophy animals so they can display them on their walls or floor?

[Juniversal]

I´ll jump in, if I may, and answer from my point of view: I feel really hurt when I see animals such as dogs, cats, bears, mice, squirrel, dolphins, foxes, wolves..... suffer.

I do not feel the same way at all (and/or remain quite indifferent) when I see bacteria, cockroaches, ants, fungus, mosquitoes, plants, fish, silverfish...... suffer.


My question to you is: do you?
Same here. I'd say more complex organisms (opposed to bacteria, bugs and the like) that clearly show pain and suffering evoke the emathetic response from us that's ingrained in us for whatever reason. Possibly because of our knowledge of pain and discomfort. It seems the more apparently intelligent the animal the stronger the emotional response can be.

[Pup]

Same here. I'd say more complex organisms (opposed to bacteria, bugs and the like) that clearly show pain and suffering evoke the emathetic response from us that's ingrained in us for whatever reason. Possibly because of our knowledge of pain and discomfort. It seems the more apparently intelligent the animal the stronger the emotional response can be.

I wonder if this empathy is just a spill-over from the empathy for other humans that we've evolved, which helps us live and thrive in cooperative groups? That would explain why it seems so illogical at times and why it can be affected by the culture one is raised in. The more we mentally include something as "like us," the more it gets the empathy treatment, whether it's a human, an animal, or even an inanimate object. The feeling is generally strongest for things that would further our own genes: our children, our mates. Beyond that, it gradually fades as we get farther from our cooperative group, but we can "turn it on" illogically, treating a pet dog like a child, for example.

[MatildaGage]

Brocolis, I don't feel it is justifiable when there are alternatives available.

Having said that, there are lots of things human beings do that are not justifiable though alternatives are available. They all pain me.

We are a pretty selfish species and resistant to change.

I think this is one of those things that, if the species survives long enough, will change....with limits. It has been suggested to me by an orthodox vegetarian that it's unethical for us to use motor vehicles because animals can become roadkill. Fair point, but I am not medically capable of quitting my job to farm my lawn to sustain myself, and everyone can't live within walking distance to their jobs....so I still drive.

Also I am severely allergic to certain insect stings, and I'm gonna do all I can to prevent them from entering my house, but ultimately I'll kill them if they do.

Balance would need to enter into this.

[dasmiller]

I wonder if this empathy is just a spill-over from the empathy for other humans that we've evolved, which helps us live and thrive in cooperative groups?

Empathy for non-humans isn't necessarily an evolutionary accident. Interspecies cooperation is actually pretty common, and I suspect it's a lot easier for that sort of cooperation to happen among the smarter species if they have some empathy for each other. Even if species aren't cooperating outright, it's certainly helpful to have some idea about how the other beast is likely to respond to your actions. It's particularly useful to understand how a larger but not-necessarily predatory creature (if you're a human, then picture a bear or a moose) might be antagonized by your actions, so that you don't antagonize it.

[fls]

(first of all I don’t mean to be flaming, just discuss nicely)

I guess most people here believe in the golden rule… meaning that they generally will avoid doing to others what they don’t want others doing to them.

I don't follow the golden rule.

Linda

[fls]

I eat cows because I worry that not doing so will lead to their extinction.

Linda

[Kevin_Lowe]

"Nature" has everything to say about morality, if it is more moral to hunt game than allow it to destroy it's environment.

Sorry, you are simply wrong. As Hume pointed out, no amount of "is" statements can add up to a moral "ought" statement, without sneaking in an unstated "ought" somewhere.

What you are doing here is sneaking in some kind of "ought" claim such as "we ought not to allow animals to destroy their environment". Assuming everyone buys that "ought" claim, then you can indeed logically get to the conclusion that it's okay to eat meat if that meat is just a byproduct of some necessary act to stop animals destroying their environment.

If there are other means of stopping that happening, or the meat is not a byproduct of such activity, that argument gets you nowhere. So for example this argument does nothing to justify the vast bulk of modern meat-eating.


If you have a different opinion, that's just your opinion. It doesn't make you automatically right, and it doesn't solve the problem of wildlife management.

I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere productive until you realise that there is a difference between logic and opinion.


Give me a viable, natural alternative to hunting, that doesn't assume the fallacious argument that humans are not natural apex predators in the food chain, and I will listen.

Now here you've lost the plot completely. "Natural" does not mean "good". You've just done a face-plant in the naturalistic fallacy.

[ferd burfle]

"A chicken is just a fast cabbage"---JP Foreman

[Trent Wray]

I kill animals for sloppy Joe's.

[Slimething]

I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere productive until you realise that there is a difference between logic and opinion.
So sad. Here's a quarter...

[Brocolis]

Oh dear. Do you think bacteria should have rights? If not, how are you consistent?

Bacteria have no nervous system, feel no pain. They are not sentient beings. Chemical reactions don’t care if they live or die.

I hardly think "they are of a different, intellectually inferior species" is gibberish. Oh, and I'm referring to animals here, not slaves.

Kids are intellectually inferior. Should we eat them because they are dumber?


Brocolis, I don't feel it is justifiable when there are alternatives available.

Having said that, there are lots of things human beings do that are not justifiable though alternatives are available. They all pain me.

We are a pretty selfish species and resistant to change.

I think this is one of those things that, if the species survives long enough, will change....with limits. It has been suggested to me by an orthodox vegetarian that it's unethical for us to use motor vehicles because animals can become roadkill. Fair point, but I am not medically capable of quitting my job to farm my lawn to sustain myself, and everyone can't live within walking distance to their jobs....so I still drive.

Also I am severely allergic to certain insect stings, and I'm gonna do all I can to prevent them from entering my house, but ultimately I'll kill them if they do.

Balance would need to enter into this.

I agree.

[Trent Wray]

Kids are intellectually inferior. Should we eat them because they are dumber? It depends on what their diet mainly consists of.

[Kevin_Lowe]

So sad. Here's a quarter...

If you think morality is purely a matter of opinion and logic has nothing to say about it, I feel sorry for you but I have to point out that you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Critters are made of food...

A

[phantomb]

Bacteria have no nervous system, feel no pain. They are not sentient beings.

Here's what you initially said:

"Eating meat has the logical consistency of slavery. Some get rights, some don't, based on...gibberish"

How does that not describe your new position? Are you going to tell me that the list of criteria you just named (possession of a nervous system, ability to feel pain, sentience (good luck defining this one)) as being proper for distinguishing between what forms of life get rights and what forms of life don't is somehow less arbitrary or "gibberish" than the various lists of criteria meat eaters in this thread have suggested (species being one example)?

Chemical reactions don’t care if they live or die.

I'm not an expert on animal intelligence, but from what I've read, few non-human animals have minds that are comparable to ours. I believe even our great-ape relatives, some of the smartest non-human animals, fail at tests for theory of mind (that's the ability to recognize other beings as conscious agents) and other concepts that are fundamental to the way we experience the world. So yeah, I would liken most non-human animals to chemical machines, incapable of caring if they live or die the way you or I can, not just bacteria.

Kids are intellectually inferior. Should we eat them because they are dumber?

I believe babies even a few months old are more intelligent than most non-human animals, but to answer your underlying question, and if you're really going to press me, sure, I would not strictly have a problem with you eating a person whose brain was the functional equivalent of the brain of your average non-human animal. There are, or course, social reason why I don't think we should be eating the brain-dead and the extraordinarily disabled.

[dafydd]

Food.

[Juniversal]

I wonder if this empathy is just a spill-over from the empathy for other humans that we've evolved, which helps us live and thrive in cooperative groups? That would explain why it seems so illogical at times and why it can be affected by the culture one is raised in. The more we mentally include something as "like us," the more it gets the empathy treatment, whether it's a human, an animal, or even an inanimate object. The feeling is generally strongest for things that would further our own genes: our children, our mates. Beyond that, it gradually fades as we get farther from our cooperative group, but we can "turn it on" illogically, treating a pet dog like a child, for example.That's also very possible. The more we percieve an animal being part of our greater society (i.e. dogs and cats as house pets for example) opposed to food, the more likely we are to form empathetic relationships and have concern for their well being.

[SonOfLaertes]

Sorry, you are simply wrong. As Hume pointed out, no amount of "is" statements can add up to a moral "ought" statement, without sneaking in an unstated "ought" somewhere.

What you are doing here is sneaking in some kind of "ought" claim such as "we ought not to allow animals to destroy their environment". Assuming everyone buys that "ought" claim, then you can indeed logically get to the conclusion that it's okay to eat meat if that meat is just a byproduct of some necessary act to stop animals destroying their environment.

If there are other means of stopping that happening, or the meat is not a byproduct of such activity, that argument gets you nowhere. So for example this argument does nothing to justify the vast bulk of modern meat-eating.



I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere productive until you realise that there is a difference between logic and opinion.



Now here you've lost the plot completely. "Natural" does not mean "good". You've just done a face-plant in the naturalistic fallacy.

I am not sneaking in some kind of "ought" claim such as "we ought not to allow animals to destroy their environment". I am overtly stating that "we ought not to allow animals to destroy their environment", so I can indeed logically get to the conclusion that it's okay to eat meat because meat is just a byproduct of some necessary act to stop animals destroying their environment.

There is no other natural means of stopping that happening, and meat is just a byproduct of that activity, so that argument helps prove my point. If we must assume our natural role as predator in order to maintain balance in the environment, and we must, then we should eat the meat that we harvest. If we eat the meat that we harvest naturally, then it is natural for us to eat meat.

Your last statement makes no sense. I asked for you to provide a viable natural alternative to hunting. By this I mean an alternative that assures the natural process of selection of the fittest occurs, which is not good but crucial to the long term viability of any species but man. You have ignored the whole point of my post and sidestepped the question with a snarky pirouette. Instead osf simply stating "your wrong so I'm taking my ball and not playing anymore", provide a viable alternative to hunting which assures that the least fit are culled from the gene pool.

[godless dave]

No, it doesn't answer the question (most of the posts here don't). Which is: if you believe in the golden rule and assuming you believe the golden rule applies to species other than humans,

The second assumption is the one that's incorrect.

Actually the first one is too. I don't "believe in" the Golden Rule. I think it's a useful ethical tool, and to the extent that I find it useful, I only apply it to other humans.

[NeilC]

If I apply the do as I would be done by rule to lions I find it to be fine to tuck into their guts whilst they are still bellowing in pain.

[Drudgewire]

Kids are intellectually inferior. Should we eat them because they are dumber?


No way. The meat is way too stringy.

[Pup]

Bacteria have no nervous system, feel no pain. They are not sentient beings. Chemical reactions don’t care if they live or die.

While the OP asked about killing animals, it's kinda morphed into a discussion about killing and eating animals.

I agree with phantomb that the above position seems no different from "Eating meat has the logical consistency of slavery. Some get rights, some don't, based on...gibberish"

But if we're going on purely logical grounds, here's another thought. Once an animal or human is already dead, they're no longer sentient beings and no longer care, just like broccoli. Therefore, eating one's freshly-dead baby or grandmother, who died naturally and didn't have a contagious disease, should be no different than eating broccoli. Brocolis, do you think that would be okay, or what logic would you use to argue against it?

[Mark6]

You should not kill an animal when you want to barbecue their flesh.
You mean I must barbecue them alive?

[Mark6]

More serious answer:

Regarding non-human organisms as moral equivalents of humans (and consequently refusing to eat them), if sufficiently widespread and prolonged, is deleterious to human race’s survival. If PETA philosophy ("humans are no better than pigs/mice/fish/ants") becomes entrenched in collective human psyche, we’ll have no moral justification to resist any global disaster that comes our way. "Yes, when asteroid 2550 AL173 hits, Earth will be back to invertebrates, but so what? We had our turn, it is time to accept our fate and give other critters a chance. After all, they have as much rights as we do."

If you think it is a farfetched scenario, consider that there are people today who think that way already -– Voluntary Human Extinction (http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm) comes to mind. It is not impossible for their ideas to become prevalent rather than outlandish. And YOUR philosiophy is a step in that direction. I would not even say "first step" –- that was taken with the whole "animal rights" concept.

Like all life forms, we are just trying to survive. Unlike other life forms, we are capable of taking the long view of this matter and to weigh value of other species against our needs. However, from viewpoint of our long-term survival every other species/culture has value below that of our own. You are free to believe otherwise, but in the long term it is a suicidal belief. There are NO altruistic species in nature -- you only survive if you value your and your kin’s survival above that of others*.

* Before someone brings up symbiosis -- every case of symbiosis in nature is akin to an armed truce -- it lasts only as long as both parties get more out of it than they put in. As soon as mutual gain breaks down -- usually because one partner became sick or weak, -- symbiosis turns into parasitism (or predation -- depending on the relative sizes of partners). Also, there are plenty of symbiotic relationships where the host routinely digests its symbionts -- yet they still come out ahead in reproductive success terms.

[Michael Redman]

Kids are intellectually inferior. Should we eat them because they are dumber?This question is a pointless distraction. Is it OK to kill a sleeping adult? We're obviously not talking about the present state of mind of the individual. We're talking about whether there is, or should be, distinctions drawn between species.

And let's stop pretending this is about pain and suffering. Life is suffering. If our goal was to end suffering, we would end life, not promote it. A quick death at the hand of a human is about the kindest death an animal can hope for, and allowing a creature to reproduce is simply creating another individual that is going to suffer and die. A prohibition on humans killing other animals is logically inconsistant with a desire to minimize pain and suffering.

What we are really talking about here is whether non-humans have a right to enjoy their own lives that is greater than our right to end their lives, or use their lives, for our own purposes. What I believe this line of thinking ignores, however, is the fact that no being has this right in nature, nor should it. Life does not exist for the benefit of the individual. Nearly every individual is destined to be sacrificed for the benefit of other life. No one argues that creatures in the state of nature don't have the "right" to kill.

As humans, through the creation of society, we have managed to hold off the natural order to the point where most of us get to live until our bodies give out, and we aren't eaten by other animals or killed by other humans. But this requires a conscious decision to participate, and to sacrifice for the common good. We pay for this ability to enjoy our lives. We call it a "right" because we have decided, by mutual assent of society, to protect the lives of each other in exchange for reciprocal protection.

Just as we create rights for humans out of rational self interest, our dealings with other animals should also be governed by rational self interest. I don't see any rational basis for extending rights to animals outside our society.

[Dragoonster]

More serious answer:

Regarding non-human organisms as moral equivalents of humans (and consequently refusing to eat them), if sufficiently widespread and prolonged, is deleterious to human race’s survival. If PETA philosophy ("humans are no better than pigs/mice/fish/ants") becomes entrenched in collective human psyche, we’ll have no moral justification to resist any global disaster that comes our way. "Yes, when asteroid 2550 AL173 hits, Earth will be back to invertebrates, but so what? We had our turn, it is time to accept our fate and give other critters a chance. After all, they have as much rights as we do."

If you think it is a farfetched scenario, consider that there are people today who think that way already -– Voluntary Human Extinction (http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm) comes to mind. It is not impossible for their ideas to become prevalent rather than outlandish. And YOUR philosiophy is a step in that direction. I would not even say "first step" –- that was taken with the whole "animal rights" concept.

Like all life forms, we are just trying to survive. Unlike other life forms, we are capable of taking the long view of this matter and to weigh value of other species against our needs. However, from viewpoint of our long-term survival every other species/culture has value below that of our own. You are free to believe otherwise, but in the long term it is a suicidal belief. There are NO altruistic species in nature -- you only survive if you value your and your kin’s survival above that of others*.

* Before someone brings up symbiosis -- every case of symbiosis in nature is akin to an armed truce -- it lasts only as long as both parties get more out of it than they put in. As soon as mutual gain breaks down -- usually because one partner became sick or weak, -- symbiosis turns into parasitism (or predation -- depending on the relative sizes of partners). Also, there are plenty of symbiotic relationships where the host routinely digests its symbionts -- yet they still come out ahead in reproductive success terms.

This is a species-centric utilitarian excuse imo. Not logically different than torturing other humans being moral if doing so saves x number of other humans. Or if I'm starving and steal an apple to survive, it was moral.

Even someone with the above reasonsing for why killing/eating animals is acceptable, or moral in the utilitarian sense, can still consider the act of killing/eating animals immoral on its own. They can realize the need for doing what they do, but not ignore that it's still immoral.

Just because not doing a certain act would lead to one's death or one's species death doesn't make doing the act moral. If it is, and I and a woman were the last people alive on the planet but she didn't want to have sex with me, raping her would be moral because it would save the species (genetic viability of offspring assumed for sake of example). Not raping her would be "suicidal".

ETA: It seems humans feel a need to justify everything they do as being morally correct, no matter what it is. So that they don't have to feel bad about it. This is generally not done bottom-up, where one would decide how to decide morality prior to bringing in cases; but top-down, where one has already decided what he wants to be moral, then decides how he must construct a morality that makes it moral.

[Drewbot]

They taste good.
But I will give you an honest take on this, from experience.

I would say the one thing that makes me want to hunt more than anything else is the raw emotional feeling that I get from it that I get from no other activity.

There is nothing I have experienced that can have me shaking from nervousness when I am hoping that the wind stays on course and I am in the final stages of stalking a deer, for example. It is the most pure form of emotion that I have experienced. Is it some evolutionary holdover from the human's humble beginnings? I don't know, but it is a good feeling. Plus the animal outwits me and escapes the showdown, in my case, 9 times out of 10.

[Mark6]

This is a species-centric utilitarian excuse imo.

Of course it is. Morals ARE species-centric. Non-human animals are incapable of understanding our morals, and incapable of following them. Hence our morals do not apply to them.

Not logically different than torturing other humans being moral if doing so saves x number of other humans. Or if I'm starving and steal an apple to survive, it was moral.

True. So what?

ETA: It seems humans feel a need to justify everything they do as being morally correct, no matter what it is. So that they don't have to feel bad about it. This is generally not done bottom-up, where one would decide how to decide morality prior to bringing in cases; but top-down, where one has already decided what he wants to be moral, then decides how he must construct a morality that makes it moral.
Which makes perfect sense if you recognize that "morals" are simply a social contract which enables humans to live withing a society. To a Roman citizen, the idea that slaves have rights would have been absurd, and freeing a slave against his owner's wishes was profoundly immoral. But that does not mean Romans had no morals -- just that their morals (i.e. their social contract) were different from ours. Naturally, any human who wants to live in a society (that is, not a sociopath), wants his actions to be seen as "moral" -- however his or her society happens to define the term. Hence the need for self-justification.

[Mark6]

I would say the one thing that makes me want to hunt more than anything else is the raw emotional feeling that I get from it that I get from no other activity.

There is nothing I have experienced that can have me shaking from nervousness when I am hoping that the wind stays on course and I am in the final stages of stalking a deer, for example. It is the most pure form of emotion that I have experienced. Is it some evolutionary holdover from the human's humble beginnings? I don't know, but it is a good feeling. Plus the animal outwits me and escapes the showdown, in my case, 9 times out of 10.
Second that!

Even though I do not hunt mammals.

[NewtonTrino]

Nobody follows the so called "golden rule". Penn and Teller should do a show about it because the golden rule is bovine fecal matter.

[JimBenArm]

Second that!

Even though I do not hunt mammals.

I do. However they're small mammals. Mice, mostly, although we had a shrew in the house once. He was a devil to catch.

Tasty, though...

[Dragoonster]

Of course it is. Morals ARE species-centric. Non-human animals are incapable of understanding our morals, and incapable of following them. Hence our morals do not apply to them.

But they do for most people who have a moral problem with literally torturing animals. I mean by that, one day just deciding to skin their pet alive because they want a fur hat. Even those who think legal animal-rights is nonsense still do seem to lend animals some measure of personal moral rights in their own conduct towards them. Unless the reason they don't skin their pets alive is something other than morality, like the cost of a replacement pet. That would seem consistent.

True. So what?

So a utilitarian is calling an immoral act moral in a context. It doesn't mean the act isn't immoral itself.

Is torturing animals immoral or not? Is torturing humans immoral or not? <---without the excuse of context I'd say yes to both.

Which makes perfect sense if you recognize that "morals" are simply a social contract which enables humans to live withing a society. To a Roman citizen, the idea that slaves have rights would have been absurd, and freeing a slave against his owner's wishes was profoundly immoral. But that does not mean Romans had no morals -- just that their morals (i.e. their social contract) were different from ours. Naturally, any human who wants to live in a society (that is, not a sociopath), wants his actions to be seen as "moral" -- however his or her society happens to define the term. Hence the need for self-justification.

Oh I agree it makes great sense. I just find it way too easy to deal with immoral things by tweaking it to make it appear they're moral.

[Michael Redman]

If I define torture as the purposeful infliction of suffering, rather than inflicting suffering ancillary to some other purpose, then I can support the notion that it is immoral to torture without recognizing in the animal a right to be free from torture. While I don't equate the pain and suffering of an animal with that of a human, I think that a person who manifests a desire to cause pain and suffering is exhibiting anti-social behavior potentialy quite dangerous to the society. This is also why it is wrong to torture humans that have rejected the social contract. The act of torture itself is wrong, even when it is not depriving someone of their right not to be tortured.

Of course, Dick Cheney may disagree.

[godless dave]

If the Golden Rule applies to animals, what is your excuse for swatting mosquitoes?

[Pup]

But they do for most people who have a moral problem with literally torturing animals. I mean by that, one day just deciding to skin their pet alive because they want a fur hat. Even those who think legal animal-rights is nonsense still do seem to lend animals some measure of personal moral rights in their own conduct towards them. Unless the reason they don't skin their pets alive is something other than morality, like the cost of a replacement pet. That would seem consistent.

That's what always puzzles me when people say that animals have no rights. I don't understand what they mean. If it were true, the above scenario would certainly apply: if animals have no rights, it should be as legal and moral to skin a pet alive as to hunt a deer for meat.

[Michael Redman]

That's what always puzzles me when people say that animals have no rights. I don't understand what they mean. If it were true, the above scenario would certainly apply: if animals have no rights, it should be as legal and moral to skin a pet alive as to hunt a deer for meat.

This assumes that there is nothing in the act of skinning a pet alive that should be prohibited, and only the effect on the pet is to be considered. I disagree.

[phunk]

No, it doesn't answer the question (most of the posts here don't). Which is: if you believe in the golden rule and assuming you believe the golden rule applies to species other than humans, how can you justify killing animals?

I've hilighted your mistake. I'm guessing you're not christian or jewish, right? The OT god clearly says the animals are ours to use and eat.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Nobody follows the so called "golden rule". Penn and Teller should do a show about it because the golden rule is bovine fecal matter.

Oh but they already did

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NAt1z_TgPQ4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NAt1z_TgPQ4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Pup]

This assumes that there is nothing in the act of skinning a pet alive that should be prohibited, and only the effect on the pet is to be considered. I disagree.

Not sure I see the difference. Or rather, I can't see that anything in the act should be prohibited, except because of its effect on the pet. If it were dead and a cow, most people wouldn't even think twice.

[Michael Redman]

Not sure I see the difference. Or rather, I can't see that anything in the act should be prohibited, except because of its effect on the pet. If it were dead and a cow, most people wouldn't even think twice.
Well, if you read my post 176, I explained why. I happen to believe there's something wrong with taking pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering. Clearly there are reasons some behavior is forbidden apart from the effect on the object of the action. We punish attempted murder, even if the intended victim is unaware. We don't allow guards to torture of death row prisoners, even though they have forfeited their rights. We prohibit sadistic behavior, not just the results.

[Pup]

Well, if you read my post 176, I explained why. I happen to believe there's something wrong with taking pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering. Clearly there are reasons some behavior is forbidden apart from the effect on the object of the action. We punish attempted murder, even if the intended victim is unaware. We don't allow guards to torture of death row prisoners, even though they have forfeited their rights. We prohibit sadistic behavior, not just the results.

But that's where I'm stumped. If it didn't have a certain effect on the pet, it wouldn't be considering inflicting pain and suffering, and therefore wouldn't be prohibited for that reason. So it still goes back to what effect it has on the animal.

[c4llum]

This is worth checking out. I'm a vegetarian and agree with Singer on this topic as well as Dawkins. I think it's important not to defend your point just because you, let's say eat meat and do not want to give it up. A part of being critical minded is being open for new information and accepting it.

Anyway, I'll say no more. Instead let these two speak :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU

[Drewbot]

Of course, besides tasting good, and delivering a wonderful feeling of the hunt, the other excuse for killing an animal would be if it is about to kill you.

Example: A lion charging out of the tall grass would give someone an excuse to kill it.

[Mirrorglass]

This is a species-centric utilitarian excuse imo. Not logically different than torturing other humans being moral if doing so saves x number of other humans. Or if I'm starving and steal an apple to survive, it was moral.

I believe in both those cases what you describe would be the correct thing to do. Don't believe me? Well, if you believe the actions you describe are morally wrong, then that means you think the opposite actions are morally better. So that means you think it's okay to

- Let a number of humans die so others would be spared of pain
- Let a human starve to death so another can make slightly more money selling his apples.

Is that your position? I didn't think so.

The problem is that moral choices aren't black and white. There are always some fortunate and unfortunate consequences. The utilitarian worldview states that we should pursue the highest good/bad ratio possible. What does your worldview suggest we do?

[Ron_Tomkins]

It's funny that it's us humans who decide to speak for the rights of all creatures, and decide to claim we own the ethic of everything else; and decide to instill guilt in others even though we are not consistent about this rule, and how far the concept of "life" extends.

This whole Golden Rule and Sanctity of Life BS is indeed nothing but human self importance.

[Dragoonster]

I believe in both those cases what you describe would be the correct thing to do. Don't believe me? Well, if you believe the actions you describe are morally wrong, then that means you think the opposite actions are morally better. So that means you think it's okay to

- Let a number of humans die so others would be spared of pain
- Let a human starve to death so another can make slightly more money selling his apples.

Is that your position? I didn't think so.

I never said it was. My position is if I tortured someone or stole something, I'll admit I did something immoral even if I thought in context it was the "least immoral" decision. I wouldn't conflate "correct" with "moral".

The problem is that moral choices aren't black and white. There are always some fortunate and unfortunate consequences. The utilitarian worldview states that we should pursue the highest good/bad ratio possible. What does your worldview suggest we do?

What we do is not my point, it's what we admit we do.

The problem I'm trying to get at is people who attempt to absolve themselves of committing immoral acts by pointing to utilitarianism, or evolutionary survival, or other defenses of killing/eating animals. The only way this is a ho-hum, not immoral at all decision is if they really don't think animals have any moral rights and wouldn't hesitate to torture them for any reason.

If you rape, torture, and decapitate one innocent person to save 100 innocent people, do you really think you didn't do anything immoral?

[Michael Redman]

But that's where I'm stumped. If it didn't have a certain effect on the pet, it wouldn't be considering inflicting pain and suffering, and therefore wouldn't be prohibited for that reason. So it still goes back to what effect it has on the animal.What if someone intended to pour a pot of boiling water on a child, but missed, and the child remained unharmed. No victim. Moral behavior?

Let's say we created non-sentient virtual children that reacted indistinguishably from the real thing. Let's say someone tortured them for entertainment, delighting in their screams and cries. No victim. Moral behavior?

What if the guy didn't know the children were non-sentient virtual children, but thought they were real. No victim. Moral bahavior?

There is more to the morality of an act than its outward effect.

[Cavemonster]

If you rape, torture, and decapitate one innocent person to save 100 innocent people, do you really think you didn't do anything immoral?

If the alternative was letting 100 innocent people die, then no moral choice existed by your measure. I guess you can call it immoral, but that's a pretty useless distinction. It isn't worthy of condemnation, it isn't a poor deciscion or one that should not have been made.

[Brocolis]

How does that not describe your new position? Are you going to tell me that the list of criteria you just named (possession of a nervous system, ability to feel pain, sentience (good luck defining this one)) as being proper for distinguishing between what forms of life get rights and what forms of life don't is somehow less arbitrary or "gibberish" than the various lists of criteria meat eaters in this thread have suggested (species being one example)?
oh this is going to be a hard one to defend (sarcasm)

the criteria to attribute rights can be very simple. We give rights based on what a specific life form is “interested” in.

A man is interested (among other things) in avoid suffering, driving a car, voting, etc...
So we give them all those rights

A baby, or a dog, or a cow is also interested in things such as avoid suffering, but they don't really care for voting or driving a car. so we don't give those rights to them.

Bacteria or plants have no brain, feel no pain, have no consciousness. They are just unaware life reproducing, so they don't care to have any rights

Taking rights considering a being's race, specie or sex is gibberish, but giving rights based on what that life form is “interested” in makes good sense. That is the position

[Dragoonster]

If the alternative was letting 100 innocent people die, then no moral choice existed by your measure. I guess you can call it immoral, but that's a pretty useless distinction. It isn't worthy of condemnation, it isn't a poor deciscion or one that should not have been made.

You guess I can call raping, torturing, and murdering an innocent person immoral? Thanks for that generous allowance...

If it's a useless distinction, then torturing innocents in certain circumstances would be legal. It's not, nor is it moral--it's the immoral component of the most-moral decision.

[Michael Redman]

Taking rights considering a being's race, specie or sex is gibberish, but giving rights based on what that life form is “interested” in makes good sense. That is the positionPerfect. Then those interested in eating meat have that right.

I guess we're done here.

[coalesce]

Would you consider pumping all women full of fertility drugs, and increasing the output of their breast milk as furthering the women species?

Are either silicone or saline considered "fertility drugs?"

Michael

[Cavemonster]

You guess I can call raping, torturing, and murdering an innocent person immoral? Thanks for that generous allowance...

If it's a useless distinction, then torturing innocents in certain circumstances would be legal. It's not, nor is it moral--it's the immoral component of the most-moral decision.

What does legality have to do with morality?
There are many immoral things that are legal and many moral things which are illegal.

You realize that laws are created by humans who vastly disagree on many things, and those laws vary wildly from country to country, even from smaller localities.

[Dragoonster]

What does legality have to do with morality?
There are many immoral things that are legal and many moral things which are illegal.

You realize that laws are created by humans who vastly disagree on many things, and those laws vary wildly from country to country, even from smaller localities.

It was an example that the distinction is not useless, but rather signficant in at least one other context, and legality was the first one that came to mind. Didn't mean to suggest laws=morals.

If you really don't see anything immoral in raping, torturing, and murdering innocent people even in certain contexts I guess it's either a difference of opinion, or ability to admit something.

[Cavemonster]

It was an example that the distinction is not useless, but rather signficant in at least one other context, and legality was the first one that came to mind. Didn't mean to suggest laws=morals.

If you really don't see anything immoral in raping, torturing, and murdering innocent people even in certain contexts I guess it's either a difference of opinion, or ability to admit something.

Please define explicity what use a moral judgement is for situations where the only possibilities are considered immoral, such as your odd hypothetical case of rape/murder being the only was to save 100 other lives.

If an act is the more moral of the available options, how is it useful to label it as immoral? Specifically.

[Mirrorglass]

You guess I can call raping, torturing, and murdering an innocent person immoral? Thanks for that generous allowance...

If it's a useless distinction, then torturing innocents in certain circumstances would be legal. It's not, nor is it moral--it's the immoral component of the most-moral decision.

The thing is, things are always in context. To take an action out of that context deprives it of it's original meaning. If I take "rape" out of context, I get simply "sexual intercourse". Surely that is not morally wrong?

The answer is yes, it is, in the context where said intercourse is forced. According to my moral system it isn't morally right to force intercourse on anyone.. except in the context where said act of rape saves lives.

I don't consider the morality of my actions out of context, since that would be completely meaningless. In my moral system, the action that causes most good and least evil (or to be more accurate, the action perceived as such) is morally correct, and the fact that it does cause some evil does not change that.

[Pup]

What if someone intended to pour a pot of boiling water on a child, but missed, and the child remained unharmed. No victim. Moral behavior?

Not moral, but only because of the effect the intended action would have had. If someone tried to pour a pot of cool water on a child suffering from heat stroke and missed, it would still be moral because of the intended good the action would have done, if it had succeeded. There's really no other way to judge, except by taking into consideration the effect on the other person.

Let's say we created non-sentient virtual children that reacted indistinguishably from the real thing. Let's say someone tortured them for entertainment, delighting in their screams and cries. No victim. Moral behavior?

Isn't that what video games are? Not to mention those clown-shaped punching bags?

I'd say it's moral behavior (or at least not immoral) because the person knows the virtual children aren't real and knows there's no actual effect on them. Obviously this is somewhat debatable in society, due to the controversy over violent video games. But the controversy seems centered on whether the games will lead to behavior that will cause actual harm, and not that it's wrong to shoot a stream of pixels at another set of pixels, by itself.

What if the guy didn't know the children were non-sentient virtual children, but thought they were real. No victim. Moral bahavior?

Not moral, because the person believed his actions were having an effect.

There is more to the morality of an act than its outward effect.
And yet it still comes down to making a decision about whether there was an intent to cause actual harm, which requires judging the potential effect on the victim.

[Dragoonster]

Please define explicity what use a moral judgement is for situations where the only possibilities are considered immoral, such as your odd hypothetical case of rape/murder being the only was to save 100 other lives.

If an act is the more moral of the available options, how is it useful to label it as immoral? Specifically.

First, not everyone is a utilitarian, some are absolutists. They disagree with committing any immoral act no matter how bad the alternative would be. So torturing is immoral regardless of context.

Even for utilitiarians, if you accept the torturing of 1 for 100, the process you use getting there has to recognize the immorality of the torturing. That's the whole reason it's a condundrum in hypotheticals--struggling to bring oneself to commit one moral act in order to not "inactively commit" many more by simply doing nothing.

To this thread, even someone claiming killing/eating animals is acceptable because it ensures human survival or whatever should include that that's why an immoral act is acceptable. Or if they justify it with "because they taste good", they need to explain why that's enough to make it moral, assuming they'd still find skinning a pet alive with no other context immoral. I just get frustrated when any morals or rights we'd grant to animals are flippantly dismissed, especially by people who do find torturing them immoral. Just not eating them or killing them? Why.

That video of Singer and Dawkins is a decent example--Dawkins realizes Singer's arguments about the immorality are sound (that is, Dawkins agrees with that morality), but he still eats meat. Part of the dismissal process is in not being able to admit and seriously appreciate the immorality, and I find the same in some of these arguments. And in some utilitarian arguments or all utiliarians who simply refuse to admit that they did commit an immoral act.

[Cavemonster]

First, not everyone is a utilitarian, some are absolutists. They disagree with committing any immoral act no matter how bad the alternative would be. So torturing is immoral regardless of context.

Even for utilitiarians, if you accept the torturing of 1 for 100, the process you use getting there has to recognize the immorality of the torturing. That's the whole reason it's a condundrum in hypotheticals--struggling to bring oneself to commit one moral act in order to not "inactively commit" many more by simply doing nothing.

To this thread, even someone claiming killing/eating animals is acceptable because it ensures human survival or whatever should include that that's why an immoral act is acceptable. Or if they justify it with "because they taste good", they need to explain why that's enough to make it moral, assuming they'd still find skinning a pet alive with no other context immoral. I just get frustrated when any morals or rights we'd grant to animals are flippantly dismissed, especially by people who do find torturing them immoral. Just not eating them or killing them? Why.

That video of Singer and Dawkins is a decent example--Dawkins realizes Singer's arguments about the immorality are sound (that is, Dawkins agrees with that morality), but he still eats meat. Part of the dismissal process is in not being able to admit and seriously appreciate the immorality, and I find the same in some of these arguments. And in some utilitarian arguments or all utiliarians who simply refuse to admit that they did commit an immoral act.

You didn't answer my question.

[megaresp]

Do you think human rights are also emotional?

Yes.

You can either follow your natural impulses to maximize pleasure or you can acknowledge that there are other sentient who should be considered.

Actually I can do many more things than that. What is your purpose for imposing artificial limitations on the # of things I can do?

Can't logically do both.

I'm pretty sure I can eat chocolate and feed my cat at the same time.

You can't grant rights for some people and harm others based on the fact that nature made you that way.

I don't want to harm others.

You are picking and choosing the values you want to apply

As opposed to what? Having them foisted on me by you?

Eating meat has the logical consistency of slavery

How so? Please explain.

[phantomb]

the criteria to attribute rights can be very simple. We give rights based on what a specific life form is “interested” in.

Okay, so first thought: all you're doing here is explaining your criteria further. Nowhere in this post do you actually answer my question of how your choice of criteria is less arbitrary or "gibberish" than the criteria meat eaters in this thread have come up with.


A man is interested (among other things) in avoid suffering, driving a car, voting, etc...
So we give them all those rights

I assume you're talking about how you think we should decide rights, because this is not how we give things rights in the real world. A man is also interested in having food to eat, a home to live in, a job to work at, etc. but I know of no country in the world that guarantees those things as rights to its citizens. Rights are decided more-or-less arbitrarily by the people in a given society. They come from the people, they are enforced by the people, and they are applied to the people.


A baby, or a dog, or a cow is also interested in things such as avoid suffering, but they don't really care for voting or driving a car. so we don't give those rights to them.

Would you please define "interested" for me. Are plants, insects, bacteria, and all the other various forms of life I assume you're okay with killing and eating not "interested" in avoiding death and suffering (in the cases of ones that are capable of it).

By the way, are you paraphrasing PETA here, or do you just have similar ideas?


animals don’t always have the same rights as humans because their interests are not always the same as ours . . . For instance, a dog doesn’t have an interest in voting and, therefore, doesn’t have the right to vote . . .



Bacteria or plants have no brain, feel no pain, have no consciousness. They are just unaware life reproducing, so they don't care to have any rights

Well, as I said in my above post, I would liken most non-human animals to chemical machines, just reproducing with conscious experiences that are not comparable to ours.


Taking rights considering a being's race, specie or sex is gibberish, but giving rights based on what that life form is “interested” in makes good sense. That is the position

Why? Again, you have done absolutely nothing to explain why distinguishing by "interest" is not gibberish but distinguishing by species is? You also haven't done anything to explain why following your system of rights would benefit anyone.

Frankly, I don't think you can. This issue is almost completely subjective, with everyone involved using different reasoning to come up with their own conclusion about what rights, if any, should be granted to non-human animals. The only difference is you're going one step further and saying that the idea you came up with is somehow special while everyone else's are just gibberish.

[Dragoonster]

The thing is, things are always in context. To take an action out of that context deprives it of it's original meaning. If I take "rape" out of context, I get simply "sexual intercourse". Surely that is not morally wrong?

The answer is yes, it is, in the context where said intercourse is forced. According to my moral system it isn't morally right to force intercourse on anyone.. except in the context where said act of rape saves lives.

I don't consider the morality of my actions out of context, since that would be completely meaningless. In my moral system, the action that causes most good and least evil (or to be more accurate, the action perceived as such) is morally correct, and the fact that it does cause some evil does not change that.

Let's say you torture and rape someone because you believe doing so will cause 100 others to not be tortured and raped. That's your context of why the action is moral. Your victim though likely disagrees that it was moral, assuming he didn't give consent and objected to what you did to him. There are two contexts even though there's only one action--the relationship between you and your victim, and between you and the 100 you're committing the act in order to save. At least that's how I look at it; I'd commit an immoral act in order to secure a moral outcome. Simply because in the broader context it would be a moral act to committ doesn't mean the act itself isn't immoral.

Maybe I've gone way too far here in arguing what's a given? But it does seem an important clarification that some (apparently not you) seem to be dismissing in order to justify their larger morals. They don't even admit doing some evil.

[Dragoonster]

You didn't answer my question.

I think I did, certainly tried to.

Bye.

[Mirrorglass]

Let's say you torture and rape someone because you believe doing so will cause 100 others to not be tortured and raped. That's your context of why the action is moral. Your victim though likely disagrees that it was moral, assuming he didn't give consent and objected to what you did to him. There are two contexts even though there's only one action--the relationship between you and your victim, and between you and the 100 you're committing the act in order to save. At least that's how I look at it; I'd commit an immoral act in order to secure a moral outcome. Simply because in the broader context it would be a moral act to committ doesn't mean the act itself isn't immoral.

Maybe I've gone way too far here in arguing what's a given? But it does seem an important clarification that some (apparently not you) seem to be dismissing in order to justify their larger morals. They don't even admit doing some evil.

Bolding mine.

If the bolded statement is what you would do in the situation, then we aren't really disagreeing; we just mean different things by morality.

To me, a morally justifiable decision is the one that maximizes benefit. It's a relative measure, and as such, my worldview has no situations where all alternatives are immoral; there is always the most moral one, and that is the moral one. Also, to me, there is only one true context: reality. Any sub-context may be useful for thought experiments, but is not meaningful in determining the morality of a decision.

When you speak of morals, you view decisions in different contexts, and as such, find that each and every action you commit is both moral and immoral at the same time, in varying proportions. If you choose the action with most moral and least immoral component, then you'll notice you've reached the exact same action I did, only through a slightly different path.

The main difference in our ways of thinking, it seems to me, is that you feel there is some reason to consider even the most moral choice immoral because of the immoral components it contained. Or to put it more simply, you whip yourself over your sinful actions even when you did the best you could.

I should note that while in the example provided I would consider raping the woman to be the moral choice, that would not absolve me of responsibility. I would still be accountable to the woman, society, and myself, and the lives I saved would not change that. The cost I pay would have to be taken to account, too, when considering the morality of the action, although it would not matter too much. My moral system is closer to altruistic than utilitarian anyway.

One more interesting point:

Your victim though likely disagrees that it was moral, assuming he didn't give consent and objected to what you did to him.

He (did you have to make it a man?) might not agree with my decision, sure. But if he shared the same moral system I do, he definitely would. And if his moral system was different, then it would be to be expected that we would disagree on what is moral. My moral system is not dependent on whether or not everyone agrees with it, though.

[Dragoonster]

I should note that while in the example provided I would consider raping the woman to be the moral choice, that would not absolve me of responsibility. I would still be accountable to the woman, society, and myself, and the lives I saved would not change that. The cost I pay would have to be taken to account, too, when considering the morality of the action, although it would not matter too much. My moral system is closer to altruistic than utilitarian anyway.

Thanks, looks like our argument is mainly semantic. I hold very similar views, just describe it differently as the "least immoral" rather than "most moral". And yeah, I tend to whip myself up about it when the immoral component is seen as a relatively small matter. I don't think you think that now.

He (did you have to make it a man?) might not agree with my decision, sure. But if he shared the same moral system I do, he definitely would. And if his moral system was different, then it would be to be expected that we would disagree on what is moral. My moral system is not dependent on whether or not everyone agrees with it, though.

Nor should it, I just think it would only be (or should only be called) a fully moral thing to do if he agreed with it. I use "he" as the default for hypothetical people, wasn't meaning anything by using that instead of "she".

[Piscivore]

Who needs one? Seriously.

Even for killing human animals, often no "excuse" is needed. Look at history. Humanankind is very good at killing, and it does it frequently. The evolution of our cultures document a search for "excuses" not to kill, rather than the opposite.

[JimBenArm]

Some animals just need killin'.

[Mirrorglass]

Thanks, looks like our argument is mainly semantic. I hold very similar views, just describe it differently as the "least immoral" rather than "most moral". And yeah, I tend to whip myself up about it when the immoral component is seen as a relatively small matter. I don't think you think that now.



Nor should it, I just think it would only be (or should only be called) a fully moral thing to do if he agreed with it. I use "he" as the default for hypothetical people, wasn't meaning anything by using that instead of "she".

Glad we found a common note. By the way, do you think there could be any action you'd consider "fully moral"? It seems to me like you'd view every possible action as at least somewhat immoral.

There's nothing wrong with your worldview, of course, especially since we fundamentally agree. I just don't like whips much. ;)

[Dragoonster]

Glad we found a common note. By the way, do you think there could be any action you'd consider "fully moral"? It seems to me like you'd view every possible action as at least somewhat immoral.

There's nothing wrong with your worldview, of course, especially since we fundamentally agree. I just don't like whips much. ;)

That's a good question! Yeah, I suppose I'd have to see all actions as somewhat immoral. Building a refugee camp in Burma prevents one from being built in the Congo, and so on. My only defense there is I don't think choosing not to act is necessarily immoral. In practice I don't think as stringently as shown here, this thread has gotten me worked up because I do like animals a lot. I'll try to lighten up though and not blame people as much :) Thanks for the discussion!

[Mirrorglass]

That's a good question! Yeah, I suppose I'd have to see all actions as somewhat immoral. Building a refugee camp in Burma prevents one from being built in the Congo, and so on. My only defense there is I don't think choosing not to act is necessarily immoral. In practice I don't think as stringently as shown here, this thread has gotten me worked up because I do like animals a lot. I'll try to lighten up though and not blame people as much :) Thanks for the discussion!

Thanks to you as well. :)

[BTMO]

Nothing wrong with such motives. Enjoy!

But what about big game hunters who hunt for trophy animals so they can display them on their walls or floor?


Dunno, sorry. Like I said - I eat what I shoot, stab or spear...

[Kevin_Lowe]

I am not sneaking in some kind of "ought" claim such as "we ought not to allow animals to destroy their environment". I am overtly stating that "we ought not to allow animals to destroy their environment", so I can indeed logically get to the conclusion that it's okay to eat meat because meat is just a byproduct of some necessary act to stop animals destroying their environment.

Except that the vast majority of meat is no such byproduct.

To borrow your example, you might as well argue "Rape is moral if it's the only way to prevent a much greater harm (due to some bizarre set of circumstances). Therefore rape is always moral".


There is no other natural means of stopping that happening

You keep banging on about this morally irrelevant notion of "naturalness". Get over it. Whether a solution is "natural" or not is morally meaningless.

(It's also philosophically meaningless in a very important sense, seeing as whatever humans do is by definition natural for humans).


, and meat is just a byproduct of that activity, so that argument helps prove my point. If we must assume our natural role as predator

If we have a "natural role" at all, it's to do precisely whatever we end up doing. Whether that's killing deer, sterilising and releasing deer, feeding deer, or even raping deer. Whatever we do is natural for us by definition.

That's why your babbling about "naturalness" is an intellectual pratfall.


Your last statement makes no sense. I asked for you to provide a viable natural alternative to hunting. By this I mean an alternative that assures the natural process of selection of the fittest occurs, which is not good but crucial to the long term viability of any species but man.

Now you're compounding the intellectual pratfall of engaging in the naturalistic fallacy, by wallowing in the same error as the idiotic Social Darwinists.

Evolution is neither good nor crucial. It is merely adaptation to whatever works in the current environment. It's complete bollocks to claim that predation is beneficial for a species, unless you have some crazy conviction that devoting energy to being able to run better or hide better is good in some absolute, transcendental sense.

The fairy story that predators are doing a species a favour by killing off those least adapted to surviving predation is nonsense. Adaptation to survive predation is neither good nor bad, it merely is.

You have ignored the whole point of my post and sidestepped the question with a snarky pirouette. Instead osf simply stating "your wrong so I'm taking my ball and not playing anymore", provide a viable alternative to hunting which assures that the least fit are culled from the gene pool.

I did not ignore your point. I explained why your point was stupid from nose to tail. Yet here you are posting the same stuff again, only now with extra nonsense based on serious misunderstandings of science on top.

[Drudgewire]

Some animals just need killin'.


Especially minks. They're nature's jerkfaces.

[Brocolis]

The only difference is you're going one step further and saying that the idea you came up with is somehow special while everyone else's are just gibberish.

Going a step further is exactly what we are doing. That is what any rights movements do. In history, it is peculiar of each civilization what subjective reasons will be used to decide what groups get protected and what groups don’t. All rights movements do is to go a step further and say that there is a fairest way of how we should grant rights.

Now, that is a subjective, but logical decision. I think it is wrong to harm a sentient animal. I also don’t NEED to harm any sentient animal to live my life. Therefore I won’t harm any sentient animal.

[Mirrorglass]

Going a step further is exactly what we are doing. That is what any rights movements do. In history, it is peculiar of each civilization what subjective reasons will be used to decide what groups get protected and what groups don’t. All rights movements do is to go a step further and say that there is a fairest way of how we should grant rights.

Now, that is a subjective, but logical decision. I think it is wrong to harm a sentient animal. I also don’t NEED to harm any sentient animal to live my life. Therefore I won’t harm any sentient animal.

And that's fine. But you won't convince the majorities with that.

[Cavemonster]

Going a step further is exactly what we are doing. That is what any rights movements do. In history, it is peculiar of each civilization what subjective reasons will be used to decide what groups get protected and what groups don’t. All rights movements do is to go a step further and say that there is a fairest way of how we should grant rights.

Now, that is a subjective, but logical decision. I think it is wrong to harm a sentient animal. I also don’t NEED to harm any sentient animal to live my life. Therefore I won’t harm any sentient animal.

But I'm betting that you do. You vacuum right? That's killing thousands of dust mites, animals that have a nervous system capable of pleasure and pain. If you have eaten any red food in the last few decades, you were responsible for a massive slaughter of cochineals.

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

If you have ever eaten honey or worn wool, you are using the products of animal enslavement. If your basis for not killing animals is the Golden Rule, why does it cover only murder and not slavery? Doesn't your Golden rule cover more than just murder for humans?

Only if you live a complete Jain lifestyle can you claim not to be harming any sentient creature. Anything short of that, and you need to justify why you draw the line where you do.

[phantomb]

Going a step further is exactly what we are doing. That is what any rights movements do. In history, it is peculiar of each civilization what subjective reasons will be used to decide what groups get protected and what groups don’t. All rights movements do is to go a step further and say that there is a fairest way of how we should grant rights.

But I'm guessing you'd have trouble explaining why it's the fairest, as your choice of criteria is subjective and the terms involved (sentience, for example) are nebulous. You also probably can't explain why we should adopt your system because the argument you're making runs contrary to the beliefs and feelings of most people, and frankly, implementing it universally would be a detriment to most people as well.


Now, that is a subjective, but logical decision. I think it is wrong to harm a sentient animal. I also don’t NEED to harm any sentient animal to live my life. Therefore I won’t harm any sentient animal.

And my decision, and the decisions of most of the meat eaters that I've read here, are equally subjective and logical. So where do you get off dismissing everyone else's decision as gibberish?

Wherever it is that you draw the line between forms of life it is okay to kill and forms of life it is not okay to kill, do you honestly believe there isn't someone who thinks it should be just a little bit farther and who would dismiss your criteria as gibberish in the face of his own?

[Kevin_Lowe]

But I'm guessing you'd have trouble explaining why it's the fairest, as your choice of criteria is subjective and the terms involved (sentience, for example) are nebulous. You also probably can't explain why we should adopt your system because the argument you're making runs contrary to the beliefs and feelings of most people, and frankly, implementing it universally would be a detriment to most people as well.

Actually you're completely wrong, at least as far as modern society is concerned.

It's illegal to torture a cat, but not to torture a dust mite. It's harder to get ethics committee clearance for research that requires killing a chimpanzee than for research that requires killing a beagle, and harder to get clearance for the beagle than a rat, and for the rat than a fruit fly. People are more outraged about the killing of dolphins and whales than about the killing of mice or earwigs.

Our existing society definitely has a hierarchy of animal values similar to Brocolis'.


And my decision, and the decisions of most of the meat eaters that I've read here, are equally subjective and logical. So where do you get off dismissing everyone else's decision as gibberish?

Wherever it is that you draw the line between forms of life it is okay to kill and forms of life it is not okay to kill, do you honestly believe there isn't someone who thinks it should be just a little bit farther and who would dismiss your criteria as gibberish in the face of his own?

This is the kind of wilfully fuzzy-minded approach beloved of postmodernists and various other forms of irrational woo-woo.

What you need to do is answer the question "Why do I think it is not okay to kill humans?". Make sure your answer covers brain damaged humans, developmentally disordered humans, mentally ill humans, people with dementia and every other human that you think it is not okay to kill just because you feel like it.

Then ask yourself "Do any animals have any of the characteristics that make humans morally important?".

[Drudgewire]

Then ask yourself "Do any animals have any of the characteristics that make humans morally important?".


The second cows can answer that question for themselves I'll go vegetarian.

And they have to be able to defend ALL animals, instead of throwing chickens under the bus like they're doing now. :mad:

[Sledge]

The second cows can answer that question for themselves I'll go vegetarian.
What if the cow wants to be eaten?
"A very wise choice, sir, if I may say so. Very good," it said, "I'll just nip off and shoot myself."

He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur.

"Don't worry, sir," he said, "I'll be very humane."

[Kevin_Lowe]

The second cows can answer that question for themselves I'll go vegetarian.

Does that mean it's okay to put humans incapable of speech into gas chambers, unless they can answer such questions for themselves?

We could draw the line there. It would mean a lot of humans would fall below the threshold of moral importance and we could kill them whenever we wanted, but some people actually like that conclusion.

[Cavemonster]

Then ask yourself "Do any animals have any of the characteristics that make humans morally important?".

That assumes that any one of those characteristics by itself makes something morally important.

[Drudgewire]

Does that mean it's okay to put humans incapable of speech into gas chambers, unless they can answer such questions for themselves?

We could draw the line there. It would mean a lot of humans would fall below the threshold of moral importance and we could kill them whenever we wanted, but some people actually like that conclusion.


Or we could draw the line at making a distinction between humans and other animals because we understand the difference between real life and Disney movies where they all can sing in harmony and/or using skewed moral relativism to feel superior to the ham & eggers.

Yay for lines.

[phantomb]

Actually you're completely wrong, at least as far as modern society is concerned.

It's illegal to torture a cat, but not to torture a dust mite. It's harder to get ethics committee clearance for research that requires killing a chimpanzee than for research that requires killing a beagle, and harder to get clearance for the beagle than a rat, and for the rat than a fruit fly. People are more outraged about the killing of dolphins and whales than about the killing of mice or earwigs.

Our existing society definitely has a hierarchy of animal values similar to Brocolis'.

Of course it does. We empathize with things that are similar to us, and of course, laws against killing dust mites would be completely impossible for anyone to follow or enforce. That doesn't mean Brocolis's line in the sand syncs up with the feelings of most people, or that adopting said line in the sand universally wouldn't be a massive detriment to pretty much everyone (say goodbye to several entire industries that rely on the killing of animals, say goodbye to every person on this planet who relies on meat to survive).


This is the kind of wilfully fuzzy-minded approach beloved of postmodernists and various other forms of irrational woo-woo.

What you need to do is answer the question "Why do I think it is not okay to kill humans?".

For a couple of reasons: On the cold and calculating side of things, laws against human killing protect both me and my loved ones from being killed, and have proven to be of great benefit to human societies in various ways. On the emotional side, I was raised to abhor death and violence against humans, and I can empathize with a human I might kill or who I might allow to be killed and imagine finding myself in their position. I'm also of the somewhat idealist mentality that living things as intelligent as we are deserve some manner of respect.


Make sure your answer covers brain damaged humans, developmentally disordered humans, mentally ill humans, people with dementia and every other human that you think it is not okay to kill just because you feel like it.

It does. As I said to Brocolis, I would not strictly have a problem with you eating a person whose brain was the functional equivalent of the brain of your average non-human animal, though there are, or course, social reason why I don't think we should be eating the brain-dead and the extraordinarily disabled.


Then ask yourself "Do any animals have any of the characteristics that make humans morally important?".

A handful, if any at all. Certainly none of the ones that I eat.

For any of the reasons that I am against human killing to apply to a non-human animal, that non-human animal would have to have a brain that functionally approximates our own, at least in some ways. If it doesn't, giving it rights doesn't protect me and my loved ones, giving it rights is of no benefit to my society, I don't feel the same negative emotions when it is killed, I can't empathize with it, and my ideals don't cover it.

[SonOfLaertes]

post deleted

[Kevin_Lowe]

Of course it does. We empathize with things that are similar to us, and of course, laws against killing dust mites would be completely impossible for anyone to follow or enforce. That doesn't mean Brocolis's line in the sand syncs up with the feelings of most people, or that adopting said line in the sand universally wouldn't be a massive detriment to pretty much everyone (say goodbye to several entire industries that rely on the killing of animals, say goodbye to every person on this planet who relies on meat to survive).

That's what's called the "argument from consequences", one of the canonical fallacies. Just because an argument would have bad consequences if it were correct does not mean that the argument is wrong.

Abolishing slavery would have been bad for the cotton industry back in the day. That doesn't mean slavery was moral.


For a couple of reasons: On the cold and calculating side of things, laws against human killing protect both me and my loved ones from being killed, and have proven to be of great benefit to human societies in various ways.

Argument from consequences again.


On the emotional side, I was raised to abhor death and violence against humans, and I can empathize with a human I might kill or who I might allow to be killed and imagine finding myself in their position.

People can be raised to believe in all sorts of things, and abhor all sorts of things. That can't determine what's moral or isn't.


It does. As I said to Brocolis, I would not strictly have a problem with you eating a person whose brain was the functional equivalent of the brain of your average non-human animal, though there are, or course, social reason why I don't think we should be eating the brain-dead and the extraordinarily disabled.

Fair enough then. On this point you're consistent.

However Alex the Parrot was smarter in important cognitive ways than a four year old human, so presumably from your point of view it's not okay to eat African Greys but it is okay to slaughter and barbecue a toddler.

(Granted toddlers might grow up to benefit society in some way, but assuming the toddler was surplus to requirements it follows that it's okay to kill it for food).

[Cavemonster]

Kevin,
I think you're misusing "Argument from Consequences" here.
People in this thread are using different definitions of "moral" but for most of them, "intentionally causing bad consequences" would be a part of it. So the truth value of a moral statement is very much linked to consequences. Without exploring consequences, there is no way to make a moral judgement.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin,
I think you're misusing "Argument from Consequences" here.
People in this thread are using different definitions of "moral" but for most of them, "intentionally causing bad consequences" would be a part of it. So the truth value of a moral statement is very much linked to consequences. Without exploring consequences, there is no way to make a moral judgement.

Well, there are actually ways to do just that. Deontological moral theories tend to focus on the act and ignore the consequences of the act. I don't like such theories very much but they do exist.

That aside, utilitarian moral theories (those solely concerned with maximising good consequences) do take consequences into account but from Bentham onwards they've usually taken the consequences for animals into account too. So appealing to consequences is not a fast track to making it okay to eat animals. If anything, it immediately confronts you with the choice between blatant special pleading ("humans are special just because!") or having to explain how the benefit of steak being tastier than tofu justifies the cost of killing conscious beings.

[phantomb]

That's what's called the "argument from consequences", one of the canonical fallacies. Just because an argument would have bad consequences if it were correct does not mean that the argument is wrong.

I never said that Brocolis' argument was somehow wrong because of its consequences, I said that his rights movement probably couldn't give a good explanation for why their method of distributing rights is the fairest, or why people should adopt their method when it's argument runs contrary to their beliefs and its implementation would be detrimental. I didn't intend for anyone to draw anything more from what I said than that.

Argument from consequences again.

There's been some confusion. As I said before, I believe issues of morality like these are subjective. You asked "why do you think it is not okay to kill humans?", and I assumed you meant something more like "why do you not kill humans?" or "why do you support laws against killing humans?". Does that clear things up?

People can be raised to believe in all sorts of things, and abhor all sorts of things. That can't determine what's moral or isn't.

Again, I don't believe what's moral and what isn't can be determined objectively.


Fair enough then. On this point you're consistent.

However Alex the Parrot was smarter in important cognitive ways than a four year old human, so presumably from your point of view it's not okay to eat African Greys but it is okay to slaughter and barbecue a toddler.

Well, firstly, I'm familiar with Alex, and I believe the bird's intelligence is still contentious among animal intelligence researchers and linguists. Secondly, I never actually specified what cognitive ways were important. Admittedly, this is because it's a very difficult question. I've read quite a bit on intelligence and animal intelligence for the layman (the usual suspects: Dennet, Chalmers, Chomsky, Hofstadter, maybe a few others) and I've taken a few relevant courses at the college level, and from what I've read we have no generally accepted theory which can explain exactly how conscious experiences are produced by the brain or which, when given a specific brain, can predict what sorts of experiences that brain will produce.


(Granted toddlers might grow up to benefit society in some way, but assuming the toddler was surplus to requirements it follows that it's okay to kill it for food).

Yes, that's consistent with my views, assuming the toddlers in question fail to meet my criteria.

[Slimething]

So appealing to consequences is not a fast track to making it okay to eat animals.
Animals taste good. Is that too difficult to understand? Humans evolved eating many things, including animals. Worms ate Bentham, by the way. :p

[Kevin_Lowe]

Animals taste good. Is that too difficult to understand? Humans evolved eating many things, including animals. Worms ate Bentham, by the way. :p

Personally, I think a major reason humans (on their good days) are more important than animals is that humans are capable of rising above their instinctive behaviour. For example we are capable of using reason to evaluate whether individual instinctive urges, such as the urge to rape or eat meat, are morally defensible to act on or not.

Some people of course never get to that stage.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What is your excuse for killing animals?

I don't need an excuse to kill animals. I live in a society where it's common and considered morally neutral at worst.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

(first of all I don’t mean to be flaming, just discuss nicely)

I guess most people here believe in the golden rule… meaning that they generally will avoid doing to others what they don’t want others doing to them.

I also guess most people here believe in evolution… meaning they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.

So I’m curious to know what you critical thinkers tell yourselves so you can conciliate the Golden Rule and the evolutionary perspective and still justify an action that will directly harm something whose only fault is in context being weaker than you?

They're tasty, tasty, tasty. So very tasty!

Roast beef (Welsh Black - best in the world), fillet steak (Welsh Black again), chicken dhansak, lime and coriander chicken, crispy duck etc etc.

Basically they're food and damn tasty, high protein, exactly what we've evolved to eat (and naturally selected them to eat) food. The golden rule doesn't apply to food.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

... having to explain how the benefit of steak being tastier than tofu justifies the cost of killing conscious beings.


But it is tastier than tofu. I mean quorn's ok but tofu? Blah.

Besides that steak only exists because we invested time and effort into rearing the cow (and, in modern society, giving it a realtively decent life until we slaughtered it humanely). No meat eaters = a lot less cows, if any. We meat eaters are the real animal lovers because we ensure the survival of their species. Natural selection in action - if it's tasty enough, we'll ensure it survives. :D

[Dragoonster]

I don't need an excuse to kill animals. I live in a society where it's common and considered morally neutral at worst.

That's one of the things that Singer and Dawkins discuss in that video c4llum linked (it's kind of long but deals with a lot of the things coming up here):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU

The argument (or clarifying question) would be whether you'd have used that reasoning to own slaves and oppose abolitionists 250 years ago, with no moral compunction against doing so.

They talk about how the social norm that killing/eating animals is fine allows for individuals to not think about it or act on it. For someone like Dawkins who recognizes the immorality I think it's more like recycling, or possibly voting--an individual doesn't think they can make a difference by only altering their behavior, plus it's easier to not seperate materials for recycling, and tastier and easier to eat meat, so there's a very low threshhold on justification. But as Singer points out the moral issue, for some people, is quite serious when one thinks about why we afford human rights, and what animals don't have that makes us completely dismiss them morally (as Kevin Lowe also brings up).

I eat meat because I'm a hypocrite, and for the can't-make-a-difference excuse for when recycling hadn't yet made any real difference. Another factor is that not many visit garbage dumps, or commercial animal farms. Makes the real suffering theoretical and easy to ignore.

[SonOfLaertes]

Except that the vast majority of meat is no such byproduct.

Who cares? If we are justified eating some meat, then there is no reason not to take advantage of other sources. As I have stated before, no matter how many domesticated animals we let free, they will multiply and destroy the environment. We might as well eat them, too.

To borrow your example, you might as well argue "Rape is moral if it's the only way to prevent a much greater harm (due to some bizarre set of circumstances). Therefore rape is always moral".

What a foolish point. See the word "bizarre" in your statement, and realize that your statement requires "bizarre".


You keep banging on about this morally irrelevant notion of "naturalness". Get over it. Whether a solution is "natural" or not is morally meaningless.

(It's also philosophically meaningless in a very important sense, seeing as whatever humans do is by definition natural for humans).

Wrong. "Natural" in this sense has a very well-known meaning - human actions that are in compliance with the ways of nature. Sterilization as a means of population control is not natural. Hunting is. By definition. Get over telling me to get over a well-understood definition of natural.

If we have a "natural role" at all, it's to do precisely whatever we end up doing. Whether that's killing deer, sterilising and releasing deer, feeding deer, or even raping deer. Whatever we do is natural for us by definition.

That's why your babbling about "naturalness" is an intellectual pratfall.

Raping? There you go with requiring "bizarre-ness" to bolster your argument again. Sterilization is not natural by definition. Or did we roam the plains of Africa 10,000 years ago with a syringe in our hand? I missed that Discovery channel episode.


Now you're compounding the intellectual pratfall of engaging in the naturalistic fallacy, by wallowing in the same error as the idiotic Social Darwinists.

I'm sorry, I'm losing track of your bizarre arguments.

Evolution is neither good nor crucial. It is merely adaptation to whatever works in the current environment. It's complete bollocks to claim that predation is beneficial for a species, unless you have some crazy conviction that devoting energy to being able to run better or hide better is good in some absolute, transcendental sense.

The fairy story that predators are doing a species a favour by killing off those least adapted to surviving predation is nonsense. Adaptation to survive predation is neither good nor bad, it merely is.

Bizarre. Here you are claiming that predation does not result in the selection of the fittest. I think this will be the last response I make to your counter-arguments, you obviously will grasp at any available straw to push your bias against meat eaters.

I did not ignore your point. I explained why your point was stupid from nose to tail. Yet here you are posting the same stuff again, only now with extra nonsense based on serious misunderstandings of science on top.

Sorry , apparently you weren't dodging my point. You believe that predation has no effect on adaptation. If that's the case, we really don't have anything to argue about. You need to take your points over to a "mechanism's of evolution" thread and bandy your theories about there.

[Mirrorglass]

Wrong. "Natural" in this sense has a very well-known meaning - human actions that are in compliance with the ways of nature. Sterilization as a means of population control is not natural. Hunting is. By definition. Get over telling me to get over a well-understood definition of natural.

Raping? There you go with requiring "bizarre-ness" to bolster your argument again. Sterilization is not natural by definition. Or did we roam the plains of Africa 10,000 years ago with a syringe in our hand? I missed that Discovery channel episode.


Why do you think something we did 10,000 years ago is more natural than something we do today?

And even more importantly, why do you think that "more natural" is better?

[SonOfLaertes]

Why do you think something we did 10,000 years ago is more natural than something we do today?

And even more importantly, why do you think that "more natural" is better?

I didn't say that everything we do today is more natural than what we did 10,000 years ago. I said that sterilization is a modern tool, and not a "natural" tool.

In the context of this argument, "natural" refers to the means that we manage the wildlife on Earth, including any hypothetical domesticated food animals that we release into the wild.

My contention : hunting is "more natural" than sterilization, because:

1). We evolved as hunters, not sterilizers;

2). our prey evolved with the fact of predation encoded in there genome (ie, all animals produce more offspring than the normal mortality rate of their young would indicate, to compensate for young taken by predators);

3). hunting is the only way I know of to mimic the natural process of "survival of the fittest" in the wild. Sterilization is unnatural because it does not discriminate for the fitness of it's target animals in their environment.

Truthfully, I don't understand why it is so hard to see that hunting is an integral part of any ecosystem, encoded in the DNA of every animal that has ever walked the earth, including man. Therefore, natural to our genotype and phenotype.

Sterilization, on the other hand, is not natural. In this context, if it were natural, one of our fingers would extrude a needle which would inject birth control serum into animals that have a surplus population in the wild.

[Mirrorglass]

I didn't say that everything we do today is more natural than what we did 10,000 years ago. I said that sterilization is a modern tool, and not a "natural" tool.

In the context of this argument, "natural" refers to the means that we manage the wildlife on Earth, including any hypothetical domesticated food animals that we release into the wild.

My contention : hunting is "more natural" than sterilization, because:

1). We evolved as hunters, not sterilizers;

2). our prey evolved with the fact of predation encoded in there genome (ie, all animals produce more offspring than the normal mortality rate of their young would indicate, to compensate for young taken by predators);

3). hunting is the only way I know of to mimic the natural process of "survival of the fittest" in the wild. Sterilization is unnatural because it does not discriminate for the fitness of it's target animals in their environment.

Truthfully, I don't understand why it is so hard to see that hunting is an integral part of any ecosystem, encoded in the DNA of every animal that has ever walked the earth, including man. Therefore, natural to our genotype and phenotype.

Sterilization, on the other hand, is not natural. In this context, if it were natural, one of our fingers would extrude a needle which would inject birth control serum into animals that have a surplus population in the wild.
Bolding mine.

Then by what process, other than evolution, did we reach the ability to sterilize animals? Evolution isn't limited to the genes and their expression; behavioral patterns of groups of a species adhere to the same laws as genetic patterns. Anything and everything we do is a product of evolution.

Even more importantly, even if we accept your definition of "natural", why should we care? What makes the "natural" way of doing things more desirable?

[SonOfLaertes]

Bolding mine.

Then by what process, other than evolution, did we reach the ability to sterilize animals? Evolution isn't limited to the genes and their expression; behavioral patterns of groups of a species adhere to the same laws as genetic patterns. Anything and everything we do is a product of evolution.

Even more importantly, even if we accept your definition of "natural", why should we care? What makes the "natural" way of doing things more desirable?

Sigh ... by utilizing Science and technology.

If you are going to pretend that you can't instinctively draw a line between the natural world and the world of Man; then let's drop this conversation. By your definition oil spills in pristine waters are "natural", because "anything and everything we do is a product of evolution". If you want to insist that oil spills are natural, then we have nothing to argue about.

as to question 2, how many times must I state that there is only one way I know of to effectively manage wildlife populations and still ensure that only the fittest survive to pass on their genes?

[Pup]

as to question 2, how many times must I state that there is only one way I know of to effectively manage wildlife populations and still ensure that only the fittest survive to pass on their genes?

Fittest for what, though? If those who can avoid hunters with guns survive, that's not "natural" by your definition, since guns are technology. Are hunters with bows and arrows natural enough? Or would it have to be pre-iron age hunting? Or only non-human predators like wolves? Is it still natural if we deliberately introduce and encourage the predators? Or only those which survive disease and lack of food?

The problem is that any population will respond to environmental pressures. Only the animals most fit for living in a highly radioactive area survive around Chernobyl, but that's a different kind of environmental pressure than big American cities where pigeons and English sparrows outcompete most other birds and are the fittest species, or dairy farms where cows that give the most milk are the fittest and survive. The animals that can still reproduce despite attempts at sterilization will be the most fit for that kind of environment. Obligatory movie quote: life will find a way.

Darwin proposed that "natural selection" was an extension of the similar process of human-guided selection, such as what happens with the dairy cows when the farmer culls the herd of his lowest producers.

But if humans are deliberately deciding that only the animals which can avoid humans with guns should survive, that seems to me somewhere in between natural and human selection, and shows how the line blurs.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Who cares? If we are justified eating some meat, then there is no reason not to take advantage of other sources. As I have stated before, no matter how many domesticated animals we let free, they will multiply and destroy the environment. We might as well eat them, too.



What a foolish point. See the word "bizarre" in your statement, and realize that your statement requires "bizarre".

What's the difference? You are arguing that if it is ever okay to eat meat, it's okay to eat meat whenever we want. Why doesn't this argument work for you when it's something other than eating meat? If it's ever okay to punch someone it's always okay, if it's ever okay to rape it's always okay, if it's ever okay to assassinate someone it's always okay?

This seems to me to be blatant special pleading. You made up an argument to defend meat eating, but you won't apply that argument to any other behaviour and you resort to empty insults when this is pointed out.


Wrong. "Natural" in this sense has a very well-known meaning - human actions that are in compliance with the ways of nature. Sterilization as a means of population control is not natural. Hunting is. By definition. Get over telling me to get over a well-understood definition of natural.

Raping? There you go with requiring "bizarre-ness" to bolster your argument again. Sterilization is not natural by definition. Or did we roam the plains of Africa 10,000 years ago with a syringe in our hand? I missed that Discovery channel episode.

One more time, using very simple words.

Natural does not mean good.

Lots of natural things are really bad.

Lots of unnatural things are really good.


Bizarre. Here you are claiming that predation does not result in the selection of the fittest. I think this will be the last response I make to your counter-arguments, you obviously will grasp at any available straw to push your bias against meat eaters.

Sorry , apparently you weren't dodging my point. You believe that predation has no effect on adaptation. If that's the case, we really don't have anything to argue about. You need to take your points over to a "mechanism's of evolution" thread and bandy your theories about there.

You're making two very simple and very common mistakes about evolution. You think that "fitness" means something other than "fitness for this one niche the species is in right at this very second", and you think that "fitness" is a good in and of itself.

Fitness does not mean awesomeness. A three-toed sloth is as fit in the evolutionary sense as a cheetah.

Unleashing predators on a species is not doing it a favour, unless you have a pre-existing idea that a species adapted to deal with that predator is better. Doing so will not make the species "better" or "worse", merely different.

If you don't get this, you don't get evolution.

[Mirrorglass]

Sigh ... by utilizing Science and technology.

If you are going to pretend that you can't instinctively draw a line between the natural world and the world of Man; then let's drop this conversation. By your definition oil spills in pristine waters are "natural", because "anything and everything we do is a product of evolution". If you want to insist that oil spills are natural, then we have nothing to argue about.

I do understand how you define the term. But it's only "intuitive" to you because of some preconceptions. You use the term "natural" to mean everything except what men do, which is one definition, though not the one most of the other people in this thread have been using. And where exactly do you consider technology and science to start? The use of spears, or even rocks, for hunting is a form of technology, but even non-human animals use tools.

as to question 2, how many times must I state that there is only one way I know of to effectively manage wildlife populations and still ensure that only the fittest survive to pass on their genes?

And why should we effectively manage wildlife populations? And why should we care whether the fittest survive to pass on their genes?

[Manopolus]

If a cow had the capability and the desire to kill me and eat me, he'd do it to me...

(added) oops, she... a cow is a she.

[Dog Town]

There are arguments abound, that our eating meat, kick started our higher thinking brains.
Are you trying to DEVO?
What the hell are canine teeth for, anyway? Eating rabbit food can't be it.
I loves me some BBQ'd flesh!

[NewtonTrino]

I just wanna say that I was just in Boston and had an AWESOME steak (dry aged ribeye) at the oak room. Wanna know why I'm kill animals? That's why. yumyum

We evolved eating meat. It's part of who and what we are. I am against unnecessary cruelty and would gladly accept an increase in meat prices to salve my conscious. But I doubt most people feel that way.

[Brocolis]

And that's fine. But you won't convince the majorities with that.

I’d we are convincing the people of that. (Even if slowly)

Considering that the number of vegetarians/vegans are increasing around the world, things such as fur production is illegal in some Europe counties. And the Great Apes have rights in Spain, I’d say animal rights are getting stronger with time. That is the tendency of civilization, more rights, not less


But I'm guessing you'd have trouble explaining why it's the fairest, as your choice of criteria is subjective and the terms involved (sentience, for example) are nebulous. You also probably can't explain why we should adopt your system because the argument you're making runs contrary to the beliefs and feelings of most people, and frankly, implementing it universally would be a detriment to most people as well.

I explained why I think this is the fairest way. How do you explain why your way is the fairest? Giving rights to all humans, because they are human is in my opinion gibberish