Quote:
Originally Posted by aberkok
You compare the overcoming of biological imperatives to abstinence education, but that is a moral movement, not an ethical one. I think the concept of birth control is a better analog. Birth control is a situation where we can overcome our biological imperatives. Not the whole world at once, but when given the chance and education, one at a time.
|
Birth control isn't overcoming biological imperatives at all; in fact, it's the exact opposite. It's a tool we use to protect us from the consequences of giving in to those biological imperatives.
Quote:
|
The idea of monogamy may not be based on rigorous ethical conclusions, but it is another situation where we overcome our biological imperatives in order to meet societal standards.
|
Monogamy is also not overcoming a biological imperative because it is, in part, a biological imperative. As far as we know, humans are programmed to be serially monogamous and, lo and behold, that's exactly what most are.
Quote:
|
Oh... and saying it's wrong to eat someone's pet because it's property was a dodge. Would you eat your own pet?
|
Not meant to be a dodge at all. No, I wouldn't eat my own pet, but I've already said I really have no interest in trying to be ethically consistent in all things. I've tried, and I've decided it's simply not worth the necessary mental gymnastics and anguish. Life is a lot more pleasant when you focus on being proactive while also going with the flow. You assume a lack of consistency is a bad thing; I disagree. Unfortunately, I don't think there's really any way to move beyond that core disagreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
If you want to talk about imperatives and overrides, then consider why throughout our evolution that we depended on meat: food security. We have had a long history of killing animals for food with little problem on an ethical level because it was often "eat or die." It's much easier to accept the suffering of others if it is for the benefit, and especially survival, of one's family.
|
Come on now, we didn't kill animals out of self-defense. We
fled animals that tried to kill us, we
killed animals that we were stronger or smarter than. This topic does relate to our need to eat less meat - the hunt used to be nature's control so that we didn't go overboard on meat - but we definitely didn't eat meat simply because "oops, had to kill that poor animal, I guess we'll eat it." Meat was a luxury to be sure (and it should return to being a luxury), but it had nothing to do with self-defense.
Quote:
|
We have, however, come to a point in our evolution (by which I include social, scientific, and technological progress) where the consumption of meat is not required for survival. It has even come to a point for many where the consumption of meat (i.e. excessive) is harmful.
|
No disagreement there, but it doesn't change that we generally have a taste for meat. That some people have less taste for meat and can successfully become vegans doesn't negate the overall general taste for at least occasional meat that exists in the species as a whole.
Quote:
For many of us, we no longer need to eat meat. That's where we are right now. Our survival no longer depends on it. Because of that, we can decide either to a) continue eating it because it's so goddamn delicious and we don't care what has happened to the animal and its environment before its flesh reached our plates, or b) stop eating it because of the suffering the animal goes through and the impact on the planet to produce such food.
I may have oversimplified it, but we have that choice.
|
But you did oversimplify it, because there's c) reform our food production system so that animals are treated better before being killed - because it's better for them
and for us - and allow the monetary price of meat to reflect its true cost so that we naturally reduce meat consumption in our day-to-day diet. It's really very important to include option c, because if the argument is simplified to options a and b... you're going to be disappointed that a
ton of your fellow humans would rather pick a, and those people aren't going away any time soon (or ever).
Case in point: I'm pretty sure I'm more aware and concerned about these issues than your average person and around 50% of my friends are vegetarian or vegan, and I still have no interest in giving up meat completely. If you can't convince me to go vegetarian (let alone vegan), then you're never going to convince Joe Blow in Kansas.