Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[physicsisphirst]

And here, you again make the disagreeable assumption of awareness in animals. "Appreciate" is an awareness term. We do not know whether animals have the faculty of awareness which allows them to make value judgments of that sort.

i don't see why this is disagreeable. all you seem to conclude is that despite their physiology, their reactions, and the awareness of many humans (which also include 3 decades of recent research) that animals are sentient, you can't be convince that animals have awareness.

For the record, I believe that humans have a responsibility to animals which animals do not have toward humans or toward any other species, including their own kind.

that's fine with me, but i don't think we can establish the level of responsibility animals have towards other beings. however, we can do a fair bit about ourselves.

All I am observing is that the animal rights position is a self-contradicting one on this question. By now, this fact should be completely obvious to everyone. The question is, "What does one do with this fact?"

well it really isn't a fact since it really isn't the AR position (though it may be a position some AR people as well as some non-AR people take). either way, i don't think the movement is in any great jeopardy somehow.

P.S. A request: Please do away with annoying terms like "typical speciesist argument". They help nothing, and make you look bad.

thanks, but i'll take my chances. :D (and i also presume by your statement that you do acknowledge that no one called anyone a "brutal speciesist" as you seemed to postulate earlier)

speciesism happens to be a very relevant and important term coined actually by peter singer. overcoming speciesism may be the final frontier!

in friendship,
prad

 

[OneEye]

I don't see how an unconscious person can experience pain. Isn't that what anasthetics do? Render you unconscious so that you can't feel pain?

No, the body still experiences pain - the neural signal travels to the brain, just as it does in a conscious person. And, in some unconscious states, the body may still flinch because of the pain signal. This is most obvious in a sleeping person. Pain is still experienced, there is an unconscious reaction to the pain, but there is no conscious awareness of pain.

Yes, I'm having troubling seeing the distinction. When you use the word "experience" I'm assuming that you're using it in the sense of feeling, sensation... not simply the body's reaction to a stimulus.

Okay. I'll try to clarify.

I think my definitions of pain, experience and awareness are different from yours.

Almost certainly true.

Is experiencing pain without being aware of it mean that the body is simply reacting to some stimulus without any corresponding inner feeling?

The difference is between sentience (the ability to experience something - literally, the capacity to "sense") and awareness (the cognitive self-knowledge of having the experience). A sentient being will experience and react to pain; an aware being will be able to contemplate its pain, and may decide (e.g.,) to choose the more painful path.

We easily have the technology to make an artficial sentience. Between sensor pads, stepper motors, a little circuitry, and some insightful programming, we could manufacture a little robot which responds to physical stimuli. (In fact, Nintendo has a new portable game console which is "sentient" and "responds" to touch stimuli according to these definitions.)

However, we do not have the technology to produce a truly aware automaton. In fact, I believe that this goal is essentially impossible, because I believe that awareness is intangible, immaterial - literally, supernatural. We may emulate and imitate awareness, but we cannot produce it.

A tremendous amount of confusion regarding these terms is to be found in books and movies of the science fiction genre. A significant part of that confusion comes from the hidden assumption that man is merely mechanism: That the whole of human nature is comprehended in the human body, and that all of human behavior is a product of physical actions and reactions. This view, though common and usually unquestioned, turns out to be the least likely conclusion given the evidence.

But regardless of that question, the above definitions of sentience and awareness are pretty much the generally-accepted versions (with, perhaps, a little local color added!).

Hope this helps!

 

[physicsisphirst]

some helpful clarifications in your above post, oneeye!
i have a couple of questions below.

A sentient being will experience and react to pain; an aware being will be able to contemplate its pain, and may decide (e.g.,) to choose the more painful path.

sometimes animals choose a more painful path. for instance, an otter caught in a trap will bite through its arm. a dog will run into a burning building to rescue its owner. some primates when offered food only through a mechanism that delivers a painful shock to a fellow primate, will choose to starve. does this demonstrate contemplation and awareness?

A significant part of that confusion comes from the hidden assumption that man is merely mechanism: ... This view, though common and usually unquestioned, turns out to be the least likely conclusion given the evidence.

i am inclined to agree with you on this. however, can you say more about what this evidence is?

in friendship,
prad

 

[russ_watters]

All I am observing is that the animal rights position is a self-contradicting one on this question. By now, this fact should be completely obvious to everyone. The question is, "What does one do with this fact?"

Obvious or not, I think they are afraid to acknowledge the flaw because they think it undermines their position. I'm actually unsure if it does or not: I'm not sure if I would respect the animal rights position more or less if the contradiction was acknowledged and logically argued away. But then, part of the reason for that is I've yet to see an animal rights activist actually try to deal with the contradiction.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Obvious or not, I think they are afraid to acknowledge the flaw because they think it undermines their position. I'm actually unsure if it does or not: I'm not sure if I would respect the animal rights position more or less if the contradiction was acknowledged and logically argued away. But then, part of the reason for that is I've yet to see an animal rights activist actually try to deal with the contradiction.

russ please see post #748 where i wonder why you and oneeye claim that this 'contradiction' is the AR position.
can you show me how you come to this conclusion? are there specific posts in this thread? does it exist in some book? does it appear on a website?

AR is very diverse with the ideas of several prominent philosophers. it would seem to me that anyone of those i listed in that post would have spotted this 'contradiction' if it really did exist in their philosophy.

i even made an attempt to accept and deal with the 'contradiction' anyway - just for fun.
i am reposting it below for convenience.
i would appreciate your comments on it.

in friendship,
prad


however, let's go with it anyway. so
humans are aware, therefore they should not harm other creatures and
animals are aware, but it is ok for them to harm other creatures.

so since both animals and humans harm other creatures, can we discern the degree of awareness from the amount of harm caused? is it possible that the more harm caused (except for sustenance, say) is reflective of the degree of lack of awareness? for instance, some humans cause harm for sport, entertainment, food (that they don't need or even eat). no animal seems to do this to the same degree. does that make animals more aware than some humans? on the otherhand, you have some humans who spend a great deal of time and effort (eg AR activists and others) to stop or minimize harm to others (animals and humans). are these people more or less aware than those humans who do cause harm?

or

is it possible that humans can be sufficiently aware of an animal's sentience to realize that it doesn't want to be harmed, but an animal has sufficient sentience to know that it doesn't want to be harmed, but not enough awareness (like some humans) to realize that other animals also may not want to be harmed.

 

[OneEye]

so since both animals and humans harm other creatures, can we discern the degree of awareness from the amount of harm caused?

(Sorry I didn't get to this earlier. I had meant to answer it. Just a little busy.)

The answer to your question is, No. Awarenesss is not defined as the ability or propensity to cause harm. Awareness is cognizance of one's state. When I am awake, I am aware (okay, so mostly). When I am asleep, I am sensate and reactive, but not aware.

You almost seem to want to turn "awareness" into some sort of measure of virtue. Evil people are fully aware. Dear little Binkie is not (presumably - anyway, we are not able to tell, and have reasons to doubt).

russ please see post #748 where i wonder why you and oneeye claim that this 'contradiction' is the AR position.

Here, for the record, is the contradiction in dialogue form:

Plato: I think I'll get a hamburger.

Aristotle: Don't do that! That would be eating an animal!

Plato: Is that wrong?

Aristotle: Yes, because people are animals, and so should not eat other animals. So killing an animal is a form of murder, and eating it is basically a form of cannibalism.

Plato: Oh.

Aristotle: Hmph.

Plato: But... Animals kill and eat animals.

Aritstotle: Yes, but you shouldn't.

Plato: Why?

Aristotle: Because you are a human, and so you should know better.



Okay?

 

[russ_watters]

I never liked Aristotle.

 

[physicsisphirst]

(Sorry I didn't get to this earlier. I had meant to answer it. Just a little busy.)

no problem - i am too and i do appreciate your efforts to make substantial and informative posts.

The answer to your question is, No. Awarenesss is not defined as the ability or propensity to cause harm. Awareness is cognizance of one's state.

perhaps i was not sufficiently clear previously in asking so since both animals and humans harm other creatures, can we discern the degree of awareness from the amount of harm caused?

what the question is asking is whether the propensity to cause harm is reflective of the degree of awareness. in other words, as someone becomes 'more aware' of the suffering of another being, perhaps that person will be less inclined to cause that suffering. similarly, if one is to cause pain, it is perhaps necessary to lessen our awareness (sometimes through outright denial) of the suffering of the other being.

a good example of the latter is demonstrated by a placard held by a black man during the 60's civil rights marches which read "I am a man". the idea behind it of course was that as a black he was not being regarded as a man by the oppressing faction who would naturally find it simpler to abuse and exploit a 'non-man' provided they could reduce their state of awareness sufficiently.

that is what i was getting at regarding awareness.

i understand you are busy but i am very interested in your comment from post #752:

A significant part of that confusion comes from the hidden assumption that man is merely mechanism: That the whole of human nature is comprehended in the human body, and that all of human behavior is a product of physical actions and reactions. This view, though common and usually unquestioned, turns out to be the least likely conclusion given the evidence.

i asked you what this evidence was and look forward to hearing what you have to say.

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

Here, for the record, is the contradiction in dialogue form:
...
Okay?

no that's not okay at all.

you (and russ) are claiming that the AR position entails a contradiction whereby AR says


(1) Humans are merely another kind of animal, but
(2) humans are not allowed to behave like any other animal,
(3) animals are not obliged to behave like humans, and
(4) humans have a moral responsibility to all animals which is unique in the animal kingdom," is a self-contradicting arguments. Point (1) is completely contradicted by points (2) through (4).

(from post #749)

then you go on to say


All I am observing is that the animal rights position is a self-contradicting one on this question. By now, this fact should be completely obvious to everyone. The question is, "What does one do with this fact?"


my question to you (and russ) wasn't for a dialogue clarification of the above. here is what my question was again:

i wonder why you and oneeye claim that this 'contradiction' is the AR position.
can you show me how you come to this conclusion? are there specific posts in this thread? does it exist in some book? does it appear on a website?

since
1) you have worded the 'contradiction' and
2) you claim it is an obvious flaw in the AR position

i am asking you
what AR source you got this information from or more specifically on what grounds do you claim that this is the AR position.

once you can establish that for me we can take a closer look at your interesting 'contradiction' itself ;)

in friendship,
prad

 

[OneEye]

i am asking you
what AR source you got this information from or more specifically on what grounds do you claim that this is the AR position.

My representation of the contradiction is the summary of reviewing a variety of animal rights materials over the past ten years or so. I have not made an active course of study out of it; rather, I have merely gathered the information which came along to me. I should say that it only amounts to a few hundred hours of exposure to various animal rights communiques and summaries thereof (including, e.g. some of Dr. Singer's writings).

I do not claim to have exhaustively researched this. However, I do stand by what I am saying as being a true rendition of all of the animal rights materials I have seen. I welcome correction. I have, several times, presented syllogisms to you which show the inherent contradiction in the animal rights position. These syllogisms are open to the usual critiques: Either show that the propositions are invalid, or show that the conclusion does not follow from the propositions. The simplest one to take on would be the two-proposition syllogism in the dialogue. The conclusion there is an implied one: "Therefore, the animal rights view is inherently self-contradicting."

Personally, I think that you will agree with both of the propositions of the dialogue. And, the conclusion is a lead-pipe cinch given the propositions. But I welcome your critique.

what the question is asking is whether the propensity to cause harm is reflective of the degree of awareness. in other words, as someone becomes 'more aware' of the suffering of another being, perhaps that person will be less inclined to cause that suffering.

Here, again, you are mixing the idea of awareness (an amoral faculty) with the idea of goodness. The most obvious way of separating your mixture is to inject a sadomasochist - a person who exults in suffering. For such a person, an increase of awareness would facilitate an increase in suffering - which, to the sadomasochist, would be the ideal.

A significant part of that confusion comes from the hidden assumption that man is merely mechanism: That the whole of human nature is comprehended in the human body, and that all of human behavior is a product of physical actions and reactions. This view, though common and usually unquestioned, turns out to be the least likely conclusion given the evidence.

i asked you what this evidence was and look forward to hearing what you have to say.

It will be my pleasure to discuss this. Here are three observations:

1) It is well-observed and demonstrated that free will, as such, cannot be the product of mechanism. This should be obvious on the first statement of the case, but usually requires a little thinking through to really grasp.

2) The research is against it: Studies of behavioral correspondence between siblings show that nature and nurture together only account for about 50% of human behavior. Behavioral correspondence is somewhere on the order of 15% for adopted siblings, 20+% for ordinary brothers, 30+% for fraternal twins, and 40+% for identical twins raised together. This means that the most significant determinant of behavior is neither nurture nor nature. This is substantiated by the fact that twins raised apart have a higher behavioral correspondence than twins raised together - implying that the twins raised together consciously exercised their will to overcome both nature and nurture.

3) Humans automatically assign themselves to a different category from that of animals (as we have been discussing.) Far from being mere speciesism, this testifies to important essential differences between animals and humans.

This is a fair enough thumbnail sketch of the issue for now, I think.

 

[russ_watters]

If you disagree with our assessment of the position, could you try to clear it up for us?

In answer of your question, we've seen this position argued right here in this thread. I participated in the first 10 or 20 pages and it went round and round in circles because of that contradiction.

Real debate on the issue of why started on page 4, post 59:

I think an issue that has been only lightly touched on thus far is the lack of difference between animals and humans. That is to say, animals are not sufficiently different and therefore discrimination is not justified.

This is echoed by a number of people over the next few pages. The contradiction was first pointed out on page 5, post 61:

dan, so should we stop the cheetah from eating rabbits and other rodents? should we stop the eagle from eating fish from the rivers? can i ask how you feel about darwinism? in a sense, you are putting humans up on a pedestal by claiming we have the ability to think of the animals' feelings, which i think is modestly arrogant...we are animals ourselves, probably not much different then any other, thus it is instinctual for some of us to desire to eat meat...we are within the food chain, and as darwinism states, it's survival of the fittest...

But not only was the contradiction not addressed, it was re-affirmed:

Sure, the cheetah eats animals, and a raper rapes women. If you can use what a cheetah does to justify your actions, then by the same mechanism, I can use a raper's actions to justify mine. Obviously, this is absurd. One cannot use another's actions to justify one's own actions.

I am not making any startling or arrogant claim. It is rather obvious that we have the mental ability to consider others' feelings. I say that we should use it and use it consistently.

So there it is:

Quote 1. We are just like the animals.
Quote 2(3). We are not just like the animals.

Regarding late developments:

russ please see post #748 where i wonder why you and oneeye claim that this 'contradiction' is the AR position.

Here is what you said in 748:

this really isn't quite the argument put forth by AR - though it is sometimes used to claim a contradiction. it's more like if we know that we as humans can cause suffering, should we not make an effort to not do so? i think AR is generally more interested in what humans do to animals (including humans) than what animals do to each other.

But that's exactly the point! You ignore the other side of the coin! That's an oversimplification designed to avoid dealing with the contradiction. You can't just make it go away by not adressing it.

We know humans can cause suffering. We know animals can cause suffering. Why should we ignore suffering caused by animals? If you don't put out mousetraps for mice in your house shouldn't you also try to prevent your cat from catching mice? Eagles kill hundreds of fish a year - we had the bald eagle near extinction once, shouldn't we exterminate all of them?

Ok, so you say the AR movement typically doesn't address this issue - and though some people in here have adressed it, you have done a good job of avoiding answering it. If you don't want to answer my hypotheticals, tell me why.

 

[physicsisphirst]

My representation of the contradiction is the summary of reviewing a variety of animal rights materials over the past ten years or so. ... I have merely gathered the information which came along to me.

the problem with 'merely gathering the information which came along to you' is that you are taking bits and pieces and formulating your personal AR theory which you then claim to be the AR contradiction. you are assuming that AR has 1 philosophy which of course it doesn't as i tried to show you in an earlier post.

for instance, singer who is a utilitarian doesn't accept that animals have inherent rights. on the otherhand, regan has a more deontologic approach where he argues that they do. now, if i wanted to i could say "hey! look at that! 1) animals don't have inherent rights 2) animals do have inherent rights - guess what! i found a contradiction therefore the AR movement is fundamentally flawed!" (frankly, i think the above actually has a little more ooomph as far as a 'contradiction' goes than what you put together, but we shall see).

so what needs to be understood is that in anybody of knowledge there are differing philosophies, approaches and rationale even if the goals are more or less the same - the AR movement isn't any different (neither is even physics for that matter). still, never have i seen the 4 point compilation you admit to having put together though i won't argue that it hasn't been done before by somebody (perhaps even in the AR movement).

I do not claim to have exhaustively researched this. However, I do stand by what I am saying as being a true rendition of all of the animal rights materials I have seen.

well it really can't be a true rendition of the AR movement - only a true compilation by you.

The simplest one to take on would be the two-proposition syllogism in the dialogue. The conclusion there is an implied one: "Therefore, the animal rights view is inherently self-contradicting."

again, since there really isn't one single AR view, your statement of there being a contradiction has little relevance. saying that your dialogue represents the AR view hardly makes it so.

Personally, I think that you will agree with both of the propositions of the dialogue. And, the conclusion is a lead-pipe cinch given the propositions. But I welcome your critique.

i think the dialogue is cleverly constructed and it does make the point you are trying to get across, but it really is not the AR stance. it may be useful for an AR activist to examine it though.

i'll respond to the rest of your comments in subsequent posts after some of this is cleared up.

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

If you disagree with our assessment of the position, could you try to clear it up for us?

i will try and thank you for going back in the thread and digging up the stuff.

You can't just make it go away by not adressing it.

well i did address somewhat by pointing out that it really can't be taken as the AR view. now if you say that some ARists maintain that view then we can ask those how they would explain the 'contradiction'. perhaps, dissident dan would be willing to elaborate on it further.

in any case, i will take a different stab at it in my next post so rest assured that i am not trying to avoid it - in fact, quite the contrary.

but first ...

Why should we ignore suffering caused by animals? [/quote]
i'm not sure we do ignore it - but it may depend on what that suffering is. for instance, if a cheetah kills for food it would seem inappropriate to stop it unless you could get it a large supply of veg catfood. if a human kills for sustenance as may happen in situations where it may be impossible to find suitable crops then again it would seem inappropriate to stop this. however, the vast majority of humans who eat meat don't kill for food (though many may kill themselves with it) - in fact, they get the factory farms to do the whole dirty thing for them. this is probably why AR groups (and small farmers in fact) target this sort of killing especially in light of the reality that this same majority of humans have no need whatsoever to eat meat since there are so many alternatives available. (i hope this also answers the fish-eagle and mice-cat questions - and btw we do stop our cat from catching mice or birds since around here we are not supposed to let cats stray).

you have done a good job of avoiding answering it.

i hope it is clear to you that your 'it' is not being avoided at all. if you find an answer insufficient, please say why and i'll try again.

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dissident Dan]

This "contradiction" has already been discussed before, if I remember correctly.

The case is that humans and other animals have very similar capacity for experience-pleasure and suffering, and, regardless of how similar our experiences are, we all do experience. That similarity is why we should treat other species of animals similarly to how should treat other humans, in that we should respect them as beings that can experience and take their interests into consideration.

The differences between humans and other animals that are relevant here are that we are so much more intelligent and that we, being humans ourselves, can communicate with each other much better than we can with other species. This means that we have better ability to consider the ethical effects of our actions upon others (including other species) than do members of other species. We can discuss amongst ourselves and try to persuade each other. We cannot do that with members of other species, except perhaps in very limited ways with other primates (and maybe dolphines, porpoises).

To sum up, we (humans and other animal species) are similar in that we all have the ability to experience. We are different in that we have much greater cognitive ability. This gives give rise to the differences in hopes that AR people have for the behavior of humans and the behavior of other animals--not arbitrary discrimination, but discrimination based on relevant differences.

(Note: I know that there are some organisms that are technically animals that do not experience, such as sponges. I am not including them when I refer to "animals" in this post. The term "animal" is used for simplicity.)

 

[physicsisphirst]

the contracontradiction

My representation of the contradiction

so let's look at the 'contradiction' you created:


(1) Humans are merely another kind of animal, but
(2) humans are not allowed to behave like any other animal,
(3) animals are not obliged to behave like humans, and
(4) humans have a moral responsibility to all animals which is unique in the animal kingdom," is a self-contradicting arguments. Point (1) is completely contradicted by points (2) through (4).


your statements just don't jive together as you'll see.

(1) says that humans are part of the set of animals and therefore a subset of the set animals
(2) says that the particular subset of animals, known as humans should not, for whatever reason, behave like other subsets of the set animals such as cats or whales

both the above are quite reasonable and logical because humans can be considered part of the animal kingdom and there is no reason to expect that anyone subset of the set animals should behave like another (even individuals don't)

(3) results in a problem, because it is rather meaningless to say that the set of animals are not obliged to behave like its own subset humans - that's a roundabout way of saying that humans aren't obliged to behave like humans. what i think you need to say is that all subsets of the set animals that are not the subset humans are not obliged to behave as humans.

so, after the modification, this too makes sense and is quite consistent with (1) and (2)

(4) now is perfectly ok too because the subset humans has been given a particular behavioral criteria that is different from other subsets and it still remains within the set animals.

the problem that created your 'contradiction' stemmed from

a) making humans part of animals then
b) giving humans behavioral criteria distinct from other members also part of animals then wanting
c) that all animals (which must therefore include humans) not have that behavioral criteria

if you say that all animals are not obliged to follow the human behavioral criteria, then you must also accept that humans (since they are part of animals) don't need to follow the same criteria you gave them in the first place.

alternatively, you say humans, who are part of animals, must behave a certain way. then you say that animals don't need to behave in that same way somehow removing humans from being part of animals at that moment. but since humans are part of animals (by your first statement), you must either accept that as animals they do not need to behave the way they used to or you must modify your "animals are not obliged to behave like humans" to "non-human animals are not obliged to behave like humans".

so it is really your inconsistent formulation that made you think there was a contradiction.

in friendship,
prad

 

[learningphysics]

I think the discussion will go along better if we can rewrite this statement more specifically:
1) Humans are merely another animal.

with another. The statement is trying to say something more than just "Humans are animals" but what exactly...

It is like saying "1 is merely another positive integer". The statement is trying to say something more than just "1 is a positive integer", but what exactly?

I believe something like "Humans are not unique in their awareness of pain and morality." (or something of this sort, that is more specific)

 

[OneEye]

I think the discussion will go along better if we can rewrite this statement more specifically:
1) Humans are merely another animal.

with another. The statement is trying to say something more than just "Humans are animals" but what exactly...

It is like saying "1 is merely another positive integer". The statement is trying to say something more than just "1 is a positive integer", but what exactly?

I believe something like "Humans are not unique in their awareness of pain and morality." (or something of this sort, that is more specific)

I am glad to see you working your way through this. Others might give up. Stick to it!

First, as to your complaint, "This is not an animal rights position": Yes, I know that this statement of contradicition is not an animals rights statement. No-one wants to knowingly hold a self-contradictory position. But I am not misrepresenting the animal rights position if I use facts which came from the animal rights database and show that they produce a self-contradicting view. (BTW, I have written Dr. Singer about this, and am awaiting a reply.)

My method is simple syllogism - freshman logic techniques which we all should be aware of. I am not engaging in misdirection here. I am simply arranging propositions syllogistically, and showing that they produce a self-refuting thought system. Rather than complaining that I am not using a "real animal rights position", I would like you to deal with the logic in the usual way: Either demonstrate that the premisses are not true, or show that the syllogism is badly-formed. So far, you have agreed with all of the premisses, so you will have to show that my construct is invalid - unless you want to go back and revisit the premisses (which you seem want to do in this latest message). You cannot show that my constuction is invalid by observing that some of the premisses contradict each other, since this would simply be agreeing with my conclusion.

I would like you to either agree or disagree with the following:

Humans are merely animals.​

That is to say, "Humans are nothing more and nothing less than members of the kingdom Animalia (i.e., there is no reason to believe the 'speciesist' claim that humans are fundamentally different from the animals.)"

Second, observe the following syllogism, the converse of previous syllogisms:

1. Humans are merely another kind of animal.
2. Some animals kill and eat other animals.
   ----------------------------------------------------------
3. Humans may kill and eat other animals.

I welcome your reflections on this.

P.S. We are now entering into the "drudgery" stage of the discussion. I will endeavor to make this stage as interesting and entertaining as I can.

 

[learningphysics]

I would like you to either agree or disagree with the following:

Humans are merely animals.​

That is to say, "Humans are nothing more and nothing less than members of the kingdom Animalia (i.e., there is no reason to believe the 'speciesist' claim that humans are fundamentally different from the animals.)"

This is still unclear to me. Is this statement equivalent to "Humans are animals". If so then yes I agree with the statement. Check out physicsphirst post. If the first statement is taken as this then there is no contradiction.

What exactly is a "fundamental difference"? Every species is unique and can be taken to be fundamentally different.

Also, what exactly does it mean to be "more than another species" or "less than another species"?

I'm restating your argument here:
"
(1) Humans are merely another kind of animal, but
(2) humans are not allowed to behave like any other animal,
(3) animals are not obliged to behave like humans, and
(4) humans have a moral responsibility to all animals which is unique in the animal kingdom," is a self-contradicting arguments. Point (1) is completely contradicted by points (2) through (4).
"

Until 1) is rewritten, I'll take it to say: "Humans are animals". As physicsphirst points out 2, 3 and 4 don't contradict 1.

I'm enjoying discussing this. Seems like we're getting to the nuts and bolts of the issue.

 

[physicsisphirst]

My method is simple syllogism - freshman logic techniques which we all should be aware of. I am not engaging in misdirection here.

...

P.S. We are now entering into the "drudgery" stage of the discussion. I will endeavor to make this stage as interesting and entertaining as I can.

i don't know who you directed this to oneeye, since you quoted learningphysics, but i presume it was directed to me. there is no need to be entertaining though it is thoughtful of you to want to be and thanks for your encouragement for my 'sticking with it'.

i also don't see why you didn't respond to my post #765 (where i do 'deal with the logic in the usual way' as you ask) which shows that you have a problem in the way you interpret your creation. please take a second look at that post which shows you 2 ways the contradiction you claim really doesn't exist - it is your interpretation that is at fault.

here's another way to look at it that may be simpler to see.

let's start with your statements again:

(1) Humans are merely another kind of animal, but
(2) humans are not allowed to behave like any other animal,
(3) animals are not obliged to behave like humans, and
(4) humans have a moral responsibility to all animals which is unique in the animal kingdom," is a self-contradicting arguments. Point (1) is completely contradicted by points (2) through (4).

now let us ask if the 'animal' in (1) is the same as the 'animal' in (3) and look at both possibilities.

A. NO. The animal in (1) is the set of all animals (ANIMALS) whereas the animal in (3) is the subset of all animals that are not human (animals). we can visually represent this as

ANIMAL
- humans
- animals
also let C be the characteristic that humans must behave morally

now let's follow your creation more concisely:

(1) Humans belong to ANIMAL
(2) humans possesses C
(3) animals do not possesses C
(4) humans have a moral responsibility to all animals which is unique in the animal kingdom.

as you can see there is no contradiction here since it is perfectly ok for humans to possesses C, animals not to possesses C and have animals and humans both be part of ANIMAL.


B. YES. Let's say that the terms are the same. now we have to consider that animals is the entire set of animals which include human and non-human animals ie ANIMAL

so let's try it again:

(1) Humans belong to ANIMAL
(2) humans possesses C
(3) ANIMAL do not possesses C

at this point humans also do not possesses C because you have said that the entire set ANIMAL (of which humans are a part of) no longer possesses C. this of course prevents (4) from even appearing since you have taken the moral responsibility away from humans by (3). [note that (3) must override (2) or you create your own contradiction between the two, thereby mangling the whole thing]. again there is no contradicition.

here is why you thought there was a contradiction:
you left (4) in after you removed the moral responsibility via (3).


i hope this as well as post #765 shows you that your contradiction only exists if you commit 'logical heresy' as explained in point B. if you do not see this, say so and i'll try again.

in friendship,
prad

ps i'd be happy to get to your 'speciesist claim' and 'converse syllogism' (both which suffer from the ambiguity of what is meant by 'animals') after we clear up this present issue.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Please, let's skip all this and just read my post again.

 

[OneEye]

I agree that my four-point syllogism is not the clearest statement of the case. Taken out of its original context, it is so vague and open to interpretation that it is useless for the discussion.

I want to answer all of the open issues which have been tabled by physicsfirst, learningphysics, and Dissident Dan. I think that the best way to do it is to develop a thesis which is not so prone to intepretation. This may seem too much like getting back to basics, but we will progress quickly.

Here is a two-point syllogism which, I hope, will clear up the matter completely:

1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
   -------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

I welcome all responses to this syllogism. This would be the first response of a non-animal rights, non-ethical vegetarian to the ethical vegetarian/animal rights view - and it also turns out to expose the "fatal flaw" in the current state of animal rights reasoning.

For the less patient, here is a little snapshot of where we're going: Animals are not allowed to regulate human behavior according to their behavioral model, yet animal rights activists must ultimately allow any kind of animalistic behavior in humans, or must allow that humans have the moral authority to regulate the entire animal kingdom (in fact, the entirety of nature).

Key to my argument is to point out that there is a salient ("fundamental"/"essential") difference between humans and every other species. This difference is moral, and has to do with moral authority - the kind of moral authority which the animal rights movement expressly denies.

I don't want to spoil the discussion, though. I really would like someone - anyone to take on the three-plank argument above. I will be most pleased to see someone answer this question.

 

[Justinius]

OneEye:

Good syllogism, but I would like to question, do animals really have morals?

Dont get me wrong here, I am a huge meat-eater. Humans definitely should eat meat, unless for some health reason they can't. To be completely non-philosophical here, and kind of nutritionist, look at the proteins we are given and the health value of the meats. Certain cultures are told religiously that certain types of meat should not be consumed, an example is pork. We must remember, however, that these laws are ancient, and in the case of Judaism more than 5000 years old. The reason these cultures are told not to eat these "unclean" meats is because their laws are stuck in time. 5000 years ago, how could people determine that pork had to be cooked to completely white in order not to get salmonella poisoning?

Nowadays, people say that we shouldn't eat meat because of the sanctity of the life of all living organisms. Aren't carrots living too? To take this argument to a reductio ad absurdum, if one believes this, then they should not wash their hands using antibacterial soap, because they will be slaughtering millions of bacteria while doing so.

Humans are not just animals. I understand what you were trying to get at, but the main difference here is that we have the ability to reason, animals run purely on instinct. Moving away from that, I agree that it is INSTINCTUAL for carniverous animals to eat meat, and since the human instinct (for lack of a better word) tells us that we are omniverous, there should be nothing wrong with eating meat.

 

[physicsisphirst]

I agree that my four-point syllogism is not the clearest statement of the case. Taken out of its original context, it is so vague and open to interpretation that it is useless for the discussion.

i'm ok with that, oneeye.
your 4 statements weren't unclear, but the meaning of 'animal' was as you say 'open to interpretation'. thank you for taking the time to read through my 2 posts. i appreciate it.

i'm happy to move on to your next syllogism provided you and russ are satisfied that
a) your concerns about AR not addressing your 'contradiction' are alleviated
b) that your 4 point syllogism didn't entail a contradiction at all


in friendship,
prad

 

[OneEye]

Certain cultures are told religiously that certain types of meat should not be consumed, an example is pork. We must remember, however, that these laws are ancient, and in the case of Judaism more than 5000 years old. The reason these cultures are told not to eat these "unclean" meats is because their laws are stuck in time.

Actually, the Jews were taught not to eat pork as a function of separation (a visible representation of their consecration to God). The peoples around them were successful and happy swineherders. And the book of Genesis (prior to the Mosaic dietary code) allows consumption of any animal.

It is a common mistake to try to find some pragmatic reason for laws like this (other examples include no fiber blends in their cloth, no mixed seed in their fields, and no mixed animals in the yoke). The Hebrew Bible demands that the Israelites regard these things as "abominations unto you". Other things are called "abominable" in and of themselves.

This is a very common misapprehension. Hope this clears that up.

 

[OneEye]

i'm happy to move on to your next syllogism provided you and russ are satisfied that
a) your concerns about AR not addressing your 'contradiction' are alleviated
b) that your 4 point syllogism didn't entail a contradiction at all

No, I don't really agree with those statements, as we will see if we can progress as I plan. Animal rights views do not address the contradiction, and my four-point syllogism does embody a contradiction in the animal rights position, so long as you interpret the (admittedly vague) terms according to their original context.

It is precisely these two points (yours) which I am trying to demonstrate. And this, I will do, if you will indulge me. And seeing as you have been so vocal so far, I would like to see you answer this most recent syllogism.

 

[physicsisphirst]

No, I don't really agree with those statements, as we will see if we can progress as I plan. Animal rights views do not address the contradiction, and my four-point syllogism does embody a contradiction in the animal rights position, so long as you interpret the (admittedly vague) terms according to their original context.

i'll deal with your amusing 3 pt syllogism after you recognize that there is no contradiction in your 4 pt syllogism. are you wishing to change your 4 pt item somehow or are you maintaining that it is fine the way you wrote it?

in friendship,
prad

 

[learningphysics]

1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
   -------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

I welcome all responses to this syllogism. This would be the first response of a non-animal rights, non-ethical vegetarian to the ethical vegetarian/animal rights view - and it also turns out to expose the "fatal flaw" in the current state of animal rights reasoning.

For the less patient, here is a little snapshot of where we're going: Animals are not allowed to regulate human behavior according to their behavioral model, yet animal rights activists must ultimately allow any kind of animalistic behavior in humans, or must allow that humans have the moral authority to regulate the entire animal kingdom (in fact, the entirety of nature).

Key to my argument is to point out that there is a salient ("fundamental"/"essential") difference between humans and every other species. This difference is moral, and has to do with moral authority - the kind of moral authority which the animal rights movement expressly denies.

I don't want to spoil the discussion, though. I really would like someone - anyone to take on the three-plank argument above. I will be most pleased to see someone answer this question.

I disagree with the first statement. I suppose some AR folks might replace the statement by saying "It is moral for non-human animals to eat meat if they so desire". Would this unveil the fatal flaw you're referring too. I'd disagree with this statement too.

My position is this: "Humans and animals should behave in the way that minimizes pain and suffering". Now, sometimes this may involve animals eating meat (in order to survive or prevent their own hunger), or sometimes it may involve animals not eating meat (like the vegetarian dogs referred to in this thread).

Humans do have a greater capacity to create change in the world... I'd say they have a greater moral awareness (I wouldn't say humans are more moral, but perhaps more apt to understanding morality). I would not take humans to be unique in their moral awareness. Just as intelligence is on a continuum from lower life forms to more complex ones, I'd take moral awareness to be on a similar continuum.

Why do humans talk about how other humans should treat animals, instead of how other animals should treat animals? Well, because we can more easily influence and communicate with other humans. We can get other humans to stop eating meat without creating much suffering. Is there any way to influence the animal community in this way? It would be much more difficult. It's not that animals are morally correct in eating other animals, but it's difficult to prevent without creating more suffering than would have existed if the animal did the eating in the first place.

I'm also not saying it is always immoral for animals to eat other animals... I'm saying it depends on how much suffering is prevented, and how much is created... weighing the pros and cons... For example dogs that are vegetarian is an example that has already been brought up in this thread.

 

[OneEye]

i'll deal with your amusing 3 pt syllogism after you recognize that there is no contradiction in your 4 pt syllogism. are you wishing to change your 4 pt item somehow or are you maintaining that it is fine the way you wrote it?

If you want me to cop any plea for the 4-point syllogism, it will have to be nolo contendre. I do contend that, explained properly, the 4-point syllogism is accurate and valid. The three-point syllogism which I most recently proposed is the best way to prove that. So, if you want me to explain why I am sticking to my guns on the 4-point syllogism, the best way to do that is for you to answer the 3-point syllogism. If you want to accept my nolo contendre plea, you may then go on to deal with the 3-point syllogism. Either way, I think that the right way to go is for you to answer the 3-point syllogism. It at least has the benefit of being amusing.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Either way, I think that the right way to go is for you to answer the 3-point syllogism. It at least has the benefit of being amusing.

oh alright then!
your 3 pt item is either incorrect or tautology. here's why:


1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).


let us consider exactly what "an animal" is.
it is either a) human or b) non-human.


so if it is the latter your syllogism reads:

1. It is moral for a non-human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

now you can probably see that 3. doesn't follow from 1. and 2. (hence incorrectness).


and if it is the former your sillygism becomes tautology and looks like this:

1. It is moral for a human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

which is like saying if you are redundant, then you are redundant.


now, what do you want to do about your 4 pt thingy?

in friendship,
prad

 

[Be Happy!]

1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
   -------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

I welcome all responses to this syllogism.

I most certainly agree with the 2nd premise. Humans are animals!

However, I believe that your first premise is incorrect. Non-human animals are not capable of the complex morality that humans can exhibit and should not be held morally responsible for their actions because they don’t have the same process of deductive reasoning as the human animal. To say that it is moral for them to eat meat, implies that they are able to make such decisions. Non-human animals are not moral agents in the same sense as we are (tho they have been shown to exhibit certain qualities such as altruism that show some degree of morality) but they are not capable of the same types of moral reflections as ADULT humans (animal behaviorists show that some primates, birds and other animals have the cognitive abilities of children) and should not be held to the same level of responsibility for their actions, just as we don’t hold a small child or a severely mentally disabled person to the same level of responsibility as an adult human.

However, humans are moral beings and are capable of complex deductive reasoning and should be held responsible for their actions. So let’s take a quick look at meat eating amongst humans. Unlike with some non-human animals, we do not NEED flesh in order to survive. Many doctors now agree that our bodies are similar to an herbivore and that we thrive on a plant-based diet. (The China Study- the largest population study ever done (100,000 people participated), concluded that a plant based diet is the ideal diet for the human body- I can discuss this in further detail if you like).

Like I said earlier, we do not need meat, we do desire it because it is what many of us are raised with. Not very often do we think about where our meat comes from. Industry would rather you not know how the animal was raised (often in filthy, cramped conditions), how the animal was slaughtered, nor the devastating effect our desire to eat meat has had on the environment. Though it is not the topic at hand, I am happy to further discuss any of these topics.

So if we can live healthily on plant-based foods and we know that a plant-based diet is better for the environment and does not cause the needless suffering of non-human animals, then morally how can we justify eating meat? Try as we may, the “desire” for meat is not a sufficient moral justification for this cruel practice.

Furthermore, we do not look to non-human animals to define our morality so why do it here? Non-human animals have been known to exhibit barbaric behaviors which we would never find acceptable. So, I suggest that we define the morality of eating meat based on the facts at hand and not because some non-human animals do it.

In conclusion, I hope I have clearly explained why non-human animals should not be held accountable for their actions and why humans should. I think it’s important to this argument to note that in the US over 27 billions animals are killed for food and there is nothing natural about it. They exist in horrendous conditions living in their own filth, not being able to move freely, and denied everything that is natural to them. Then at long last comes an end to their miserable lives, but even that isn’t easy as many animals are slaughtered while they are still fully conscious. Though many people would hate to admit this, pigs, cows, and chickens are individuals with feelings—they can feel love, happiness, loneliness, and fear, just as dogs, cats, and humans do. If we knowingly cause another individual to suffer and die needlessly, we must recognize that we are committing nothing less than a moral atrocity.



Sangeeta

 

[ranjana]

Wow, Sangeeta ! Excellent post!

in peace
Ranjana

 

[russ_watters]

I realize I've been absent for a day and have a lot to respond to, but for now I have only one thing:

Sangeeta, the argument that an cougar can't understand the morality of eating a deer, so its not wrong to do so has a pretty serious flaw: it has no basis in philosophy whatsoever. In fact, it goes directly against the existning philosophy of rights.

This isn't "right to kill" its "right to life." The right to life (if it applies) protects the deer from being killed - the motive or capacity to reason of the cougar is irrelevant.

 

[OneEye]

Good syllogism, but I would like to question, do animals really have morals?

Thank you for your compliment, and a very good clarifying question. As it turns out that this is not really an important question in this discussion - as several people have already pointed out. The question of morality is obviously one for humans (and our developing thesis shows that it is only for humans, since humans are unique in their moral conception and responsibility here). So, it really doesn't matter whether animals have morals or not - the question remains the same.

Nowadays, people say that we shouldn't eat meat because of the sanctity of the life of all living organisms. Aren't carrots living too? To take this argument to a reductio ad absurdum, if one believes this, then they should not wash their hands using antibacterial soap, because they will be slaughtering millions of bacteria while doing so.

And even vegetarians ingest billions of microorganisms - at least some of the Animalia - a day. Some Tibetan Buddhist monks, by the way, apologize to the bacteria they are washing off as they take their baths.

Humans are not just animals. I understand what you were trying to get at, but the main difference here is that we have the ability to reason, animals run purely on instinct. Moving away from that, I agree that it is INSTINCTUAL for carniverous animals to eat meat, and since the human instinct (for lack of a better word) tells us that we are omniverous, there should be nothing wrong with eating meat.

I agree with much of what you say, but if we get much farther along, we will see that trying to explain a moral difference through natural characteristics does not work. Intelligence, self-awareness, other-awareness neither necessitate nor engender morality.

 

[OneEye]

1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
   -------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

All right. Here is where we stand so far:

Everyone finds the three-point syllogism to be cogent (i.e. the conclusion follows necessarily from the premisses). Critiques of the syllogism come from people who (a) don't like the conclusion, and (b) intend to impeach one of the two premisses.

One group (learningphysics) says, "It it not moral for an animal to kill another animal." This would have to be called the extreme position in this discussion. Though the proponents of the position aim to be consistent, they are also engaging in a worse fallacy. For the time being, I wish to lay aside this view, and deal with the less extreme group.

The other group (physicsisphirst, Sangeeta) seem to take exception to the first proposition, but do so by dividing man from the other animals as being the only creature with the awareness and moral responsibility to choose not to kill and eat other animals. So, they are actually attacking the second premiss - which is as expected, and as it should be.

My thesis all along has been, "Man cannot be classed with other animals, since man has a unique moral responsibility." Everyone here is saying this (but will soon abruptly change course). So, everyone who has commented would like to somehow change the agument to conclude, "It is moral for an animal to eat meat if it is moral for that sort of animal to eat meat" - which really is a tautology.

Most animal rights apologetics begin by saying, "There is no fundamental, qualitative difference between man and the other animals - it is all just a matter of degrees - so our moral responsibility to our fellow animal is essentially the same as it is to our fellow man." Now, however, we see that everyone here agrees that there is at least one qualitative difference between man and the other animals: Moral responsibility toward other animals (and awareness of that moral responsibility).

Undoubtedly, there will be some thrashing over the above. But, for those who want to move on to the next step, here is a statement which I would like members to publicly reflect on:

Because humans have a moral faculty unique within the animal kingdom, they have a unique moral authority over the animal kingdom.

 

[learningphysics]

Most animal rights apologetics begin by saying, "There is no fundamental, qualitative difference between man and the other animals - it is all just a matter of degrees - so our moral responsibility to our fellow animal is essentially the same as it is to our fellow man."

Are you sure animal rights apologetics are making the above statement? I've heard them talk about how animals and humans have the same rights... It seems like their argument is that there is no fundamental difference with regards to "natural rights". Within this context humans and animals are seen as the same. But I haven't heard them say that there is no fundamental difference at all. Wouldn't "There is no fundamental, qualitative difference between the natural rights of man and the other animals" be more representative of the AR position.

Ok... I'll take fundamental difference to mean, something that's there in the humans but not in any other species "to any degree" (unlike intelligence). And it is your contention that moral responsibility is such a characteristic.

Now, however, we see that everyone here agrees that there is at least one qualitative difference between man and the other animals: Moral responsibility toward other animals (and awareness of that moral responsibility).

Yes, a lot of vegetarians and AR reps would agree that the above is a fundamental difference in humans. I'm not sure sure though.

I agree that these two statements are in contradiction:

1) There is no fundamental difference between humans and other animals.
2) Humans are the only species that have moral responsibility and awareness.

I'm inclined to say 1) is true (especially because of our similarity to the apes) and 2) is false.

1) does not seem important to the AR position. The following statement would be extremely important though:
"There is no fundamental difference between the natural rights of humans and other animals".

 

[physicsisphirst]

Everyone finds the three-point syllogism to be cogent (i.e. the conclusion follows necessarily from the premisses).

not everyone ;)

perhaps you missed my post #779. I've put it at the end (just in case you want to read it again). your 3 pointer can't be cogent unless you can create "an animal" that is human and non-human at the same time or at your convenience. LOL

The other group (physicsisphirst, Sangeeta) seem to take exception to the first proposition

wrong again!
i never took exception to your 1st proposition. in fact, it's a wonderful proposition - though perhaps not for your purposes.


in friendship,
prad


your 3 pt item is either incorrect or tautology. here's why:


1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).


let us consider exactly what "an animal" is.
it is either a) human or b) non-human.


so if it is the latter your syllogism reads:

1. It is moral for a non-human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

now you can probably see that 3. doesn't follow from 1. and 2. (hence incorrectness).


and if it is the former your sillygism becomes tautology and looks like this:

1. It is moral for a human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

which is like saying if you are redundant, then you are redundant.

 

[physicsisphirst]

(The China Study- the largest population study ever done (100,000 people participated), concluded that a plant based diet is the ideal diet for the human body- I can discuss this in further detail if you like).

sangeeta,

i'd like to hear more about the china study if you would care to elaborate.

great post too, btw.


finally, russ' point here "This isn't "right to kill" its "right to life." The right to life (if it applies) protects the deer from being killed" is actually quite an interesting one. I'm curious to see how it is answered by you and/or by learningphysics.

in friendship,
prad

 

[OneEye]

your 3 pointer can't be cogent unless you can create "an animal" that is human and non-human at the same time or at your convenience. LOL

I hate to do this, because I am assuming that you already know this, but:

An argument is cogent ("valid") if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premisses. The argument need not be true in order for it to be cogent. Likewise, the presmisses may be false, and yet the argument may still be cogent, so long as the conclusion follows necessarily from the premisses. The syllogism which I presented is of the classic, elementary form known as "Barbara". It is a cogent form so long as, in order to deny the conclusion, one must also deny at least one of the premisses (i.e., passes the general test for cogency). You seem to be using the street definition of cogency, which simply means "true."

I read and analyzed your critique of the 3-point syllogism, and included your critique in my recent summary. (See below.)

wrong again!
i never took exception to your 1st proposition. in fact, it's a wonderful proposition - though perhaps not for your purposes.

Had you read the entire paragraph, you could have saved yourself some typing:

The other group (physicsisphirst, Sangeeta) seem to take exception to the first proposition, but do so by dividing man from the other animals as being the only creature with the awareness and moral responsibility to choose not to kill and eat other animals. So, they are actually attacking the second premiss - which is as expected, and as it should be. (emphasis added)

As a final note: You may not substantially change the premisses of an argument (as you did) and claim to be critiquing the original argument. When you do this, you are actually not critiquing the other person's position, but one of your own invention. When you critique an argument, you must deal with it as it is.

 

[OneEye]

Just wanted to put this latest proposition up front:

Because humans have a moral faculty unique within the animal kingdom, they have a unique moral authority over the animal kingdom.

I would love to hear some reflection on this from those involved.

 

[physicsisphirst]

An argument is cogent ("valid") if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premisses.

well that's fine, but in the non-human animal case:

1. It is moral for a non-human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

the consequent (3) doesn't follow at all from the antecedents (1 & 2), therefore cogency exists not. (i guess you could say it is 'incogent' rather than 'incorrect'.)
it's like saying if 2*2=4, then new york is a large city (both the antecedent and the consequent are true, but there is no connection between the two and the latter doesn't flow from the former, hence it is incogent).

(the second situation ie human animal, resulting from your creation is of course true, but not particularly helpful.)

So, they are actually attacking the second premiss -

no one is attacking the second premise either. i like both your premises!
sangeeta liked it too! she wrote (#780):

I most certainly agree with the 2nd premise. Humans are animals!

you keep attributing statements "of your own invention" to movements and people regardless of whether they say it or not.

(btw, what this second premise "humans are animals" means is that humans belong to the set of animals. it doesn't mean that a human is a cat, platypus or any other non-human creature outside of the subset humans anymore than a cat is a platypus. this is really easy to see if you draw some venn diagrams.)

You may not substantially change the premisses of an argument (as you did) and claim to be critiquing the original argument.

i didn't change your premise at all. i merely clarified what "an animal" could possibly be. since it could be human or non-human, it results in tautology or incogency respectively as already shown. (of course, it could be cats and non-cats or fleas, cats and non-fleas, non-cats, but those wouldn't have anything to do with what we are talking about since the focus is on humans, right?)


in any case, if there are no more syllogisms forthcoming, i will direct my energies elsewhere.

in friendship,
prad

 

[OneEye]

well that's fine, but in the non-human animal case:

1. It is moral for a non-human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

the consequent (3) doesn't follow at all from the antecedents (1 & 2), therefore cogency exists not. (i guess you could say it is 'incogent' rather than 'incorrect'.)

Pardon me for seeming repetitious, but it seems that I may need to restate this: An argument is valid, cogent, if the conclusion can only be denied by denying one or more of the premisses. This is the case in the syllogism which I tabled: You cannot deny (3) without denying either (1) or (2). Thus, the argument is cogent (but might still be incorrect - especially, e.g., if one or more of the premisses is incorrect).

Your treatment of the syllogism does not disprove the syllogism. Rather, it supports it. The fact that you can extract two cases, one invalid and another a tautology, proves the cogency of the argument. That is characteristic of a well-formed Barabara syllogism, and characteristic of any good deduction.

A parallel version of your treatment would be:

1. Chimpanzees are omnivorous.
2. Bonobos are chimpanzees.
   ----------------------------------------------------
3. Bonobos are omnivorous.

Following your approach, we divide out premiss (2) into "chimpanzess which are bonobos" and "chimpanzess which are not bonobos". Thus, we now have two syllogisms:

1. Chimpanzees which are not bonobos are omnivorous.
2. Bonobos are chimpanzees.
   ----------------------------------------------------
3. Bonobos are omnivorous.

(INVALID)​

1. Chimpanzees which are bonobos are omnivorous.
2. Bonobos are chimpanzees.
   ----------------------------------------------------
3. Bonobos are omnivorous.

(TAUTOLOGY - COGENT)​

Try your treatment on the classic:

1. Humans are mortal.
2. Socrates is human.
   ----------------------------------------------------
3. Socrates is mortal.

You will see that you get the same results.

So, the structure of my syllogism sound, even if you believe that the conclusion is false. This ought to drive us to question the premisses - which is what you actually seemed to intend, under the cover of an apparent critique of the cogency of the argument. By dividing the first premiss into "human animals" and "non-human animals", you seemed to want to differentiate between kinds of animal. I find this an agreeable step, especially when we say, "Humans are morally distinct from animals." (Another proposition with which, I think, almost all of us agree.)

it's like saying if 2*2=4, then new york is a large city (both the antecedent and the consequent are true, but there is no connection between the two and the latter doesn't flow from the former, hence it is incogent).

No, the two are dissimilar, because in my syllogism, to deny either premiss invalidates the conclusion, and to deny the conclusion requires denying one or both of the premisses (the test for syllogistic validity). In your construct (above), the precedent may be denied without affecting the antecedent, and vice versa.

I hope this clears the matter up. Let me know if I have not explained this effectively; I understand how easy it is to be vague under the guise of clarity, even when dealing with something as rigorous as syllogistic logic.

you keep attributing statements "of your own invention" to movements and people regardless of whether they say it or not.

I agree that I am coining these statements, but I also contend that they are characteristic thought for the animal rights/ethical vegetarian view. If they are not, I welcome your correction.

Further, as far as I can see, you are saying that you agree with my two premisses, but you then make the complaint that I am (inappropriately) attributing the statements to the animal rights/ethical vegetarian view. If you agree with what I am saying (in premisses 1 and 2), then you have no grounds to make such a complaint.

(btw, what this second premise "humans are animals" means is that humans belong to the set of animals. it doesn't mean that a human is a cat, platypus or any other non-human creature outside of the subset humans anymore than a cat is a platypus. this is really easy to see if you draw some venn diagrams.)

Which is completely consistent with what I am saying.

in any case, if there are no more syllogisms forthcoming, i will direct my energies elsewhere.

If you would like to be honorably released from this discussion, you certainly have my leave. I hope that the little bit of discussion we have had has been profitable to you, and I wish you well.

P.S. To quote Pascal - "Pardon the length of this message. I lacked the time to make it shorter."

 

[physicsisphirst]

An argument is valid, cogent, if the conclusion can only be denied by denying one or more of the premisses. This is the case in the syllogism which I tabled: You cannot deny (3) without denying either (1) or (2). Thus, the argument is cogent (but might still be incorrect - especially, e.g., if one or more of the premisses is incorrect).

i am not denying (3). i am just saying that it doesn't follow from (1) and (2).

let's look at what you wrote here:


1. Chimpanzees are omnivorous.
2. Bonobos are chimpanzees.
----------------------------------------------------
3. Bonobos are omnivorous.


there is nothing wrong with this and 3. follows from 1. and 2.
here chimpanzees means the set of all chimpanzees.

now look at this:

1. a Chimpanzee is omnivorous. [the equivalent of "an animal"]
2. Bonobos are chimpanzees.
----------------------------------------------------
3. Bonobos are omnivorous.

now 3. doesn't follow from 1. and 2. even though 3. might be true.


or look similarly

1. a baby is cute
2. dino is a baby
-----------------------
3. dino is cute

there is no cogency.


however, if we change it to

1. babies are cute
2. dino is a baby
-----------------------
3. dino is cute

this is perfectly cogent regardless of whether it is true or not.


so let's relate it back to what you wrote:

1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).


just what do you mean by "an animal"?
do you mean "all animals" as in "the set of all animals"?
or do you mean just a particular animal as in "a chimpanzee" or "a baby"?

if you mean the latter, there is no cogency as shown in the above examples. please tell me exactly what you mean by "an animal".

So, the structure of my syllogism sound, even if you believe that the conclusion is false.

i am not arguing your conclusion here as you seem to think. i am just saying that 3. doesn't follow from 1. and 2. depending on what you mean by "an animal". please tell me exactly what you mean by "an animal".

I hope this clears the matter up. Let me know if I have not explained this effectively; I understand how easy it is to be vague under the guise of clarity, even when dealing with something as rigorous as syllogistic logic.

i appreciate your efforts and am willing work to achieve a mutual understanding.

I agree that I am coining these statements, but I also contend that they are characteristic thought for the animal rights/ethical vegetarian view. If they are not, I welcome your correction.

when stated differently (not the way you are doing it), they can be considered to be correct for ethical vegetarians, but not necessarily for animal rights which is considerably more varied. i'd be happy to elaborate if you want me to, once we get the syllogism stuff out of the way.

If you agree with what I am saying (in premisses 1 and 2), then you have no grounds to make such a complaint.

why not? I'm fine with 2., but i only said about 1. that it's a wonderful proposition - though perhaps not for your purposes.
i really can't agree or disagree with it, unless you tell me exactly what you mean by "an animal".

If you would like to be honorably released from this discussion, you certainly have my leave.

no. i find you to be a pleasant and polite individual. you make the effort to respond to issues with detail (admittedly you had to be 'reminded' occasionally). i don't think you do it correctly, but you no doubt feel the same about me. i am happy to continue this with you and do find it of benefit.

in friendship,
prad

 

[OneEye]

just what do you mean by "an animal"?

I apologize if the use of the indefinite article ("an") caused confusion. By "an animal," I meant "a member of the kingdom Animalia".

Hope this helps clear the question up. I understand that you would not want to use the term "any animal," since this would work against your animal rights position. My assessment, which is growing firmer and firmer, is that you consider humanity unique within the kingdom Animalia in being the only animal which has a moral proscription against eating meat - which, in my opinion (and as I hope to show later) effectively separates man from the kingdom Animalia in every way except the least-important (i.e., the physical connection).

(There is really nothing remarkable about my argument, by the way. It's about as trivial a case of modus ponens as you could construe.)

Given my clarification, I restate:

1. It is moral for any member of Animalia to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).
2. Humans are members of Animalia.
   -------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).

How do you reply to this?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Have people been interpreting the poll as asking "Is it morally justifiable to eat meat?" The poll actually asks if humans "should" eat meat. What arguements are given to say we should eat meat; futhermore, what arguements are given that can't be refuted? Idealistically eating eggs or milk might be beneficial for health, but eating meat?

 

[physicsisphirst]

I apologize if the use of the indefinite article ("an") caused confusion. By "an animal," I meant "a member of the kingdom Animalia".
...
I understand that you would not want to use the term "any animal,"
...

1. It is moral for any member of Animalia to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).
2. Humans are members of Animalia.
   -------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).

How do you reply to this?

any member of Animalia = any animal (so it really doesn't matter which you use does it?)

so if you maintain
It is moral for any member of Animalia to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).
what's there to refute as far as the consequent following from the antecedent?

in fact, here is something else perfect as far as logic goes:

1. all integers are positive.
2. all numbers less than zero are integers.
----------------------------------------------------------
3. all numbers less than zero are positive.



so depending on how you set your premise you can have the consequent irrefutably follow from the antecedent regardless of reality. however, that's not really what is important.

here is the deception that you created (unintentionally, I'm sure):

you wrote:
It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).

an ethical veg would probably not dispute this - therefore, you can possibly attribute this to them.
(do you really think you can attribute your presently modified 1. to them?
that would be like my attributing the "all integers are positive" to the mathematical community LOL)

however, your meaning here is not "an animal", but "any member of Animalia" ie "any animal" as you have now admitted above: I apologize if the use of the indefinite article ("an") caused confusion. By "an animal," I meant "a member of the kingdom Animalia".
you see it doesn't just cause confusion - it becomes something totally different.

in other words, under the guise of "an animal", you try to get an ethical veg to agree to "any animal". (you did something similar trying to show a contradiction in your 4 pointer: see posts #765, #769 - despite dissident dan's wish to the contrary LOL - after which i guess we should go reread his post #764 LOL).

you cannot use an element of a set, when you really mean any (or all) elements of a set.

very simply by saying "an animal" when you really mean "any animal" is not just 'tampering with the premise' (something you seemed to think i was doing) - it is misleading your readers. this is why i have kept asking for clarification over several posts (and showed you why in its earlier form it is either tautology or 'incogent' - see post #779).

again, i don't think you did this to deliberately mislead. the two look so similar - and the logic appears so very attractive too!
however, the fruit can look tasty, but be rotten on the inside.

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dissident Dan]

Quick question:

How many people think that the same criteria apply for actors and recipients of actions in moral considerations? In other words, do you use the same criteria to determine whether to apply ideas of ethics/morality to an individual's actions as you do to determine whether an individual should be treated ethically/morally?

 

[learningphysics]

Quick question:

How many people think that the same criteria apply for actors and recipients of actions in moral considerations? In other words, do you use the same criteria to determine whether to apply ideas of ethics/morality to an individual's actions as you do to determine whether an individual should be treated ethically/morally?

Excellent question Dan! I certainly do not think the same criteria applies. Which is why it seems like whether are not humans are unique with regards to their capacity for moral awareness, is really NOT an animal rights issue.

 

[OneEye]

Have people been interpreting the poll as asking "Is it morally justifiable to eat meat?" The poll actually asks if humans "should" eat meat. What arguements are given to say we should eat meat; futhermore, what arguements are given that can't be refuted? Idealistically eating eggs or milk might be beneficial for health, but eating meat?

I would say that the morality of eating meat is really the question at issue, because the animal rights position is an ethical/moral position. I suppose that here is such a thing as a vegetarian by preference, though such a person would probably not be asking whether others should eat meat. There is also the religious vegetarian - but this is an ethical vegetarian position. Theoretically, one might choose vegetarianism for health reasons (a la C. W. Post and F. B. Kellogg - and Seventh Day Adventists in general), but my experience is that the "vegetarianism is healthier" view is almost always a Trojan horse for ethical vegetarianism.

Further, "should" is a value-judgment term, and hence the subject of moral/ethical evaluation.

Further still, no-one is asking "Why should we eat meat?" (A simple answer to which might be, humans are omnivores, and have a long tradition of eating meat.) What is actually being dealt with in this topic is "Why should we not eat meat?" In order to answer this, a variety of ethical/moral arguments have been served up, peppered liberally with health arguments.

My aim is not to get anyone to eat meat. Nor is it particularly to defend the practice of eating meat (which I do eat, by the way.) My aim, ultimately, is to show that there is no naturalistic argument for ethical vegetarianism. (As I have said before, I do believe that humans have a moral obligation regarding their use of creation. But this is a religious view.)

I hope that this explains the current state of the debate.

 

[OneEye]

in fact, here is something else perfect as far as logic goes:

1. all integers are positive.
2. all numbers less than zero are integers.
----------------------------------------------------------
3. all numbers less than zero are positive.

Quite right. This is what I have been saying all along. Cogency is a matter of the formal validity of the argument, not of its truth. Your syllogism is valid (cogent) because it is properly constructed. Basic logic teaches us that an argument can be cogent and false. Your syllogism demonstrates this: It is cogent, but false (because premiss 1 is false).

here is the deception that you created (unintentionally, I'm sure):

you wrote:
It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).

however, your meaning here is not "an animal", but "any member of Animalia" ie "any animal" as you have now admitted above: I apologize if the use of the indefinite article ("an") caused confusion. By "an animal," I meant "a member of the kingdom Animalia".
you see it doesn't just cause confusion - it becomes something totally different.

Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that anyone would interpret "an animal" to mean "a specific animal". I have never seen that meaning applied to the use of the indefinite article in this sort of context. I am astonished to think that anyone would find the language ambiguous. But, if you found my choice of terms confusing, then I am sorry for the confusion. I'll note that one down for future reference.

 

[learningphysics]

OneEye, did you see my response #785? Waiting for your response. Thanks.