Eating meat & experimenting on animals is wrong. - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Incosian · 02-08-2005, 07:42 PM

Interesting thread.

Quote:

2. Animals aren't intelligent like we are/Animals aren't capable of reason.

According to Aristotle, animals are NOT capable of reason because they do not have a soul, which is unique to humans...We, as humans, DO have a soul, and thus can act in accordance with reason. So that is a major difference between homo sapiens and other mammals.

Also, young infants, by the pure definition of it, do possess intelligence. Just because they cannot speak or move around easily does not mean tthey do not have the capacity to acquire knowledge.

Furthermore, the function of animals in the world is to simply to survive, unlike humans who have the added responsibility of living a moral life (we can have morals because of our soul and ability to reason). Thus, as part of the natural course of events, animals will be consumed by those on a higher level in the food chain. It is not immoral to participate in the natural order of the world.

To bring in another philosopher, according to Kant, it is not immoral to eat animals. This is because the concept of animal consumption can be applied as a universal law of nature, without destroying the concept in the process (e.g. most people with access to it consume animal meat in the world).

/runs away

shakran · 02-08-2005, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incosian

Interesting thread.

According to Aristotle

Let me get this straight. You are basing your argument on the opinion of a man who lived 2384 years ago and who believed the universe was 55 concentric crystal spheres with the earth at its center?

No offense, but this guy isn't exactly Dr. Science. I don't think I'd base my ideas on animal intelligence on someone who not only lacked expertise in so many things, but who insisted on believing in the infallibility of his thoughts despite evidence to the contrary

Besides, how does he know animals don't have a soul? How does he know humans do?

Bah.

Incosian · 02-08-2005, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Let me get this straight. You are basing your argument on the opinion of a man who lived 2384 years ago and who believed the universe was 55 concentric crystal spheres with the earth at its center?

No offense, but this guy isn't exactly Dr. Science. I don't think I'd base my ideas on animal intelligence on someone who not only lacked expertise in so many things, but who insisted on believing in the infallibility of his thoughts despite evidence to the contrary

Besides, how does he know animals don't have a soul? How does he know humans do?

Bah.

soul Audio pronunciation of "soul" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sl)
n.

1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

Link:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=soul

Yes, it is true that he lived over two thousand years ago and incorrectly interpreted the geography of the universe. However, this discussion is not about the galaxy...it is about human philosophy.

That being said, the fact that Aristotle's perception of the soul exists in the very DEFINITION of the modern sense of the term suggests his lasting appeal, so to speak.

A soul is DEFINED as a human trait...and this is based off of Aristotle's phislosophical views. Much of his most important work has stood the test of time, and his view of the geography of the universe, although now known to be inaccurate and scientifically proven incorrect, was quite advanced at the time. On the other hand, his philosophy about human knowledge and morality still remains an important element in discussing those issues.

Out.

squirrelyburt · 02-08-2005, 09:11 PM

I'm not seeing the parallel between racism and eating meat....protein is necessary for survival, racism is not acceptable in modern society.
I do not agree with experimenting or causing an animal to suffer, but I do eat meat. I far prefer wild game, and usually kill what I eat. It is my goal to make the kill as quickly and cleanly as possible, to minimize any suffering to the animal. This is my responsibility and a matter of honor to keep my skills honed to make this happen.

shakran · 02-08-2005, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incosian

soul Audio pronunciation of "soul" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sl)
n.

1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.

Link:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=soul

Yes, it is true that he lived over two thousand years ago and incorrectly interpreted the geography of the universe. However, this discussion is not about the galaxy...it is about human philosophy.

That being said, the fact that Aristotle's perception of the soul exists in the very DEFINITION of the modern sense of the term suggests his lasting appeal, so to speak.

A soul is DEFINED as a human trait...and this is based off of Aristotle's phislosophical views. Much of his most important work has stood the test of time, and his view of the geography of the universe, although now known to be inaccurate and scientifically proven incorrect, was quite advanced at the time. On the other hand, his philosophy about human knowledge and morality still remains an important element in discussing those issues.

Out.

Well here we go. Prove the existance of a soul before you continue your argument.

Hint: Only verified sources count (the bible is not a verified source, and the dictionary defines words, it does not verify facts)

Sweetpea · 02-08-2005, 09:38 PM

This is a very interesting thread. Alot of divserse opinions here.

"If slaughter houses were made of glass, no one would eat meat"

My take on eating meat is:

I only eat what i know i can kill . . .

Hence, i only eat chicken and fish.

adding to the fact that i don't agree with the slaughter methods used for beef and pork . . .

That's my choice. I don't lecture people or anything . . . just my own personal opinion.

Thanks,

Sweetpea

Sweetpea · 02-08-2005, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incosian

Interesting thread.

According to Aristotle, animals are NOT capable of reason because they do not have a soul, which is unique to humans...We, as humans, DO have a soul, and thus can act in accordance with reason. So that is a major difference between homo sapiens and other mammals.
/runs away

Aristotle was full of bullshit on this one . . .

animals ARE capable of reason and they DO have souls, feelings, emotions.

Humans think we are so superior . . . we are such idiots for thinking this.

How can humans be superior when we are stupidly using all the resources on the planet at a rate of consumption that cannot sustain our global population? And we're the most "intelligent" beings on this Earth . . . i think not.

peace,
Sweetpea

C4 Diesel · 02-08-2005, 10:17 PM

I think part of the issue here (a similar issue that I find in many debates) is that morality is subjective. Being subjective, it is subject to taking on a sort of "collective truth". Killing people is immoral because a significant majority of society has deemed it to be so, and society has upheld that belief for a significant amount of time, giving the subjective moral issue a seemingly objective component of "truth". It can not be stated in a similarly quasi-objective manner that eating meat is immoral, because that is not the accepted viewpoint of society. Eating meat is fine and perfectly moral because we say it is, and have had that consistent viewpoint for a very, very long time with only a few, minor exceptions throughout history.

Following a similar logical pathway, we see that inflicting damage to other animals is seen to be quasi-objectively "immoral" (although this has generally only been applied to vertebrates - very few cringe when you kill a snail). Now we have two "truths" that are in direct conflict. Killing and eating animals is okay, but harming animals is not okay. Being that killing animals for food has been moral longer than harming animals has been immoral (by societal standards), eating animals wins the moral battle and remains an acceptable practice.

Yakk · 02-09-2005, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incosian

That being said, the fact that Aristotle's perception of the soul exists in the very DEFINITION of the modern sense of the term suggests his lasting appeal, so to speak.

A soul is DEFINED as a human trait...and this is based off of Aristotle's phislosophical views. Much of his most important work has stood the test of time, and his view of the geography of the universe, although now known to be inaccurate and scientifically proven incorrect, was quite advanced at the time. On the other hand, his philosophy about human knowledge and morality still remains an important element in discussing those issues.

In which case, saying "animals can be eaten because they do not have a soul" is the same as saying "animals can be eaten because they are not human".

The word "soul" in the sentance becomes nothing but obfuscation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

How can humans be superior when we are stupidly using all the resources on the planet at a rate of consumption that cannot sustain our global population? And we're the most "intelligent" beings on this Earth . . . i think not.

Most (or at least many) animals do the same thing, given the opportunity. The difference is, humans are better at it.

CSflim · 02-09-2005, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

cs...the whole reason why we confront racism is that it is in fact not true that one race is supirior to another as social, spiritual, moral beings.

To apply the same reasoning to beings that cannot possibly understand nor recriprocate the favor...is to demean the very impetus that lead to anti-racist movements.

So reciprocation is what makes something right? We have no moral responsibilities towards those who can not re-pay us at a later date?

Quote:

aslo...what the hell are you going to do with all these animals? they aren't natural at all...and turning them loose would be an act of mass cruelty. The final chapter of animal captivity would have to be a mass slaughter, and probably the elimination of some species that could not live in the wild.

It would not have to be a mass slaughter. Return to the wild those who we can reasonably expect to survive. Those who we have rendered unable to fend for themselves due to generations of artificial selection, we can allow them to live out the rest of their lives. Or we can perhaps justify eating them, as a means to achieve the end of widespread suffering.

CSflim · 02-09-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossnass

I have to admit that I am a specisist. There is simply not enough evidence to treat other species with more "equality". One of your preemptive arguments relies on intelligence and the ability to reason, based on the statement that infants aren't intelligent. However, intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, which human infants have in great amounts. There is no evidence that any of the food staple species are actually intelligent. While animals may be sentient, there is also no evidence of a conscience or any real self awareness.

Further, regarding the mentally retarded. The fact that we, as a society, show a social conscience strong enough to support people with disablities proves that there are real distictions between humans and other species. I am not claiming that humans have never committed acts contrary to our current social conscience, but I am arguing that our food source speicies have never shown the capacity to do so. Having a social conscience is a result of having an individual conscience, which is in turn the result of being intelligent. Thus, this species distinction is not arbitrary. Further, it has been stated that other animals, such as lions, are not capable of morality. It follows that species incapable of morality should be distingished from those that are moral, as illustrated by the penal system. I am not proposing we eat or test on criminals, I am suggesting that the ability to have morals is another real distinction between humans and other species.

I accept that there are many ways you could come up with the differentiate between humans and other animals. For instance humans are the only animal that have the property of 'being a featherless biped'. My question is how you go from the assertion of
"humans and animals have difference X"
to
"therefore humans have no moral responsibility to humans"

You suggest that we should not experiment on, or eat criminal. My question is: Why not?

Quote:

To extrapolate this into another current issue: I support to same sex marriage, I support differnt sex marriage, I support inter-faith marriage, and I support inter-racial marriage. However, I don't support inter-special marriage. Based on the initial 'in-group, out-group' argument, do you propose that we should someday accept inter-special unions?

Interesting come back.
But the reason I would not support marriage between species is for functional reasons.
Marriage bestows upon two people many legal rights. Applying these legal rights to a "couple" consisting of a human and an animal is meaningless.
Also marriage is (usually) associated with romantic and sexual attachments. There are very good reasons to not support sexual relations between two different species.
If you take "marriage", remove the legal benefits, remove the romantic and sexual associations, you are left with a different type of 'contract'. This is what occurs when a humans brings a pet into his house to live.

Quote:

On an unrelated note, I would suffer, as would many others, if society imposed a meat ban. While I don't presume to be able to quantify 'suffering', I would on a personal (and nutritional) level suffer. Millions of people involved in the food industry would lose their livelyhood. All the current 'meat' animals would need to be culled... there is no reason to keep them around other then consumption. The transition to a meatless society would create a great deal of human suffering.

The suffering on a nutritional level is not necessary. It is possible to live a healthy life without eating meat.
The suffering of "but I like the taste" is much slighter than the amount of suffering an animal must go through to relieve you of this.
As for the cost on society...
It is unlikely that overnight the entire world is going to stop eating meat. If anything is ever going to happen it is almost certainly going to happen slowly over a long period of time. So the food industry should have plenty of time to adapt. Also due to the fact that there would be a much greater demand on other types of food, plenty of jobs would be created along side those which have been lost.

CSflim · 02-09-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

She's displaying severly aberrant behaviour. And what do you mean by 'real moral behaviour' -- I wasn't talking about law, I was talking about taboos and morals. A moral system that doesn't take into account practicality is functionally bankrupt.

Ok. Ignore the law. Ignore how people would react to her. Also ignore considerations of aberrant behaviour.
My question is:
Is a mother who physically abuses a very young child doing anything morally wrong?
If the answer to this question is 'yes', then why is it wrong.?

Quote:

And, as I mentioned, there are other reasons. They include the intense emotional response of other people, the continuity of the child into the person, etc. I am just claiming that the practical taboo reason is sufficient, not the only reason.

So socially defined taboos are sufficient to determine an act morally wrong?
I certainly accept that taboos can be functionally useful (e.g. the incest taboo). But incest is not wrong by virtue of the fact that there is a taboo against it - if it is wrong, it is wrong for other reasons. One need only look at historical examples of what was once considered taboo to realise this.

Quote:

On some level, yes. Of course, on that level, the valueing life more than non-life is arbitrary, or animals vs non-animals.

Hell, you seem to be implying that pain is bad -- yet another arbitrary choice.

Pain is just another sensation -- many people enjoy non-damaging pain (be they people who like to exercise, or BDSM-aficionados, or just people who like being nibbled on).

In these cases there is much psychological pleasure to be had (for differing reasons) from the occurrence of physical pain. The psychological pleasure wins out over the physical pain - this is why it is enjoyable. The net result is pleasure, not pain.

Chamaeleontidae · 02-09-2005, 12:10 PM

I am a carnivore. I feel no more guilt about eating something that once had uncontrollable urges to breathe oxygen, then I would assume a lion feels chomping on freshly killed gazelle.

I don’t believe in killing, wounding, or traumatizing for sport. I would gladly choose to eat free range cattle, over penned and not allowed to walk Veal.

I make these choices because I believe it will prolong the world for my future generations, andI think that is “right”.

If you choose not to eat a cow because you couldn’t bring yourself to kill one, that’s fine. You are an adult and can make up your own mind. Personally I find a nice slab of cow grilled over an open flame, quite satisfying.

CSflim · 02-09-2005, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

Well killing them isn't the problem as far as pain goes. It's just their living conditions.

indeed.

_______

CSflim · 02-09-2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1010011010

I think saying people cringe at Us v. Them justification is incorrect.

Depriving criminals of their rights is fundamentally an Us v Them justification, but I don't think pointing out that forcing someone to live in a tiny room for 30 years isn't very nice will garner much sympathy for Free the Murders. Because people feel that the division between The Law Abiding v. The Criminal is a valid one, and so much treatment that would be protested if applied to Us is acceptable when used on Them.

But there are very good reasons for locking criminal up. In doing this we reduce the amount of suffering in the world. It is certainly true that the criminal in question does suffer. And if there was a solution that would reduce this I would support it.
The reasons for locking up criminal include:
-To prevent the criminal in question from causing further harm to the general public.
-To discourage other would-be criminals from committing crime.
-To rehabilitate the criminal so that he can be released without fear of him committing more crimes.

Quote:

People cringe at the Us v Them justification for racism because many people don't accept race alone as a sufficient justification for different treatment, or find claims of racial superiority/inferiority to be invalid. It's not the type or structure of argument, it's the quality of the argument as presented.

I think most people will readily agree that species is sufficient and valid justification for how we treat an organism. So Racism Bad, Speciesism Good.

but why will people "readily agree" that this is the case? You do not need to go very far back in time when it was the case that "most people will readily agree that race is sufficient and valid justification for how we treat an organism."

CSflim · 02-09-2005, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

So you're arguing one of two things.

Most likely you're arguing that we should eat plants instead of animals, but then your logic breaks down because we are now putting plants in the "out-group." After your passioned argument about how animals can feel pain (I agree, they can), you surely aren't going to sit there and tell me that plants absolutely cannot feel pain even though you have no evidence to back up that proposition. Therefore, if you're willing to put plants in the out-group, you're no better than the rest of us.

Very little philosophical work can be conducted via absolutely certain propositions. (I cannot be absolutely certain that the table in front of me exists, for instance).

Instead we must work from what can reasonably be believed, due to an evaluation of the evidence. (e.g. that the table in front of me does in fact exist).
There is plenty of evidence that animals feel pain.
I do not see any evidence that plants feel pain. The arguments presented seem to show the possibility of 'pain' in a very abstract and loosely defined manner.

Let me ask you a straight question:
Do you honestly believe that every time you mow your lawn, your grass spends the entire ordeal in excruciating agony?

CSflim · 02-09-2005, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DasButch

Animals eat animals. We are animals. Nuff said. If anyone wants to make the choice not to, good for them. Don't tell those of us that do that we are wrong. It IS evolution and the food chain. Human+no advantage+big predator= human lunch. Something that honestly could, and finds humans to be tasty would not think twice.

This seems to be a popular recurring argument, despite the fact that I countered it in my first post. None of the posts seem to address the point I made. Just because we evolved a tendency towards something does not make it morally right.

It is at least plausible that humans evolved an instinctual xenophobia. There is no need to go into the actual evidence for or against this trait as my point comes in the form of a hypothetical:

if xenophobia was a natural, evolved trait of humans, then would that morally justify racism?

CSflim · 02-09-2005, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woOt?

It's one of the most essential aspects of survival: the idea of predator vs. prey. Sure, we humans took it a step further and applied the assembly line principles to it. Almost every creature in this world eats other creatures. It's just the way it is. Some people might think it's wrong because we have a conscious. Insects eat one another, aquatic species, mammals and even plants! Ever seen a venus fly trap eat a fly? It's fascinating. In those days during the last ice age, when there were no plants to eat. How were people supposed to survive? Don't get me wrong. I've had to go to a slaughter house once or twice for work. I think what we do to animals is horrible, but it is necessary for our survival.

There have been times in our past when eating meat was necessary to survive. That is clearly not the case today. Vegetarians and vegans get on just fine.

CSflim · 02-09-2005, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lak

"If a representative of any species can come to me and explain why thier species should not be killed and eaten by my species, then I will refrain from eating them forever, and I will advise my fellow humans to do the same."

I said that to a vegetarian after an extended argument in which neither of us were getting anywhere. I then stole his sandwich.

I'm a cunt

Anyway, to provide an actually useful answer, I think the reason humans generally accept the mass slaughter of food-animals to be acceptable is very similar to my bastard-response above. We may not admit it, or be able to defend the position, but I think humans generally look down on other species as inferior. If I worked in a slaughterhouse, and one day I was just about to kill a cow when it said "Excuse me, old chap, would mind... you know, not killing me? Ta." I would of course reconsider immediately.
Wouldnt you?

So the inability to use language is what makes it acceptable to be cruel to a creature.
So an illiterate mute is fair game for abuse as we see fit? Maybe not, after all he may have the ability to communicate with sign language. Assume he doesn't - then what?
Also we mustn't forget young infants and the severely mentally handicapped. All without the language ability. All fair game to eat, experiment on and even torture if we so desire?

"I think humans generally look down on other species as inferior" wasn't long ago when "humans generally look down on other species as inferior".

CSflim · 02-09-2005, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xell101

Perputation of the human species.

Meat eating is not necessarry to achieve this end.

Quote:

Racism back in the day served a function, now it only creates internal strife we'd be better off without.

So, Hitler's aims were noble when he set out to reduce the strife within his country by getting rid of Jews and other groups, the presence of whom was causing an amount of social unease.

(Don't freak out on me for bring Hitler into the equation. It is a rare situation where it is a useful example to bring up).

With me, killing animals for food isn't morally inconsistent as you depicted. I don't care about a cow, or a chicken, I care about the ecosystems, life is good, but sometimes life eats life, we kill to live. I have no qualms with that, decimating ecosystems for the purpose of human advancement I have problems with.[/QUOTE]

But a racist could just as easily justify himself by asserting the (obvious) fact that "I just don't care about [insert racial epithet]! I don't want to wipe them all out though, (then who would tend my crops for pittance?)".

CSflim · 02-09-2005, 12:17 PM

re: Aristotle.

He was a very wise man, and great things have come because of his philosophy. But the simple fact is that no scientist on the planet takes Aristotle's views on biology or physics seriously anymore. We have moved on.

re: The soul:
I specifically asked for religion to be left out of this thread. There is no reason for a person to postulate the existence of a soul, save for the fact that his religion has told him to do so.

(from my starting post)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSflim

If your justification for eating animals is because animals don't have souls, unlike humans, then you are entitled to this belief. But I don't want this particular thread to be dragged down into the messy and pointless (and all too ubiquitous) arguments which have been discussed time and time again on this board.

No more souls please.

CSflim · 02-09-2005, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squirrelyburt

I'm not seeing the parallel between racism and eating meat....protein is necessary for survival

false. Vegetarians and vegans survive quite well.

EDIT: obviously we do need protein. But we don't need to eat meat to get it.

CSflim · 02-09-2005, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C4 Diesel

I think part of the issue here (a similar issue that I find in many debates) is that morality is subjective. Being subjective, it is subject to taking on a sort of "collective truth". Killing people is immoral because a significant majority of society has deemed it to be so, and society has upheld that belief for a significant amount of time, giving the subjective moral issue a seemingly objective component of "truth". It can not be stated in a similarly quasi-objective manner that eating meat is immoral, because that is not the accepted viewpoint of society. Eating meat is fine and perfectly moral because we say it is, and have had that consistent viewpoint for a very, very long time with only a few, minor exceptions throughout history.

Following a similar logical pathway, we see that inflicting damage to other animals is seen to be quasi-objectively "immoral" (although this has generally only been applied to vertebrates - very few cringe when you kill a snail). Now we have two "truths" that are in direct conflict. Killing and eating animals is okay, but harming animals is not okay. Being that killing animals for food has been moral longer than harming animals has been immoral (by societal standards), eating animals wins the moral battle and remains an acceptable practice.

Indeed. Morality is subjective and very difficult (impossible?) to rationally ground.

Coming up with a 'descriptive' theory of morality is not too difficult - it can be done at least reasonably objectively (I have my own particular views on this, but they are irrelevant to this thread). However merely having a 'descriptive' theory is not sufficient. We need a prescriptive theory. One that will tell us what we 'ought' to do, rather than one which merely tells us what 'is'.

Your post leads me to believe that your morality could be described as
"agree with the status-quo".

So were Martin Luther King and other equality activists behaving in an immoral way? they were, after all, going against the status-quo. Are all people who dissent from what is socially acceptable at that time, acting immorally?

The reason I started this thread the way I did (by comparing specism to racism) was so I could avoid having to construct a 'moral theory of everything' from the ground up.

02-09-2005, 12:23 PM

This and another thread is causing me to think about ethics and morality as a whole - and whether it is possible to define a self-consistant set of morals and ethics (the other thread is the one about the TFP Christians)

I'm not sure yet, but I'm vearing towards a model where one does what one is comfortable doing themselves - i.e. causing to be killed only what one would be comfortable killing oneself - I think this would apply to food habits, euthanasia, warfare, abortion etc - the important thing is to take careful consideration and ask whether you feel comfortable taking responsibility for the death of another creature.

Many of us would say yes, and others no - but we should all at least think about it.

For example, if I am happy to kill for food (or other reasons), I should not be surprised when someone (or something) else wants to kill and eat me for food (or other reasons). I should at least not expect to start berating it or them on their ethics of the matter if they decide to turn the tables on me.

flstf · 02-09-2005, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSflim

Let me ask you a straight question:
Do you honestly believe that every time you mow your lawn, your grass spends the entire ordeal in excruciating agony?

Probably in their plantlike way. But it's easy to discount because plants are not much like us. Sure we are both alive and strive to survive and we do share the planet and sunlight with them but it's harder to kill things whose screams of pain can be heard. Why don't we just admit that we are blood red in tooth and claw like many of our fellow lifeforms on Earth are.

Yakk · 02-09-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSflim

Ok. Ignore the law. Ignore how people would react to her. Also ignore considerations of aberrant behaviour.
My question is:
Is a mother who physically abuses a very young child doing anything morally wrong?
If the answer to this question is 'yes', then why is it wrong.?

I gave you one reason already, which I hold to be sufficient.

Quote:

So socially defined taboos are sufficient to determine an act morally wrong?

No, a socially defined taboo can be moral. Breaking a moral socially defined taboo is immoral (up to extenuating circumstances -- it is immoral to steal, but there are circumstances where it would be immoral not to).

Your statement changed my implicit 'can' to a universal 'are' -- socially defined taboos can be moral, as opposed to socially defined taboos are moral.

Quote:

I certainly accept that taboos can be functionally useful (e.g. the incest taboo). But incest is not wrong by virtue of the fact that there is a taboo against it - if it is wrong, it is wrong for other reasons. One need only look at historical examples of what was once considered taboo to realise this.

And I gave you one reason why such a taboo would be moral. Distinguishing between non-intelligent infants and mentally crippled people, and intelligent human beings, is an overly difficult and dangerous act -- failure is EDIT easy and expensive. A taboo against harming such non-intelligent human-shaped things is thus moral -- and currently, it may be the only moral solution availiable.

As I have noted, there are other reasons not to eat small children and mentally crippled people. I stand by my arguement that the above reason is sufficient.

If you want some practical results:
I find nothing morally repugnant about brain-stem-only cloned human organ banks, assuming a zero rate of failure on the brain-stem-only part.

I find nothing morally repugnant about stem cell research in general (specific stem cell research is different).

In both of those cases, the benefits would outweigh the costs of distinguishing 'stem cells' and 'organ farms' from 'human beings'.

For different reasons than the above, if someone where to hurt someone's pet, I would find that immoral. But not on the same plane as hurting a human. Under the catagory of a practical moral taboo-widening, I'd extend that to non-pets that "could be pets" -- the exact width sufficient or nessicary would be a hard problem.

Quote:

In these cases there is much psychological pleasure to be had (for differing reasons) from the occurrence of physical pain. The psychological pleasure wins out over the physical pain - this is why it is enjoyable. The net result is pleasure, not pain.

I'll be more blunt.

I am not a utilitarian. Your arguement seem to assume utilitarianism is correct, and some correct units of utility are pleasure and pain.

The world is not a better place if you made tonnes of hypothetical 'happy' machines, in my opinion.

As an example, there is a rare genetic condition that results in someone being unable to feel pain. Harm to this person still occurs.

C4 Diesel · 02-09-2005, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSflim

Your post leads me to believe that your morality could be described as
"agree with the status-quo".

So were Martin Luther King and other equality activists behaving in an immoral way? they were, after all, going against the status-quo. Are all people who dissent from what is socially acceptable at that time, acting immorally?

The reason I started this thread the way I did (by comparing specism to racism) was so I could avoid having to construct a 'moral theory of everything' from the ground up.

MY morality is not necessarily "agree with the status quo", however the averaged, socially acceptable moral standards probably could be described in such a fashion.

About the Martin Luther King deal (and others who challenge social standards)... A lot of people in that time would say yes, they are acting immorally. Of course now we live by todays morals so we would say "how could they have thought that to be an acceptable moral standard!?!?" and act all appalled and the like, but hey... that's how a lot of people thought back then, and they defined their own morals just like we define ours.

Without constructing and defining a standard moral theory (or at least one that is all-inclusive to the issue at hand) and giving a convicing argument for it, then you have no way of saying what IS moral and what ISN'T. You can say "these are what my morals are" but we don't have to listen to you. You telling us "eating meat and animal research is immoral" is the equivalent someone saying to another "Judaism is right". Without an acceptable social standard our argument simplifies to a wordy yelling contest of "yes"s and "no"s.

CSflim · 02-09-2005, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Probably in their plantlike way. But it's easy to discount because plants are not much like us. Sure we are both alive and strive to survive and we do share the planet and sunlight with them but it's harder to kill things whose screams of pain can be heard. Why don't we just admit that we are blood red in tooth and claw like many of our fellow lifeforms on Earth are.

Well, all I can say to this is that I don't believe plants do feel pain. My reasons for believing this is because I don't believe plants are conscious (in the same way that rocks are not conscious).
My reasons for beliving that...well that's just way beyond this thread (and beyond this forum). It would mean that I would have to explain in detail and defend my particular views on consciousness, and I know that they would be very unpopular (by animal lovers and meat-eaters alike!

).

<HR>

And now that we have come to an almost certain impassé I feel that this is a natural place to bring my experiment to an end.

Wow. That was exhausting! I don't think I've ever seen a single opinion on this board provoke universal condemnation accross the board! I was surprised that there was not a single vegetarian around who was willing to lend me a hand!

I have never before attempted to defend a position that I didn't actually believe was true. I have to say that it is a completely different ball game. I found it much more difficult that usual (also I am sure the fact that I was recieveing absolutely no support was a contributing factor also!

). I was forced to use some argumentative techniques which I normally would not use (Hey, I'm not proud...I'm just saying).

Anyway, there's no need to close this thread. People can continue to post their thoughts on the subject - it's just that I wouldn't be attempting to vigourously defend this position.

Sweetpea · 02-09-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Most (or at least many) animals do the same thing, given the opportunity. The difference is, humans are better at it.

The small point i was trying to make about humans using up the resources at an alarming rate is that WE SHOULD KNOW BETTER!!!!!!

You made a point that "animals would do the same thing" if they could . . .

But IF Humans are So SMART and "above animals" why are we doing it at all?

hence my point that we are really not as smart as we think nor are we above animals . . . we are behaving without intelligence to the consequences of our actions . . . Just because the human mind has harnessed technology, does not make us superior in all forms . . .

peace,

Sweetpea

Xell101 · 02-09-2005, 07:50 PM

Quote:

So, Hitler's aims were noble when he set out to reduce the strife within his country by getting rid of Jews and other groups, the presence of whom was causing an amount of social unease.

I was briefly popping in some feedback on the racism element of this discussion, the post was kept fairly short, and as such didn't have much room to elaborate. Racism served a function back in the day because it gave us a tendency to aggressively defend our shit as per an engrained tendency to consider one's own varient superior on account of you being it. Your culture, phenotype, etc. were asserted. Now adays, we're not just social critters but critters of civilization, and what functions racism serves works against us all, because it creates internal strife. That strife is undesirable not because it's presence reduces functionality, but because it works agaisnt the members of the civilization indiscriminantly. Hitler sought to fulfil the ignoble aim of his staggeringly unnecessary levels of racism.

Quote:

But a racist could just as easily justify himself by asserting the (obvious) fact that "I just don't care about [insert racial epithet]! I don't want to wipe them all out though, (then who would tend my crops for pittance?)".

We're critters of civilization, as per the basics of residing within comtemporary civilization, one oughtn't be racist as it is counter productive, it retards social enlightenment and advancement.

As for animals, I'll need some info before I can really make a response, so I've got to ask, why are you for what you are for? What is it about what you want to eliminate that makes it worthy of elimination? I’m not sure how to address this item.

Yakk · 02-10-2005, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea

The small point i was trying to make about humans using up the resources at an alarming rate is that WE SHOULD KNOW BETTER!!!!!!

You made a point that "animals would do the same thing" if they could . . .

But IF Humans are So SMART and "above animals" why are we doing it at all?

Because the individual benefit from consuming those resources is in many cases positive. The negative externalities often overwealm that individual benefit, but that's a collective problem, not an individual one.

I'll assert that humans are/can be intelligent. I will not claim that humanity is intelligent as a whole. We have attempted to make structures (governments) that act in the best interests of larger numbers of people than one. This seems to be a hard problem.

It isn't in any one person's best interests to conserve petrol. It is quite possibly in the best interests of society as a whole to conserve petrol.

So, would an intelligent person conserve petrol or not?

This possibly holds on larger scales. It might be in humanities best interests to conserve petrol, but it is in each nation's best interest to consume as much petrol as they can.

If you view gaia as an organism, intelligent technological life could be viewed as a reproductive organ. There is no guarantee that this gaia or this organ will result in successful reproduction -- personally, I'm hoping we get lucky. =)

c172g · 02-14-2005, 01:12 PM

I eat meat because i like the taste. I also hunt. Me killing an animal with an arrow or a bullet is a lot better way to cash in the cards than being mauled by a band of hyenas or having your neck held in a leopards jaw until you bite it. Big fish eats the little fish. It's the way of nature. Everybody's gotta eat, if you want to kill innocent plants for your food, have at it. For me to survive, somethings going to have to die.

Janey · 02-14-2005, 01:28 PM

Eating meat is tastey. so is eating vegatables. Of course killing animals causes the animals pain. so can we gass them while they are sleeping? also, a faclile argument would say that How do we know that plants don't feel pain? Maybe they do, we just don't understand how they perceive it.

so. Until we evolve to the state of subsisting on nutrients derived from the air we breath... these arguments are superfluous. (what can i say? I'm a pragmatist) Plus, eating meat is tastey.

Seer666 · 02-15-2005, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSflim

I already addressed the point that "we evolved to eat meat, therefore eating meat is morally right". Are you really suggesting that we should look to evolution (arguably the most wasteful, cruel, entriely amoral process on the planet) for moral guidance?

The analogy with breathing is not a useful one:
We must breathe in order to survive. We have no choice in the matter. We do not have to eat meat. There are alternatives.

Moral guidance? No. Just nutritional intake. Eating a hamburger has nothing to do with morals. It is simply a part of life and nature. And yes, it is amoral. That is why it is so wonderful. The problem with humans is that we ARE moral. There is no needless cruelty in the animal kingdom. They do what thay have to to survive. Plain and simple. We, on ther other hand, take something as simple as dinner and turn it into a moral delema, and then break out into 2000 years of war because someone said "Hamburgers are evil!", even though we have been eating hamburgers for the last 2000 freakin years. That is not the moral high ground. That is fucking with the system.

skier · 02-18-2005, 10:11 AM

I'd just like to contribute a few points to the thread-

First, if you believe that animals have consciousness, they have reasoned behaviors- they weigh benefit vs. risk. But why does a cat "play" with a mouse? The benefit to the cat is not immediately apparant, because it's prolonging it's meal, wasting it's energy, and is at risk of the meal escaping. If the cat truly had reasoned behavior wouldn't it eat it right away instead of creully batting it around? Instinct and evolution motivates the cat to practice it's hunting skills with a captive target. This argues against conscious behavior and for instinctual reactions.

Second. Our type of vegetarianism is a new phenomenon, where people don't eat meat because they're squeamish (morally outraged) about killing animals. I don't think it's because of a new, higher sense of moral awareness, but rather a disconnection from the earth. We live in a world where many people that have grown up in cities have barely even seen animals, let alone raise them. The majority have never killed an animal for their supper, dressed a kill, gone hunting. We don't spend much time thinking about where that hamburger came from. We keep pets that function as family members. We personify the actions of cats and dogs, and lend these attributes to most life on earth. A lot of vegetarians have a "turning point", where they witnessed an animal being butchered/killed/slaughtered, seen a PETA video, or simply realized the cute picture they had in their head of what it was to be a cow was now on their plate.

This disconnection and subsequent return to reality is a shock. "How could this animal, that has all these human attributes (that i've given to it) be killed outright just for my meal? I'm going vegetarian." Personally, I don't think vegetarians have a firm handle on the delicate cycle of life and death. Earth is a Zero sum game. We have to compete for scarce resources. For you to have, another has to "have not".

shakran · 02-18-2005, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skier

I'd just like to contribute a few points to the thread-

First, if you believe that animals have consciousness, they have reasoned behaviors- they weigh benefit vs. risk. But why does a cat "play" with a mouse? The benefit to the cat is not immediately apparant, because it's prolonging it's meal, wasting it's energy, and is at risk of the meal escaping. If the cat truly had reasoned behavior wouldn't it eat it right away instead of creully batting it around? Instinct and evolution motivates the cat to practice it's hunting skills with a captive target. This argues against conscious behavior and for instinctual reactions.

Then by your argument humans do not have consciousness. Why did I buy that sports car last year? I could have saved the money to use if I ever lose my job so I don't starve. Buying the sports car reduces my net worth, wastes my money, and puts me at risk of having MY meals cut off due to lack of funds.

Why do people play music? There's no survival reason for it. Grog the Caveman did not escape from the sabre toothed tiger by using a cello.

If you want to argue that observing an organism doing something that does not specifically relate to personal or species survival automatically means the organism has no consciousness (I think the word you're actually searching for is sentience) then humans are not sentient either.

Quote:

This disconnection and subsequent return to reality is a shock. "How could this animal, that has all these human attributes (that i've given to it) be killed outright just for my meal? I'm going vegetarian." Personally, I don't think vegetarians have a firm handle on the delicate cycle of life and death. Earth is a Zero sum game. We have to compete for scarce resources. For you to have, another has to "have not".

Or perhaps people are not as arrogant as your argument suggests they be, and do not automatically assume that "that which is not human is a mindless automaton that can't feel anything."

In fact, I would submit that it is YOU who have no connection to the earth and its animals, because it doesn't take much observation to see that animals can indeed feel emotions, pain, and generally everything humans can feel. They're just generally not as intelligent and therefore may react differently. If you don't know that, you must not have interacted with very many animals.

genuinegirly · 02-18-2005, 11:09 AM

Why would I discriminate any more against lettuce than I would a chicken?

Why eat anything other than fruit, or tissue designed by a plant/living being for consumption alone? Plants use fruits to perpetuate their species. They are produced for the sole purpose of consumption by animal life. When expelled in excriment, the seds are surrounded by a nutrient source and ready to grow. Seed dispersal by way of animal digestion is a plant's best method of dispersal.

Stealing the leaves off from a lettuce plant is the rough equivalent of eating a person's lung. It is a vital organ that the plant intentionally grew for its own benefit. It performs a vital function - respiration. It also collects sunshine to fuel photosynthesis, and even sweats.

If we're going to talk about human rights in relation to animal rights, I want to start talking about Plant Rights. It's about time, look at all the captive trees and bushes around your home and office building. Start looking at your food and notice - hey, this is a plant's lung. This is its skin. This is disgusting!

larny · 02-18-2005, 03:37 PM

humans kill animals,humans kill humans, animals kill humans, animals kill animals. survival of the fitest. we kill to survive, we kill to eat just like animals because we are animals.

mo42 · 02-20-2005, 02:36 PM

Under the current system, there is no real way to support a population as large as we have on our planet without killing large quantities of animals. Eating animals is a lot less wasteful than just running them over with wheat harvesting machines. It is morally acceptable to attempt to survive, even in my opinion if it causes the death of other creatures. To quote Maddox:

Quote:

I was looking over a menu in a restaurant the other day when I saw a section for vegetarians; I thought to myself "boy, I sure am glad that I'm not a meat-hating fascist" and I skipped on to the steak section (because I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $15 for an alfalfa sandwich, slice of cucumber and a scoop of cold cottage cheese), but before I turned the page something caught my eye. The heading of the vegetarian section was titled "Guiltless Grill," not because there were menu items with fewer calories and cholesterol (since there were "healthy" chicken dishes discriminated against in this section), but because none of the items used animal products. Think about that phrase for a second. What exactly does "guiltless grill" imply? So I'm supposed to feel guilty now if I eat meat? Screw you.

What pisses me off so much about this phrase is the sheer narrow-mindedness of these stuck up vegetarian assholes. You think you're saving the world by eating a tofu-burger and sticking to a diet of grains and berries? Well here's something that not many vegetarians know (or care to acknowledge): every year millions of animals are killed by wheat and soy bean combines during harvesting season (source). Oh yeah, go on and on for hours about how all of us meat eaters are going to hell for having a steak, but conveniently ignore the fact that each year millions of mice, rabbits, snakes, skunks, possums, squirrels, gophers and rats are ruthlessly murdered as a direct result of YOUR dieting habits. What's that? I'm sorry, I don't hear any more elitist banter from you pompous cocks. Could it be because your shit has been RUINED?

That's right: the gloves have come off. The vegetarian response to this embarrassing fact is "well, at least we're not killing intentionally." So let me get this straight; not only are animals ruthlessly being murdered as a direct result of your diet, but you're not even using the meat of the animals YOU kill? At least we're eating the animals we kill (and although we also contribute to the slaughter of animals during grain harvesting, keep in mind that we're not the ones with a moral qualm about it), not just leaving them to rot in a field somewhere. That makes you just as morally repugnant than any meat-eater any day. Not only that, but you're killing free-roaming animals, not animals that were raised for feed. Their bodies get mangled in the combine's machinery, bones crushed, and you have the audacity to point fingers at the meat industry for humanely punching a spike through a cow's neck? If you think that tofu burgers come at no cost to animals or the environment, guess again.

To even suggest that your meal is some how "guiltless" is absurd. The defense "at least we're not killing intentionally" is bullshit anyway. How is it not intentional if you KNOW that millions of animals die every year in combines during harvest? You expect me to believe that you somehow unintentionally pay money to buy products that support farmers that use combines to harvest their fields? Even if it was somehow unintentional, so what? That suddenly makes you innocent? I guess we should let drunk drivers off the hook too since they don't kill intentionally either, right? There's no way out of this one. The only option left for you dipshits is to buy some land, plant and pick your own crops. Impractical? Yeah, well, so is your stupid diet.

Even if combines aren't used to harvest your food, you think that buying fruits and vegetables (organic or otherwise) is any better? How do you think they get rid of bugs that eat crops in large fields? You think they just put up signs and ask parasites to politely go somewhere else? Actually, I wouldn't put that suggestion past you hippies. One of the methods they use to get rid of pests is to introduce a high level of predators for each particular prey, which wreaks all sorts of havoc on the natural balance of predator/prey populations--causing who knows what kind of damage to the environment. Oops, did I just expose you moral-elitists for being frauds? Damndest thing.

A number of people have pointed out that the amount of grain grown to feed animals for slaughter every year is greater than the amount of grain grown for humans. So I guess the amount of grain grown for human consumption suddenly becomes negligible and we can conveniently ignore the fact that animals are still ruthlessly murdered either way because of your diet, right? Not to mention that the majority of grain grown for livestock is tough as rocks, coarse, and so low-grade that it's only fit for animal consumption in the first place. Spare me the "you could feed 500 people with the grain used to feed one cow" line of shit; it's not the same grain. Then there are the people who jump on the bandwagon with "you could plant billions of potatoes on the land used for cows"--good point, except for the fact that not every plot of land is equally fertile; you think farmers always have a choice on what they do with their land? Also, many vegetarians don't know (or care to acknowledge) that in many parts of the United States they have "control hunts" in which hunting permits are passed out whenever there is a pest problem (the pest here is deer, elk and antelope) that threatens wheat, soy, vegetable and other crops; this happens several times per year. Then some of you throw out claims that "we are trying to limit the suffering." How about you limit MY suffering and shut the hell up about your stupid diet for a change; nobody cares. Even if the number of animals that die in combine deaths every year isn't in the millions, even if it's just one, are you suggesting that the life of one baby rabbit isn't worth saving? Are you placing a value on life? Enjoy your tofu, murderers.

<A HREF="http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html">http://maddox.xmission.com/grill.html</a>

shrubbery · 02-21-2005, 05:36 AM

You assume that we want to abolish any form of racism/discrimination of other life forms. You say that we now draw the line between humans and animals. What if we draw the line between human-animals and plants? How can we be certain of a plants faculties? They also have purposeful behavior. A bit of discrimination is necesarry.

And your arguments are based on the belief that we have absolute objective morality. I believe that morality is relative. I could've believed in it too, but real life is different. We arent pure creatures of reason, and therefore we cannot rely on reason to make all our decisions. As you said; you love your steaks even if you can argue quite well from a vegetarian point of view.

In my personal opinion I think many of the great philosophers have proved themselves wrong with the passing of time. Plato, Sokrates and Aristotle all believed in objective morallity, yet they all believed that women were inferior to men. They were radical in their time, and if they lived today they would all have a different view. That just shows how morallity will adjust to the time you're living in, and therefore there cannot be a absolutely objective morallity.

Oh, and I suppose I broke a taboo when I posted before I read the entire thread.

My apologies if I repeated someone elses arguments.

02-08-2005, 09:11 PM	#44 (permalink)
squirrelyburt Crazy Location: Central Wisconsin	I'm not seeing the parallel between racism and eating meat....protein is necessary for survival, racism is not acceptable in modern society. I do not agree with experimenting or causing an animal to suffer, but I do eat meat. I far prefer wild game, and usually kill what I eat. It is my goal to make the kill as quickly and cleanly as possible, to minimize any suffering to the animal. This is my responsibility and a matter of honor to keep my skills honed to make this happen. __________________ If you've ever felt there was a reason to be afraid of the dark, you were right.

02-08-2005, 09:38 PM	#46 (permalink)
Sweetpea Fade out Location: in love	This is a very interesting thread. Alot of divserse opinions here. "If slaughter houses were made of glass, no one would eat meat" My take on eating meat is: I only eat what i know i can kill . . . Hence, i only eat chicken and fish. adding to the fact that i don't agree with the slaughter methods used for beef and pork . . . That's my choice. I don't lecture people or anything . . . just my own personal opinion. Thanks, Sweetpea __________________ Having a Pet Will Change Your Life! Looking for a great pet?! Click Here! "I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

02-08-2005, 10:17 PM	#48 (permalink)
C4 Diesel Crazy Location: Troy, NY	I think part of the issue here (a similar issue that I find in many debates) is that morality is subjective. Being subjective, it is subject to taking on a sort of "collective truth". Killing people is immoral because a significant majority of society has deemed it to be so, and society has upheld that belief for a significant amount of time, giving the subjective moral issue a seemingly objective component of "truth". It can not be stated in a similarly quasi-objective manner that eating meat is immoral, because that is not the accepted viewpoint of society. Eating meat is fine and perfectly moral because we say it is, and have had that consistent viewpoint for a very, very long time with only a few, minor exceptions throughout history. Following a similar logical pathway, we see that inflicting damage to other animals is seen to be quasi-objectively "immoral" (although this has generally only been applied to vertebrates - very few cringe when you kill a snail). Now we have two "truths" that are in direct conflict. Killing and eating animals is okay, but harming animals is not okay. Being that killing animals for food has been moral longer than harming animals has been immoral (by societal standards), eating animals wins the moral battle and remains an acceptable practice. __________________ C4 to your door, no beef no more... Last edited by C4 Diesel; 02-08-2005 at 10:26 PM.. Reason: added stuff

02-09-2005, 12:10 PM	#53 (permalink)
Chamaeleontidae aka: freakylongname Location: South of the Great While North	I am a carnivore. I feel no more guilt about eating something that once had uncontrollable urges to breathe oxygen, then I would assume a lion feels chomping on freshly killed gazelle. I don’t believe in killing, wounding, or traumatizing for sport. I would gladly choose to eat free range cattle, over penned and not allowed to walk Veal. I make these choices because I believe it will prolong the world for my future generations, andI think that is “right”. If you choose not to eat a cow because you couldn’t bring yourself to kill one, that’s fine. You are an adult and can make up your own mind. Personally I find a nice slab of cow grilled over an open flame, quite satisfying. __________________ "Reality is just a crutch for people who can't cope with drugs." Robin Williams.

02-18-2005, 10:11 AM	#75 (permalink)
skier Rawr! Location: Edmontania	I'd just like to contribute a few points to the thread- First, if you believe that animals have consciousness, they have reasoned behaviors- they weigh benefit vs. risk. But why does a cat "play" with a mouse? The benefit to the cat is not immediately apparant, because it's prolonging it's meal, wasting it's energy, and is at risk of the meal escaping. If the cat truly had reasoned behavior wouldn't it eat it right away instead of creully batting it around? Instinct and evolution motivates the cat to practice it's hunting skills with a captive target. This argues against conscious behavior and for instinctual reactions. Second. Our type of vegetarianism is a new phenomenon, where people don't eat meat because they're squeamish (morally outraged) about killing animals. I don't think it's because of a new, higher sense of moral awareness, but rather a disconnection from the earth. We live in a world where many people that have grown up in cities have barely even seen animals, let alone raise them. The majority have never killed an animal for their supper, dressed a kill, gone hunting. We don't spend much time thinking about where that hamburger came from. We keep pets that function as family members. We personify the actions of cats and dogs, and lend these attributes to most life on earth. A lot of vegetarians have a "turning point", where they witnessed an animal being butchered/killed/slaughtered, seen a PETA video, or simply realized the cute picture they had in their head of what it was to be a cow was now on their plate. This disconnection and subsequent return to reality is a shock. "How could this animal, that has all these human attributes (that i've given to it) be killed outright just for my meal? I'm going vegetarian." Personally, I don't think vegetarians have a firm handle on the delicate cycle of life and death. Earth is a Zero sum game. We have to compete for scarce resources. For you to have, another has to "have not". __________________ "Asking a bomb squad if an old bomb is still "real" is not the best thing to do if you want to save it." - denim

02-09-2005, 12:23 PM	#64 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	This and another thread is causing me to think about ethics and morality as a whole - and whether it is possible to define a self-consistant set of morals and ethics (the other thread is the one about the TFP Christians) I'm not sure yet, but I'm vearing towards a model where one does what one is comfortable doing themselves - i.e. causing to be killed only what one would be comfortable killing oneself - I think this would apply to food habits, euthanasia, warfare, abortion etc - the important thing is to take careful consideration and ask whether you feel comfortable taking responsibility for the death of another creature. Many of us would say yes, and others no - but we should all at least think about it. For example, if I am happy to kill for food (or other reasons), I should not be surprised when someone (or something) else wants to kill and eat me for food (or other reasons). I should at least not expect to start berating it or them on their ethics of the matter if they decide to turn the tables on me.

02-14-2005, 01:12 PM	#72 (permalink)
c172g Crazy Location: Michigan	I eat meat because i like the taste. I also hunt. Me killing an animal with an arrow or a bullet is a lot better way to cash in the cards than being mauled by a band of hyenas or having your neck held in a leopards jaw until you bite it. Big fish eats the little fish. It's the way of nature. Everybody's gotta eat, if you want to kill innocent plants for your food, have at it. For me to survive, somethings going to have to die.

02-14-2005, 01:28 PM	#73 (permalink)
Janey Junkie Location: Toronto	Eating meat is tastey. so is eating vegatables. Of course killing animals causes the animals pain. so can we gass them while they are sleeping? also, a faclile argument would say that How do we know that plants don't feel pain? Maybe they do, we just don't understand how they perceive it. so. Until we evolve to the state of subsisting on nutrients derived from the air we breath... these arguments are superfluous. (what can i say? I'm a pragmatist) Plus, eating meat is tastey.

02-18-2005, 11:09 AM	#77 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	Why would I discriminate any more against lettuce than I would a chicken? Why eat anything other than fruit, or tissue designed by a plant/living being for consumption alone? Plants use fruits to perpetuate their species. They are produced for the sole purpose of consumption by animal life. When expelled in excriment, the seds are surrounded by a nutrient source and ready to grow. Seed dispersal by way of animal digestion is a plant's best method of dispersal. Stealing the leaves off from a lettuce plant is the rough equivalent of eating a person's lung. It is a vital organ that the plant intentionally grew for its own benefit. It performs a vital function - respiration. It also collects sunshine to fuel photosynthesis, and even sweats. If we're going to talk about human rights in relation to animal rights, I want to start talking about Plant Rights. It's about time, look at all the captive trees and bushes around your home and office building. Start looking at your food and notice - hey, this is a plant's lung. This is its skin. This is disgusting! __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

02-18-2005, 03:37 PM	#78 (permalink)
larny Upright Location: Scotland	humans kill animals,humans kill humans, animals kill humans, animals kill animals. survival of the fitest. we kill to survive, we kill to eat just like animals because we are animals.

02-21-2005, 05:36 AM	#80 (permalink)
shrubbery Tilted Location: North Europe	You assume that we want to abolish any form of racism/discrimination of other life forms. You say that we now draw the line between humans and animals. What if we draw the line between human-animals and plants? How can we be certain of a plants faculties? They also have purposeful behavior. A bit of discrimination is necesarry. And your arguments are based on the belief that we have absolute objective morality. I believe that morality is relative. I could've believed in it too, but real life is different. We arent pure creatures of reason, and therefore we cannot rely on reason to make all our decisions. As you said; you love your steaks even if you can argue quite well from a vegetarian point of view. In my personal opinion I think many of the great philosophers have proved themselves wrong with the passing of time. Plato, Sokrates and Aristotle all believed in objective morallity, yet they all believed that women were inferior to men. They were radical in their time, and if they lived today they would all have a different view. That just shows how morallity will adjust to the time you're living in, and therefore there cannot be a absolutely objective morallity. Oh, and I suppose I broke a taboo when I posted before I read the entire thread. My apologies if I repeated someone elses arguments.