Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[OneEye]

well i thought i had a reasonable idea what your thesis appears to be, but i don't understand what you are up to here.
you were the one campaigning for animal-lack-of-awareness and now, suddenly, you show concern for my dog's moral perspective?

Yes, you see exactly where I am going. However, this is not a problem for my view. It is a problem for yours. If you believe that dogs are aware, then you must allow them the right to live by their own lights as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences. If you believe that animals (specifically, your dogs) should have the same rights as you, then surely this right includes their being allowed to eat as they please - n'cest pas? You are coercing your dog into a lifestyle which it would not choose for itself.

additionally, why would you assume that my vegetarianism is on grounds of 'morality'? why would you assume that i don't give my dog meat because i want him to be a 'moral' dog in this life...

I don't think this is just an "assumption" on my part. It would be quite easy to distill your previous posts and show that you, yourself, are an ethical vegetarian - and that you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat. You make your case for vegetarian dogs on health grounds, and you justify overriding your dogs' preferences based on their inability (or unwillingness) to make "right" choices for themselves. Yet with just a few interview questions, it would be easy to show that you would not allow your dogs to eat any meat whatsoever no matter what the health effects or noneffects were.

So, let me state myself plainly: I believe that the reason which leads you to feed your dogs a vegetarian diet is that you feel that it would be morally wrong for your dogs to eat meat. Health concerns are secondary issues (actually, probably nonissues) for you. To be fair, I do see this as a step of moral integrity for you - in the sense that moral integrity means thoroughly living one's moral convictions. But I don't believe that it's about health at all.

If I am wrong, I will gladly hear you say it. But be prepared for a little cross-examination if you do.

 

[JPD]

I concur OneEye.
There are exceptions all the time: we have a vegan lady in our office who goes on about the ethics of various components of everyone's diets, yet drinks and smokes (and swears at the head of our department when she is drunk (down the pub that is)).

I'm not quite sure where this fits in (in fact, it may belong to another thread - apologies if this is the case) but has anyone pulled those killer whales to one side and told them to stop throwing those seals up in the air - it quite upsets the viewers.

 

[JPD]

My feeling is that if you have to resort to filling your neck with vitamin supplements then there is something seriously wrong with your diet.

 

[learningphysics]

Yes, you see exactly where I am going. However, this is not a problem for my view. It is a problem for yours. If you believe that dogs are aware, then you must allow them the right to live by their own lights as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences. If you believe that animals (specifically, your dogs) should have the same rights as you, then surely this right includes their being allowed to eat as they please - n'cest pas? You are coercing your dog into a lifestyle which it would not choose for itself.

Humans aren't allowed to eat as they please... for example cannibalism is illegal. Hunting endagered species is illegal. Some humans may want these choices, and may find them morally acceptable, but they are not allowed to do these things.

Humans aren't allowed to live as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences... We have the law to prevent a serial killer from committing crimes, which he may find morally acceptable according to his conscience...

 

[russ_watters]

But humans, by virtue of taking part in government, get to shape how morality is applied by government. A dog is not afforded that right. If we were to let the animals vote...well, like someone else said, they outnumber us.

 

[learningphysics]

But humans, by virtue of taking part in government, get to shape how morality is applied by government. A dog is not afforded that right. If we were to let the animals vote...well, like someone else said, they outnumber us.

If you're below 18 in the USA, you're not allowed to vote. Criminals aren't allowed to vote.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Um, because we've been discussing the morality of eating meat for about two weeks now...

so? how is that sufficient grounds for my veggieness to be a morality thing?

Therefore, the moral thing to do based on the utilitarian principle would be for me to wipe-out the bald eagle population to prevent the deaths of those hundreds of fish..

this is from your post #814.
you have merely taken a subset here at your convenience. if you were to follow utilitarianism principles fully, then you would have to wipe out the human species which from what i understands causes the greatest amount of suffering - that course of action would necessitate your own suicide and the eagles would be safe forever.

i believe, sangeeta's post was to show you that there is a philosophical foundation for much of what she said something you didn't seem to think there was in post #782.

utilitarianism does have its drawbacks (which is probably why all philosophers aren't utilitarians), however, the idea of reducing suffering is probably not a bad one and can often be implemented with pragmatism and common sense.

2. I can eat a balanced meal without thinking about how to make it a balanced meal.

from post #831
some people are still under the assumption that veggie meals have to be carefully thought out in order to contain all the right stuff. while there might have been some justification for this attitude in the early 70s (when i became veg) due to lack of information, enough work has been done to show that a veg diet isn't lacking in anything. (now, some people think that being veg mean living on tofu and pasta - and obviously that isn't the idea.) you do not have to go to any extra effort (eg food combining for proteins) in order to benefit from a healthy veg diet. (oh yes, and if the b12 thing really worries you there is always fortified soya stuff to provide you with peace of mind.)

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

So what if 40% of the US is B12 deficient. That means they aren't eating enough meat!

LOL! a curious thing to say when you consider the prevalence of diseases (heart, cancer, osteoporosis, impotence etc) linked to animal protein consumption in the US.

I never see my dog chasing oats and carrots though.

a carrot doesn't run. throw one and your dog just might chase it.

I need to qualify natural? I need to define it for you?
Where do you get this crap about humans not handling animal proteins well?

see post #647 p44 and earlier
or see http://www.pcrm.org/
or see http://www.vegsource.com/
or see http://Earth'save.org/
or ... the list goes on and on! there really has been a lot of stuff done on this.

Look, I could be cruel to my dog and feed him oats and hay and tell him that he doesn't "need" meat, but isn't that going against his rights? Doesn't he have the right to life and liberty? Doesn't he have the right to eat meat if he prefers that and it's better for him?

if you want to feed your dog meat, that's up to you. but i don't think you can use the dictionary definition of biologically natural (see "dogs eating poo" bit) to justify it and come to the conclusion that dog's fed veg diets are unhappy or malnourished.

When I say something is natural, I mean the dictionary definition of biologically natural:
"Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned"
and just to clear up artificial:
"Made by humans; produced rather than natural."

i'm ok with that definition and i would also consider eating meat to be natural for humans when you use your 0.5 cm long canines to rip open a steer's throat (after pouncing and imbedding your 0.75 cm claws into it) and then tearing out its ... well let's not get too gruesome. i think that the vast majority of meat-eaters, though, imbed their 0.75 cm claws into the cellophane that wraps the meat which has been artificially grown in factory farms, artificially processed in slaughterhouses, artificially dressed in butcher shops and finally artificially prepared for consumption (ie cooked) - without even giving those 0.5 cm canines a workout. dogs however, being omnivores do better at eating meat more naturally, but the domesticated ones rarely get the chance to.

NEWS FLASH! Meat bad for dogs! Vegetable good for dogs!
Total horsecrap.

come now! i know it is a different idea from what most people consider 'normal', but that doesn't make it bad. anyway, I'm glad that you are at least reading some of the links and considering them - you don't have to agree with any of it.

You'll be pleased to know that they even recommend that 25% of the diet be vegetable. Even though, in the wild, the only veggies cats and dogs ever eat is grass to help them poo.

actually, carnivores often go after the stomachs of their kill to get at the vegetable matter contained there in.

This is the problem my dog developed before I realized that he shouldn't eat these things, for some reason rice is ok. And this is what I mean when I say that a vegan diet IS NOT NATURAL for dogs (or cats).

that doesn't mean it is unhealthy. rice is hardly a 'natural' food (especially for dogs), but yours seems to do ok with it which is great!

shrumeo, I'm sure you are very close to your dog and are a responsible owner and friend. otherwise, you would not be so up in arms with the veg dog concept. i would be the first to acknowledge your sincerity in this matter. however, some of us have also been quite diligent in our investigation of 'the otherside' and have seen the benefits of going there.

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

If you believe that dogs are aware, then you must allow them the right to live by their own lights as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences.

dogs are very and wonderfully aware - how does that relate to their being moral agents (the former is almost passive in nature, whereas the latter is active)?
while you can argue that being a moral agent requires awareness of a certain degree, it doesn't follow that just because you are aware, you are a moral agent. to put it more physically, a tree needs the ground in order to grow, but just because the ground exists, doesn't mean the tree does.

in any case, a 5 year old can be highly aware, but we don't let munchkins run amuck and do (and munch) whatever they please.

If you believe that animals (specifically, your dogs) should have the same rights as you, then surely this right includes their being allowed to eat as they please - n'cest pas?

non, mon ami!
every being is entitled (deontological view, at any rate) to certain basic rights (eg right to be free from inflicted suffering), however, that doesn't mean that they can 'eat as they please'. good god man! what are you trying to do? bring back cannibalism?

I don't think this is just an "assumption" on my part. It would be quite easy to distill your previous posts and show that you, yourself, are an ethical vegetarian - and that you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat.

i'd like to see you do that.

So, let me state myself plainly: I believe that the reason which leads you to feed your dogs a vegetarian diet is that you feel that it would be morally wrong for your dogs to eat meat.
...
If I am wrong, I will gladly hear you say it. But be prepared for a little cross-examination if you do.

i shall not comment one way or another since i'd like to see you 'distill' my posts first - then we can do the cross-examination! i await your distillation!

in friendship,
prad

 

[Ivan Seeking]

2. Andy Rooney on Vegetarians.
Vegetarian - that's an old Indian word meaning "lousy hunter."

 

[OneEye]

Humans aren't allowed to live as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences... We have the law to prevent a serial killer from committing crimes, which he may find morally acceptable according to his conscience...

"Free moral agent" usually refers to a condition of the individual, not of the environment. A free moral agent is able to evaluate situations according to moral criteria, and is able to choose their response based on their own moral evaluation of that situation. We are not sure that animals are free moral agents - and physicsisphirst seems bent on proving that they are not!

 

[OneEye]

...you would have to wipe out the human species which from what i understands causes the greatest amount of suffering...

An animal in the wild dies either from predation, disease, or old age. All of these deaths take hours to months, and are terrifying and painful to the animal in the process. Humans dispatch their food animals in a process which takes less than an hour and which ends in a death which takes only a few seconds. Seems to me that meat-eating humans are a lot kinder to animals than nature is!

 

[OneEye]

i shall not comment one way or another since i'd like to see you 'distill' my posts first - then we can do the cross-examination! i await your distillation!

If you insist on my doing this, I will.

But I would rather not.

Frankly, my time could be put to better use than to prove to you what you already know (and everyone else does, too).

I made the claim, and if you insist, I will make good on it. But you are certainly imposing on me to require such a thing, when you can make the issue quite clear without requiring any such work from me. And, frankly, it will be hard for me not to resent it. The whole thing smells very cat-and-mouse to me.

 

[learningphysics]

"Free moral agent" usually refers to a condition of the individual, not of the environment. A free moral agent is able to evaluate situations according to moral criteria, and is able to choose their response based on their own moral evaluation of that situation. We are not sure that animals are free moral agents - and physicsisphirst seems bent on proving that they are not!

Then why did you say that physicsphirst must "allow" the dog to act as a free moral agent following his conscience etc... According to the above you can't prevent a being from acting as a moral agent.

What is the difference between preventing a human from performing certain actions he finds acceptable and preventing a dog from performing certain actions?

You were the one who stated that if someone believes a dog is aware, he must allow the dog the freedom to do whatever... But this is obviously a false statement... physicsphirst is not obligated to allow the dog to perform whatever action it wishes even if it is an aware moral agent... any more than he is obligated to allow a serial killer(an aware moral agent) to kill... or a child (an aware moral agent) to play with fire...

What is the contradiction between believing a being is aware, and restricting its actions? We restrict the actions of morally aware beings all the time...

 

[cogito]

Given my clarification, I restate:

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

How do you reply to this?

This thread is so long, I'm not sure anybody has pointed out extremely obvious and equally absurd consequence of this argument, so apologies if this is redundant. This argument implies that it is permissible for humans to kill and eat other humans if they desire to. So, Oneeye, how do you reply to that?

 

[OneEye]

This thread is so long, I'm not sure anybody has pointed out extremely obvious and equally absurd consequence of this argument, so apologies if this is redundant. This argument implies that it is permissible for humans to kill and eat other humans if they desire to. So, Oneeye, how do you reply to that?

You have, indeed, remarked on one of the difficulties in this entire thought system. To bring you up to speed: I was not promoting my own thought system, but one which derives naturally from the concept that humans are merely animals.

Someone who holds this view (that humans are merely animals) might break this chain of logic by saying, "It is universally rejected in nature that a creature might eat its own kind." This argument would be wrong, of course, since many animals (including members of class Mammalia) eat their own young.

I break this logic chain by rejecting premiss 2, that humans are merely animals. I say that humans are fundamentally different from other animals, and that it may well therefore be moral for humans to eat other animals.

Those who conclude man as a moral equal with all other animals have a harder time with this - and much of the logic-chopping which is currently going on in this thread consists of a variety of attempts to affirm the premisses of my argument while denying the conclusion.

At present, we have all agreed that man is fundamentally different from all other animals, especially insofar as man has moral responsibilities which other animals do not have, but this is as far as we have gotten. And, given certain political maneuvers which have recently been initiated, I think it unlikely that we will ever get much further.

I hope that this helps.

 

[shrumeo]

But... If any number of species have already been extincted - and if most species were extincted because of competition pressures - and if Earth is currently experiencing an extraordinary surfeit of species - then is it really wrong if one species (man) out-competes any number of other species?

It certainly would be natural.

To me it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of right or wrong, but of aesthetics.
Most of us seem to have this innate sense of loss when something irreplaceable is gone forever. It would just be a shame to lose a large chunk of the diversity of life on the planet. If the Earth turned out to be one big domed supercity, with only humans on it, what they consume, and what they throw away that would just seem like a disaster. I'm not sure if this has been proven or anything but I would assume that the more diverse the biosphere is, the more robust it is. But, there have been bottlenecks in the past. The only problem with a future bottleneck is that the cause of it (if it were man) might not be able to stop itself. Climates change, come and go, asteroids strike and the Earth recovers. But, if the cause were humans, I'm not sure how there could be a recovery without a serious reduction in human population or some change in human activity that would stop the extinctions.

 

[OneEye]

Then why did you say that physicsphirst must "allow" the dog to act as a free moral agent following his conscience etc... According to the above you can't prevent a being from acting as a moral agent.

Sorry... I'm still not making it clear. What cannot be prevented is a person's being a moral agent. Whether they can act as a moral agent has no bearing on this question. A moral agent is able to perceive moral value and make decisions which are informed by moral considerations and which have moral weight (i.e., culpability). We only hold moral agents guilty for their actions; if it cannot be convicted of a crime, then it is presumed not to be a moral agent. Justice can only be served on moral agents.

You were the one who stated that if someone believes a dog is aware, he must allow the dog the freedom to do whatever... But this is obviously a false statement... physicsphirst is not obligated to allow the dog to perform whatever action it wishes even if it is an aware moral agent... any more than he is obligated to allow a serial killer(an aware moral agent) to kill... or a child (an aware moral agent) to play with fire...

Your consideration is missing an implied or "hidden" premiss: that a moral agent may not ethically restrain a peer's liberty. Words for this sort of thing are kidnapping, slavery, false imprisonment, extortion, etc.

Only a superior authority may ethically restrain a free moral agent. For most human societies, the superior moral authority is the law, enacted by government officials. So, in order for physicsisphirst to control his dogs in this fashion (and, it must be admitted, against their known preferences), physicsisphirst must be asserting himself as the proper moral authority over the dog.

Not the sort of thing one would do if one believed that all animals had equal rights.

 

[estoydemoda]

First of all, the natural "justification" is that animals themselves eat meat. Whether you are religious and believe that God (or whatever else you worship) ordained certain animals to be eaten or if you are a believer in unaided evolution, where early humans began to work together hunting and gathering to live, meat eating has been a part of humans for a long time. Our body is developed to handle it and to function properly with it no matter what standpoint you look from.

I would like to reiterate the "least harm principle" mentioned on the second page with the thread at the bottom, and how the reapers that cut the grain actually kill more animals than eating a cow would.

Furthermore,
it is my belief that to an animal, pain is not a developed sense, because they have no choice but to give into their instincts. They cannot outgrow their "Id". Why would a sense be developed in an animal that would have no effect in their survival rates? (Keep in mind that I have no data to back this up, it is just a conjecture or my own)

As for me, I will keep eating meat. The second a wild cheetah let's its pray loose in favor of low-fat corn nuts I will drop the meat from my diet.

 

[OneEye]

To me it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of right or wrong, but of aesthetics.

I think that you're right - it is a matter of sadness when a permanent loss occurs. And I don't mean to dispute your altogether human sensibilities - especially since I share these same sensibilities. But three questions might be asked:

1) Given that sad losses occur all the time, they seem to be the way of nature. So, while we might find (say) the complete extinction of all life on Earth sad, it does nevertheless seem the altogether natural conclusion.

2) Let's be aware that we are projecting our human sensibilities on nature. This may not be appropriate. (But I think it is, because I think that these sensibilities are more than mere sentiment). However, by projecting human values on nature, and contrary to natural mores, are we acting morally? (This is my chief question at this phase of the discussion, in case you hadn't noticed.)

3) Is it moral to ask someone to impair their quest for survival or personal gratification in order to satisfy what is admittedly only an aesthetic preference?

Sorry if this seems too invasive. But some of these questions (especially #2) have a great deal to do with the theme which I am currently aiming to develop.

 

[learningphysics]

Sorry... I'm still not making it clear. What cannot be prevented is a person's being a moral agent. Whether they can act as a moral agent has no bearing on this question. A moral agent is able to perceive moral value and make decisions which are informed by moral considerations and which have moral weight (i.e., culpability). We only hold moral agents guilty for their actions; if it cannot be convicted of a crime, then it is presumed not to be a moral agent. Justice can only be served on moral agents.



Your consideration is missing an implied or "hidden" premiss: that a moral agent may not ethically restrain a peer's liberty. Words for this sort of thing are kidnapping, slavery, false imprisonment, extortion, etc.

Only a superior authority may ethically restrain a free moral agent. For most human societies, the superior moral authority is the law, enacted by government officials. So, in order for physicsisphirst to control his dogs in this fashion (and, it must be admitted, against their known preferences), physicsisphirst must be asserting himself as the proper moral authority over the dog.

Not the sort of thing one would do if one believed that all animals had equal rights.

There are rights and there are rights... From what you've described above, children are not moral agents (at least in some states they aren't considered moral agents) and don't have the same rights as adult humans... Adult humans hold themselves as a moral authority over children... something you imply cannot happen if adults and children have equal rights...

It is agreed that these type of rights... are different in adults than in children... and different in humans than in animals...

But there are another set of rights... right to be free of pain... right to be treated ethically etc... Children are given the same rights here as adults... and what the AR folks are saying is that animals should be given these same rights also...

 

[OneEye]

There are rights and there are rights... From what you've described above, children are not moral agents (at least in some states they aren't considered moral agents) and don't have the same rights as adult humans...

This is not what I am saying. It is because children are moral agents that adults hold them guilty for wrongdoing.

Adult humans hold themselves as a moral authority over children... something you imply cannot happen if adults and children have equal rights...

Not necessarily true. A policeman and I have equal rights, but he has moral authority over me. In the same way, parents are naturally vested with authority over their children, even though the children have the same rights as the parents.

But there are another set of rights... right to be free of pain... right to be treated ethically etc... Children are given the same rights here as adults... and what the AR folks are saying is that animals should be given these same rights also...

...which at least produces something like a coherent construct - until you try to implement it. But I find it troublesome that you are willing to dice rights up into such small and isolated pieces. In so doing, you reduce animals to the status of prisoners, who have the right to life and freedom from cruel or unsual punishment, but no right to liberty or a free pursuit of happiness. Who made you a judge and arbiter over them?

Or do I take you wrongly? Are you willing to say that dogs have the right to pursue happiness by chomping a butcher's bone now and again, or that cats have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness by chasing, torturing, and eating a mouse?

In addition, you have skirted an important question: If a cat is a moral agent which has its own view of the morality of eating meat, then who are you to stop it? And if a cat is not a moral agent, then can it at all be called a person, or the equal of a person?

 

[shrumeo]

LOL! a curious thing to say when you consider the prevalence of diseases (heart, cancer, osteoporosis, impotence etc) linked to animal protein consumption in the US.

You can LOL all you want, but you don't know what you are talking about.
Please show me some evidence of disease linked to a healthy diet that includes a proper amount of animal protein.

a carrot doesn't run. throw one and your dog just might chase it.

you're right a carrot doesn't run. It is only moving when moved. If the human weren't there the carrot would sit still and a dog would ignore it.
Little woodland creatures move on their own and that's why a dog's instinct is to chase after it. The dog's instinct is to ignore the carrot (unless said carrot is made much more interesting and fun by moving around as if it were an animal).

see post #647 p44 and earlier
or see http://www.pcrm.org/

Ok, this site has a lot of jumbled crap on it but I picked out what I could find quickly.
http://www.pcrm.org/health/reports/highprotein_registry.html
The title:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Health Problems Associated with High-Protein, High-Fat, Carbohydrate-Restricted Diets Reported via an Online Registry

Then they say:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Studies of general populations consuming diets high in fat, particularly saturated fat (low-carbohydrate diets have not been studied specifically) have shown increased risk of cancer,4-6 diabetes,7 and heart disease.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is all careful wording. They are saying that people with bad diets have more health problems. It's because they went to McD's and they weren't "doing south beach" or the "mediterranean diet."

I love this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methods

In the fall of 2002, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) began a pilot program to test the feasibility of an online registry to identify people who may have suffered health complications related to high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets. A modest Internet advertising campaign was used to notify consumers about the availability of this registry. In November of 2003, PCRM held a news conference to highlight the health problems suffered by some individuals using these diets and to draw attention to the registry.

To report problems with high-protein, high-fat, carbohydrate-restricted diets, individuals voluntarily visited www.AtkinsDietAlert.org and filled out a form available on the site. The registry specifically inquires about the following problems: heart attack, other heart problems, high cholesterol, diabetes, gout, gallbladder, colorectal cancer, other cancers, osteoporosis, reduced kidney function, kidney stones, constipation, difficulty concentrating, bad breath, and loss of energy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they advertised on the web to find people that would answer specific questions about their diet and that it caused them specific health problems. They made a registry of these people, and from that they get their data that they then project onto the rest of the world.

And then finally:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings

As of December 15, 2003, 429 individuals reported experiencing problems with high-protein, high-fat, carbohydrate-restricted diets via the online registry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total crap.

Anyway, then at the end they start talking about all the problems with doing the Atkins Diet as if they discovered it themselves. If you read an Atkins book, he tells you all the nutrients you aren't getting and that you have to take supplements. The Atkins diet is not meant to be permanent. At least not the really hardcore part of it. It's designed for people who have eaten themselves into a bad sugar/insulin cycle that causes a bunch of health problems if it's not cut off. The Atkins diet cuts this out and returns the body to a more normal type of metabolism. Eventually, the dieter goes back to eating carbs, but shouldn't go back to Big Macs and fries and then heading down to Ben and Jerry's afterwards. But if you do Atkins Induction your whole life it would be bad.

See, when you go for a diet that restricts a certain type of nutrient too much it causes problems. Like when you cut out certain vitamins by eating totally vegan.

or see http://www.vegsource.com/

This one is pretty funny.
I like the before and after guy.
Did he use a Bowflex and some Cortislim too?

or see http://Earth'save.org/

This is just lame propaganda. It's pretty funny though.
http://www.Earth'save.org/news/03summer/cowboy_myth.htm
Look at the pic on the left.
It has no grass because the cows ate it.
It's damaged now, like a raped child.
The other side has grass that was protected from those evil vegan cows that wanted to rip their green flesh from the root and chew them until the chlorophyll runs like a river. Oh, the horror.

or ... the list goes on and on! there really has been a lot of stuff done on this.

and you've bought it all.

if you want to feed your dog meat, that's up to you. but i don't think you can use the dictionary definition of biologically natural (see "dogs eating poo" bit) to justify it and come to the conclusion that dog's fed veg diets are unhappy or malnourished.

It was the dog's choice to eat poo. That's why it was natural. If it were it's choice to lick up some antifreeze, then that's natural, and the dog will die, naturally.

But seriously, the whole natural vs. artificial thing falls through anyway because domesticated dogs are a human product anyway. What's natural for them is to eat what we feed them. If we truly care for them, we should feed them what is most healthy for them.

If the dog honestly likes and prefers the veggie life and it causes him no harm, then great for him. But, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of dogs wouldn't be able to nor would they want to get by on nothing but vegetables.

i'm ok with that definition and i would also consider eating meat to be natural for humans when you use your 0.5 cm long canines to rip open a steer's throat (after pouncing and imbedding your 0.75 cm claws into it) and then tearing out its ... well let's not get too gruesome. i think that the vast majority of meat-eaters, though, imbed their 0.75 cm claws into the cellophane that wraps the meat which has been artificially grown in factory farms, artificially processed in slaughterhouses, artificially dressed in butcher shops and finally artificially prepared for consumption (ie cooked) - without even giving those 0.5 cm canines a workout. dogs however, being omnivores do better at eating meat more naturally, but the domesticated ones rarely get the chance to.

Um, ok. So we've gotten more efficient with the way we injest vital nutrients.

actually, carnivores often go after the stomachs of their kill to get at the vegetable matter contained there in.

Ah! Nice to know.

that doesn't mean it is unhealthy. rice is hardly a 'natural' food (especially for dogs), but yours seems to do ok with it which is great!

Great for me, because now I can save money by feeding him relatively cheap dog food that has fillers like rice and things like rendered animals. If he couldn't have rice I'd probably have to feed him raw chickens and steaks and that would get expensive.

shrumeo, I'm sure you are very close to your dog and are a responsible owner and friend. otherwise, you would not be so up in arms with the veg dog concept. i would be the first to acknowledge your sincerity in this matter. however, some of us have also been quite diligent in our investigation of 'the otherside' and have seen the benefits of going there.

I just feel sorry for any dog forced to eat nothing but vegetables.

 

[shrumeo]

But humans, by virtue of taking part in government, get to shape how morality is applied by government. A dog is not afforded that right. If we were to let the animals vote...well, like someone else said, they outnumber us.

I doubt they outnumber us.
There are roughly 60 million pet dogs in the US (I'm sure there are fewer strays).
There are about 70 millions pet cats (probably fewer strays but more than dogs, lots of ferrel cats).

 

[learningphysics]

Only a superior authority may ethically restrain a free moral agent. For most human societies, the superior moral authority is the law, enacted by government officials. So, in order for physicsisphirst to control his dogs in this fashion (and, it must be admitted, against their known preferences), physicsisphirst must be asserting himself as the proper moral authority over the dog.

Not the sort of thing one would do if one believed that all animals had equal rights.

I admit I'm getting confused...

Can you explain this last sentence you posted above? You just said that one being can exert moral authority over another when they both have equal rights (policeman etc...). So why do you write: Not the sort of thing one would do if one believed that all animals had equal rights.

physicsphirst can assert himself as moral authority over the dog, and hold the belief he has the same rights as the dog right?

Remember that this entire line of discussion began with your claim that if physicsphirst accepts a dog as a moral agent, then he must allow it to live by its own sensibilities! You said this, as if to illustrate that there was a contradiction between, "believing the dog is a moral agent", "controlling the dog's diet"... Is there a contradiction here or not?

You admit there's no contradiction here:
1. Policeman and civilian have equal rights.
2. Policeman exerts moral authority over civilian.

It appeared to me you were saying there is a contradiction here:
1. physicsphirst and dog have equal rights.
2. physicsphirst exerts moral authority over the dog.

Now it seems you're saying there's no contradiction??

Another set of statements for comparison:

You admit there's no contradiction here:
1. Parent and child have equal rights.
2. Parent controls child's diet.

It appeared to me you were saying there is a contradiction here:
1. physicsphirst and dog have equal rights.
2. physicsphirst controls dog's diet.

Why is the set of statements with the parent and child non-contradictory whereas with physicsphirst and the dog it is contradictory?

In addition, you have skirted an important question: If a cat is a moral agent which has its own view of the morality of eating meat, then who are you to stop it?

The reason I'd stop it is the same reason a policeman stops a criminal from stealing... The criminal has his own view of morality (or he may be a sociopath with no view of morality whatsoever)...Would you ask the policeman: If a criminal is a moral agent which has its own view of stealing, then who are you to stop him?

And if a cat is not a moral agent, then can it at all be called a person, or the equal of a person?

Until you qualify what exactly is meant by "equal" this is difficult to answer. But I don't think anyone is interested in whether or not cats and humans are equals except in a single very specific regard... with regard to the right to be treated ethically... to be free of pain/suffering etc... In this regard, I don't see why being a moral agent gives you greater rights... In other words I don't see why being a moral agent would/should give you the privilege of being treated better than those that are not moral agents.

 

[shrumeo]

I think that you're right - it is a matter of sadness when a permanent loss occurs. And I don't mean to dispute your altogether human sensibilities - especially since I share these same sensibilities. But three questions might be asked:

1) Given that sad losses occur all the time, they seem to be the way of nature. So, while we might find (say) the complete extinction of all life on Earth sad, it does nevertheless seem the altogether natural conclusion.

Oh sure, whatever happens ever forever is the natural conclusion of events.

2) Let's be aware that we are projecting our human sensibilities on nature. This may not be appropriate. (But I think it is, because I think that these sensibilities are more than mere sentiment). However, by projecting human values on nature, and contrary to natural mores, are we acting morally? (This is my chief question at this phase of the discussion, in case you hadn't noticed.)

Nature is what made those human sensibilties. Is nature keeping itself in check by endowing us with these sensibilties and the ability to change things based on them? If it feels wrong to do something, perhaps there is a reason for that and we should act on the feeling. If it doesn't feel wrong to do something then maybe it wasn't so bad. Whatever the consequences, it was the way nature played itself out.

3) Is it moral to ask someone to impair their quest for survival or personal gratification in order to satisfy what is admittedly only an aesthetic preference?

Well, this is almost a question of liberty.
Is it within our natural (god given, if you will) rights to destroy non-human life in order to fulfill our personal happiness?
If that is a requirement for liberty then it must be ok.
If it's not, then that gets more complicated and I'm too tired to go into all the possibilities how humans would want to try to limit themselves (each other, more accurately).

 

[shrumeo]

It looks like we can find "studies" (webpages at least) that can support whatever position we take.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_1.html

Cholesterol
Because of the propaganda, you can be forgiven for thinking that cholesterol is a harmful alien substance that should be avoided at all costs. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Cholesterol is an essential component in the body. It is found in all the cells of the body, particularly in the brain and nerve cells. Body cells are continually dying and new ones being made. Cholesterol is a major building block from which cell walls are made. Cholesterol is also used to make a number of other important substances: hormones (including the sex hormones), bile acids and, in conjunction with sunlight on the skin, vitamin D 3 . The body uses large quantities of cholesterol every day and the substance is so important that, with the exception of brain cells, every body cell has the ability to make it.

Cholesterol may be ingested in animal products, but less than twenty percent of your body's cholesterol needs will be supplied in this way. Your body then makes up the difference. If you eat less cholesterol, your body merely compensates by making more. Although the media and food companies still warn against cholesterol in diet, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the level of cholesterol in your blood is affected very little by the amount of cholesterol you eat.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_2.html

The anti-cancer fat
Linoleic acid is one of the essential fatty acids that our bodies need but cannot synthesise. We must eat some to survive. Fortunately there is one form of linoleic acid that is beneficial. Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) differs from the normal form of linoleic acid only in the position of two of the bonds that join its atoms. But this small difference has been shown to give it powerful anti-cancer properties. Scientists at the Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, New York and the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, New Jersey Medical School, showed that even at concentrations of less than one percent, CLA in the diet is protective against several cancers including breast cancer, colorectal cancer and malignant melanoma.

Conjugated linoleic acid has one other difference from the usual form - it is not found in vegetables but in the fat of ruminant animals. The best sources are dairy products and the fat on red meat, principally beef. It is another good reason not to give up eating red meat or to cut the fat off.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_3.html

Summary
Bran is bad news. While there is not too much harm from fruit fibre, the usual bran that is pushed at us - wheat bran- should be avoided like the plague it is.

Yeah, but you need fiber to help you poo. They must have something against bran.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_4.html

Low cholesterol means more strokes
Published at about the same time was a very large study in Japan, covering two decades, which concluded that low levels of blood cholesterol also increase the incidence of stroke.

Investigators have shown that this change to Western and urban eating patterns, departing as it does from centuries old traditions, has been accompanied by a general lowering of blood pressure and a large decline in the incidence of stroke deaths and cerebral haemorrhage between the 1960s and the 1980s. They attribute this decline to an increase in blood cholesterol levels over the period.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_5.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_6.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_7.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_8.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_9.html

 

[chound]

I think u should eat exactly what ur cultures says if and only if ur culture is ancient enough to have tried and tested all kinds of food. It is never wrong to eat meat. The chickens are going to die anyway so why do u care if they are given 5 star treatement.

 

[OneEye]

Nature is what made those human sensibilties.

I disagree, but that is the subject of another thread - which I hope to launch soon.

Is nature keeping itself in check by endowing us with these sensibilties and the ability to change things based on them?

You are personifying nature. Nature is, by definition, purposeless - does not care whether the Earth is alive or dead. This does not necessarily mean that you are wrong, but you would basically have to adopt a neopagan theology for this statement to be true in any meaningful sense.

 

[OneEye]

You admit there's no contradiction here:
1. Policeman and civilian have equal rights.
2. Policeman exerts moral authority over civilian.

It appeared to me you were saying there is a contradiction here:
1. physicsphirst and dog have equal rights.
2. physicsphirst exerts moral authority over the dog.

Now it seems you're saying there's no contradiction??

Another set of statements for comparison:

You admit there's no contradiction here:
1. Parent and child have equal rights.
2. Parent controls child's diet.

It appeared to me you were saying there is a contradiction here:

The policeman is authorized to do his work because he is the agent of a superior moral authority - the law. A parent is a superior moral authority over a child. If I pretend to be a policeman, I may be arrested and punished for it. If I abrogate a parent's rights over their own children, I am likewise subject to the actions of justice.

Is physicsisphirst a superior moral authority over his dog?

Up to the end of the nineteenth century, European culture used a Biblically-based concept of the human-animal rerationship: Man had dominion over the animals, because he was the moral superior of the animals. Most cultures would agree with this (with the notable exception of the Hindu culture).

In the twentieth century, the naturalisic/evolutionistic philosophy became the basis of the human-animal relationship. This philosophy rejects the moral superiority of man over animal on the grounds that there is no moral distinction between man and animal: only a matter of degrees separate them. This philosophy is still in its build-out stage, championed by news articles which show how smart birds are, how teachable dogs are, and how birds and chimps make and use tools.

The ethical vegetarian (and I'm not naming names, mind you) who believes that no animal may morally eat meat (a distinctly human ethical position) however, believes that they have the right to force their pets into an involuntary vegetarian diet because they are the pet's moral superior, or the agent of a superior moral authority.

Ahh! Now, here we have the contradiction laid bare!

Thank you, learningphysics, for your insightful pursuit of this discussion. You have certainly advanced the clarity of the issue through your incisive questioning.

 

[Dissident Dan]

The ethical vegetarian (and I'm not naming names, mind you) who believes that no animal may morally eat meat (a distinctly human ethical position) however, believes that they have the right to force their pets into an involuntary vegetarian diet because they are the pet's moral superior, or the agent of a superior moral authority.

Ahh! Now, here we have the contradiction laid bare!

You are really reaching for a contradiction here. Apply the same reasoning to human-human interactions and see if you come up with the same "contradiction".

 

[OneEye]

You are really reaching for a contradiction here. Apply the same reasoning to human-human interactions and see if you come up with the same "contradiction".

I already have, above. My conclusion has been that, in proper human-human relations, peers may not force their moral constraints on each other - but a superior may force his (its) moral constraints on an inferior. This is exactly what we see in human-human interactions: The superior (the law) forces its moral constraints on the inferior (the individual).

Trouble develops when we attempt to lay this template over the relationship between an ethical vegetarian and her cat: In order for the ethical vegetarian to enforce a vegetarian diet on the cat, she must assume the status of being the cat's moral superior.

I don't think that this is all that complicated - but I welcome reflections from those who are willing to think it through.

 

[cogito]

You have, indeed, remarked on one of the difficulties in this entire thought system. To bring you up to speed: I was not promoting my own thought system, but one which derives naturally from the concept that humans are merely animals.

Someone who holds this view (that humans are merely animals) might break this chain of logic by saying, "It is universally rejected in nature that a creature might eat its own kind." This argument would be wrong, of course, since many animals (including members of class Mammalia) eat their own young.

I break this logic chain by rejecting premiss 2, that humans are merely animals. I say that humans are fundamentally different from other animals, and that it may well therefore be moral for humans to eat other animals.

Those who conclude man as a moral equal with all other animals have a harder time with this - and much of the logic-chopping which is currently going on in this thread consists of a variety of attempts to affirm the premisses of my argument while denying the conclusion.

At present, we have all agreed that man is fundamentally different from all other animals, especially insofar as man has moral responsibilities which other animals do not have, but this is as far as we have gotten. And, given certain political maneuvers which have recently been initiated, I think it unlikely that we will ever get much further.

I hope that this helps.

Thanks for the update. Why is it relevant that animals do not have moral responsibilities? Presumably, the debate over whether it is morally permissible to eat meat involves determining whether it makes sense to say that a human being can owe an obligation to an animal, not over whether a non-human animal can be morally obligated (i.e., have a moral obligation). If all you have established is that humans are rational and autonomous enough to act in accord with moral principles, while the rest of the animal world is not, then (pardon the pun) it seems you've been barking up the wrong tree. What is at issue, it seems to me, is whether the capacity animals have to suffer, and their rudimentary forms of self-consciousness and rationality are sufficient for the possession of rights. Your run-of-the-mill adult cow is by all measure capable of suffering, self-consciousness, and rational thought to an extent which far exceeds that of the newborn infant or the profoundly develpmentally disabled human. If we are disposed to take these latter entities are possessors of rights, then consistency demands we extend rights to the former entities as well. If the reply to this consistency argument is that the psychological capacities mentioned are not criterial of moral considerability, then, praytell, what is?

Cheers!

 

[OneEye]

Hey, all! I've decided to take a hiatus for the holidays. I'll be off, starting today, through next week, and maybe for a week after that.

I realize that this may seem a bit unfair - seems to give me the last word - but just think how much hamburger you can make my most recent posts into until I return!

I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Enjoy a TVP turkey leg on me!

 

[physicsisphirst]

If you insist on my doing this, I will.

But I would rather not.

Frankly, my time could be put to better use than to prove to you what you already know (and everyone else does, too).

I made the claim, and if you insist, I will make good on it. But you are certainly imposing on me to require such a thing, when you can make the issue quite clear without requiring any such work from me. And, frankly, it will be hard for me not to resent it. The whole thing smells very cat-and-mouse to me.

i think if you make claims you should make good on it - especially when questioned as to its validity.
you have the habit of making claims and assuming that that is how it is because you have made the claim.
now that is a claim by me, so i'll make good on it (regardless of whether you question it):

post #727 by oneeye
Collations of elephant tears usually overlook facts like this - are, in fact, writings which uniformly take one side of the question. They look more like propaganda than anything else.
what makes you say that? have you read the book? have you checked masson's credentials? does seeming to support AR automatically make someone a propagandist?

post #749
And here, you again make the disagreeable assumption of awareness in animals.
i can draw upon 3 decades of 'recent' research (Goodall, Savage-Rumbaugh, Bekoff for instance) or even go back into the 'past' (eg Darwin). you start with your claim that animals don't have awareness and maintain it without the slightest validation.

post #749
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.
you create the position, you attribute it to AR, you say that there is a contradiction (which didn't exist - this was your 4pt syllogism, btw) and then you expect us to just accept all this because you say it is 'completely obvious'.

post #760
I have, several times, presented syllogisms to you which show the inherent contradiction in the animal rights position.
you again make a claim that your syllogism (this was the 4 pointer) is the AR position and that there is a contradiction without researching honestly whether you have accurately represented 'the animal rights' position or whether there was a contradiction (which doesn't exist posts #765, #769 - and you admitted that in the form you wrote it your syllogism was "useless for the discussion" post #771)

post #784
Everyone finds the three-point syllogism to be cogent
again you speak for 'everyone'. your 3pt sillygism was neither cogent or demonstrative (as shown in post #779). later you admitted that your use of the word "an" when you really meant "any" caused confusion post #779)

and your latest effort:

post #842
On what grounds do you enforce your moral vegetarianism on your dog and
post #851
It would be quite easy to distill your previous posts and show that you, yourself, are an ethical vegetarian - and that you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat.
well if it is really is that easy, then why when asked to demonstrate your statement, do you complain

But I would rather not. (post #863)

immediately followed by another one of those miraculous claims:

Frankly, my time could be put to better use than to prove to you what you already know (and everyone else does, too). (post #863)

is it a wonder that i keep asking you for clarification and validation?

i have claimed that you are a pleasant and polite individual (post #792). i still maintain this and can even validate it if you wish. however, it is my feeling that in forum discussions, if you are going to say things like 'everyone knows or sees or believes', you should make a bit more effort to be sure of your claim - rather than just make it and hurriedly try to move along.

i hope you get to read and at least consider what i have written in this post (you did say you welcome correction in post #760). however, i see that you have decided to take a holiday - so i hope you have a good time and wish you the best.

in friendship,
prad

 

[learningphysics]

This philosophy rejects the moral superiority of man over animal on the grounds that there is no moral distinction between man and animal: only a matter of degrees separate them.

You are attributing a position to physicsphirst that he does not take... The above also implies that man cannot be morally superior to an animal if "only a matter of degrees separate them". Why is this? With regards to intelligence only a matter of degrees separates man from the apes... yet man is definitely superior... Why can't the same be said for moral awareness.

Anyway... please read cogito's post. I must agree with him. I don't see the relevance of whether or not animals are moral agents or not to the animal rights position. As seen in this thread, nobody is disputing man's position as a moral authority over animals (a good man/woman anyway...).

I personally see some animals as moral agents. I see moral awareness on a continuum in the animal kingdom as intelligence is on a continuum. Yet, I still see humans as having superior moral awareness (not necessarily more moral, but having more moral awareness). But how does that fit into animal rights? I don't know. As cogito said, it's animals capacity to feel pain and suffer, that has relevance to the animal rights issue, not their moral agency.

Thank you, learningphysics, for your insightful pursuit of this discussion. You have certainly advanced the clarity of the issue through your incisive questioning.

Thanks. The discussion has been interesting. I hope I've lent some clarity to the issue.

 

[physicsisphirst]

You can LOL all you want, but you don't know what you are talking about.

i was LOLing because you thought that 40% of americans had b12 deficiencies because they didn't eat enough meat. as far as not knowing what I'm talking about, i would like to disagree with you, but you'll probably say i don't know what I'm talking about.

Please show me some evidence of disease linked to a healthy diet that includes a proper amount of animal protein.

those sites show some of this. even the meat side has admitted there are some problems - for instance, back in the 80s there was a conscious movement to provide 'leaner' meat because of the problems with heart-disease, cancer etc. the fact that the heaviest meat-eating population (in north america) also have the highest occurrences of the diseases mentioned in the earlier post can also suffice as a link. finally, studies like the china study (that sangeeta may talk about later), show fairly conclusively that this isn't fiction.

you're right a carrot doesn't run.

i hope this is some sort of acknowledgment that at least on some matters, i do know what I'm talking about.

This is all careful wording. They are saying that people with bad diets have more health problems. It's because they went to McD's and they weren't "doing south beach" or the "mediterranean diet."

not too many people die from eating a little meat, but the fact still remains that the human body doesn't process the stuff too well. sometimes, that little bit can trigger things like protein antigenity which result in inflammatory conditions like asthma, excema, arthritis.

So they advertised on the web to find people that would answer specific questions about their diet and that it caused them specific health problems. They made a registry of these people, and from that they get their data that they then project onto the rest of the world.

from what you quoted, i think they are researching the link between animal protein diet and diseases that have been linked to them. i don't think brocolli and tofu have been linked to heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis and stuff like that.

And then finally:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings

As of December 15, 2003, 429 individuals reported experiencing problems with high-protein, high-fat, carbohydrate-restricted diets via the online registry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total crap.

you seem to be very fond of that expression. what exactly is the problem here. all that has happened is that 429 individuals reported they were experiencing problems. no big deal.

Anyway, then at the end they start talking about all the problems with doing the Atkins Diet as if they discovered it themselves.

from what i recall, the atkins diet has raised concerned eyebrows in places other than the veg community.

See, when you go for a diet that restricts a certain type of nutrient too much it causes problems. Like when you cut out certain vitamins by eating totally vegan.

you don't cut out anything by being totally veg.

and you've bought it all.

not all, but enough fortunately.

But seriously, the whole natural vs. artificial thing falls through anyway because domesticated dogs are a human product anyway. What's natural for them is to eat what we feed them. If we truly care for them, we should feed them what is most healthy for them.

i agree! and that's why i don't feed them meat. you believe meat is healthy for your dog and so you do. i do not doubt your sincerity here, but i have found after researching this, talking to other veg dog folk, and seeing the results for several years with my own dogs - that the veg diet is best.

If the dog honestly likes and prefers the veggie life and it causes him no harm, then great for him. But, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of dogs wouldn't be able to nor would they want to get by on nothing but vegetables.

they wouldn't want to live on iceberg lettuce that's for sure - but the evolution petfood, the hoana, and homemade stuff is considered quite desirable for dogs (and by many vets - who would of course also back large commercial veg foods by nature's recipe and natural life).

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

You are attributing a position to physicsphirst that he does not take...

a specialized talent oneeye exercises as I've tried to show in post #885.
digging up posts by number seems to have become one of my specialized talents.

Anyway... please read cogito's post. I must agree with him. I don't see the relevance of whether or not animals are moral agents or not to the animal rights position. As seen in this thread, nobody is disputing man's position as a moral authority over animals (a good man/woman anyway...).

i agree! i find cogito's excellent post #883 to be lucid, penetrating and definitely worth quoting from (and so i do in italics):

the debate over whether it is morally permissible to eat meat involves determining whether it makes sense to say that a human being can owe an obligation to an animal, not over whether a non-human animal can be morally obligated (i.e., have a moral obligation)
this clarifies the parameters for the discussion (rather than allowing us to be transported into other arenas).

If all you have established is that humans are rational and autonomous enough to act in accord with moral principles, while the rest of the animal world is not, then (pardon the pun) it seems you've been barking up the wrong tree.
(is it treesonable to assume that your delightful pun lays bare an act of treeson? LOL) if it is established that humans are moral agents, then it matters little whether animals are or aren't (at least for the discussion).

What is at issue, it seems to me, is whether the capacity animals have to suffer, and their rudimentary forms of self-consciousness and rationality are sufficient for the possession of rights.
and therefore to be free of inflicted sufferings. it is not necessary for animals to be as 'smart' or as 'moral' as humans. philosopher jeremy bentham emphasized this point when he wrote: The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"

I personally see some animals as moral agents. I see moral awareness on a continuum in the animal kingdom as intelligence is on a continuum.

i think this is a very good point. too often we forget that all nature isn't quite 'quantized' everywhere. we forget that animals are not all the same just because we categorize them as animals. in fact, humans themselves demonstrate a wide continuum as far as morality goes.

Yet, I still see humans as having superior moral awareness (not necessarily more moral, but having more moral awareness).

i find this an excellent way to express it.

I hope I've lent some clarity to the issue.

you most certainly have.
btw, if you have the time and inclination, i would appreciate hearing more of your views regarding Schopenhauer as it relates here.

in friendship,
prad

 

[Be Happy!]

I personally see some animals as moral agents. I see moral awareness on a continuum in the animal kingdom as intelligence is on a continuum. Yet, I still see humans as having superior moral awareness (not necessarily more moral, but having more moral awareness).

I really like what you have written...i've never thought of it as you have expressed it. I think you've nailed it though...thanks for the insight!

 

[sheepdog]

experiment

I came to this forum for the physics. As such I expected to find reasoned arguments reflecting reality. That is, after all, the beauty of physics -- that it models reality. It is a mental construct that is sharable between us by virtue of the fact that there is a close correspondence with experiment.

Then I read this thread and see all of this nonsense about morality and moral agents and so on. Shame on you!

If the question posed has an answer then there should be an experiment to demonstrate that answer. Otherwise it's just in your head and why should anybody be interested in anything that only is in your head? How moral are we? The answer to that question is in your head, nowhere else. It is what you think it to be. Nothing more.

Should we eat meat? I say usually not. Why not? Because we are free to choose not to and that particular choice is one among a series of such choices all of which combine to define what we are. So the real question becomes, "What do we choose to be?" And therein lies the experiment. Because what we choose to be causes what the future will become. Choose the future wisely. This experiment cannot be revised.

 

[JaeSun]

if people choose to not eat meat, that is there choice...but once they start trying to preach to me, then that's it ...

i eat meat and I am proud of it (i like my steaks bloody rare)

and quite personally, i think PETA goes way to far with its tactics ...

 

[JPD]

if people choose to not eat meat, that is there choice...but once they start trying to preach to me, then that's it ...

i eat meat and I am proud of it (i like my steaks bloody rare)

and quite personally, i think PETA goes way to far with its tactics ...

You see, this is where we arrive at every time - there is no other possibility.
If I go to eat at a vegetarian's house I would not expect to eat meat and will be forced to eat vegetables (which I quite like but some of those nut cutlets and other muck is more suitable for aiding in construction) so, by the same token, if a vegetarian comes to eat at my house, they should eat meat.
It's only fair - if I have to suffer then so should you!

 

[shrumeo]

i was LOLing because you thought that 40% of americans had b12 deficiencies because they didn't eat enough meat. as far as not knowing what I'm talking about, i would like to disagree with you, but you'll probably say i don't know what I'm talking about.

Where else are they going to get B12?
It either comes from an animal source, or a manufactured one.
If someone is deficient, that means they either aren't getting shots at the doctor, eating artificially fortified grains, or eating animal products (the only natural source).

Don't just "like to disagree" with me. Show me where I'm wrong.

those sites show some of this. even the meat side has admitted there are some problems- for instance, back in the 80s there was a conscious movement to provide 'leaner' meat because of the problems with heart-disease, cancer etc. the fact that the heaviest meat-eating population (in north america) also have the highest occurrences of the diseases mentioned in the earlier post can also suffice as a link. finally, studies like the china study (that sangeeta may talk about later), show fairly conclusively that this isn't fiction.

Because they were wrong. It's not the '80s anymore. And correlation does not always mean causation. Just because Americans eat a lot of meat (actually I'd say they eat less meat and more sugar and flour than anyone else) doesn't mean that it's the meat that caused the problems. You have to look at the whole picture. Actually, I think it's all the sugar and flour and less exercise that leads to health problems.

A few years ago there was a renewal of the Atkins craze. I think it's still going. You eat mostly meat and fat for your calories.
http://www.thedietchannel.com/atkins.htm

The findings were indeed surprising, in that several heart disease indicators actually improved in the participants following the Atkins diet. They saw a much larger decrease in serum triglyceride levels as compared to the low fat group, and a greater increase in serum HDL (which is "good" or beneficial cholesterol to the heart) than the low-fat group. Both groups saw similar reductions in LDL cholesterol (the "bad" cholesterol for the heart) and total cholesterol levels. In addition, at the end of one year, both groups had achieved similar levels of weight loss.

http://www.annecollins.com/atkins-diet-weight-loss-study.htm

The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease.

You know what people with high LDLs might not be getting enough of in their diet? Regular old niacin.
http://www.allvita.net/niacin.htm

i hope this is some sort of acknowledgment that at least on some matters, i do know what I'm talking about.

Sorry to disappoint you.
The reason dogs chase things is because they are moving. Unless a human is there to move it, the things that usually go moving on their own are called animals. Actually, because they moved on their own is why they were called animals. I hope I'm not being too condescending. Now, why would a dog chase small animals? Maybe there is some instinct that they follow that has something to do with keeping them alive.

Funny there is no instinct to dig up carrots and eat them.

not too many people die from eating a little meat, but the fact still remains that the human body doesn't process the stuff too well.

How is this a fact? It's rubbish, as they say over there. Nobody dies from "eating a little meat" unless it's poisoned, of course.

sometimes, that little bit can trigger things like protein antigenity which result in inflammatory conditions like asthma, excema, arthritis.

This happens in how many people? 1 in 100,000,000?
(Not these conditions, obviously, but these conditions being caused by meat?)

from what you quoted, i think they are researching the link between animal protein diet and diseases that have been linked to them. i don't think brocolli and tofu have been linked to heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis and stuff like that.

Yeah, they may be "researching" but how are they doing it (web surveys)?
People that don't want to think about things like animals dying are going to use whatever tactic available to make you think that eating meat is bad for you.

you seem to be very fond of that expression. what exactly is the problem here. all that has happened is that 429 individuals reported they were experiencing problems. no big deal.

I seem to have to use it in this thread full of so much misinformation. They are using this pool of 429 supposed people to try and say something that is most likely not true (or at least to give that impression.)

They put out an "ad" on a website asking people to sign up and tell them that they had problems with an "Atkins" diet. Did they make sure they were doing the diet right? What else were they eating? What were their prior conditions? Did they ever meet these people or their doctors? And above all else in this "research" what were the controls?

from what i recall, the atkins diet has raised concerned eyebrows in places other than the veg community.

rasing eyebrows? oK AND?
Yeah, my aunt keeps telling my uncle "do you know how many people have DIED on the atkins diet?? HUH?" I hate to tell her it's none.
(disclaimer again: the Atkins diet (initial phase) isn't something that people should do their whole lives, just if they are in a bad carb/insulin cycle that could lead to diabetes or heart disease, or are really fat.)

you don't cut out anything by being totally veg.

Only if you supplement with artificial vitamins, especially things like B12.
There may be some products out there that are fortified with it, but it still came from an artificial source. It's sort of like saying "Eating nothing doesn't cut out anything as long as I eat these artificial nutrients in a pill or shake." (There are diets like this. As long as they are getting enough calories and are getting their nutrients the way they need, what's the problem? I don't see any problem with an artificial diet, or even one that is partially artificial, like a vegan diet.)

not all, but enough fortunately.

So you are saying that there is some information on these websites that you don't agree with? I'm curious what that is and why you chose to believe some things that they say and not others.

i agree! and that's why i don't feed them meat. you believe meat is healthy for your dog and so you do. i do not doubt your sincerity here, but i have found after researching this, talking to other veg dog folk, and seeing the results for several years with my own dogs - that the veg diet is best.

Poor Dogs. They probably did get healthier once you took them off of typical commercial food. But, if you did the same with a meat-based diet, imagine the benefits. I'd give it try, if only for a while. (I won't subject my dog to a veg diet btw).

they wouldn't want to live on iceberg lettuce that's for sure - but the evolution petfood, the hoana, and homemade stuff is considered quite desirable for dogs (and by many vets - who would of course also back large commercial veg foods by nature's recipe and natural life).

They back all the food they sell, even "Science Diet" which isn't the best despite it's high price (and total lack of flavor, my dog hates it)
http://www.iei.net/~ebreeden/kibble.html
Anyway, I take certain advice from my vet very seriously.
Other advice, like what products to buy from them, I take with a grain of salt.

ANYWAY, if you don't want people to eat meat based on moral gorunds and animal rights that's one thing, but to go around saying that eating meat is bad for you is, well, bad.

 

[shrumeo]

I disagree, but that is the subject of another thread - which I hope to launch soon.

Well, it depends on if you believe in God or not, I guess.
Either god gave humans their sensibilities or they arose naturally (nature gave them to us). Whether you can separate nature from god or vice versa is another thing.

You are personifying nature.

Only for convenience.

Nature is, by definition, purposeless - does not care whether the Earth is alive or dead.

Yes, I understand this.

This does not necessarily mean that you are wrong, but you would basically have to adopt a neopagan theology for this statement to be true in any meaningful sense.

Or just adopt a convenient way of talking about things, which is to sometimes personify them. I wasn't saying that Mother Nature consciously endowed us with anything. Only that we have these things naturally.

What were we talking about again?

 

[shrumeo]

I came to this forum for the physics. As such I expected to find reasoned arguments reflecting reality. That is, after all, the beauty of physics -- that it models reality. It is a mental construct that is sharable between us by virtue of the fact that there is a close correspondence with experiment.

Then I read this thread and see all of this nonsense about morality and moral agents and so on. Shame on you!

If the question posed has an answer then there should be an experiment to demonstrate that answer. Otherwise it's just in your head and why should anybody be interested in anything that only is in your head? How moral are we? The answer to that question is in your head, nowhere else. It is what you think it to be. Nothing more.

Should we eat meat? I say usually not. Why not? Because we are free to choose not to and that particular choice is one among a series of such choices all of which combine to define what we are. So the real question becomes, "What do we choose to be?" And therein lies the experiment. Because what we choose to be causes what the future will become. Choose the future wisely. This experiment cannot be revised.

Wow, so you've come up with a way to scientifically test morality?

 

[Seafang]

Should we eat meat?

Nowadays, you can see lots of people trying
to save certain animals from being mistreated, like
protecting the sharks or whales from being
hunted.
But I can't see the diference between
eating a steak and killing a shark.
Anyway, they are all life forms.

In China, people from other countries are
attempting to save bears from being used as
a source of gall bile
by the chinese farmers.
But why not save
the poor chickens in commercial farms
which are kept in very tiny cages which do
not even have enough space for them to turn a
round!

Maybe we should all stop eating meat!
It's not unhealthy or lacking enough essentials
because all the vegetarians around the world
are still perfectly fine and healthy.

Now the main problem is:
- Should we continue eating meat as the world's
population continues to expand rapidly??
- Or should we stop eating meat and everyone changes to
become a vegetarian?
(since it's considered to be
cruel to kill other life forms)

Benefits of becoming a vegetarian:

• Freedom for all farm animals!
• Eating less unhealthy food
• No need to cut any animal bodies or organs=> more convienient & less mess
• Eating more healthy food!
• No more interference with the animals' life and death.
• Increase in animal population!
• More animals to conduct researches on.
• No more artificially caused extinction of any animals!
• and many more!

Well I think the whole argument is pretty silly. For a start, it is well recognised that humans like other primates are omnivorous; even our teeth say that is so. Clearly the survival of our species is improved if we can eat most anything.

There's no evidence that zoo-food is unhealthy; even oxygen is unhealthy if you have too much of it. nor is there any evidence that phyto-food is more healthy.

There are good reasons for omnivores to eat meat. there are plenty of zoo-species that can eat phyto-food that we can't digest, so those plants would not be a food source for us unless we eat the animals that can process those plants.

If we only eat plants, then we need more palnts to eat which leaves less for other species, so animal extinctions will still occur. We are out eating everything else on the planet.

But to take the argument further; why should we eat any other life form, whether animal or plant. We certainly don't need to. We are perfectly capable of making the essentials of food out of plain rocks, just like mother Nature does, so we don't need to eat plants either; and how do we know that plants don't scream when we kill them for food; or even eat them alive for that matter.

Our job is to survive; we should eat whatever makes that possible. Now if you want to talk about conservation of resources, then it is true it takes less resources and energy to live on a phyto-diet than on a zoo-diet. it takes 5000 gallons of water to make one pound of Steak, and that is a wasteful use of water.

 

[learningphysics]

you most certainly have.
btw, if you have the time and inclination, i would appreciate hearing more of your views regarding Schopenhauer as it relates here.

Thanks. I fear my views regarding Schopenhauer could be too depressing. I agree with his view that existence is suffering (buddhism). My moral views are very much along "negative utilitarianism" for which the elimination of pain and suffering, is much more important than the production of pleasure. Although I don't go around preaching the ethics of extinction of all life, I don't see it as a bad thing (depends on how it would happen). However, I tend to believe we continue to exist after death (unfortunately)... So the problem of suffering isn't solved... Schopenhauer believed that resignation from the will, could end suffering (buddhist solution)... But I'm not sure of that. I don't see why, even if we solved our current problem of suffering, how that would help us after being reincarnated (we remember the lessons?).

 

[physicsisphirst]

Where else are they going to get B12?
It either comes from an animal source, or a manufactured one.
If someone is deficient, that means they either aren't getting shots at the doctor, eating artificially fortified grains, or eating animal products (the only natural source).

the point of this was to show you that since 40% americans are deficient in B12 and since 40% of americans don't abstain from animal proteins, it appears that simply eating meat isn't going to save you from a b12 deficiency (at least according to the 'setting' of the deficiency level). yet you came up with the simplistic conclusion that these people should just eat more meat and that will solve their problem.

Because they were wrong. It's not the '80s anymore. And correlation does not always mean causation. Just because Americans eat a lot of meat (actually I'd say they eat less meat and more sugar and flour than anyone else) doesn't mean that it's the meat that caused the problems. You have to look at the whole picture. Actually, I think it's all the sugar and flour and less exercise that leads to health problems.

the animal proteins are causing serious problems as explained earlier and as shown in the various sites. your statement that "correlation does not always mean causation" is a perfectly legitimate one, however, if it is inappropriately applied it can hide a multitude of sins. in fact, the smoking industry used that excuse for years to deny that cigarette smoke causes cancer (they still do i think).

Funny there is no instinct to dig up carrots and eat them.

that's not quite true - dogs often dig things up and if they like it they may eat it - some flowerbeds bear testament to that. they also like to bury things for later consumption.

How is this a fact? It's rubbish, as they say over there. Nobody dies from "eating a little meat" unless it's poisoned, of course.

This happens in how many people? 1 in 100,000,000?
(Not these conditions, obviously, but these conditions being caused by meat?)

i think the problem here is that you treat what is on the websites i have shown you as rubbish. admittedly, you can find whatever you want on the web, but considering the "correlations" to heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis etc etc and animal protein consumption, don't you think it's worth a second look?

you think that all the info is coming from ethical veggies, but it isn't. in the early 90's, even the lancet (one of those prestigious medical journals) acknowledged that decreasing animal protein consumption would also decrease risk of heart disease and cancer. here is an example of current 'medical research' from Gut:

Ulcerative Colitis Relapses with Meat and Beef

Influence of dietary factors on the clinical course of ulcerative colitis: a prospective cohort study by Sarah L. Jowett in the October 2004 issue of the journal Gut found patients with ulcerative colitis had more frequent relapses when they consumed meat, especially red and processed meat, and eggs.

dr mcdougall comments:
The amount of sulfur in the intestine is increased by consuming animal products, which are inherently high in sulfur-containing amino acids, like methionine and cysteine.
you can see more of the details here:
http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/2004nl/041100pufavorite5.htm

my point in showing you this is that there are a very large number of 'medical' people who advocate the veg diet - and for nutritional reasons. if they do, it may be an idea to at least give some credence to it rather than dismissing it as rubbish.

Yeah, they may be "researching" but how are they doing it (web surveys)?
People that don't want to think about things like animals dying are going to use whatever tactic available to make you think that eating meat is bad for you.

what a strange basis for rejection! it would be similar to my saying that the pro-meat people have brain-washed certain folks into believing eating meat is good for you just so their industry can make more money! actually, i believe that if you look at who does make money, my 'bigoted and narrow-minded' conclusion has more validity than yours.

They are using this pool of 429 supposed people to try and say something that is most likely not true (or at least to give that impression.)

there is a lot more than 429 people to back up the veg position from a health perspective.

Only if you supplement with artificial vitamins

you still have this strange idea that you need to supplement a veg diet. you seem to think that people don't supplement meat diets. now this is a very weird idea considering that even in the 60s and 70s when the veg movement was just beginning to start up, vitamins were being marketed like crazy. they weren't there for veg folk - they were there for your meat folk (not too many veggies back then). what this would suggest is that a meat-based diet is totally inadequate in providing the necessary requirements.

interestingly enough, if you look at the first article in that earlier link, you find that even vitamins aren't enough LOL:

Vitamins Do Not Prevent Cancer and May Increase Likelihood of Death
Antioxidant supplements for prevention of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Goran Bjelakovic reported in the October 2004 issue of the Lancet found no "evidence that antioxidant supplements can prevent cancer; on the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality."

So you are saying that there is some information on these websites that you don't agree with? I'm curious what that is and why you chose to believe some things that they say and not others.

well i looked at all this back in the early '90s to quite an extent since we didn't want to make the jump to a strict veg diet without researching things - after all, we had to take my infant son into account as well as the ravings of my medical doctor father who kept babbling things like meat is good for you. i found that the veg communities were by no means in complete agreement with what was ideal and what wasn't - depending upon the influence of traditional medical thought. so we opted for a diet based on 'natural hygiene' principles (somewhat a la shelton) as well as mostly rawfoods and have managed rather nicely so far.

But, if you did the same with a meat-based diet, imagine the benefits. I'd give it try, if only for a while. (I won't subject my dog to a veg diet btw).

no one is asking you to subject your dog or yourself to anything.
what a silly idea though to suggest that i take my magnificient, admiration-attracting (and rather mischievous) bowwows (who never suffer from any of those things that the vets want to protect dogs from), and change their diet because you maintain this notion that a meat-based diet is better than what they are fed now.

Anyway, I take certain advice from my vet very seriously. Other advice, like what products to buy from them, I take with a grain of salt.

well that's nice.

ANYWAY, if you don't want people to eat meat based on moral gorunds and animal rights that's one thing, but to go around saying that eating meat is bad for you is, well, bad.

well the 'one thing' hasn't been a thing here at all. the content of my posts have been for the most part that eating meat is bad for you purely on health grounds (despite what a couple of people would like to believe). i have backed up what i have said with several links (throughout this thread) as well as results that are evident in society for anyone to see (regardless of whether you subscibe to 'correlation' or 'causation') ... and i can keep going too LOL

in any case, as i wrote earlier, if you want to eat meat that's up to you. nor should you simply believe the opposite of the slogan that you have been chanting "meat is healthy" - if you are interested in the health benefits of veg, then do some research about veg diet, learn who is saying what, find some correlations (or even causations), then make up your own mind.

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

Thanks. I fear my views regarding Schopenhauer could be too depressing. I agree with his view that existence is suffering (buddhism). My moral views are very much along "negative utilitarianism" for which the elimination of pain and suffering, is much more important than the production of pleasure. Although I don't go around preaching the ethics of extinction of all life, I don't see it as a bad thing (depends on how it would happen). However, I tend to believe we continue to exist after death (unfortunately)... So the problem of suffering isn't solved...

i don't find your views are depressing at all - quite the opposite. much of what you say makes a lot of sense in a very pragmatic way. the minimization of pain and suffering seems to be a worthy goal regardless of whether we can enforce it or not. all of us may not be able to 'exterminate the eagle population for the benefit of fish' or have the time to 'lie in waiting to shoot a lion for the salvation of deer' as suggested in prior posts, but we can always do our little bit (i think sheepdog made an interesting observation in that our actions determine who we are). additionally, dooga sort of tied the idea of evolution into non-violence and considering that historically humans have thought on a larger scale about ethics, it is possible that our evolution may depend upon our commitment to reducing pain and suffering.

Schopenhauer believed that resignation from the will, could end suffering (buddhist solution)... But I'm not sure of that. I don't see why, even if we solved our current problem of suffering, how that would help us after being reincarnated (we remember the lessons?).

well perhaps or perhaps the lessons are so obvious that they don't really need to be remembered, but require something else to be seen.
as the four faults in buddist philosophy say, the nature of the mind is hard to see because it is

1) too close to be recognized
2) too profound to be fathomed
3) too easy to be believed
4) too wonderful to be accommodated

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

it is well recognised that humans like other primates are omnivorous; even our teeth say that is so.

i think a lot of people (even veggies) keep saying this, assume it is so and do sincerely try very hard to be good omnivores, but a closer look seems to indicate otherwise. compare a true omnivore's (eg dog) teeth to a human's and one finds that
the dog's canines are considerable larger (for ripping and tearing)
humans molars are considerably more prominent (for crushing and grinding - unlike jagged doggie molars)
the human's jaw flaunts (unlike doggie jaw) side-to-side motion (to work those molars)

additionally,

we do not have the claws or talons necessary to catch and hold animal prey, and we do not have the sharp, shearing teeth necessary to tear, not chew, animal flesh. We are not fast enough to outrun and catch animals. Natural omnivores or carnivores do NOT chew their eaten flesh, they tear it into chunks and swallow them whole. We do not have the "constant tendency for the last upper premolar and the first lower molar to engage and form long longitudinal opposed shearing blades (the carnassials)", which are a common characteristic of natural carnivores and omnivores.

As further evidence, Roberts cites the carnivore?s short intestinal tract, which reaches about three times its body length. An herbivore?s intestines are 12 times its body length, and humans are closer to herbivores, he says. Roberts rattles off other similarities between human beings and herbivores. Both get vitamin C from their diets (carnivores make it internally). Both sip water, not lap it up with their tongues. Both cool their bodies by perspiring (carnivores pant).
http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm (a delightfully 'biased' article i must say, distinguishing very well between the common misunderstanding between the verbs "to do" and "to be" - eg humans are meat-eaters because they've done meat-eating LOL)


this next article is kind of amusing because in it you have a non-veg (possibly) Cardiologist William C. Roberts arguing that humans aren't designed to eat meat while a veg, anatomist and primatologist John McArdle arguing that humans are omnivores. here is the beginning of the article:

Cardiologist William C. Roberts hails from the famed cattle state of Texas, but he says this without hesitation: Humans aren't physiologically designed to eat meat. "I think the evidence is pretty clear. If you look at various characteristics of carnivores versus herbivores, it doesn't take a genius to see where humans line up," says Roberts, editor in chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and medical director of the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?143


finally, here is an excellent and thorough article by Milton R. Mills, M.D. that argues humans not being particularly well suited for meat consumption based on comparative anatomy of Oral Cavity, Stomach and Small Intestine, Colon. here is the conclusion from that article (with the link, of course):

we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a 'committed' herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.
http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm


so all omnivorous wishful thinking aside, the arguments against humans being anatomically suited for meat consumption are really pretty substantial.

in friendship,
prad