Animal life vs Human life

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

But that's a slippery slope; you're getting into the realm of, "Animals do it, so why can't we?

That's not what I'm saying at all, mate. I shall elaborate below.

Quote:

As a moral axiom, "Animals do it, therefore it's justified" is not enough of a response.

I never said it was a moral axiom.

I consider morals to be an evolved trait to aid in survival. Therefore, we are only morally obligated to do things which aid in our survival; anything else is added personal baggage.

It has been claimed on this thread that we are morally obligated to treat other animals well. I ask, how does that aid in survival, and posit that there are no other animals which treat other species as their own. Therefore, to claim that that is how we must behave must be proven with evidence. Why must we treat animals as we treat other humans? We are only morally obligated to further our survival.

Quote:

I mean, animals don't treat each other humanely, and sometimes torture each other; therefore, why can't we?

There are plenty of examples of social animals who treat other members of their species 'humanely'. Ants come to mind, but there are many more examples.

Quote:

Animals rape each other; therefore, why can't we?

Some animals do, some animals don't. Our moral outrage at rape is, IMHO, an evolved trait to let social animals work together in a cohesive group. If you can name one social animal which rapes, then I will concede the point.

Quote:

Animals kill each other; therefore, why can't we kill each other?

Social animals rarely do. For example, lions do not, AFAIK, kill members of their own pride.

Quote:

It's dangerous ground to argue from.

As you should be able to see, it's not the ground I'm arguing from at all. I am simply pointing towards animals as an example of other morals. My only problem is with the universal claim that all humans are morally obligated to treat animals as we treat ourselves. Since morals are subjective, I wholeheartedly disagree with that view point.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I disagree that it's post hoc rationalisation. At the least, it doesn't have to be. Most of the time, though, it probably is. Okay, so it's probably post hoc, but not always. Bah, let me explain.

There is a logical reason to be "moral". It allows you to fit in with society, and the more "moral" you are, the less you harm society. This has selfish and altruistic implications. I.E., if I was a murderer and could rationalize it, then someone else can murder me as well. If I was a rapist and I raped, then someone else can rape me as well. I do not want this to occur to me, but in order to logically keep others from being able to do it to me, I must construct some sort of moral code, and (societally) hope that others follow it, or enforce it if I must. In short, if I can do anything that I want, then others can do anything that they want; so I must "set an example", at the least.

I agree that there are logical reasons to be moral. I disagree that most people bother to suss them out. Luckily, evolution has left us with some (broad) pre-wired guidelines that keep us pretty much in agreement on the major issues, with specific societal pressures doing much smoothing of the remaining wrinkles.

A person's moral code is typically well in place by the time they really have the capacity, the desire, and the time to ponder it. I toyed with this with Dustin a bit earlier. Of course we shouldn't off the homeless guy. Everyone knows that. But, why shouldn't we? A great many more people hold the former to be true than have a well-reasoned answer for the latter.

Furthermore, a society's moral norms (and I really meant to be speaking more to societal norms than individual codes) tend to change not because of people heeding the enlightened arguments of their more progressive members, but for the purely selfish reason that the status quo becomes too costly to maintain. After the change has set in, particularly in subsequent generations, the justification for the change can be accepted widely. I think it seldom works the other way around.

I can envision a future, a century or two hence, where we do not farm meat, where animals are killed only out of necessity (self-defense, for instance), and where everyone looks back on today wondering how we were ever so depraved as to actually breed animals for slaughter. I imagine the inhabitants of this future will know all the arguments Yahweh has put forth, and will find those arguments to hold up their mores quite well.

I believe this future, should it come to pass, will come to pass for such reasons as faux meat becoming indistinguishable from the real thing while also becoming cheaper to produce, pushing people selfishly into its production over more traditional fare. This would lead naturally to faux meat becoming cheaper to the consumer, and we can count on those selfish bastids to do their duty. With time, all these individual selfish actions will add up to real meat vanishing from society. I do not think widespread acceptance of arguments such as Yahweh's will precede the change. I think that will be added on, post hoc.

Let it not be said, however, that I think the challenging of society's mores is a completely useless endeavour. Certainly, the existence of such challenges can have localized effect, convincing some of the right people to start working on the changes that will eventually lead to substantial change. I simply think we often overestimate their worth as causative agents of widespread change. They serve more as catalysts.

Note: I said I could envision such a future. I am not one for predictions, and am not trying to start a discussion about whether this will actually come to pass.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I read that. I just posted up some quick thoughts on the premises.



I understand that.



Yeah, I know that. But there are undoubtedly some ways that we could reach some sort of an agreement on an issue, assuredly.

Anyways, I seem to be stepping on a lot of toes here, so I think that I'll just bow out now.

Not mine I assure you. I really respect your opinion even if we don't alwyas agree.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Dustin

Nonsense. I live in a society that eats pork and I don't eat pork.

I've not a clue as to the significance of this. ?

Quote:

Moreover, What right do you have to say that "Hitler was wrong" in killing 6 million people of "right and wrong" are just relative and have no absolute meaning? You can't have it both ways.

What both ways? What are you talking about? I have my own personal morality and I also live in a society that has laws and moral standards. I think Hitler was wrong.

Quote:

Either Hitler was wrong or he wasn't.

According to what standard? To Hitler? To Himler? Goebels?

I think he was wrong. Certainly the moral standards of much of the world believed that Hitler was wrong.

In any event, no, it isn't as simple as Hitler being wrong or not.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm still wondering why the argument has been put forth that it's immoral because of suffering, and then when told that we could raise the animals so they don't suffer and die painlessly, that it's still wrong.

Then a rebuttal was because we're shortening the time that the species could be happy, but.. it's ok to make the species extinct.

[bignickel]

By page 14, I think most of the arguments that will be made, have been made. All the questions that will be answered, were answered (and the ones that haven't been answered, won't).

So, on a different tangent:

RandFan, I've heard that Ayn Rand posited an 'objective morality' of some kind (or 'rational morality); but, I've never finished any of her works (that's not fair: I've only read one paragraph, and watched "The Fountainhead"; hardly a strong effort by me).

Did Rand ever delve into this kind of issue? What was her thoughts on 'objective morality'? (I could wikipedia all this, but I don't trust wikipedia on even basic starting information on some controversial topics)

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I'm still wondering why the argument has been put forth that it's immoral because of suffering, and then when told that we could raise the animals so they don't suffer and die painlessly, that it's still wrong.

Allow me to make this simplified so you can comprehend:

1) If you raise an animal in inhumane conditions, this is bad. If you torture animals for kicks, this is bad. Therefore, we should reform our meat industries to reflect this. This is a good action, and should be taken; even if we all end up eating meat still. That is because more good than bad is taken by this action. Action has already been taken to this effect, but more work can still be done.

2) I'm willing to take this a step further. Meat is necessary? Then make faux meat, or grow meat in vats without brains. We could very well have the technology, and I fail to see what's intrinsically bad about this. If it's cheap, it's cheap; and we could grow huge vats of this stuff. Why not? I failed to see any argument of yours against this, yet it is an intrinsic part of my argument. Funny that!

So why eat meat? Because it's necessary? Then can we take steps to make it not necessary? Then why is it wrong to do so?

Is it because it's a luxury item, and we should automatically be guaranteed access to luxury items even if we overconsume? Then why not still provide that luxury item, albeit in a different (and possibly cheaper) form?

I don't quite get what's so wrong about my argument here.

Quote:

Then a rebuttal was because we're shortening the time that the species could be happy, but.. it's ok to make the species extinct.

...And?

I fail to see the intrinsic hypocrisy here.

You seem to think that there is something intrinsically wrong with extinction, yet look down on me for thinking that it's intrinsically better to, say, not kill a cow if you don't actually have to?

To you, extinction by not breeding is somehow as bad as, or worse than, killing a creature when you do not have to. Now, in certain cases I might agree, but you seem to believe that this is intrinsic and obvious for all species of animals. I personally don't agree. Can you make an argument as to why your viewpoint is greater than mine?

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Not mine I assure you. I really respect your opinion even if we don't alwyas agree.

Aw, you're just saying that.

[Wudang]

Well, I think my points got overlooked by YHVH so I'll try again.
I am not convinced that my moral decisions need to be consistent. I used to believe in a utilitarian morality but found life to be too complex for such a crude instrument. Without the need for that consistency much of your current argument founders.
Don't by the way assume that you're either "for us or agin us". I was active in anti-bloodsports for many years for example.

[Dark Jaguar]

My take on this whole thing? I find the idea of torturing animals absolutely deplorable. I really don't care if it doesn't benefit my survival in the least. I find the prevention of torture an end in itself.

That said, I'm not a vegetarian. I enjoy eating the meats and really I don't think we have the resources for every single human on the planet to subsist on high protein seaweed or whatever it is you veggies eat. In fact I trained a cow to eat endangered species just to prevent the endangered species from becoming unendangerd, reducing the variety of life to only the nonendangered kind, which isn't diverse by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a nature lover.

But seriously, while I find torture out of the question, experimentation and feeding, so long as the death is done with minimal to nonexistant suffering, is acceptable to me. So, if it can feel pain, I want to prevent it, but absolute right to life I reserve for those with hopes and dreams for life that go beyond swim swim hungry.

All that said, I'd not want to kill an animal for food at all if we had Star Trek style replicators around.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Dark Jaguar

My take on this whole thing? I find the idea of torturing animals absolutely deplorable. I really don't care if it doesn't benefit my survival in the least. I find the prevention of torture an end in itself.

That said, I'm not a vegetarian. I enjoy eating the meats and really I don't think we have the resources for every single human on the planet to subsist on high protein seaweed or whatever it is you veggies eat. In fact I trained a cow to eat endangered species just to prevent the endangered species from becoming unendangerd, reducing the variety of life to only the nonendangered kind, which isn't diverse by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a nature lover.

But seriously, while I find torture out of the question, experimentation and feeding, so long as the death is done with minimal to nonexistant suffering, is acceptable to me. So, if it can feel pain, I want to prevent it, but absolute right to life I reserve for those with hopes and dreams for life that go beyond swim swim hungry.

All that said, I'd not want to kill an animal for food at all if we had Star Trek style replicators around.

I'd like a response to this. It sounds like you agree with this claim:

Quote:

2) I'm willing to take this a step further. Meat is necessary? Then make faux meat, or grow meat in vats without brains. We could very well have the technology, and I fail to see what's intrinsically bad about this. If it's cheap, it's cheap; and we could grow huge vats of this stuff. Why not? I failed to see any argument of yours against this, yet it is an intrinsic part of my argument. Funny that!

So why eat meat? Because it's necessary? Then can we take steps to make it not necessary? Then why is it wrong to do so?

Is it because it's a luxury item, and we should automatically be guaranteed access to luxury items even if we overconsume? Then why not still provide that luxury item, albeit in a different (and possibly cheaper) form?

Now, if you could grow all the meat and skin in vats, had pseudo meat that was just real real meat, only healthier, etc., would that be more acceptable to you?

Let's assume that we stick with scientific testing of animals. We still cut down, on average, the average death of animals that is necessary. Is this a decision that is worse, or better?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

That's the thing. People like Thaiboxerken respond to my posts as if I want all animals to treated like humans. OBVIOUSLY, if I want to treat an animal a certain way, I MUST want to treat humans exactly the same. And OBVIOUSLY, if I suggest one method of treatment, then I MUST go for something else in every other situation. I have made it clear, from the beginning of my discussion on the topic, that my argument is complex, takes in various variables, is not entirely absolute, has exceptions to it (what, no moral code has exceptions? Bullcrap!), and that I think that all animals except humans are different than humans, and some animal species are different than other animal species. I think that whales and dolphins deserve better treatment than plankton. You think that's inconsistent? I don't give a damn.

If you're for the death penalty, then OBVIOUSLY you want to kill everyone that has ever committed a crime. If you're for going to school, then OBVIOUSLY you want everyone to learn 24/7, without ever doing something with your life. You want to go to a certain limit, so OBVIOUSLY you have to go to some arbitrary extreme, because he says so. If you're against the death penalty, then OBVIOUSLY you think that no one should be able to defend themselves. If you're for people being able to defend themselves, then OBVIOUSLY you're for the death penalty of every single crime (I heard this argument in the Gun Control thread...)

If I think that letting some domesticated animals that we bred, that had no choice in breeding, and that we would have to keep around should go extinct, OBVIOUSLY I should want for the entire human race to go extinct.

It's ******** logic like that that make me think, in the end, that any conversation on this topic will be useless. No one wants to learn other's viewpoints; they want to just throw in a few "points" to make everyone but themselves look crazy and insane, even when they end up doing so to themselves.

Hell, no one responded to my other points. No one responded to my points on economics; no, they gotta focus on the little nitpicks. There's a lot more to my argument, and there has always been more to my argument, than the stupid oversimplified bullcrap that Thaiboxerken condenses everything. He wants to think of the world in utter simplicity? Fine. I don't see the world that way, though, and I'm happy for it. He can go off and do whatever the hell he likes. But it's no longer my business.

I'm behind you. That's why I tried to back you up (while also arguing the points from both sides) earlier. I asked Dustin what I did partially to gig him for the abuse he heaped on others earlier (I know he never said that he thought animal and human are equal, which is why I phrased my post as I did), but also to make a point. I was waiting for Yahweh to answer the question because s/he posted the original issue of human=animal morally. For what it's worth, though I eat meat, I am on the "animal rights" side. I have problems with my own meat consumption and think, as I said earlier, that the best thing we could do is not argue about it but act to eliminate the need for animal sacrifice to feed our bellies (as we both seem to agree that killing animals is soon to be a thing of the past). The animal farming techniques we use are abhorrent, and I certainly do not like the fact that I am a participant in any of that activity as a consumer. We can all be angry at Ward Churchill for what he said, but there is a truth to it. The big problem is that "truth" is everywhere. It's in every cup of Starbucks or Harry Potter book in which the money did not go toward ending human suffering. Everything we do is part of a much larger system that unfortunately is based, in large part, on exploitation of someone either human or animal. If one wants to extend moral principles to their extreme one must ask oneself how far should they go in a positive direction, how far do my obligations to my neighbor extend?

I'm afraid, in my cynicism, that I agree with the Marquis -- morality is, if not completely, then largely post hoc rationalization. But, even so, it does provide us* with some guide.


*Even though there is no us.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

I'm behind you. That's why I tried to back you up (while also arguing the points from both sides) earlier. I asked Dustin what I did partially to gig him for the abuse he heaped on others earlier (I know he never said that he thought animal and human are equal, which is why I phrased my post as I did), but also to make a point.

Understandable. I probably shoulda ganged up on Dustin, too. For similar reasons.

Quote:

I was waiting for Yahweh to answer the question because s/he posted the original issue of human=animal morally. For what it's worth, though I eat meat, I am on the "animal rights" side. I have problems with my own meat consumption and think, as I said earlier, that the best thing we could do is not argue about it but act to eliminate the need for animal sacrifice to feed our bellies (as we both seem to agree that killing animals is soon to be a thing of the past).

Wow, someone agrees with me!

Quote:

The animal farming techniques we use are abhorrent, and I certainly do not like the fact that I am a participant in any of that activity as a consumer. We can all be angry at Ward Churchill for what he said, but there is a truth to it. The big problem is that "truth" is everywhere. It's in every cup of Starbucks or Harry Potter book in which the money did not go toward ending human suffering. Everything we do is part of a much larger system that unfortunately is based, in large part, on exploitation of someone either human or animal. If one wants to extend moral principles to their extreme one must ask oneself how far should they go in a positive direction, how far do my obligations to my neighbor extend?

To be fair, there is a reason to eat meat, and it's not just the exploitation. It's healthier to have a balanced diet with meat than not. It's only recently that we've been able to even be able to discuss a world with meat grown in vats that are brainless, or gengineered crops.

Though, to be also fair, a lot of the meat-eating arguments are just as silly as the evil stupid vegetarians that people like Thaiboxerken rant about. For instance, Henry David Thoreau once had a discussion on vegetarianism with a farmer. The farmer stated that we need to eat animals, as they give us strong bones. You can't have strong bones without meat. Of course, this is ignorant: Without milk, maybe, but even soymilk (which is also a recent invention), of which I drink a lot of (the chocolate kind; it's mm-mm good!) grants stuff like calcium.

Thoreau commented that the man was frail and relying on an ox (with vegetable-fed bones) to pull his cart. He found this an amusing "wisdom of the ancients". His entire argument was that, quite frankly, just because someone's old, doesn't make him wise or his advice good. But I found it an amusing side story.

And, even to today, I see some similar silly arguments. People aren't called out on them, though. People argue that we're animals, therefore if we instinctually feel something, we should obey it without question. People argue that we should stuff animals in vats, keep them in deplorable conditions, and if it makes them taste good, then so be it. These people are here, on this forum, and are they being called out on their statements? Maybe, I guess. By some people. But it's always the vegetarians that really get ganged up on. And I can sorta see why. People that eat meat feel like they're being made to feel guilty, that they're being judged. Well, that's fine. But knee-jerk reactions don't get anything anywhere. Personally, I'm not really judging anyone, except for those that simply say, "I don't care, we should do what we will, period." But I still think that, if you're going to make moral arguments on most topics that you find a moral dilemma, then you shouldn't judge others on making moral arguments about animals. It's as if animals are on a completely different pedestal of morality, just like religion is a completely different pedestal of critical thinking, you know?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Wow, someone agrees with me!

I not only agree with you, but my admiration for you grew significantly when you decided to hold back so as not to step on others' toes. That, to me, speaks volumes and is the way, I think, to change others' minds. Bludgeoning opponents to a bloody pulp my be fun for diversion, but it isn't the human way to discuss. There are some people here for whom I have great admiration. You are one of them.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Wow, someone agrees with me!

For what it's worth, I don't completely disagree with you. The hypothetical future I spoke of earlier, though not something I am either pushing or pulling for, is not something I dread or would hate to see happen. It's not that I think we should not pursue a meatless future; I just do not hold that we are obligated, in any way, to do so.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

I not only agree with you, but my admiration for you grew significantly when you decided to hold back so as not to step on others' toes. That, to me, speaks volumes and is the way, I think, to change others' minds. Bludgeoning opponents to a bloody pulp my be fun for diversion, but it isn't the human way to discuss. There are some people here for whom I have great admiration. You are one of them.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Wow, someone agrees with me!

I agree with a lot of what you say and there's much I don't disagree so much as quibble. My own views are rather complex and admittedly inconsistent*. And you differentiate nicely between what you feel is right and what you argue is right.

*Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I am fat, I have eaten multitudes.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by bignickel

By page 14, I think most of the arguments that will be made, have been made. All the questions that will be answered, were answered (and the ones that haven't been answered, won't).

So, on a different tangent:

RandFan, I've heard that Ayn Rand posited an 'objective morality' of some kind (or 'rational morality); but, I've never finished any of her works (that's not fair: I've only read one paragraph, and watched "The Fountainhead"; hardly a strong effort by me).

Did Rand ever delve into this kind of issue? What was her thoughts on 'objective morality'? (I could wikipedia all this, but I don't trust wikipedia on even basic starting information on some controversial topics)

Let me say that I'm not an objectivist not nor am I an expert on Rand. In any event, my understanding is that Ayn believed that you could apply objective reasoning to given moral dilemmas or scenarios. I could be wrong though and she could have believed as you have said I'm just not familiar with it. If she did I would not simply accept her position. Ayn wasn't rigorous in her philosophy and so I'm less inclined to defend her argument.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

1) If you raise an animal in inhumane conditions, this is bad. If you torture animals for kicks, this is bad. Therefore, we should reform our meat industries to reflect this. This is a good action, and should be taken; even if we all end up eating meat still. That is because more good than bad is taken by this action. Action has already been taken to this effect, but more work can still be done.

Ok. That's not really a bad position.

Quote:

2) I'm willing to take this a step further. Meat is necessary? Then make faux meat, or grow meat in vats without brains. We could very well have the technology, and I fail to see what's intrinsically bad about this. If it's cheap, it's cheap; and we could grow huge vats of this stuff. Why not? I failed to see any argument of yours against this, yet it is an intrinsic part of my argument. Funny that!

So, morality is about economics? If it becomes cheaper to grow synthetic meat then it's wrong to kill animals?

Quote:

So why eat meat? Because it's necessary? Then can we take steps to make it not necessary? Then why is it wrong to do so?

Why NOT eat meat? The accepted social standard is to eat meat. You should be providing reasons not to eat meat. So far, you haven't given any good reason.

Quote:

Is it because it's a luxury item, and we should automatically be guaranteed access to luxury items even if we overconsume? Then why not still provide that luxury item, albeit in a different (and possibly cheaper) form?

Yes. If we can afford the luxury items, it's up to us to decide if we want the item or not, unless there is good reason not to have that luxury item.

Quote:

You seem to think that there is something intrinsically wrong with extinction, yet look down on me for thinking that it's intrinsically better to, say, not kill a cow if you don't actually have to?

I'm saying that it's the SAME THING. Your objection to killing cows is that it stops a lasting happiness, yet you are ok with letting the entire species go extinct.

Quote:

To you, extinction by not breeding is somehow as bad as, or worse than, killing a creature when you do not have to.

Yes, because I can't eat the meat of extinct creatures.

Quote:

Can you make an argument as to why your viewpoint is greater than mine?

Because my viewpoint is consistent. You've contradicted yourself a few times.

You've said animal suffering is a reason. Then you've admitted it's not.
You've said lasting animal happiness. Then you've decided extinction is ok.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Ok. That's not really a bad position.

Alright, so we agree up to a certain point, then.

Quote:

So, morality is about economics? If it becomes cheaper to grow synthetic meat then it's wrong to kill animals?

Yes.

This is the premise I am working on: Let's say that you come to a path. One takes two miles to go across, AND when you do so, a bunch of animals will drop dead. Another path takes one mile to go across, and you gain a lot more, but no animals end up dead. In my opinion, it's sadistic (even if no pain is involved!) to take the first path. That's the premise I am working off of.

In the past, we went down the path that animals would end up dead because, quite frankly, it was necessary to our survival. It is no longer necessary for our survival, and in fact may be even MORE economically supportable to go down the one-mile path. Do you agree with my base premise?

That, if given a choice between two paths, one which is easier to go down and has much more benefit, the other that leads to animals dying AND is a longer path that isn't fruitful, that it is innately sadistic to travel down the latter path?

Quote:

Why NOT eat meat? The accepted social standard is to eat meat. You should be providing reasons not to eat meat. So far, you haven't given any good reason.

If you agree with the above premise, then you would, at the least, begin to see why I say that we shouldn't.

I also accept some reasons as valid: When it comes to humans, for instance, KILLING a human, even painlessly, is intrinsically a bad thing if it can be avoided. Society acts in this way, and assumes that this premise is true.

For animals, if you can find a good home instead of killing them, EVEN IF the killing is painless, then it is intrinsically bad.

If you disagree with these premises, then it is you that goes against society's view, and me that stays consistent with it.

People that work for animal control centers often find themselves growing depressed when forced to kill an animal that they couldn't find a good home for. I'm assuming that the majority of the population would agree with the person that works at the animal control center. Even if the killing is painless, our empathy is strong enough to care about the animal, and we find the death of it to be intrinsically bad. So why does my viewpoint not conform to society's?

Quote:

Yes. If we can afford the luxury items, it's up to us to decide if we want the item or not, unless there is good reason not to have that luxury item.

If you agree with the above premises, then you would agree that my proposed system of action is, at the least, supportable, even if you do not agree with it.

Quote:

I'm saying that it's the SAME THING. Your objection to killing cows is that it stops a lasting happiness, yet you are ok with letting the entire species go extinct.

And this is where you get hung up. Extinction merely means that no new animals are being born. That's all. That's all that is required. For your system, not only would more cows be born, but they'd be born into a life where they are slaughtered for their meat.

I say that, intrinsically, if you do not require this system, then there is a reason to change it.

Quote:

Yes, because I can't eat the meat of extinct creatures.

And I have come up with an alternative system where you still get the meat (and bones, and skin) of the animal, where you do not have to raise the actual animal with a brain. Or, alternatively, we grow advanced crops with some "taste" and "texture" modification, and then mix it around a bit with a "pseudo meat" recipe, and hopefully make it just as good-tasting and good-for-you as actual meat, but even moreso. You, in the end, retain the texture and taste, and get nothing bad out of it.

Why do you find this objectionable? You get what you desire. You aren't losing out on anything here.

Quote:

Because my viewpoint is consistent. You've contradicted yourself a few times.

If you actually followed through with my logic, I do not think that you will find a contradiction.

Quote:

You've said animal suffering is a reason. Then you've admitted it's not.

No, you are wrong. I've never once said that suffering is not a reason. But I have made clear that it's not the only reason.

Unnecessary animal suffering is something that we should limit. If we have a system where we can slaughter animals painlessly, then it is intrinsically better to go through with that system instead of one where animals are slaughtered painfully. I have accepted this premise as true. I would like for you to point out where I specifically stated that this premise was false, because that's the only way that I would desire for suffering to be allowable.

In the same token, unnecessary death is also something that should be avoided if it is feasable. If it's necessary for animals to die to support human life, and only insofar as it's necessary for animals to die, then I support it. But I do not think that, with modern technology, it is necessary. I also contend that, as long it is necessary for animals to die to support human life, then I am still for them dying (even if this includes, say, medicinal testing!) So, I am for medicinal testing, as long as there is a benefit to it. BUT, if we limit, say, animals providing meat, and do not limit animals providing medicinal research (and strike down, say, cosmetic testing!), we would limit the overall amount of death. Personally, I view this as a good thing.

And the capability to create pseudo meat is to satisfy people like you that want their meat. To me, it's a win-win. You get what you want, I get what I want, and in the end it's (ideally) economically beneficial and supportful. In the end, my proposed system of action, ideally, does not harm society and even benefits it.

Quote:

You've said lasting animal happiness. Then you've decided extinction is ok.

But I do not think that the existance of a species is absolutely necessary. Also, there is a difference between "lasting animal happiness" and "wanting to limit death and suffering". One does not equate to the other. In fact, I'd say that requiring for animals to be born to be happy would be kinda silly; by that argument, we should cause even more births, even to the point of overpopulation, and then expend society's resources to keep them happy. I don't quite support this.

See, this is what I'm operating from: Two animals give birth to a calf, which will be raised in deplorable conditions, OR be raised to be slaughtered. Alternatively, two animals don't give birth to a calf. In the latter, there is less death and suffering. In the latter... where exactly is the problem?

[thaiboxerken]

The problem is that you act as if you care for animal life, yet you don't mind if they become extinct.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

The problem is that you act as if you care for animal life, yet you don't mind if they become extinct.

And I do not comprehend why you consider this a problem.

If you want to debate the subject, please respond to the whole of my post. If you do not want to debate the subject, then we will have to leave it off here.

[thaiboxerken]

It's just inconsistent, that's all. You can believe it's consistent and state it's consistent in as many words as you have, but your argument still remains illogical.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

It's just inconsistent, that's all. You can believe it's consistent and state it's consistent in as many words as you have, but your argument still remains illogical.

It's consistent, that's all. You can believe it's inconsistent and state that it's inconsistent in as many words as you have, but my argument still remains logical.

[cyborg]

Originally Posted by Yahweh

Alright then, when you said "Natural parents take this duty on as a matter of biology", you were wrong. If parents lack innate feelings to protect their children, then they have no duties to protect their children.

Indeed.

Quote:

Perfect. All is biology, anything you do is biology, nothing can be contrary to biology. Therefore, when you said, "Natural parents take this duty on as a matter of biology.", you were wrong (again), because a parent killing their children is acting consistently with biology, because (by definition) they can't do anything to the contrary.

Indeed.

Quote:

So I guess you were lying when you said "No, we can ONLY afford moral consideration to beings that are capable of moral consideration",

No, I was being semantically awkward.

Quote:

I'm sorry, I can't parse that. What are you saying?

Morality is post-hoc.

Quote:

Alright then, I am society. I make the rules.

When the avalanche has started it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

Quote:

Notice how nearly everything I've said in this thread and others has to do with people being morally consistent? I criticize people not based on any absolutist principles, but based on their consistency.

When an arbitrary line is drawn the morality is consistent - there is just an arbitrary line.

Quote:

And seriously, this is a critical thinking messageboard, and if you can't see the elementary naturalistic fallacy contained in the statement "people have duties to protect their children because of biology", then you aren't a critical thinker.

It is not a naturalistic fallacy, it is a naturalistic fact. When people do not bond with their children this is a biological defect - and it happens, no doubt, but I'm not going to pretend it is because of choice.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Taffer

Social animals rarely do. For example, lions do not, AFAIK, kill members of their own pride.

Lions are willing to kill the children of other male lions, especially when one pride moves in with another.

Humans would sometimes do such things, especially in things such as inheritance, or slavery (I.E., enslaving the children of your enemies that you conquer). We would also, sometimes, when conquered another nation, wipe out every man, woman, and child in that nation to prevent cases of revenge and differentiation. We now consider such things immoral.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I've not a clue as to the significance of this. ?

You were arguing that if I had lived in some other society I would act differently. I disagreed. I don't allow society to mold me into who I am.

Originally Posted by RandFan

What both ways? What are you talking about? I have my own personal morality and I also live in a society that has laws and moral standards. I think Hitler was wrong.

You can't say that "Hitler was wrong" and then also contend that morality is relative and not absolute. You can argue "I think he was wrong" but that's like arguing "I think blue is pretty". It's meaningless if morality is relative.

Originally Posted by RandFan

I think he was wrong. Certainly the moral standards of much of the world believed that Hitler was wrong.

You think he was wrong? Why?
Because he killed people? Why is that wrong?
Because they suffer? So what.
Suffering is bad. How?

Originally Posted by RandFan

In any event, no, it isn't as simple as Hitler being wrong or not.

Sure it is. Either he was or he wasn't. I say he was. I contend that anyone who says he was not is absolutely wrong. That there is nothing relative about what he did.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken
There are plenty of ways to kill an animal where it doesn't suffer.


Dustin:Same with a human. However you're still robbing it of it's life.


You've just established that your objection isn't to suffering, but to the actual killing of animals. Have anything else?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken
There are plenty of ways to kill an animal where it doesn't suffer.


Dustin:Same with a human. However you're still robbing it of it's life.


You've just established that your objection isn't to suffering, but to the actual killing of animals. Have anything else?

I think "Lonewolf" refuted this already but I'll say that I object to suffering and death.

[thaiboxerken]

No, lonewulf didn't refute anything, but certainly tried.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

No, lonewulf didn't refute anything, but certainly tried.

"Refute" != "Thaiboxerken thinks it was refuted".

[thaiboxerken]

Once you understand that I'm infallible, things will become much easier for you to accept.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Once you understand that I'm infallible, things will become much easier for you to accept.

Heh. Likewise.

(Okay, this actually made me chuckle)

[Dan O.]

Shortening the food chain by growing meat substitute in vats is not necessary unless your goal is to significantly increase the human population on this planet.

Is your thought perhaps that you want to claim the moral high ground when the Kanamits arrive and take over the top of the food chain.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Shortening the food chain by growing meat substitute in vats is not necessary unless your goal is to significantly increase the human population on this planet.

So then, we shouldn't pursue such actions? Why not?

Please give an actual reason, something concrete. What is wrong with my proposal?

Do you have a specific objection?

Also, increasing the human population? So population size is entirely dependant on how much food is available? Do you have any evidence for this claim? I thought that the size of families was dependant on, y'know, social customs and how much parents bang each other with unprotected sex. I might be wrong, though.

[Dan O.]

I don't believe that an increased population is the best path for long term survival.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Dan O.

I don't believe that an increased population is the best path for long term survival.

And you say this without any evidence that population size is entirely dependant on food availability.

We have far more food availability today than we've ever had in the past. Yet, guess what? Industrial cities have a far lower birth rate, almost exceeding the death rate, than non-industrial societies. ****, you want food, where do you go? To the goddamn HEB. To the local supermarket. To a convenience store. Food surrounds all of us, and are you going to tell me that it's severely limiting our population size? Bullcrap.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Not to mention, workers at the meat plants can be counted on to contribute to population control by falling into the vats.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Not to mention, workers at the meat plants can be counted on to contribute to population control by falling into the vats.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Dustin

You were arguing that if I had lived in some other society I would act differently. I disagreed. I don't allow society to mold me into who I am.

To late, it already has.

Let's put my propostion to the test.

Do your values look more like the values of modern society or the time of hunters and gatherers?
Do your values look more like the values of modern society or the stone age?
Do your values look more like the values of modern society or the bronze age?

Sorry, Dustin, it is very difficult to escape your environment.

Quote:

You can't say that "Hitler was wrong" and then also contend that morality is relative and not absolute.

?

I DIDN'T say that "Hitler was wrong" AND then contend that morality is relative. I did not do that. So telling me that I can't do it is a silly excercise. Actually I said I THINK Hitler was wrong.

Quote:

You can argue "I think he was wrong" but that's like arguing "I think blue is pretty".

? I was stating a subjective opinion. I WASN'T arguing.

1.) I think vanila tastes better than chocolate.
2.) I think Rock and roll is better than Country music.
3.) I think Hitle was wrong.

All thre are relative.

Quote:

It's meaningless if morality is relative.

????

I really don't know how to respond. It's MY OPINION! It has meaning ONLY BECAUSE it is relative.

Quote:

You think he was wrong? Why?
Because he killed people? Why is that wrong?
Because they suffer? So what.
Suffering is bad. How?

People, have been trying for page after page to get you to answer the very same questions.

Why is it ok for you to ask questions expecting an answer but not vice versa? And don't give me the BS that you've answered them.

1.) I think Hitler was wrong to kill innocent civilians because A.) I was raised to believe killing was wrong. B.) I have the capacity for empathy. C.) Having been raised in the time that I was raised in I have the luxury to consider other people's feelings more than if I was raised in another time.

3.) I don't like other people to suffer because A.) I was raised to believe suffering is wrong. B.) I have the capacity for empathy. C.) Having been raised in the time that I was raised in I have the luxury to consider other people's feelings and my sense of empathy is more developed than had I been raised in another time.

4.) Suffering is bad to me because I don't like it.

In other words, my moral values are a result of my genetic predisposition and environment. This is the scientific consensus BTW.

Quote:

Sure it is. Either he was or he wasn't. I say he was. I contend that anyone who says he was not is absolutely wrong. That there is nothing relative about what he did.

1.) This is just your opinion.
2.) There is no reason to come to this conclusion.
3.) In other times people did not share your opinion.
4.) Why are you right and they were wrong?