Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[ranjana]

Wow, Sangeeta ! Excellent post!

in peace
Ranjana

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

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

 

[OneEye]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[OneEye]

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

All right. Here is where we stand so far:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[learningphysics]

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that these two statements are in contradiction:

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

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

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

 

[physicsisphirst]

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

not everyone ;)

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

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

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


in friendship,
prad


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


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


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


so if it is the latter your syllogism reads:

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

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


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

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

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

 

[physicsisphirst]

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

sangeeta,

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

great post too, btw.


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

in friendship,
prad

 

[OneEye]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[OneEye]

Just wanted to put this latest proposition up front:

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

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

 

[physicsisphirst]

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

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

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

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

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

So, they are actually attacking the second premiss -

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

in friendship,
prad

 

[OneEye]

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

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

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

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

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

A parallel version of your treatment would be:

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

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

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

(INVALID)​

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

(TAUTOLOGY - COGENT)​

Try your treatment on the classic:

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

You will see that you get the same results.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is completely consistent with what I am saying.

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

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

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

 

[physicsisphirst]

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

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

let's look at what you wrote here:


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


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

now look at this:

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

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


or look similarly

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

there is no cogency.


however, if we change it to

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in friendship,
prad

 

[OneEye]

just what do you mean by "an animal"?

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

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

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

Given my clarification, I restate:

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

How do you reply to this?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

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

 

[physicsisphirst]

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

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

How do you reply to this?

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dissident Dan]

Quick question:

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

 

[learningphysics]

Quick question:

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

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

 

[OneEye]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[OneEye]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[learningphysics]

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

 

[OneEye]

Quick question:

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

(If I take your meaning correctly:)

This is, indeed, a very good point - and one which must be factored into any such discussion: One is obliged to act morally regardless whether the object of the action is a moral agent or not. I am not suggesting that one may treat an amoral object in immoral ways.

The question comes down to defining moral actions, specifically (in this case) with regard to human relations with other creatures.

However, the nature of the other ("object") creature does, indeed, impact this equation. For instance, a human is morally at liberty to act toward the dysentery amoeba or the tapeworm in ways which we might consider immoral when directed at, say, another human. And we all agree that humans may act toward nonsentient lives (e.g., plants) in ways which would be wrong when applied to humans. So, it is apparent that the nature of the object creature has a great impact on what we define as moral behavior when humans relate with non-human creatures.

The real struggle will come when we try to determine whose moral rules to apply in our interspecies relations - and why. It is well-observed that many animals eat other animals, and most of us agree that this is "their business". So in the broadest sense, nature offers us no direct guidance as to whether one animal eating another is moral or not - and the more one blurs the line between humanity and other animals, the less clear it becomes as to why man should abstain from an altogether natural practice.

One can say, (as you imply,) "Man should not treat animals according to any value system other than the human value system" - but problems arise when one considers this view (it seems somewhat arbitrary and "speciesist"), and even if we accept this statement uncritically, it still remains to be seen what is the "human value system" when it comes to human treatment of animals. It is apparent that humans have eaten animals for time immemorial. Why the human value system which prohibits the killing and eating of members of other species is to be preferred over the human value system which embraces an omnivorous or carnivorous diet remains to be seen.

So yes, this is an excellent clarifier. But unfortunately, it does not answer the question - nor does it take us as far down the road to answering it as it might first seem to.

 

[OneEye]

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

Very sorry. I didn't realize that it was on my plate! This, I assume, is what you want me to respond to:

"There is no fundamental difference between the natural rights of humans and other animals".

I suppose that this statement is one of the clearest demonstrators of the contradiction I have been touting:

1. "There is no fundamental difference between the natural rights of humans and other animals."
2. Omnivorous and carnivorous animals have the natural right to eat other animals.
3. Humans are omnivorous animals.
   ------------------------------------------------------------
4. Humans have the natural right to eat other animals.

I realize that you were trying to evade the man/animal dichotomy issue by this position statement. However, it turns out that avoiding the man/animal dichotomy completely disarms the animal rights position. Man's fundamental obligation to abstain from his natural and traditional diet must be based in the man/animal dichotomy.

I hope that I dealt with your position thoroughly.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Never in my wildest dreams ...

just as long you and i have reached a mutual understanding about certain things, I'm happy to move on ;)

the "vegetarianism is healthier" view is almost always a Trojan horse for ethical vegetarianism.

this is a silly notion sometimes held by both anti-veg and anti-AR folk. the 'healthier than thou' veggies are by no means necessarily 'holier than thou' - they may wear leather and fur, may advocate animal research and circuses, and may detest AR as much as anyone. they are usually pretty right on about the benefits of veg though because they often research it quite extensively. interestingly enough, it should not be assumed that all AR activists are veg either, cause they ain't!

i think it's important to recognize that there are a lot of different people out there with different degrees of tolerances doing different things.

it turns out that avoiding the man/animal dichotomy completely disarms the animal rights position. Man's fundamental obligation to abstain from his natural and traditional diet must be based in the man/animal dichotomy.

it doesn't disarm the AR position at all - you are assuming that humans are the only ones capable of niceness on the planet. you also assume that eating meat is human's natural and traditional diet.

in friendship,
prad

 

[learningphysics]

Very sorry. I didn't realize that it was on my plate! This, I assume, is what you want me to respond to:

I suppose that this statement is one of the clearest demonstrators of the contradiction I have been touting:

1. "There is no fundamental difference between the natural rights of humans and other animals."
2. Omnivorous and carnivorous animals have the natural right to eat other animals.
3. Humans are omnivorous animals.
   ------------------------------------------------------------
4. Humans have the natural right to eat other animals.

I realize that you were trying to evade the man/animal dichotomy issue by this position statement. However, it turns out that avoiding the man/animal dichotomy completely disarms the animal rights position. Man's fundamental obligation to abstain from his natural and traditional diet must be based in the man/animal dichotomy.

I hope that I dealt with your position thoroughly.

Not really. Now we have a problem the definition of natural rights... By natural rights, I'm simply referring to the right to happiness, the right to be free of pain, the right to survive... I'd never call the right to eat meat a natural right... for humans or animals. And neither would any animals rights rep...

"Humans can survive without meat therefore, they don't have the right to eat meat."

"Some animals can't survive without meat, therefore they have the right to eat meat."

The above two statements would be more in line with the animal rights position.

Did you see Dissident Dan's post? Natural rights are the most basic of rights and stem from foundations of ethics... ie:to be free of pain, to be happy etc...

 

[Bin Qasim]

People who want to be vegans are fine with me. I don't bother them, and I expect them not to bother me.

same thing... I won't bother them too... btw I am non veg

 

[Be Happy!]

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

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

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

Hi Russ!

I must say that I disagree with you. Morality applies when there are moral agents. Now, I will be the first to admit that non-human animals DO exhibit moral behaviors such as altruism, but just as you can't hold a small child responsible for their actions generally speaking (at least not in the same sense that you can hold an adult) one can't hold a non-human animal responsible for their actions.

If a pig killed a human, do we put the pig on trial? No! They may be capable of moral behavior to a certain degree, but certainly are not capable of thinking out morality in the same way as we do. (at least not as far as we know!)

A famous judge once said, “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” Just because I can do something immoral to you, doesn’t mean that it negates your rights.
I certainly have a “right to life” but if a small child accidentally pulled a trigger and took away my life, the child’s inability to act/understand the consequences of her moral actions doesn’t negate my right to life. Just because my “right” has been violated, by the child’s actions doesn’t mean that child acted immorally as children are incapable of the same understanding and ability for moral fortitude…similarly you can’t hold a cougar responsible for his actions. This is a sound philosophical argument.

If the purpose of this discussion is to use the -it’s ok for an non-human animal to eat meat, therefore it is ok for a human animal to eat meat rationale, then I think it is a completely illogical parallel to make when you bring real life situations into the discussion. As I wrote before…a non-human animal in the wild eats meat for need, and there is no way to compare a wild lion’s eating habits to that of a human living in an apartment driving to go buy a carcass nicely wrapped in cellophane at the local grocery store.

So in this situation for example, non-human animals can’t be held morally accountable based on what I stated in the earlier post, but also due to their situation. The human’s situation is very very different, and if we are to try and draw philosophical parallels between the 2 scenarios in order to justify eating meat in general, then I think it is a very weak attempt.

So getting to your point now…

Various philosophical ideologies within the animal rights movement would have different ways of responding to your question. The ideology that I am most familiar with is utilitarianism. In utilitarianism, the idea is to minimize the overall suffering in the world. Yes, suffering no matter where or how, is bad…but what we can do to reduce it is what is the issue at hand.

**If a decision reduces overall suffering it is a moral decision… Again the label “moral” is ascribed for moral agents i.e. humans, but not non-human animals. If you pick up the animals rights “bible” Animal Liberation by Peter Singer (the foremost utilitarian philosopher), you will never see him calling a non-human animal’s actions moral or immoral because a) moral judgments can only be ascribed to moral agents and b) it is irrelevant to the ethical decisions made by humans.

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

The whole concept of rights is a bit complicated. To say someone (a human or non-human animal) has a right, implies that the right can be enforced. I believe the concept of rights is most useful when it can be enforced by a group of individuals such as a government, a moral community, individual actions, etc. However, the real world is not always ideal. Therefore sometimes, we will say someone has a right, but it will not always be possible for everyone's rights to be fulfilled (at least not in the current world we live in).

You say the right to life "protects the deer from being killed." What I'm wondering is who is going to protect the deer from being killed by a lion? Are we to have people hiding in the woods at all times in order to stop deer from being eaten? Of course not! It is not practical that we do that, what is practical is to figure out what we can do in our own lives to reduce suffering in the world.

From the deer’s perspective of course she’d rather not be killed. She has a family, desire to live etc. But practically speaking all we can do when defining morality is to base it on the species we know best- ourselves. It does us no good to around condemning lions, it’s much more productive to look at our actions as it is much more relevant to us.

I am sure you do not draw you morality by the behavior of non-human animals, so why are you trying to do it here just to justify eating meat? If your argument stands, then it would be alright to do a lot of horrific things just because other non-human animals do it… non-human animals kill each other barbarically over territory- does this make gang warfare moral? Lioness’ have been known to eat their own babies, so does this make infanticide moral? Of course not! So, just because this argument seems to be a convenient excuse to justify eating meat, it does not make it a sound philosophical argument.

I think the point of ethics is not just to muse about things of interest, but they also serve to guide us into making decisions as to what we are to do and how we are to live in our lives. To reiterate, the most important thing we can do is to look at what we can do with our lives to reduce suffering in this world. This is what the prophets and saints throughout history have echoed for eons. We must change the world for the better with our lives, with our actions…Vegetarianism not only reduces suffering, it helps makes the planet a cleaner place for future generations and it helps humanity to be healthier. No matter how you look at it, vegetarianism is the moral answer for many of the atrocities of our times.


Sangeeta

 

[shrumeo]

well if your dog's diet is only meat-based then obviously there are things other than meat in it. hence, he really can't be allergic to these other things as you are trying to claim.

He can't have corn or wheat. These things make his skin flare up. He's allergic to them. He can have other grains like rice in his food, but he can't have wheat or corn.

Here's a vegetarian dog food. I'm sure a dog can do fine on it.
http://www.petsmart.com/global/prod...older_id=2534374302032929&bmUID=1102914506869
But, it's got vitamin supplements in it. I was looking at it the last time I was at Petsmart. It's got vitamin B12, which must be manufactured unless you get it naturally from an animal source (can't think of a plant source). There are sure to be a few more vitamins that must be manufactured or gotten from animal sources.

what a strange indicator of health! if you put some kids in front of an apple and candy, they may choose the candy first. i presume you weren't seriously expecting an answer to the question you asked though.

Yes, and kids also have that strange instinct of chasing animals smaller than them. It's what's meant to be. Dogs eat meat and should. You didn't think I'd take your lame kid and candy analogy seriously did you?

it is evident that you have not looked and refuse to look at the realities here. dogs do extremely well on veg diets and their coat and teeth flourish.

Only when they contain vitamin supplements that have been artificially manufactured or extracted from animal sources.


I don't know if anyone on this board has seen these:
http://www.themeatrix.com/
http://www.eatwellguide.org/
http://www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/map.htm
http://www.sustainabletable.org/intro/

 

[shrumeo]

I never liked Aristotle.

I would compare him to Sigmund Freud.

And here is a website I came across, thought I would share.

http://ooze.com/pweeta/
http://ooze.com/pweeta/meat_movie.html (quicktime)

 

[physicsisphirst]

Here's a vegetarian dog food. I'm sure a dog can do fine on it.

ya we tried the nature's recipe initially, but our dogs liked the natural life and the evolution more.

It's got vitamin B12, which must be manufactured unless you get it naturally from an animal source (can't think of a plant source).

some 'reliable' b12 plant sources (depending on who you talk to): Red Star T-6635+ nutritional yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), tempeh and miso (though some claim these contain only b12 analogues that interfere with b12 absorption), and sea vegetables (blue-green algae too), many organically grown plants (but in extremely small amounts).

Yes, and kids also have that strange instinct of chasing animals smaller than them. It's what's meant to be. Dogs eat meat and should. You didn't think I'd take your lame kid and candy analogy seriously did you?

well, you could try a little bit harder you know :D
kids actually tend to cuddle smaller animals not chase them - unless they see adults demonstrating or ratifying abusive behaviours.
dogs don't need to eat meat and are probably healthier for it (as many people have found once they actually try the alternative).

Only when they contain vitamin supplements that have been artificially manufactured or extracted from animal sources.

well I'm not suggesting that they be fed an iceberg lettuce diet, you know LOL
take a look at the meat-based dog food - you will find that they are supplemented too - and even include the goodies that's in agri-meat (the hormones, drugs, bacteria etc) as well as cat and dog parts (and more!):

Consider one word found on most pet food labels: by-products. Hundreds of rendering plants (known as the silent industry) produce over 8 billion tons each year containing:
Carcasses of pets (some with flea collars and containing sodium pentobarbital used for euthanasia).
Diseased livestock, some still wearing plastic ID tags, and filled with unwanted insecticides and pharmaceuticals.
Rotting supermarket rejects including plastic and Styrofoam packaging.
http://vegepet.com/

well, at least it would provide a diet with a remarkably wide variety

in friendship,
prad

 

[JPD]

I thought I should ramble for a bit - I hope you don't mind.

I don't think that humans have 'rights'. There are, of course, many definitions of rights in this sense but the one I am looking at states that a right is 'a power, privilege, etc. that a person has or gets by law, nature, tradition, etc [the right of free speech]. The law often arrives too late, nature will provide if you are in the right environment at the right time, and as for tradition, well...it is probably best not to place too much reliance there.

As far as feeding the dog is concerned, try letting the dog decide. Place a couple of bowls in front of him or her - one meat and one vegetarian - and see what happens. A dog may eat until it vomits but this is no worse than the behaviour of aristocrats from past centuries tucking into n to the power x course feasts.

There may be no actual answer to whether humans should eat meat but does it really matter? Those individuals who do will continue to do so, those who don't will continue not to (until they tuck into a plate of beef 10 years down the line because they can't stand it any longer), and so we are all happy. Especially when I see a vegetarian with meat juices dribbling down his/her chin.