Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[physicsisphirst]

A human can refuse to kill animals, but he cannot contend there is any moral worth in doing so unless he contends that there is worth to animal life. If he cannot contend that there is moral worth in such an action, then there is no reason to advocate that other people follow in his course.

what does the worth of animal life have to do with whether a human thinks there is moral worth in not killing? for instance, i can say that we should 'love thy neighbour' even if that neighbour is hitler (now don't get all upset because i said hitler - it's only for dramatic effect LOL). surely, there can be no worth in loving hitler as your neighbour, but there may be some worth to me to 'loving my neighbour'. i may also find moral worth in meditating about say palm leaves, even though there may not be anything particularly worthy about palm leaves - the meditation may make me a better person and having discovered this i could certainly recommend that others follow this practice as well.

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

Rather than respond to arguments being made, he has simply labelled them "garbage." Doing that is insulting and not conducive to furthering a discussion, which is the aim of the forum.

i'm not sure that is really a violation of forum rules though it may not encourage further discussion.

would you agree that statements like these:

There you go again, friendly Prad. ... You're using this analogy for emotional impact, completely disregarding the fact that it is a very bad analogy. (your post #1000)

There's a rule of thumb at play here. I don't remember its name, but whenever a person appeals to an analogy with Hitler, he generally doesn't have much of a case. ... Everyone agrees that Hitler was evil, so you make an analogy with Hitler, hoping to elicit that same feeling. It isn't going to work. (your post #1012)

If you won't grant these as an alternative, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are also granting animals the right not to be killed. I'm not granting this right, so it seems we're at a bit of an impasse here and I doubt we will get through it. (your post #1012)

are "not conducive to furthering a discussion"?

for instance, i have explained twice already that the point I'm making has really nothing to do with your specific concern about hitler (i even encouraged you to substitute your favorite character in place of him), yet you insist that i am trying to run an emotional campaign. i also have been trying to discuss this without the acceptance of animal rights (and have even explained certain AR philosophies do not promote inherent rights for animals), yet you keep insisting that i am granting animals their rights. then you go on to say that we have reached an impasse here because of this.

i do not understand 2 things here about your approach:

1) why do you tell me what i am doing, rather listen to what i am actually saying?
2) why are you in such a hurry to end discussion - you do this with your 'impasse' line to me and you did the same thing to sheepdog in post #1011 If you say there is no way to alleviate some of the problems we have here except by going vegetarian, then I cannot talk to you.

for someone who has just pointed out that the aim of the forums is to further discussion, can you not at least consider what is being said (rather than insist on your own interpretations) and make an attempt to continue communications (rather than cut them off)?

(i'm not complaining or even requesting, btw - nor do i find anything you have said insulting. i do think that there is ground to be explored in this thread, but it will require a bit more than simply discounting ideas because you don't like them.)

Any method of killing that does not involve any pain on the part of the animal being killed. Instantaneous breaking of the neck, a gunshot wound to the brain, lethal injection, electrical shock to stop the heart all fit the bill.

these all sound like improvements. in fact, i believe the second one was suggested by john robbins in his book diet for a new america - however, it seems that the meat industry is unwilling to adopt any of them because of the added expense.

now my next question is why is it that you seem interested in killing animals painlessly? (please note that i am not arguing whether your techniques really are or are not painless - for the purposes of continuing this discussion, suffice it to say that if you think they are painless, that is sufficient).

specifically, if you had the choice of buying your meat from a store that has 'compassionately killed' meat or the regular brutal stuff, what would you choose? (also, i am assuming that since you are interested in making the killing compassionate, you would also insist that the living conditions be humane as well.)

 

[sheepdog]

the long run

That is how arguments are critiqued - through abstractions.

No. Arguments are critiqued through comparison with the real, experiment. We only share reality. I cannot share with you what is confined to your head.

A human can refuse to kill animals, but he cannot contend there is any moral worth in doing so unless he contends that there is worth to animal life.

I contend there is no worth to moral worth. I contend there is no worth to animal life. The only worth there is is the worth in not killing. All the worth is in the choice. It goes no farther than that. Understand the act itself. Anything else is only a distraction

If he cannot contend that there is moral worth in such an action, then there is no reason to advocate that other people follow in his course.

We all follow our own courses. What I need from you is your eyes, your ears, your sensibilities. Each of us sees the world through a very small window. Without sharing your experience, and the sensibilities and experience of a multitude of others, I cannot hope to see and understand enough to do my job. If your sensibilities tell you to eat meat I don't understand that. Mine tell me not to. No one is right here. No one is in the wrong. One of us is missing something.

Rather than respond to arguments being made, he has simply labelled them "garbage." Doing that is insulting and not conducive to furthering a discussion, which is the aim of the forum.

I accept that as a fair criticism. I only regret that I was asked a question and could find no softer way of answering. What does one call nonesense? Gibberish? Ignorant confusion? You see? It was the least offensive term my limited vocabulary could find. If you could suggest a better way of phrasing my answer I would appreciate the lesson.

The question, "Should we eat meat?" can be better phrased, "What should we take from the world?" Eating is a kind of economic transaction with Nature. She has an abundance to give, more than any of us could ever use. What is it best for us to take from this abundance? As much as we can? Anything we like? That would seem to be the popular answer. Personally I think there must be a better solution for the long run.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Also to be noted is that giving includes "giving up", as in giving up meat. That too is a type of giving and a very important type. This is the way I think of vegetarianism. By giving up meat I pass a benefit to those that would have been eaten.

for the billions that are eaten each year (and don't need to be), that is indeed an important benefit. i hope you receive the same benefit, since oneeye threatened (in post #1079) to eat you :

When you serve or give to yourself you benefit one. When you serve or give to other-than-self you benefit many. There is only one of you and there are many other than you. The benefit is necessarily multiplied, amplified. This is, in the scientific, analytical sense, why it works.

it really is quite logical. as mr spock would say, "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few or one" - of course, mr spock was veg LOL

He [Dahli Lama] has said, "Compassion is completely logical." We can see clearly what he meant by working through the issue of vegetarianism like this.

it is interesting that certain people throughout history see this sort of thing. they don't advocate peace and compassion simply because their 'religion' dictates it - they do so because civilized behavior stands on its own feet. rather than being wishful pie-in-the-sky, it is extraordinarily pragmatic. as the saying goes, "there is nothing so practical as idealism"

Thank you for your beautiful comments, prad.

my pleasure, michael! your posts have always provided many wonderful insights (as well as much humorous delight). i am glad if i have been able to return some of it.

 

[physicsisphirst]

but in the buddish meaning /principle ,the human was among the six kind of ways of creature,the six kind ways including upper 3 way:heaven way,human way, AUSHLO(own angry mind/giant power capacity)way,and downward 3-way:animal way ,hungry ghost way,evil hill way.

thank you yanglobal and welcome to the thread.
i was not aware of this buddhist 6 way.
it is interesting and i shall look into it.

 

[sheepdog]

our burden

for the billions that are eaten each year (and don't need to be), that is indeed an important benefit. i hope you receive the same benefit, since oneeye threatened (in post #1079) to eat you.

Let's be specific about the magnitude of the carnage. 9 billion animals are slaughtered every year for meat. That is to say a population greater than all the people who have ever lived are killed unnecessarily every single year, year in and year out.

Yet it is the vegetarians who must shoulder much of the responsibility, paradoxical as that sounds. The meat eaters have devised a society that reinforces meat eating. The religion preaches domination over animals rationalizing the carnage. Businesses promote meat eating for fun and profit. Meat eaters put their efforts into supporting their churches, businesses, schools, sports and social clubs. Vegetarians mostly do not. We have a tendency to sit on the sidelines and complain. Shame on us.

We should be forming churches where Compassion is worshiped. We should only do business with businesses that promote Compassion. We should be forming schools, sports centers and social clubs centered on Compassion. This would be a difficult and painful process because we would be denying ourselves many of the luxuries of our rich societies. But we are mere hypocrites so long as we whine about all the slaughter while continuing to reap the lavish products of that slaughter.

To change society we must propose a completely new one. It isn't enough to simply deny the validity of the present one with no clear plan for what would replace it. Without a clear alternative people are compelled to keep what they have.

 

[loseyourname]

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

Sure, but there aren't many ethical theories that hold action categories, in and of themselves, to be good or bad. Most theories stipulate that actions be taken in context. The ending of a life is not always a good or bad thing. It depends on the nature and quality of that life, as well as the reasons that it is being ended. Granted, there are certain theories that hold all killing, regardless of the life ended or the reason for the killing, to be immoral (Jainism comes to mind), but they aren't widely held. If this is the paradigm shift you are hoping for, so be it, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.

would you agree that statements like these:

There you go again, friendly Prad. ... You're using this analogy for emotional impact, completely disregarding the fact that it is a very bad analogy. (your post #1000)

There's a rule of thumb at play here. I don't remember its name, but whenever a person appeals to an analogy with Hitler, he generally doesn't have much of a case. ... Everyone agrees that Hitler was evil, so you make an analogy with Hitler, hoping to elicit that same feeling. It isn't going to work. (your post #1012)

If you won't grant these as an alternative, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are also granting animals the right not to be killed. I'm not granting this right, so it seems we're at a bit of an impasse here and I doubt we will get through it. (your post #1012)

are "not conducive to furthering a discussion"?

No, silly. These were answers to questions of yours. I was explaining why I felt the appeal to analogy with anything having to do with Hitler is not generally a good idea. I didn't just say "this is garbage." There is a difference. Either way, I am perfectly willing to address your arguments, regardless of what I may personally think of them.

for instance, i have explained twice already that the point I'm making has really nothing to do with your specific concern about hitler (i even encouraged you to substitute your favorite character in place of him), yet you insist that i am trying to run an emotional campaign. i also have been trying to discuss this without the acceptance of animal rights (and have even explained certain AR philosophies do not promote inherent rights for animals), yet you keep insisting that i am granting animals their rights. then you go on to say that we have reached an impasse here because of this.

To be honest, I didn't consider the possibility that you just consider the ending of any life to be a bad thing. That being the case, why the heck are you going to such great lengths to demonstrate secondary effects of meat consumption such as ecosystem degradation and animal suffering?

To specifically address your genocide analogy, I didn't like it because it is obvious that the actions of those who would defend genocide are morally bad because they are defending the killing of persons that had the right to not be killed. I do not consider it a bad thing to kill a living organism that does not have that right. Because I do not consider farm animals to have that right, your analogy meant nothing to me. Defending the killing of these animals is not the same as defending the killing of persons. The physical actions and arguments used are often the same, but the moral worth of the arguments is not. I don't consider an argument form to be immoral in and of itself and I would think that you do not either. It is the application of the argument that is immoral.

1) why do you tell me what i am doing, rather listen to what i am actually saying?

It's not that I'm telling you what you are doing. I am just trying to conceive of the possible systems under which your claims might be true, and then using other conclusions drawn from the implications of that system in an attempted reductio ad absurdum. Either that or demonstrate an inconsistency between the system under which one claim of yours may be true and other claims you have made. It's not an uncommon technique.

2) why are you in such a hurry to end discussion - you do this with your 'impasse' line to me and you did the same thing to sheepdog in post #1011 If you say there is no way to alleviate some of the problems we have here except by going vegetarian, then I cannot talk to you.

If you say that meat consumption is bad because of secondary effects it has, and then ignore the fact that there may be other methods of alleviating these secondary effects, then I cannot talk to you any further along those lines. I'm just frustrated that neither of you are getting at the actual reason that you think meat consumption is wrong. If it was the ecological consequences, then you would only advocate the amelioration of these consequences - by any means, not just by the ending of meat consumption. If it was about animal suffering, then you would only advocate the amelioration of animal suffereing - by any means, not just by the ending of meat consumption. If it is as you say, and you just think the ending of any life is a bad thing, period . . . then just argue that. Why confuse the matter?

(i'm not complaining or even requesting, btw - nor do i find anything you have said insulting. i do think that there is ground to be explored in this thread, but it will require a bit more than simply discounting ideas because you don't like them.)[/QUOTES]

I only discount ideas that are inconsistent with one another. I have nothing against any of your ideas by themselves.

these all sound like improvements. in fact, i believe the second one was suggested by john robbins in his book diet for a new america - however, it seems that the meat industry is unwilling to adopt any of them because of the added expense.

It's expensive to break an animal's neck?

now my next question is why is it that you seem interested in killing animals painlessly?

I'm not interested in killing animals at all, unless they are a threat to me and I have no other choice. Heck, I even try my best not to kill insects and annelids, despite the fact that they don't have brains and cannot suffer either way (again, unless they are a threat of some sort, like termites that taking out the infrastructure of my house). I'm just saying that if the purpose of vegetarianism is to ameliorate animal suffering, it isn't necessary. All you have to do is kill in a humane manner and not inflict pain on the animal while it is still alive. Heck, you can even try being a scavenger and only eat meat that has died from a non-human cause.

specifically, if you had the choice of buying your meat from a store that has 'compassionately killed' meat or the regular brutal stuff, what would you choose? (also, i am assuming that since you are interested in making the killing compassionate, you would also insist that the living conditions be humane as well.)

It's difficult to answer that question. No meat farming facility is supposed to inflict needless pain on the animals being farmed. It is difficult to research the operating habits of every company that one buys from. By the same token, I would prefer that the car I am buying does not contain parts that were manufactured by a worker that was mistreated by his boss. But the amount of research necessary to make sure no product I buy was ever produced or refined or shipped by a company that has either advertently or inadvertently promoted the suffering of a sentient being would be so daunting and time-consuming that conducting this research would keep me from ever buying anything. In this case, I would starve. How do I know that the vegetable farmer I am buying from doesn't use some of his profits to buy underage prostitutes? Granted, it's a bit of a stretch, but you can see what I'm getting at.

 

[loseyourname]

No. Arguments are critiqued through comparison with the real, experiment. We only share reality. I cannot share with you what is confined to your head.

I'm a seasoned debater and a large part of my major consists of logic and critical thinking classes. I know how to critique an argument. One method is by critiquing the form. I can do this either through formal analysis, which I do not generally get into outside of the logic forum, or I can do this by demonstrating an obvious false conclusion drawn from true premises in the same argument form. I can also demonstrate an inconsistency in your views that I think I have uncovered. All are abstract methods and are the proper methods of critiqueing an argument. If you had presented empirical evidence, then you would be right to say that I can only critique by an appeal to other pieces of empirical evidence. You did not.

I contend there is no worth to moral worth. I contend there is no worth to animal life. The only worth there is is the worth in not killing. All the worth is in the choice.

I contend that such worth is only in your head. You cannot empirically demonstrate the worth of something. You can either make a good argument, or (as you seem to be doing here) simply say it is so. The latter is not particularly convincing. Arguments from personal conviction rarely are.

If your sensibilities tell you to eat meat I don't understand that. Mine tell me not to. No one is right here. No one is in the wrong.

If I am not wrong, then why the heck are you in here telling all of us carnivores not to eat meat? If you consider it a purely personal decision dictated by conscience, then follow your conscience and I will follow reason (I don't consider my conscience to be generally reliable). My reasoning may be wrong, but since you're not using reasoning anyway, and seem to think reasoning is invalid, why bother criticizing my decision?

I accept that as a fair criticism. I only regret that I was asked a question and could find no softer way of answering. What does one call nonesense? Gibberish? Ignorant confusion? You see? It was the least offensive term my limited vocabulary could find. If you could suggest a better way of phrasing my answer I would appreciate the lesson.

How about you just don't make arguments unless you are willing to analyze them? The method of analysis by abstraction is common to the philosophy forums (in fact, it is common to all of philosophy). Maybe this isn't the place for you. If you think you have empirical evidence of the worth of an act, present it. If you have personal conviction, then fine; present that. Don't present an argument if you won't see a critique of it. Arguments in and of themselves are abstractions.

The question, "Should we eat meat?" can be better phrased, "What should we take from the world?" Eating is a kind of economic transaction with Nature. She has an abundance to give, more than any of us could ever use. What is it best for us to take from this abundance? As much as we can? Anything we like? That would seem to be the popular answer. Personally I think there must be a better solution for the long run.

Well, if you do rephrase it as such, then my answer becomes much the same as yours. I personally consider The Future of Life to be somewhat of a bible to me. The Sceptical Environmentalist, however, is my apocryphal gospels. I hold as axiomatic that nature does not hold such an abundance that we can afford to take all that we can and, as such, we should not simply take all that we can. It doesn't follow from that fact that I hold the act of ending the life of an organism to always be a morally wrong act.

 

[sheepdog]

morality versus life

I hold as axiomatic that nature does not hold such an abundance that we can afford to take all that we can and, as such, we should not simply take all that we can. It doesn't follow from that fact that I hold the act of ending the life of an organism to always be a morally wrong act.

I agree with both statements completely. Now you see how easy that was? All I had to do was find the words that suited you sufficiently and suddenly we have found something we may share, you and I, between us. I think we should take some pride in this moment.

My only request is that we drop the word "moral" and its relatives from the conversation. Just tell me what you think is a wrong act, without unnecessary qualifications. If an act is wrong it doesn't really matter whether it is wrong "morally" or "temporarily" or "relatively" or "transformationally" or whatever. It is wrong. That's good enough. Let's keep it simple. I can understand simple.

So now I'd like to ask you when it is wrong to end the life of an organism? But I fear your answer will be "when it is morally wrong". Let me suggest that what I'm looking for is concrete examples of a life that is wrongly ended, not more morality abstractions. And I'm sorry if I'm asking you to repeat what you have written in prior posts. It's a very long thread. A brief summary would be great, thanks.

I would also ask if it is "axiomatic" (is that the same as personal conviction? No, probably not) that "nature does not hold such an abundance that we cannot afford to take all that we can", what about "taking whatever we want" even if is not "all that we can". Where do your axioms land on that approach?

 

[selfAdjoint]

So now I'd like to ask you when it is wrong to end the life of an organism? But I fear your answer will be "when it is morally wrong". Let me suggest that what I'm looking for is concrete examples of a life that is wrongly ended, not more morality abstractions. And I'm sorry if I'm asking you to repeat what you have written in prior posts. It's a very long thread. A brief summary would be great, thanks.

Fine. Let's start with a normal two year old child, one that can walk and speak and express emotions - and say "No!" Ending that life deliberately would be wrong for me under almost any circumstances.

 

[sheepdog]

children

Fine. Let's start with a normal two year old child, one that can walk and speak and express emotions - and say "No!" Ending that life deliberately would be wrong for me under almost any circumstances.

Excellent! Since we met at the "What should we take from Nature?" question, let's say it would be wrong for you or me to take a healthy child from Nature for any reason. OK? Now what is it about the physical characteristics, what are the facts of this situation, that put this particular situation in the category of "wrong"? Is it that the child is two that makes it wrong? If she were three would it no longer be wrong? Is it that she can walk, speak and express emotions? What facts are you using to make the judgement?

And thank you for being so responsive.

 

[loseyourname]

I agree with both statements completely. Now you see how easy that was? All I had to do was find the words that suited you sufficiently and suddenly we have found something we may share, you and I, between us. I think we should take some pride in this moment.

I'm very proud of us, Sheepy.

My only request is that we drop the word "moral" and its relatives from the conversation. Just tell me what you think is a wrong act, without unnecessary qualifications. If an act is wrong it doesn't really matter whether it is wrong "morally" or "temporarily" or "relatively" or "transformationally" or whatever. It is wrong. That's good enough. Let's keep it simple. I can understand simple.

All right, I cannot agree to this. The word "wrong" has to be qualified. Saying that 2+2=7 is not wrong in the same way that it is wrong to beat your spouse. Each is wrong within a certain system that says what is wrong and what is right. The former example is wrong within a formal system of numerical arithmetic. The latter is wrong within my ethical system. Neither is wrong within the other system {Edit: Actually, this one is wrong under two systems - my personal ethics, and US law}. I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong; that is, wrong without reference to a certain system of right and wrong.

So now I'd like to ask you when it is wrong to end the life of an organism? But I fear your answer will be "when it is morally wrong".

Nope, but I will take your question as "When is it morally wrong to end the life of an organism?"

Let me suggest that what I'm looking for is concrete examples of a life that is wrongly ended, not more morality abstractions. And I'm sorry if I'm asking you to repeat what you have written in prior posts. It's a very long thread. A brief summary would be great, thanks.

First, I'll give some examples. Then I will give the abstraction - simply because I cannot give you an exhaustive list of wrong instances, but I can give you the set of circumstances under which the action is wrong.

Examples:

• The little girl buying ice cream that gets caught in gangwar crossfire.
• Death-row inmates.
• Laci Peterson.
• Dave in Mystic River.

Now the set of circumstances under which I will consider killing to be morally wrong:

• First off, the organism killed must have the right to not be killed. Whether or not I want to call this right "innate" isn't too important of a distinction to me. It seems difficult to say that any right is "innate." We have rights because we are given rights. I do think that we should give these rights; that is, it is the right thing to do. Still, I will shy from calling them "innate" or "self-evident" or anything like that.
• This right must not have been forfeited. Circumstance of forfeiture include: posing a direct threat to the life of an innocent person, being engaged in military conflict, etc.
• The killing must be intentional.

Everything now seems to hinge on what qualifies an organism to be given this right not to be killed. To be honest, I'm not entirely certain. Being a human that is not brain-dead obviously qualifies you. What would it take to qualify a non-human animal for this right? Consciousness, the ability to conceive of a self separate from its environment, the ability to recognize and fear death (not simply flee because of evolutionary programming), as well as other considerations. This is obviously anthropomorphic, it's the best I can do. I can't think of any better set of qualifications.

I would also ask if it is "axiomatic" (is that the same as personal conviction? No, probably not) that "nature does not hold such an abundance that we cannot afford to take all that we can", what about "taking whatever we want" even if is not "all that we can". Where do your axioms land on that approach?

It is a matter of personal conviction. Again, one cannot empirically demonstrate what something ought to be, only what it is. I think that nature ought to be preserved to a high degree of functional autonomy and biodiversity. There are good reasons to do this aside from my personal conviction, but they are all contingent upon being of benefit to humans, in which case we must hold on conviction alone that we ought to do that which is beneficial to our species.

"Taking whatever we want" is not the best way to go about it. The ecological consequences of the taking have to be considered. Nature exists in homeostasis that depends upon physical disequilibrium, chemical equilibrium, and biological interdependence. It is important to preserve these factors in order to preserve the integrity both of individual ecosystems and of the biosphere itself.

 

[learningphysics]

It is a matter of personal conviction. Again, one cannot empirically demonstrate what something ought to be, only what it is.

Is there ANY way to demonstrate what ought to be? If there isn't, then it appears that any discussion about morality is a waste of time.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Is there ANY way to demonstrate what ought to be? If there isn't, then it appears that any discussion about morality is a waste of time.

Moral philosophers try to present stories that appeal to our intuition to undergird their teachings. For example the "veil of ignorance" of Rawls. But Marxists, for example, regard all such stuff as just bourgeois posturing and "fetishism" (a term of art in marxism). And indeed it is not clear that such stories a culture-free.

 

[russ_watters]

Is there ANY way to demonstrate what ought to be? If there isn't, then it appears that any discussion about morality is a waste of time.

There are actually two questions here:

First, is morality absolute or relative? I believe it is absolue and I believe there are serious flaws in relativism, but in any case, you're right that if we can't come to an agreement on this point, further discussion is entirely useless: whatever I say is right for me is right for me - whatever you say is right for you is right for you - whatever SA says is right for him is right for him. End of discussion.

IMO, the basic flaw in this is where does it end? If morality is relative, how does anyone have any moral authority? Why can't a kid tell his dad its ok to smoke pot in his morality? Why can't a murderer tell his country that its ok to murder in his morality? Why can't a country tell the world its ok to wipe out an ethnic group in their morality? Just saying we have a contract (the Constitution and treaties) isn't enough: all of these things are based on larger moral principles.

Now, if we could agree that morality is absolute (even if only de facto - we signed a contract with the Constitution) and we must adhere to a specific code, the second question is: where does it come from/what does it say?

You can't really say its written in the Constitution because it isn't - a great many court cases require going beyond the explicit intent of the framers and exploring morality (polygamy). You could say its decreed by God, but that doesn't satisfy scientists and athiests. Still too arbitrary.

It is my view that morality, like physics, can be arrived at empierically. Science is largely predicated on the assumption that there are absolute laws that govern how the universe works and if we are smart enough we might find them (paraphrase, Hawking). But we can't really be sure God isn't just up there screwing with us. Now, it can be said that every successful experiment supports this assumption, and there is no evidence to the contrary - no reason to believe the God postulate - but it can't ever be proven absolutely. It is assumed like any other postulate.

So what about morality? Why can't we start with the same assumption (in my view, a reasonable assumption, but even if you don't buy it, try it anyway and see how it works) and attempt to find moral laws emperically?

How would we do this? Well, in many ways, game theory is the scientific study of morality: you set up various scenarios - various dilemas - and see what happens with different approaches to the problem. Obviously, this is more difficult on the big-scale, but the US has been called an expierment: why can't it be viewed that way?

One quick, apt example: murder. Two possibilities: either it's moral or it isn't. If its moral, it should be ok if everyone does it. My hypothesis is that murder is immoral and my prediction is that a societey predicated on murder will break down and fail. So we set up a society (even in a simulator - how about "The Sims: Morality"?) that encourages murder and see how it works. If the society fails as predicted, we have a piece of evidence to support the moral theory that murder is immoral.

Now, quite obviously, the problem with this is complexity. Human behavior is complex and moral dilemas quickly become extremely complex. But that isn't to say it can't be modeled mathematically, simulated, and predicted. With computers and chaos theory (not an expert in chaos theory), scientists have, in the last few decades, been able to model systems that previously were thought to be utterly random. Why not morality?

So, bringing us back to this thread, my argument would be that whether or not eating meat is immoral is something that can be observed, modeled, hypothesized, and theorized. That is how new moral dilemas should be approached.

 

[learningphysics]

One quick, apt example: murder. Two possibilities: either it's moral or it isn't. If its moral, it should be ok if everyone does it. My hypothesis is that murder is immoral and my prediction is that a societey predicated on murder will break down and fail. So we set up a society (even in a simulator - how about "The Sims: Morality"?) that encourages murder and see how it works. If the society fails as predicted, we have a piece of evidence to support the moral theory that murder is immoral.

How is the breaking down of society evidence that murder is immoral? Remember we have no morals yet, and are trying to determine the rules empirically... so you can't assume that breaking down of society is immoral...

 

[plusaf]

stomach acid and alkali?

Excellent post Sir.
(snipped)

In essence it says eat fruit on an empty stomach so as it can be quickly digested, and don't dump fruit on top of other foods as the stomach will have to secrete both acid and alkaline to digest differing chemical natures, thus neutralizing the stomach juices and forcing increasing amounts of secreted digestive juices which cost the body energy from it's limited daily energy budget and also prolonging the time taken to digest the stomach contents allowing for putrefaction of the protein and fermentation of any carbohydrates.

ah, help me with this, please? did human physiology change since i was a kid?
i learned that saliva was alkaline, breaking down some chemicals in some foods before they went on to the stomach, and the stomach's main chemical reaction was acidic, breaking down (i.e, digesting) the chemicals in foods that were best broken down by acids.

so, today, the stomach secretes both acid and base? makes a lot of those tv commercials look pretty silly, doesn't it?

i don't think so...
+af

 

[JonahHex]

What IS this thread about?

This thread is nothing more than a variation of the abortion debate. The veggies, like fundamentalist christians, know that they are soooo correct that they are justified in wanting to impose their view on everyone else, by law if necessary. The carnivorous, like the 'pro choice', are sufficiently concerned about appearing to be sensitive and politically correct that they are willing to argue with morons whose minds couldn't be changed by brain replacement.

Nature doesn't value life. People don't value life and the veggies don't value life. It is impossible to survive without killing. Generally speaking, carnivores are not prey for other carnivores. The 'natural order' of things is for carnivores to eat herbivores...vegitarians qualify as herbivores...no wonder they are so concerned.

After 75 pages now, perhaps this thread should address the morality of masturbating in public.

 

[plusaf]

rotgut!

(snip) If you want to eat dead, rotting flesh and have it sit around in your gut for days, weeks, even years . . . be my guest! One thing I can agree with Dan about is to work for more compassionate treatment of slaughter animals.

baloney!

will the vegans and vegetarians who keep claiming that stuff collects in the human digestive system PLEASE GET OFF IT!

it doesn't.

it takes a few days, maybe 3-4, for most food to get through the human digestive system, but it doesn't set up camp there for months!
+af

 

[Dissident Dan]

baloney!

will the vegans and vegetarians who keep claiming that stuff collects in the human digestive system PLEASE GET OFF IT!

it doesn't.

it takes a few days, maybe 3-4, for most food to get through the human digestive system, but it doesn't set up camp there for months!
+af

I'm not going to agree with Les that it will sit around for weeks or months, but a few days at internal body temperature is enough to make animal matter rot.

 

[learningphysics]

This thread is nothing more than a variation of the abortion debate. The veggies, like fundamentalist christians, know that they are soooo correct that they are justified in wanting to impose their view on everyone else, by law if necessary. The carnivorous, like the 'pro choice', are sufficiently concerned about appearing to be sensitive and politically correct that they are willing to argue with morons whose minds couldn't be changed by brain replacement.

Nature doesn't value life. People don't value life and the veggies don't value life. It is impossible to survive without killing. Generally speaking, carnivores are not prey for other carnivores. The 'natural order' of things is for carnivores to eat herbivores...vegitarians qualify as herbivores...no wonder they are so concerned.

After 75 pages now, perhaps this thread should address the morality of masturbating in public.

If the pro-meat eaters are pro-cannibalism, then there is no inconsistency in their position. If they are against cannibalism, then there's an inconsistency in their position that needs to be addressed.

 

[russ_watters]

How is the breaking down of society evidence that murder is immoral? Remember we have no morals yet, and are trying to determine the rules empirically... so you can't assume that breaking down of society is immoral...

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.

 

[russ_watters]

If the pro-meat eaters are pro-cannibalism, then there is no inconsistency in their position. If they are against cannibalism, then there's an inconsistency in their position that needs to be addressed.

Not at all - canibals eat humans. Animals aren't human. You're operating on the assumption that everyone already agrees that humans and animals are the same and deserve the same rights - if we agreed with that, we'd all already be vegitarians!

 

[learningphysics]

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.

Ah, but not everyone agrees with your basis for morality... My personal basis for morality is that moral actions lead to minimal pain and suffering...

 

[learningphysics]

Not at all - canibals eat humans. Animals aren't human. You're operating on the assumption that everyone already agrees that humans and animals are the same and deserve the same rights - if we agreed with that, we'd all already be vegitarians!

Ok. Why is it that humans have the right not be eaten, whereas other animals don't have that right?

 

[plusaf]

sure...

I'm not going to agree with Les that it will sit around for weeks or months, but a few days at internal body temperature is enough to make animal matter rot.

sure, outside a body, but not necessarily inside one!.

[illogical assertion.]

 

[plusaf]

russ...

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.

if you replaced "moral" with "useful" or "sensible", and nothing changed, what would be the value of the word "moral" in those statements?

i'd like to suggest several things:

1) "rights" are things that humans agree are "rights"; there ain't no other source: a "Supreme Being", the Constitution, John Locke, or what-or whoever... it's all by agreement. if humans assert that certain things are "rights" and a bunch of other humans agree to that, then those things are "rights."

2) if certain actions improve the "general welfare" and don't degrade it, those things might be called "useful" or "sensible", and some of the heat might be taken off the emotionally charged word, "moral."

there might be times that killing animals, and even people, is "sensible" and "a good idea", but arguing morality is about the same "usefulness" as arguing which religion is "correct."

futile.

:)

 

[sheepdog]

without the arbitrary

All right, I cannot agree to this. The word "wrong" has to be qualified. Saying that 2+2=7 is not wrong in the same way that it is wrong to beat your spouse. Each is wrong within a certain system that says what is wrong and what is right. The former example is wrong within a formal system of numerical arithmetic. The latter is wrong within my ethical system. Neither is wrong within the other system {Edit: Actually, this one is wrong under two systems - my personal ethics, and US law}. I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong; that is, wrong without reference to a certain system of right and wrong.

Yes, this gets right at the heart of the matter. Very nicely said.

I'd like to focus on your statement, "I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong." This has launched an excellent discussion of this issue. It is at the center of the problem.

First, just because you cannot conceive of something doesn't mean it isn't true.

It should also be very clear that any system you choose is arbitrary. And what is arbitrary has no physical meaning or significance. We may choose coordinates arbitrarily but the physical laws are not altered by the choice of coordinates. They are arbitrary, the physical laws are not.

So what you are telling me is that you are answering the question, "When is it wrong to kill?" arbitrarily. What you are saying is that you may select an answer as you please. Oh, sure. You have reasons. Everyone has reasons. The same with the question, "What can we take from Nature." Your answer is, "Anything we want. I'll just cook up a system to suit the circumstances." Of course it is couched in the "system" of morality, but it is obvious that that system, or any other system you may devise, is of your choosing and you may choose arbitrarily. You made this explicitly clear when you said you could not conceive of an absolute basis for wrongness. If not absolute then it is relative. Relative to what? Well, only you can decide that. Are we together on this?

Now just take a moment and look closely at the questions, "When is it wrong to kill?" and "What should we take from Nature?" They are the same question. And these are not questions anyone should be answering arbitrarily. We see around us all the time, throughout the world, the consequences of applying arbitrary answers to these questions, and the consequences are horrendous.

The Nazis arbitrarily decided they had a "right" to cleanse the world of inferiors. The Turkes arbitrarily decided they had a "right" to exterminate the Armenians. Over and over again we see, generation after generation, what results from this. And now you are telling me you too find the best you can do is choose some system and live by that, answer these fundamental questions with yet another arbitrary system of meaningless thought.

That just isn't good enough. What has been cannot continue to repeat itself in endless wars and deadly application of "rights". Whether you can conceive of it or not, whether it suits your systems or not, we can and will find a better way. One that is not arbitrary. One that is absolute. Physical laws govern whether it is or is not wrong to kill, not some arbitrary system you dream up. Physical laws determine what we should or should not take from Nature. russ_waters is perfectly correct in saying that it can be determined empirically. The only problem is that the experiments are one-time-only, non-reversible paths to the future, no refund, no returns. We have to make good choices of which experiment to execute. It will be the only one.

What you call morality is flexible and plyable. It can be adapted to whims of the moment because it is imaginary. Vegetarianism arises out of a consciousness that answers these questions without an intellectual system, in the absence of all arbitrary frames of reference. This is true morality. That morality cannot be separated from the bodies of the animals eaten, nor from the bodies eating them. They are the system of that morality. There is only one such system, and it is absolute.

 

[sheepdog]

amoral

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.

This is exactly, precisely, how the Nazis explained their morality. And by these standards they were right in the short run, and might have been correct in the long run if the Americans, British and Russians had not rained on their parade.

I put it to you russ_watters, that there is no basis for judging morality, except that basis which you, or I, or someone else chooses arbitrarily. And if it becomes moral just because a lot of people agree that that is what moral is, welcome to the Inquisition.

History has proven morality to be a very destructive concept. This is why a moral vegetarian is an oxymoron.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Sure, but there aren't many ethical theories that hold action categories, in and of themselves, to be good or bad. Most theories stipulate that actions be taken in context. The ending of a life is not always a good or bad thing. ... If this is the paradigm shift you are hoping for, so be it, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.

i don't think we need 'many ethical theories' to deal with whether killing is a good or bad thing. my statement had little to do along those lines:

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

do you really need an ethical theory to deal with this idea? do you need context? suffice it to say by not killing we do ourselves a benefit, generally (there may well be exceptions). i don't think most people like to kill - that's one reason they pay others to do that 'dirty work' for them.

I was explaining why I felt the appeal to analogy with anything having to do with Hitler is not generally a good idea. ... Either way, I am perfectly willing to address your arguments, regardless of what I may personally think of them.

good! in that case, i'll assume hitler will not cause us any further problems. (besides, i have genuinely enjoyed our exchanges).

To be honest, I didn't consider the possibility that you just consider the ending of any life to be a bad thing. That being the case, why the heck are you going to such great lengths to demonstrate secondary effects of meat consumption such as ecosystem degradation and animal suffering?

i don't really understand what you are saying here, but i'll try to answer anyway. i have not made any statement to the effect that 'the ending of any life is a bad thing' - (i'm not sure that it is - neither has AR). what i have said is that not killing can be a benefit to the one who doesn't kill, regardless of whether the being not being killed is deserving of not being killed. ecosystem degradation has nothing to do with killing, but is a consequence of the meat industry (as is animal suffering).

To specifically address your genocide analogy, I didn't like it because it is obvious that the actions of those who would defend genocide are morally bad because they are defending the killing of persons that had the right to not be killed.

it seems you've forgotten what the 'genocide analogy' was about or you simply ignored it because it contained the word 'hitler'. here it is again:

posted by you:
Demonstrate that the existence of the meat and dairy industry is more harmful than the abrupt ending of these industries (hint: since we don't know what will happen exactly, you can't do that).

response by me (post #996):
this is the old "we don't know what will happen so let's use that as a justification for what is happening" argument.
while it is true that you don't know just what will happen, we do know what won't happen and that's a pretty good starting point.
we didn't know what would happen if hitler hadn't been stopped, but it seemed a good idea to stop him so that the things he was doing to damage humanity didn't happen anymore.
as you can perhaps see this time round, the issue has nothing to do with genocide or hitler - it only has to do with the idea that we can take an action based on our wanting to stop what is happening - rather than getting all apathetically or otherwise worked up because we don't know what the consequences of our action might be.

I am just trying to conceive of the possible systems under which your claims might be true ... Either that or demonstrate an inconsistency between the system under which one claim of yours may be true and other claims you have made. It's not an uncommon technique.

i'm sure it is not uncommon, but there may be life beyond 'technique'.
in any case, which claim of mine are you talking about?

If it was the ecological consequences, then you would only advocate the amelioration of these consequences - by any means, not just by the ending of meat consumption. If it was about animal suffering, then you would only advocate the amelioration of animal suffereing - by any means, not just by the ending of meat consumption. If it is as you say, and you just think the ending of any life is a bad thing, period . . . then just argue that. Why confuse the matter?

what exactly is so confusing? if you end the meat industry you also eliminate the ecological destruction caused by the meat industry, the animal suffering caused by the meat industry, and you don't even have to get to those humane methods of killing you thought of because you don't have to do any killing on behalf of the meat industry.

I only discount ideas that are inconsistent with one another. I have nothing against any of your ideas by themselves.

so what is so inconsistent about the idea that if you end the meat industry you also eliminate the ecological destruction caused by the meat industry, the animal suffering caused by the meat industry, and you don't even have to get to those humane methods of killing you thought of because you don't have to do any killing on behalf of the meat industry.

It's expensive to break an animal's neck?

the idea in robbins' book was actually a bullet to the brain, but it is not done because of the added expense.

I'm just saying that if the purpose of vegetarianism is to ameliorate animal suffering, it isn't necessary. All you have to do is kill in a humane manner and not inflict pain on the animal while it is still alive. ... Heck, you can even try being a scavenger and only eat meat that has died from a non-human cause.

amelioration of animal suffering is certainly foremost in the minds of some vegetarians (usually the 'ethicals'). some (such as the leader of the hare krishna movement) even suggested that meaters let the animals die a natural death and then eat them. however, you can see why this (and your scavenging solution) really wouldn't do for nutritional and environmental veggies.

I'm not interested in killing animals at all, unless they are a threat to me and I have no other choice. Heck, I even try my best not to kill insects and annelids ...

well that's decent of you of course, but one should wonder why to see if there is an inconsistency here or not.

No meat farming facility is supposed to inflict needless pain on the animals being farmed.

well that's a nice thought, but you might want to check into some of the realities rather than simply uphold the idea that they aren't supposedto inflict needless pain on the animals being farmed. you might check sites like the ones derek1 has listed (there is shortage of them):

http://www.EggCruelty.com
http://www.MercyForAnimals.org/WeaverBros/overview.asp
http://www.MeetYourMeat.com

if you do so, perhaps you will not be so willing to simply argue in favor of 'humane killing' and actually take a closer look at the industry.

But the amount of research necessary to make sure no product I buy was ever produced or refined or shipped by a company that has either advertently or inadvertently promoted the suffering of a sentient being would be so daunting and time-consuming that conducting this research would keep me from ever buying anything.

come now loseyourname! is it really all that hard to do a bit of research? surely, it cannot take all that much time to find out about what happens in the industry when people have provided links for you (a lot of the research has already been done many, many times for anyone who cares to look). have you come to the conclusion that since you cannot do everything, you must do nothing?

How do I know that the vegetable farmer I am buying from doesn't use some of his profits to buy underage prostitutes? Granted, it's a bit of a stretch, but you can see what I'm getting at.

so do you want to keep stretching (with technique, of course LOL) or are you willing to do a bit of investigating? here's why i ask:

i am actually puzzled by an apparent 'inconsistency' in some of what you have said:

you don't seem to think that farm animals have rights, yet you want to kill them humanely. why is that?

you don't seem to think that there is anything wrong with killing a creature unless they have a right to life (your prime example being a human, for whatever reason), yet you (like some other meaters here) 'try your best' not to kill insects and annelids. why is that?

why is there such a determination to kill animals that 'taste good' (because they don't have rights in your view), yet such insistence to terminate those lives 'humanely' or in the case of the bugs (who knows what they taste like!), not to kill them at all.

do you feel that you yourself benefit by the act of not killing (even those that you do not grant your right to life)?
have you covertly granted these creatures rights (but don't want any of your friends to find out)?
or could it be that you are writhing in the throes of that paradigm shift?

 

[loseyourname]

Yes, this gets right at the heart of the matter. Very nicely said.

I'd like to focus on your statement, "I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong." This has launched an excellent discussion of this issue. It is at the center of the problem.

First, just because you cannot conceive of something doesn't mean it isn't true.

It should also be very clear that any system you choose is arbitrary. And what is arbitrary has no physical meaning or significance.

I think you're getting wrong idea. I just said the word "wrong" has to refer to some action of conclusion being wrong given a certain set of rulels that declare what is right and what is wrong (again, 2+2=7 is not wrong morally or legally, but it is wrong arithmetically). The rules need not be abitrary, and I don't think they are. In fact, I don't think the rules of ethics are any more abitrary than the rules of mathematics, just much more difficult to derive. The problem with ethics is that we don't have a method of logic like mathematics does by which we can resolve disputes like the one we have here. We mostly just have appeals to intuition. Because the intuition of two different people - the conscience you were talking about earlier - do not always agree, how do we make a decision? Your conscience tells you that eating meat is wrong, my conscience does not.

There is really no way to tell which conscience is correct in its assessment of the matter. Most ethical systems rely on an appeal to intuition, but a further appeal to intuition isn't going to help the matter. We can apply the categorical imperative, as Russ suggests. If everyone ate meat (and did so without excess and did so compassionately - which is what I've suggested), what would result? Even here I'm not sure we're going to reach an agreement. Obviously, the world will not be much affected. Living organisms have always used other living organisms as a source of food, so continuing that practice will not results in any dire harm. But since you are an absolutist in this matter, that won't make a difference to you. Whether dire consequences result or not matters little, because any act of killing is wrong, according to you. The only think I can ask is this: Why is it that you feel any act of killing is wrong? Did you arrive at the conclusion through some method of reasoning, or is it just another matter of conscience?

 

[physicsisphirst]

What you call morality is flexible and plyable. It can be adapted to whims of the moment because it is imaginary.

i think that is an interesting matter that you astutely reveal. it seems that there are some meaters who don't advocate cruelty (they won't even hurt a fly), yet they will defend their habit to the death!

it brings us back to dooga's question again (and again and again and again):

Even the majority of meat-eaters say cruelty to animals cannot be justified because of human pleasure, and if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat? (post #901)

i do think that it must require considerable flexibility and plyability (or straight-forward avoidance) to try to reconcile this issue. it seems there are 2 main approaches:

1) avoid the reality (don't look at links, don't find out what happens to the animals, deny that anything the otherside presents is true)
2) argue the argument (try to find or insist there are flaws in the otherside's reasoning even if it means fabricating the otherside's reasoning LOL)

if you work at 1), you are at an advantage for 2) (since actual information doesn't have to enter the picture).
if you put your effort into 2), you don't even need to bother about 1) because you can assume that you are dealing with people who are self-contradictory.

it becomes a game, but is somewhat unfortunate, imho.
as you wrote in post #1052:

Life is not just some stupid game, you know. This is for real.

and some would prefer not to know anything about the reality that others have to endure.

 

[physicsisphirst]

baloney!

will the vegans and vegetarians who keep claiming that stuff collects in the human digestive system PLEASE GET OFF IT!

it doesn't.

yes it does as does baloney.

 

[plusaf]

yes it does as does baloney.

LOL, prad!

i think the more accurate reference would be "sausage" than "baloney".

 

[physicsisphirst]

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.

while i tend to agree with what you said about absolute morality and empirical derivation, i don't see how what you have written here supports it.

certain societies that encouraged directed violence (within or without) were stable, safe, grew and prospered as a result of that violence (eg empires of the past sparta, rome, spain, nazi). are you maintaining that the stability (albeit temporary) is proof that they were moral?

 

[physicsisphirst]

LOL, prad!

i think the more accurate reference would be "sausage" than "baloney".

welcome to the thread plusaf!
i am taking the liberty to post some info below regarding meat putrification in the intestines (just in case anyone is interested and to serve as a break from the moral discussions which really are more appropriate here).

in friendship,
prad

Because it can take up to five days for meat to be digested, putrification is common and is the prime source of growth of undesirable bacteria, which are the forerunners to disease. A plant-based diet is eliminated from the body within a 24-hour period, thereby preventing any potential accumulation.
http://www.innvista.com/health/nutrition/diet/vmeat.htm

Although many references point to the fact that vegetarians are at a greater risk of pernicious anemia, meat eaters may be in more danger. Digesting meat can take up to five days to complete, which causes putrification because of the delay. During this time, more meat has been consumed; and harmful bacteria begin to proliferate, crowding out the "friendly" bacteria needed for the formation and absorption of nutrients, including B12. Even when enough B12 is consumed, this type of environment cannot provide for it to reach its intended destination.
http://www.innvista.com/health/ailments/anemias/pernanem.htm

Eliminating meat from your diet is likely to eliminate distress from your belly. I know a person who cured his chronic indigestion just by giving up pork. For another fellow, it was quitting hot dogs that helped the most. The dead muscles of a dead animal are not a boon to digestion. Meat contains zero fiber, clogging the pipes and literally decaying in your digestive tract.
http://www.doctoryourself.com/digestion.html

The human intestine is long and coiled, much like that of apes, cows, and horses. This configuration makes digestion slow, allowing time to break down and absorb the nutrients from plant food sources. The intestine of a carnivore, like a cat, is short, straight, and tubular. This allows for very rapid digestion of flesh and excretion of the remnants quickly before they putrefy (rot).
http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/030700pumeatinthehumandiet.htm

Carnivorous animals, including the lion, dog, wolf, cat, etc., have many unique characteristics which set them apart from all other members of the animal kingdom. They all possesses a very simple and short digestive system -- only three times the length of their bodies. This is because flesh decays very rapidly, and the products of this decay quickly poison the bloodstream if they remain too long in the body. So a short digestive tract was evolved for rapid expulsion of putrefactive bacteria from decomposing flesh, as well as stomachs with ten times as much hydrochloric acid as non-carnivorous animals (to digest fibrous tissue and bones).
http://www.jtcwd.com/vegie/plant_or_meat_eaters.html

Meat moves through the gastrointestinal system very slowly and in many cases undergoes putrification before leaving the body. This stagnant rotting flesh is high in toxins and these leach into the surrounding cells of the bowel wall.
http://essenes.net/whyv.html

 

[russ_watters]

I have a lot to respond to and I'll do that later, but for now, one thing brought up a few times:

certain societies that encouraged directed violence (within or without) were stable, safe, grew and prospered as a result of that violence (eg empires of the past sparta, rome, spain, nazi). are you maintaining that the stability (albeit temporary) is proof that they were moral? [emphasis added]

I think you just answered your own question with that logical contradiction.

Nazi Germany in particular was exceedingly unstable, and that was a direct result of Hitler's morality.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050110/full/050110-7.html

some wood for the fire, perhaps it was posted before but you'll forgive me not reading through 1100 posts

 

[Kurdt]

Picking up on an earlier point if humans have the right not to be eaten then tell the likes of the great white shark and the tiger and the crocodile and anything else that would have a go given a chance. We don't have the right we merely chose not to eat our own kind.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.

And why are stable, safe, growing, and prospering the criteria to use?

 

[sheepdog]

absolutely

I don't think the rules of ethics are any more abitrary than the rules of mathematics

The rules of mathematics are also arbitrary. I can direct you to the literature on this point. And the rules of ethics are, just as you say, equally as arbitrary. Every system is arbitrary. True morality is absolute.

Because the intuition of two different people - the conscience you were talking about earlier - do not always agree, how do we make a decision? Your conscience tells you that eating meat is wrong, my conscience does not.

I make the decision within the context of the absolute. How do you make the decision?

But since you are an absolutist in this matter, that won't make a difference to you. Whether dire consequences result or not matters little, because any act of killing is wrong, according to you. The only think I can ask is this: Why is it that you feel any act of killing is wrong? Did you arrive at the conclusion through some method of reasoning, or is it just another matter of conscience?

To feel that "any act of killing is wrong" is only one more system in an endless parade of systems. I reject that system and all other systems completely. There is no substitute for the absolute.

 

[loseyourname]

i don't think we need 'many ethical theories' to deal with whether killing is a good or bad thing. my statement had little to do along those lines:

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

do you really need an ethical theory to deal with this idea? do you need context? suffice it to say by not killing we do ourselves a benefit, generally (there may well be exceptions). i don't think most people like to kill - that's one reason they pay others to do that 'dirty work' for them.

Yes! God yes! How can you have moral actions without a system of morality? Telling me "suffice it to say" tells me nothing. Why is it of benefit to us not to kill? And what can we kill and not kill? Can I kill a weed that is destroying my garden? Can I kill a man that is pointing a gun at my daughter? Can I kill a bacterium that is making me sick? I don't think humans have any intrinsic squeamishness about killing at all, unless the thing they are killing acts like them. The more anthropomorphic, the less willing we are to kill them. That's exactly why people have no issues with swatting a fly, but they get outraged when certain cultures eat dogs.

If you don't think we need an ethical system to deal with whether or not killing is good, well fine for you! Without a system, how exactly is it that you determine what is good and what is bad? Again, if it is just intuition, what do you do when your intuition doesn't agree with mine?

i don't really understand what you are saying here, but i'll try to answer anyway. i have not made any statement to the effect that 'the ending of any life is a bad thing' - (i'm not sure that it is - neither has AR). what i have said is that not killing can be a benefit to the one who doesn't kill, regardless of whether the being not being killed is deserving of not being killed. ecosystem degradation has nothing to do with killing, but is a consequence of the meat industry (as is animal suffering).

If all you are going to say is "not killing can be a benefit to the one who doesn't kill," you aren't going to get far. I don't base my concept of what is right by what is of benefit to me. Killing can be of benefit, too. It is of quite a bit of benefit to the man who kills his wife for the insurance, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. So this gives you no basis by which to say that eating meat is the wrong thing to do. It might not be of benefit to some, it might be of benefit to others. It is certainly of benefit to Inuits and Eskimos that have little else to eat.

posted by you:
Demonstrate that the existence of the meat and dairy industry is more harmful than the abrupt ending of these industries (hint: since we don't know what will happen exactly, you can't do that).

response by me (post #996):
this is the old "we don't know what will happen so let's use that as a justification for what is happening" argument.
while it is true that you don't know just what will happen, we do know what won't happen and that's a pretty good starting point.

Ok, cut it off right here, because before you got into Hitler, you were getting at something. What won't happen? You never said what it is that you are trying to avoid. Is it animal suffering? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. Is it ecosystem destruction? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. The only possible issue with eating meat that can only be alleviated by not eating meat is the killing of the animals themselves. Do you see where I'm going yet again? This is only a problem if you grant animal rights or if you say that all killing of any kind is wrong. You continually say that you are not claiming either. So what is it that you are claiming?

so what is so inconsistent about the idea that if you end the meat industry you also eliminate the ecological destruction caused by the meat industry, the animal suffering caused by the meat industry, and you don't even have to get to those humane methods of killing you thought of because you don't have to do any killing on behalf of the meat industry.

It is inconsistent to say that you simply want to alleviate ecosystem destruction or animal suffering and then not accept a solution that does these things while leaving the practice of eating meat intact. When you do not accept solutions unless they include not eating meat, it becomes clear that neither the alleviation of ecosystem destruction nor of animal suffering is your real aim. Your aim is simply to end the eating of meat, but you've run out of reasons to do so. Granted, it is still one way to bring about the results that you say you want to bring about. That's fine. But what reason is there to prefer this solution over other solutions? If someone else solves the problem a different way, what reason do you have to say that what they are doing is wrong?

well that's a nice thought, but you might want to check into some of the realities rather than simply uphold the idea that they aren't supposedto inflict needless pain on the animals being farmed. you might check sites like the ones derek1 has listed (there is shortage of them):

I'm sorry, but none of this is necessary. To begin with, I've lived on farms and I've never seen any mistreatment. I don't doubt that it exists in some places, but I'll repeat what I said before. That is the case with any industry. Have you researched the activities of every seller of goods and services that you buy from to ensure that they do not contribute to the suffering of sentient beings? Finding them all out and boycotting them isn't a viable solution to me. I would rather promote and enforce existing laws and, should I find out that one particular company is guilty of infractions, then I will no longer buy from them. I'm certainly not going to boycott an entire industry. Decent farmers do not deserve to lose business because of the immoral actions of their competitors.

i am actually puzzled by an apparent 'inconsistency' in some of what you have said:

you don't seem to think that farm animals have rights, yet you want to kill them humanely. why is that?

I've said that I will recognize their right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly. I will not grant them the right to not be killed.

you don't seem to think that there is anything wrong with killing a creature unless they have a right to life (your prime example being a human, for whatever reason), yet you (like some other meaters here) 'try your best' not to kill insects and annelids. why is that?

I will not do it if there is no reason to do it. If they are in my way somehow (infesting my garden, eating the scraps from my floor, etc.) then I have no problem killing them. By the same token, if killing them will feed me and my family, then I will them. I just don't want to kill for no good reason.

why is there such a determination to kill animals that 'taste good' (because they don't have rights in your view), yet such insistence to terminate those lives 'humanely' or in the case of the bugs (who knows what they taste like!), not to kill them at all.

I have no problem with eating bugs, I just don't kill them for no reason. If you really need to ask why I would be more likely to kill an animal that can provide nourishment for me over one that cannot, I'm not sure why. I would think the answer is obvious.

do you feel that you yourself benefit by the act of not killing (even those that you do not grant your right to life)?
have you covertly granted these creatures rights (but don't want any of your friends to find out)?
or could it be that you are writhing in the throes of that paradigm shift?

Nope. In general, I don't do anything unless I have a good reason to do it. This doesn't just apply to the act of killing. If I have a reason to kill, I'll do it. I'm not opposed to the act itself.

 

[sheepdog]

systematic destruction

and some would prefer not to know anything about the reality that others have to endure.

It is a mentality that says, "I will live in my head, where I can make the world whatever I want it to be. My mental systems will be better and stronger than any systems ever devised. And there my systems will allow me to have from world whatever I want to have." Meat eating is but the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. All of Nature is drained and denuded to taters through the operation of these many, ceaseless mental systems. The waste and gross disrespect is stifling.

 

[russ_watters]

And why are stable, safe, growing, and prospering the criteria to use?

Because they all indicate the system "works." When Nazi Germany went down in flames, that's a "failure."

That said, you can set up any experiment in science to get any result you want - so I suppose if you want you could call instability, famine, and poverty your criteria and a system that "works" is one that causes these things. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It seems self-evident that not starving to death is, de facto, a good thing. Suffering is a bad thing (at least, I'd prefer not to suffer...). Similarly, it'd be pretty easy for me to successfully develop a model that doesn't accurately predict the orbits of the planets. But what would the point of that be?

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems trivially self-evident to me.


And I missed this before:

i don't think we need 'many ethical theories' to deal with whether killing is a good or bad thing. my statement had little to do along those lines:

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

do you really need an ethical theory to deal with this idea? do you need context? suffice it to say by not killing we do ourselves a benefit, generally (there may well be exceptions). i don't think most people like to kill - that's one reason they pay others to do that 'dirty work' for them.

OMG, I'm flabberghasted -- why do we need morality? I don't know what to say. Are you an anarchist? (but hey, at least it means you can't argue eating meat is immoral!)

In any case, the ethical theory tells you why an action is good. Otherwise, its just "I said so!" and anarchy is the result (and this discussion is pointless). An ethical code tells you what actions are good and unless you choose it arbitrarily (The Ten Commadments), why? is an important consideration.

 

[russ_watters]

Ah, but not everyone agrees with your basis for morality... My personal basis for morality is that moral actions lead to minimal pain and suffering...

Pain and suffering for whom? I didn't specify in my explanation, but morality was created by humans, for humans and as such serves humans, first and foremost. Even if you extened it evenly to the animal kingdom, you'd still have problems: like lions (brought up before, but never adequately dealt with). Like I said before, you have your work cut out for you, developing an entirely new moral theory/code that somehow allows lions to kill deer, but doesn't allow humans to.

Ok. Why is it that humans have the right not be eaten, whereas other animals don't have that right?

Whoever said that? Cannibalism is humans eating other humans. It is, in my view, perfectly acceptable for a lion to eat you. But if lions started eating (primarily) other lions, they'd hunt themselves into extinction. Similarly, cannibalism is detrimental to humans exactly because it is humans eating humans.

if you replaced "moral" with "useful" or "sensible", and nothing changed, what would be the value of the word "moral" in those statements?

Morality is the word who'se definition is "a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." When you take what is "useful" or "sensible" to make equations describing the motion of a cannon-ball, you get "physics." Similarly, when you take what is "useful" or "sensible" in the ideas of right and wrong conduct, you get "morals." Its simply the definition of the word.

1) "rights" are things that humans agree are "rights"; there ain't no other source: a "Supreme Being", the Constitution, John Locke, or what-or whoever... it's all by agreement. if humans assert that certain things are "rights" and a bunch of other humans agree to that, then those things are "rights."

But people don't always agree: what if I don't agree? How do we remedy that? Majority rule? Ever hear of "the Tyrany of the majority"...? No, morality must be predicated on something bigger and more fundamental than just a consensus.

2) if certain actions improve the "general welfare" and don't degrade it, those things might be called "useful" or "sensible", and some of the heat might be taken off the emotionally charged word, "moral."

There is no reason why the word needs to be emotionally charged. That's the definition of the word: that's what its for. Shall we call it "Bob" instead to remove this emotional content? (I've never heard anyone say that about the word "morality" before).

there might be times that killing animals, and even people, is "sensible" and "a good idea", but arguing morality is about the same "usefulness" as arguing which religion is "correct."

futile.

WHY? Maybe its due to what you are saying above: that morality is something just arbitrarily plucked out of the air. I can see the futility that would lead to, but can you see the anarchy that would lead to? It can't be that arbitrary. It just wouldn't "work."

I'd like to focus on your statement [loseyourname], "I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong." This has launched an excellent discussion of this issue. It is at the center of the problem

It is, indeed... and your discussion that follows is exactly correct. The highlights:

The Nazis arbitrarily decided they had a "right" to cleanse the world of inferiors. The Turkes arbitrarily decided they had a "right" to exterminate the Armenians. Over and over again we see, generation after generation, what results from this. And now you are telling me you too find the best you can do is choose some system and live by that, answer these fundamental questions with yet another arbitrary system of meaningless thought.

That just isn't good enough. [emphasis added]

That is exactly why moral relativism fails - why arbitrary morality is invalid.

What has been cannot continue to repeat itself in endless wars and deadly application of "rights". Whether you can conceive of it or not, whether it suits your systems or not, we can and will find a better way. One that is not arbitrary. One that is absolute. Physical laws govern whether it is or is not wrong to kill, not some arbitrary system you dream up. Physical laws determine what we should or should not take from Nature. russ_waters is perfectly correct in saying that it can be determined empirically. The only problem is that the experiments are one-time-only, non-reversible paths to the future, no refund, no returns. We have to make good choices of which experiment to execute. It will be the only one.

Yes, I only alluded to this before, but this is, indeed, the problem with empirical investigation of rights: the experiments are all practical ones. When they fail, they fail badly and millions of people die as a result. That said, I think that morality, like science, is progressing and things like the UN, Wilson's 14 points, and the Marshall Plan, the Geneva Conventions, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are evidence of it in international politics. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - its not just de facto universal, it says universal because its a delcaration that human rights are truly universal (this idea was first put into politics in the U.S. Declaration of Independence). They are not arbitrary (which does not imply they can't be debated).

What you call morality is flexible and plyable. It can be adapted to whims of the moment because it is imaginary. Vegetarianism arises out of a consciousness that answers these questions without an intellectual system, in the absence of all arbitrary frames of reference. This is true morality. That morality cannot be separated from the bodies of the animals eaten, nor from the bodies eating them. They are the system of that morality. There is only one such system, and it is absolute.

Now this part, I'm not sure I understand...

This is exactly, precisely, how the Nazis explained their morality. And by these standards they were right in the short run, and might have been correct in the long run if the Americans, British and Russians had not rained on their parade.

Considering how much we agreed on, I'm surprised you would say such a thing. But maybe its easily explainable - its historically inaccurate: Hitler's rule was chaotic from start to finish. It did not work and was not correct in any way, shape, or form. But even worse, Hitler's morality was not universal! It didn't apply to all humans, only his chosen few.

So not only did Hitler's theory fail, it wasn't even internally consistent.

I put it to you russ_watters, that there is no basis for judging morality, except that basis which you, or I, or someone else chooses arbitrarily. And if it becomes moral just because a lot of people agree that that is what moral is, welcome to the Inquisition.

History has proven morality to be a very destructive concept. This is why a moral vegetarian is an oxymoron.

Ok, its possible I misunderstood your earlier post: when you say all morality is arbitary, you're arguing against the very concept of morality? My take is that your argument is a good argument against arbitary morality, but not absolute morality or morality itself.

Arbitrary means without reason: morality based on what works has a reason and is therefore not arbitary.

it brings us back to dooga's question again (and again and again and again):

Even the majority of meat-eaters say cruelty to animals cannot be justified because of human pleasure, and if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat? (post #901)

i do think that it must require considerable flexibility and plyability (or straight-forward avoidance) to try to reconcile this issue. it seems there are 2 main approaches:

1) avoid the reality (don't look at links, don't find out what happens to the animals, deny that anything the otherside presents is true)
2) argue the argument (try to find or insist there are flaws in the otherside's reasoning even if it means fabricating the otherside's reasoning LOL)

Ever wonder how execution isn't considered cruel and unusual punishment and method of execution makes a difference? This question isn't as hard as you're making it out to be. Its quite simple, as a matter of fact: death and suffering are two different things (indeed, some people choose to die to avoid suffering). Which brings us to this:

Ok, cut it off right here, because before you got into Hitler, you were getting at something. What won't happen? You never said what it is that you are trying to avoid. Is it animal suffering? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. Is it ecosystem destruction? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. The only possible issue with eating meat that can only be alleviated by not eating meat is the killing of the animals themselves. Do you see where I'm going yet again? This is only a problem if you grant animal rights or if you say that all killing of any kind is wrong. You continually say that you are not claiming either. So what is it that you are claiming?

Yes! This is why so many vegitarian arguments are straw-men (even unintentional) - they utterly fail to grasp/address this point.

 

[Monique]

The waste and gross disrespect is stifling.

Oh yes it is. I recently became a vegetarian and the food has never tasted so good before. I find the food culture with giant sized portions of fast food meat a wastefull disrespect to the source of the meal.

To say that animal suffering does not occur is being naive. Not all cows and chicken and pigs grow up on an outdoor farm where they have the pleasure of grazing their own food and having some water from the pond. Instead they grow up in factories and have to endure long trips in trucks and what not. If they do I'd like to know which agency watches over the animal wellfare and that guarantees that the meat lying in the store comes from life-stock slaughted next to the pasture they grazed on.

 

[Monique]

You never said what it is that you are trying to avoid. Is it animal suffering? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. Is it ecosystem destruction? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. The only possible issue with eating meat that can only be alleviated by not eating meat is the killing of the animals themselves.

So, loseyourname, if you have not given up eating meat.. what are you doing to alleviate animal suffering and ecosystem destruction?

 

[selfAdjoint]

So, loseyourname, if you have not given up eating meat.. what are you doing to alleviate animal suffering and ecosystem destruction?

This is not about loseyourname, it's about the general principle of not eating meat. Loseyourname asserts that eating meat CAN be done without causing suffering to the animals (sedate them before killing them), and without causing ecosystem destruction (careful management can keep the abbatoirs away from the ecosystems; vegan hikers and picnikers and new home buyers are as much at fault for ecosystem destruction as meat eaters who do those same things). None of this depends on any particular action by loseyourname.

 

[learningphysics]

Pain and suffering for whom? I didn't specify in my explanation, but morality was created by humans, for humans and as such serves humans, first and foremost. Even if you extened it evenly to the animal kingdom, you'd still have problems: like lions (brought up before, but never adequately dealt with). Like I said before, you have your work cut out for you, developing an entirely new moral theory/code that somehow allows lions to kill deer, but doesn't allow humans to. Whoever said that? Cannibalism is humans eating other humans. It is, in my view, perfectly acceptable for a lion to eat you. But if lions started eating (primarily) other lions, they'd hunt themselves into extinction. Similarly, cannibalism is detrimental to humans exactly because it is humans eating humans.

I don't understand this. There are other species that eat their own, and they haven't become extinct. Humans could easily eat some of their own, and continue to reproduce keeping the species alive...

I never said lions were allowed to hunt deer. However, the analogy fails to hold anyway... Humans can live without eating meat, lions can't.

 

[learningphysics]

This is not about loseyourname, it's about the general principle of not eating meat. Loseyourname asserts that eating meat CAN be done without causing suffering to the animals (sedate them before killing them), and without causing ecosystem destruction (careful management can keep the abbatoirs away from the ecosystems; vegan hikers and picnikers and new home buyers are as much at fault for ecosystem destruction as meat eaters who do those same things). None of this depends on any particular action by loseyourname.

Yes, and eating of humans can be done without causing suffering to the humans.

 

[Alkatran]

I don't understand this. There are other species that eat their own, and they haven't become extinct. Humans could easily eat some of their own, and continue to reproduce keeping the species alive...

I never said lions were allowed to hunt deer. However, the analogy fails to hold anyway... Humans can live without eating meat, lions can't.

Ah but that's where you're wrong. Human society would fall apart if no one trusted anyone (which, guess what, is going to happen if we start to eat each other.)

If we started to eat each other we'd end up traveling back down the technological chain. Lions eating themselves isn't so much a problem because they're already that low on the chain.

The thing is: Do you really think humans are 'above' eating meat? Under what conditions would it be moral? (You and a puppy are stuck at the bottom of the well. If you eat the puppy you are rescued, if you don't you both die.)