Why is PETA so bloody dam stupid....

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Cain

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

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

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

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

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

What about the drugs that are made using animals?

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[The Painter]

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

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

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

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

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

[Silly Green Monkey]

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

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

I wrote:

Quote:

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

Sword of Truth:

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

And I loooooove KFC too

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

-----------------------
Painter:

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

---------
RandFan:

Quote:

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

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

-----------------
Thaiboxerken writes:

Quote:

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

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

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

For the most part animal populations control themselves. If we stopped factory farming the animal populations would drop to a sustainable level. There would certainly be large short term suffering and death, but that still seems better than far larger, repeated, long term suffering and death.

First, humans have encroached to such a degree on so many habitats that there will always need to be culls and control

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

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

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Cain

Thaiboxerken writes:


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

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

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Cain

Check out the big brain on RandFan.

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

Good post. I wish I had a snappy rejoinder but I don't. Perhaps I'll get lucky and folks will mistake the big brain comment as a compliment.

[dudalb]

Quote:

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

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

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by RandFan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From your other post:

Originally Posted by RandFan

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

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

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

Originally Posted by RandFan

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

You just gotta love that.

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

To GreNME

Originally Posted by GreNME

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

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

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

Quote:

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

Derail denied.

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

No.

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

[GreNME]

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

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Baby steps.

Your patronizing really isn't necessary.

Quote:

Another argument-form is "(Premises) If A is natural, it is morally tolerable. A is natural. (Conclusion) A is morally tolerable".

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Now you can noodle on at any length you like about how eating meat really, really is natural.

But I've not done that. You are so focused on your POV that you don't even know what it is that I'm arguing.

Quote:

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

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

• There is nothing that is or is not "actually moral".
• Morality is not a priori.
• Morality is not absolute.

Quote:

Concluding that moral sentiment is proof of a moral truth is an instance of the naturalistic fallacy.

(emphasis mine) Error #2

• I do not subscribe to the concept of moral truth.

There is no more moral truth than there is art truth or music truth. We can make objective statements about morality and we can formulate logically consistent argument based on agreed premises but the idea that there is some "moral truth" is spurious.

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




Please consider the follow two statements.

1. The sky is blue because it is natural.
2. I percieve that the sky is blue.

Are either true? Why or why not?

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

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

One more thing: Please address the following hypo.

Originally Posted by RandFan

1. I'm stranded on a dessert island with my family and some strangers.
2. After a few months it becomes clear that water and other resources, while sufficient for my family to survive, are currently diminishing and will not hold out for everyone.
3. My moral sense is to protect my family.
4. This moral sense will likely lead me to conflict and even bloodshed in order for my family to survive.
5. That moral sense exists because it is natural (doesn't justify the sense of morality but it explains it).

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

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Cain

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

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

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

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Cain

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

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

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Your patronizing really isn't necessary.

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

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

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

No. My argument is not circular.

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

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

Quote:

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

• There is nothing that is or is not "actually moral".
• Morality is not a priori.
• Morality is not absolute.

(emphasis mine) Error #2

• I do not subscribe to the concept of moral truth.

There is no more moral truth than there is art truth or music truth. We can make objective statements about morality and we can formulate logically consistent argument based on agreed premises but the idea that there is some "moral truth" is spurious.

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Please consider the follow two statements.

1. The sky is blue because it is natural.
2. I percieve that the sky is blue.

Are either true? Why or why not?

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

One more thing: Please address the following hypo.

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

[Steelmage]

Originally Posted by RandFan

We don't need multi-chambered stomachs. It's not necessary for our survival.

True or we would have them.

Originally Posted by RandFan

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

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

Originally Posted by RandFan

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

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

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

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

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

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

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

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

Quote:

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

No. That would be a strawman. That is NOT what I'm arguing for.

Quote:

The problem with that is that genocide is a recurring part of human history and hence has to be held to be as instinctive and natural as charity.

Yes. You forgot slavery. Also a recurring part of human history. But yes.

Quote:

So is genocide good if you feel that it would be okay to kill all the neighboring men and kidnap and rape their women?

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

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

Quote:

I submit that as a moral theory this has some serious failings which alternative moral theories do not share.

Submit all you like but your flimsy strawman is a very small part of moral theory and does not represent the totality of any moral theory I would support.

Quote:

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

Again, you forgot slavery. What is it with you and the failure to remember slavery?

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

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

This was good from the perspective of the army.

Quote:

Why, may I ask, do you list all the "morally good" instincts we have yet you keep ignoring all the "morally bad" instincts which we also have?

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

Quote:

I put it to you that you must covertly have assumed beforehand that certain behaviours such as altruism are good, and now you're trying to make your predetermined moral values map on to our instincts.

No, that is NOT what I've assumed.

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

Quote:

Otherwise your list would read something like "However, there are near universal human sentiments that we can make objective statements about, see sociobiology, reciprocal altruism, mirror neurons, empathy, compassion, rape, murder, gang warfare, infanticide, theft and so on, all of which are good".

Wrong (see above)

Quote:

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

It's of the form X is natural therefore it is true (your argument). Yes it is nonsensical but it serves a point.

Quote:

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

How many times must I:

1. Acknowledge the argument?
2. Repeat the argument to you?
3. Concede the argument?

You are arguing ad nauseam against a position I DON'T HOLD! I ALSO get testy!

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

Quote:

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

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

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

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Steelmage

It sounds like you are not familiar with physiology of living things.

Sounds like you don't care about the facts.

We don't need to eat meat to survive.

Quote:

Sorry, but if you are going to say humans do not need to eat meat this will come up.

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

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

We don't need to eat meat to survive.

Quote:

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

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

CDC stats on diseases associated with malnutrition would be very nice.

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

There are a lot of Vegans in America. If what you are saying is true I would expect diseases associated with malnutrion to be listed with the CDC.

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

[RandFan]

Kevin,

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

Originally Posted by RandFan

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

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

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

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

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

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

[Steelmage]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

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

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

But here is some more links:

Quote:

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

http://www.mla.com.au/TopicHierarchy...n+red+meat.htm
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B12


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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by RandFan

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

Agreed

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

No. My argument is not circular.

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

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

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

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

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

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

Morality: Contextual, relative.

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

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

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

Originally Posted by The_Animus

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

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

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

[Steelmage]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Sounds like you don't care about the facts.

We don't need to eat meat to survive.

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

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

We don't need to eat meat to survive.

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

CDC stats on diseases associated with malnutrition would be very nice.

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

There are a lot of Vegans in America. If what you are saying is true I would expect diseases associated with malnutrion to be listed with the CDC.

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

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

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Steelmage

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

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

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

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

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

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

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

http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07aut...alth_pork.html


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

[Minadin]

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

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

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

That's freedom, baby!

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by RandFan

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

This was good from the perspective of the army.

This is where I need some more clarification.

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

No, that is NOT what I've assumed.

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

Wrong (see above)

Same again.

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Originally Posted by RandFan

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

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

Morality: Contextual, relative.

Yeah, moral relativism.

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

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

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

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

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

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

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by animus

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

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

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

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

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

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

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

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

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

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

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

[Tapio]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

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

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

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

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

Example

Quote:

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

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

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

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

[Tapio]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

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

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

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

[realpaladin]

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

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

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

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

I still stand by that.

[Tapio]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

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

I still stand by that.

Starting with you and/or your loved ones?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

You started this subthread, not me.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Tapio

Starting with you and/or your loved ones?

The loved ones part has already been done for me, so why not?

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

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

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