Stuff and nonsense, I've given very little argument. I'm waiting for you to substantiate the claims in yours. Until you do, there's no meat to fight over, so to speak.
John Stossel Goes After PETA Tonight...
- Thread starter Kodiak
- Start date
-
- Tags
- john stossel peta
Stuff and nonsense, I've given very little argument. I'm waiting for you to substantiate the claims in yours. Until you do, there's no meat to fight over, so to speak.
Just like everything else you say, it's all your presumption.
When you get to the meat of the issue, so to speak, get back to us. Until then, you're just here to raise cain.
I'll grant you it's not a particularly easy problem. Personally the line stops entirely at primates, but that's certainly a debatable point, one could extend it further. I doubt one could push it back the other way too much or too far toward humans.
monoman
Master baiter - I fish!
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 967
Sorry, this is a bit late, i've been ill the last couple of days.
You missed my point about boycotts. Just because certain companies use sweat shops in south east asia to manufacture trainers, does this mean i shouldn't buy trainers made in England?
Cain
Straussian
Uh-huh. Far be it for me to presume you would behave in a relatively consistent manner -- or to foolishly think, even for a second, that you are the least bit interested in actually responding to the arguments herein.
Edited by Lisa Simpson:
Edited to remove insult.
RandFan writes:
[First sentence snipped]
This is breathtaking. Honesty has never been so refreshing. Humans can legislate morality in such a way, according to you, that it is incumbent upon the relevant society to oppress minorities, human and/or non-human. Granted, violence and oppression might not be the most efficient solution, or even a workable strategy, but it can be in accordance with the highest moral standards. Wow.
The reductio ad absurdum is complete.
RandFan responding to Mumblethrax:
The reasoning is under attack. How is it relevant if the vast majority of humans are moral agents? Rights supposedly only accrue to moral agents, so those humans lacking moral agency do not have rights.
Which is what you clarified above. You even went so far as to say that a moral agent can have his rights violated if the "moral society" (i.e., a majority of rational moral agents) decides to dispense of him (which, incidentially, strikes me as incoherent).
[A few sentences snipped as they convey what has more or less already been stated]
RandFan:
Which means people can legislate morality and all of that. Importantly, you're apparently taking a normative position. I can agree with the following descriptive statement: What I think is right or wrong is what I think is right or wrong. This is crucially different than its normative counterpart.
For example:
If I think the sun revolves around the earth, then I think the sun revolves around the earth.
As far as the physical world is concerned we agree the sun does not revolve around the earth because I might think it does. Existence is independent of beliefs.
You take a different view on morality, of course. Something is wrong BECAUSE I say it's wrong (though, as hinted at earlier, this runs into problems with your apparently majoritarian views).
It goes without saying that I believe in a universal morality indepedent of human beings. Humans can legislate for ourselves in certain matters as in cases where I generate certain interests: excellence in athletics, starting a family, sailing around the world, etc. But I cannot decide the interests of others, such as animals, are unimportant and therefore they are.
You make a value claim when you say that it requires two people for an interest to become "relevant". Where does this moral calculus come from? I ask because it's strikingly arbitrary. Why not three people, or three thousand people?
As a matter of rationality -- elementary consistency, really -- I cannot elevate my own interests above others because they're my own interests. Peter Singer, for example, talks about the equal consideration of interests principle.
That the truly vast majority of humans do value themselves above others (descriptive fact, not a normative claim) testifies to our limited biology. We are after all merely glorified apes. Some more than others (are you paying attention, JJ?).
Of course one attempts to take a neutral position. This could be said for anything. If we want to speak in the strictest terms my statement, "the earth revolves around the sun" translates to "I believe the earth revolves around the sun."
RandFan:
This is making the assumption that your interests matter to you, and the interests of others is instrumental. This goes back to my "provocative question", which you called a "bad" question: Why are your interests of intrinsic importance? That's a hopelessly arbitrary, narrow, sectarian, provincial point of view. In short, it is irrational.
The standard arguments against egoism apply. What did dictator X do wrong? Well, you seem to be implying here that what he did wrong was fail to act in accordance with his best interests. Most other people, correctly in my opinion, say that what he did wrong was trample the interests of others.
A thought experiment I may have put to you once before:
You can profit at the expense of harm done to other moral agents, but you will not remember this harm and you will never be punished for it. You seem to be suggesting that harming others would be the moral thing to do because it is consistent with self-advantage.
All of this fails to appreciate the moral point of view.
I will observe once again an alarming inconsistency. Earlier you had a majoritarian view where right and wrong were distinguished by whatever the moral society claimed. On the one hand you seem to want to say that each of us is the arbiter of morality -- we define it as we please -- but on the other, the moral society is the final arbiter.
As I said earlier, on multiple occasions, we cannot invest responsibility in predators because predators cannot exercise responsibility. The same goes for children, the insane, the mentally handicapped, and so on.
Last edited by a moderator:
Often, yes.
Well, since the economics concerning stressed meat completely bollix your nonsense about lots and lots of bad slaughtering, I'm not surprised that you crawl to an attempt at personal affront.
All you do is make it clear that you can't argue the facts, and have to resort to insults.
What's you excuse, then?
When you can actually discuss the subject rather than going out of your way to insult people, well, let us know, ok?
Lisa Simpson
Unregistered
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2004
- Messages
- 21,960
Please stick to the topic and refrain from making insults. Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Lisa Simpson
Cain
Straussian
Again you are reduced to mere assertion. I identified the (many) problems with your so-called economic reasoning. I further cited evidence from mainstream publications (_Washington Post_, _The Atlantic Monthly_) that make nonsense of your empirically and deductively challenged assertions. I cited well-researched full book length treatment on the matter. I referred to recent developments in the law (Humane Slaughter Act of 2002) which also vitiates your stubbornly a priori, anathema-to-reality talking point. I requested that you quote those specific claims with which you take issue.
I'm not exactly the person who has to "resort" to insults; I've indulged in them. Insults are a consequence of your own behavior; your failure to meaningfully engage the issue at hand. Remember, an ad hominem is an attack on the person in the absence of argument.
I don't quite follow. Are you "stick[ing] to the topic" here?
Uh, yeah, OK!
I think I heard you the first half-dozen times you said this while utterly failing to respond to my posts in a way that was remotely meaningful.Well, quite aside from your blaming the victim, you're arguing for a particularly dishonest kind of ethical relativism here that I think most anyone recognizes as a kind of short-term selfishness.
As to the data around stressed meat, you still haven't said a thing that really matters. You can cite some non-scientific magazine articles. I can find magazine articles that claim the earth is flat, too. Who cares.
Uh, yeah, OK!
Just like Art Vandelay, you regard uncomfortable, hard-to-deal-with facts as "failing to respond".
Thank you for making it clear that your intent it to discuss the people who are discussing, rather than the issues.
You haven't changed. Your only goal is trouble, trouble and insult. Wait, your only two goals are trouble and insult, trouble, insult, and offense. No, wait... Oh never mind, we all get the picture.
I apologize to all of you that, I'm sure, were all dying to hear from me. I use a computer at my friend's house. I'm only over here every few days, and I had alot of catch-up reading to do. Glad to see that I've stirred up quite a response. On most forums, people won't even discuss this topic. I also find it interesting that I have been accused of forcing my view on everyone else. I have more power than I thought. And here I thought I was voicing my opinion.
But it seems as far as I've been able to ascertain, the major arguement is that it is ok to kill animals because they don't have rights or the cognative, and thus moral responsibility as us. So killing is ok then? If it isn't completely neccesary for survival of the killer, it is ok, as long as the creature isn't as smart as us.
I say that we should not eat meat because it is no longer necessary. When I say this, I am speaking about in the United States and other first world countries where we are quite capable of getting by, without the slaughter of so much life. I can understand that in other places, it isn't as practical. That's fine with me. Riddle me this, why do we eat meat again?
But it seems as far as I've been able to ascertain, the major arguement is that it is ok to kill animals because they don't have rights or the cognative, and thus moral responsibility as us. So killing is ok then? If it isn't completely neccesary for survival of the killer, it is ok, as long as the creature isn't as smart as us.
I say that we should not eat meat because it is no longer necessary. When I say this, I am speaking about in the United States and other first world countries where we are quite capable of getting by, without the slaughter of so much life. I can understand that in other places, it isn't as practical. That's fine with me. Riddle me this, why do we eat meat again?
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
That's great! I want you to know I respect your decision and support your right to live the lifestyle of your choice 100%. Further, if every you come visit our home, we will make sure you are served foods you find palatable. All we ask is that you respect our lifestyle, and our chosen diet, as well.
Because it tastes good and is an important part of a balanced diet.
Because it tastes good and it's part of a balanced diet.
Oh my Ed. I swear, Mycroft, I didn't do that on purpose.
Curiously enough we also cheerfully accomodate vegetarian folks, it's fun to cook different things.
Welcome to the crowd, Darat!
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Humans have legislated morality in just such a way. So what. It is imporant to note that these ways are make for poor strategy for the reasons I have enumerated. They certainly offend my views. I would not view such acts as moral. That is just my perspective however based on my world view.
Yes.
"Highest moral standards"? Not by my view. Morals are not absolute. I can't find any empirical data to determine what is right and what is wrong. All I have are my own interests, logic to determine a way to best maximize my interests and my empathy for others.
But we accord them rights or protection based on their importance to us as a species. Those rights or protections are not absolute.
You are not paying attention. 3 people can create any moral code they want. That they could does not mean that it is the highest moral code and that is implicit in my answer. Read it again.
But counter to empirical data.
Yes.
Incorrect. Something is wrong TO you because you say it is wrong.
This is misleading as to my views. I don't hold that what is moral is what the majority says it is. I hold that what is moral could be what the majority says it is. There are no axiomatic morals. If there were we would have to protect the zebra from the lion.
And this is written where? Morality is by and large a human construct. There are a kind of moral codees in other social animals but not in any degree comparable to humans.
So I'm curious, do you really believe it is wrong for the lion to kill the zebra?
This sure sounds like you are suggesting that there exists absolute morals, is that correct?
No, not two people, two moral agents. Morals are meaningless to those who don't know what they are.
The number requires at least two. Any group of people require morals for social cohesion and to protect members from anarchy and to ensure the propagation of the species.
Why not? What if you were a socio-path? What if you were legally insane?
Yes, a rational way to determine a moral system of values. I don't dismiss Singer out of hand. However, if memory serves me, even Singer concedes that interests (Singer rejects the concept of rights) can, by and large only be considered by humans. Animals aren't going to look after or consider the interests of humans.
Agreed absolutely. So?
But while apes enforce their own moral codes on their own societies they have not even begun to consider the interests of other animals including humans.
No, I don't attempt to when it comes to animals. Bacteria vs. Human? Human. Rats vs. Human? human. Lion vs. My child? My child every time. No "attempt" needed.
{snipped}
Sure. There is utility in the instrumental? To a degree I serve my self by serving others.
Because it was a bad question.
Evolution.
And it is blue with white stripes and wall to wall carpet. The statement is a non sequitur.
No.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, you are focusing on only part of my argument. I have said over and over that humans are capable of empathy and that empathy should play a part in the creation of moral codes. We can and do care about other people and that fact should and does play a part.
Second, what is moral is dependent on the views of each person. The dictators views only serve the dictator and perhaps a small group of the dictator's friends. If the dictator is a socio-path or incapable of understanding the difference between good and bad then any argument of morality is moot to the dictator. You and I can agree that the interests of others are being trampled but that means nothing to the dictator and requires that you and I feel empathy and share the belief that the dictators actions are immoral. I recommend humans adopt democratic forms of government and choose to construct moral codes that maximize interests for the community by granting rights to all until and if a person behaves in a manner that would negate some of those rights.
My philosophy does not exist in a vacuum.
Whose moral point of view? The socio-path? The criminally insane? You argue as if morals are absolute.
That is because you are not paying attention.
Humans are moral agents. We live in complex societies that evolve. We can look to history to see which systems of morality are best for society and humans. Humans are by and large capable of empathy. They care about humans. Humans have individual needs. Humans live in societies. and those societies often have need that conflict with the citizens. Humans being the moral agents that they are can choose a strategy that will maximize benefits to society and that can reduce moral conflicts and improve social cohesion and order.
Bingo.
That is correct and we don't invest in them the same rights as those who can exhibit responsibility.
FYI, I'm tyring of the debate. I will unlikely respond to every point of your next post. Of course feel free to respond to every point of this one. Perhaps you could highlight the points you feel most relevant.
Last edited:
Me too. One of my best friends, and his girlfriend, are both vegan. But we have dinner at each other's places sometimes. When that happens, I eat vegan with them. Not because I am trying to bend over backwards to please them, or anything. I am just trying something different, that's all. I like trying new things in life. I am not planning on turning vegan at all, at any point in my life. But, simply as a different experience, it is interesting to fix and eat a vegan dinner with them. Just trying something different now and then, that's all.
Cain
Straussian
I will note that "SL's" postings, as per a useful private rule I constructed not long ago, shall only be addressed in passing (as they are virtually devoid of content).
See for instance:
We spot the hallmark words -- "dishonest", "selfishness" -- light amusement washes over, and we move on.
In what follows we witness the tired talking point repeated once again. I'm afraid your ostrich-like behavior does not make for sound argument:
Ah, yes, I can only point out the errors of your deductive reasoning while citing on-the-ground eyewitness accounts from those who: enforce humane slaughter regulations; the people who actually labor in the slaughterhouses; and the investigative journalists who enter slaughterhouses undercover.
Previously I was compared to some "Ion" character and now I'm "just like" AV (who I know and detest). The irony of the "hard-to-deal-with-facts" bit overwhelms me.
[Still more meaningless bluster snipped]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Now we return to RandFan's hodgepodge of one-word answers (and in some cases non sequiturs). Let us first focus on the simple errors that give rise to confusion:
This fails to distinguish the normative from the descriptivie (a recurrent theme, unfortunately).
I wrote:
Randfan says:
I will take back the word "oppression" since it is a loaded term. The "moral society", on this view, can maintain violence, slavery, murder, segregation is not a form of oppression at all. As for "highest moral standards", the characterization you actually take issue with, I think you misunderstand. Yes, one can take the meta-ethical view that indeed all these words, separate or together -- "highest" "moral" and "standard" -- are absurd. I was talking about how a specific "moral society" legislates and enforces morality, a rather important distinction.
Your use of the term absolute, which I learned from previous threads and postings, lacks recognizable meaning. I'm not even sure the first statement, as an observation, is even true. Again I see this oddly collectvistic perspective and wonder. In any case, I'm not sure who "as a species" refers to: Humans as a species or the animal(s?) in question "as a species"?
Here we see a simple deductive error that was dispensed of pages ago:
This is the fallacy of deriving an ought from an is. Ironically, you go on to accuse me of a non sequitur.
I only use the word "highest" because, as you acknowledge earlier, it is enforceable: the three can decide to murder the one and not commit any ethical wrong-doing.
I wrote:
And you said:
Well, thank you for that perceptive interjection. You see, you don't need to interrupt the flow of discussion to make this kind of remark. I am only pausing here to highlight this matter for future streamlining.
Talk about a failure to understand what is implicitly stated. Once again, as a descriptive statement this is not at all interesting. As a normative position it is rather, shall we say, crazy (in part for the reasons provided above).
This is confusing now. By admitting that what the majority says "could be [moral]" you are implying that there exists a morality independent of our beliefs. The sentence that then follows compounds this confusion (to say nothing of the final sentence, mercifully snipped).
On my belief in an indepedent and universal morality:
I do not classify the so-called "moral codes" of other animals as being moral codes at all (perhaps with the limited exception of some primates). Nor do I think this interesting vis-a-vis human obligations even if true. Furthermore, I regard the fact that lions kill zebras as a somewhat sad consequence of existence. I'm rather sure this stance is not at all exclusive to -- or even particular to -- moral vegans and vegetarians. I mean, do you consider it "wrong" when a lion breaks her leg accidentially? Do you think in terms of "right" and "wrong" when a boy dislocates his kneecap playing basketball by himself? I think it is unfortunate.
I think in terms of right and wrong when a moral agent causes the above outcomes; n fact, I've said precisely this on a number of occasion -- in this thread of all places! It is wrong for a human to hunt and kill a zebra like a lion. It is wrong for a moral agent to purposely dislocate a boy's kneecap. Let us also, while we're here, dispense of this "absolute" canard you keep throwing out. Is it *absolutely* wrong for person X to dislocate person Y's knee? Is it *absolutely* wrong for humans to hunt and kill zebras? No, I don't think so. I can imagine scenarios when and where it might be justified. However, these scenarios are not what I would classify as "normal circumstances" (nor are they, in my view, theoretically interesting).
Randfan:
And why is the propagataion of the species important again? Your arbitrary number, it turns out, is vital to supporting an arbitrary end. If your justification has anything to do with some inchoate appeal to "evolution", then I direct you to the relevant section above. This house of cards has already collapsed.
Cain:
As for the "why not" -- I already said why not right there! Because it's hopelessly arbitrary. Your counter-examples completely miss the point because you're asking me to consider people who suffer from a pathologies that does not allow for moral agency, the consideration of interests.
So what if non-human animals cannot look after the interests of humans. This unfortunate non-argument is as prevalent as it is meaningless. We cannot expect the severly retarded, infants, etc., to look after the interests of rational moral agents. Almost nobody considers that a good argument for eating babies.
See for instance:
We spot the hallmark words -- "dishonest", "selfishness" -- light amusement washes over, and we move on.
In what follows we witness the tired talking point repeated once again. I'm afraid your ostrich-like behavior does not make for sound argument:
Ah, yes, I can only point out the errors of your deductive reasoning while citing on-the-ground eyewitness accounts from those who: enforce humane slaughter regulations; the people who actually labor in the slaughterhouses; and the investigative journalists who enter slaughterhouses undercover.
Previously I was compared to some "Ion" character and now I'm "just like" AV (who I know and detest). The irony of the "hard-to-deal-with-facts" bit overwhelms me.
[Still more meaningless bluster snipped]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Now we return to RandFan's hodgepodge of one-word answers (and in some cases non sequiturs). Let us first focus on the simple errors that give rise to confusion:
This fails to distinguish the normative from the descriptivie (a recurrent theme, unfortunately).
I wrote:
Randfan says:
I will take back the word "oppression" since it is a loaded term. The "moral society", on this view, can maintain violence, slavery, murder, segregation is not a form of oppression at all. As for "highest moral standards", the characterization you actually take issue with, I think you misunderstand. Yes, one can take the meta-ethical view that indeed all these words, separate or together -- "highest" "moral" and "standard" -- are absurd. I was talking about how a specific "moral society" legislates and enforces morality, a rather important distinction.
Your use of the term absolute, which I learned from previous threads and postings, lacks recognizable meaning. I'm not even sure the first statement, as an observation, is even true. Again I see this oddly collectvistic perspective and wonder. In any case, I'm not sure who "as a species" refers to: Humans as a species or the animal(s?) in question "as a species"?
Here we see a simple deductive error that was dispensed of pages ago:
This is the fallacy of deriving an ought from an is. Ironically, you go on to accuse me of a non sequitur.
I only use the word "highest" because, as you acknowledge earlier, it is enforceable: the three can decide to murder the one and not commit any ethical wrong-doing.
I wrote:
And you said:
Well, thank you for that perceptive interjection. You see, you don't need to interrupt the flow of discussion to make this kind of remark. I am only pausing here to highlight this matter for future streamlining.
Talk about a failure to understand what is implicitly stated. Once again, as a descriptive statement this is not at all interesting. As a normative position it is rather, shall we say, crazy (in part for the reasons provided above).
This is confusing now. By admitting that what the majority says "could be [moral]" you are implying that there exists a morality independent of our beliefs. The sentence that then follows compounds this confusion (to say nothing of the final sentence, mercifully snipped).
On my belief in an indepedent and universal morality:
I do not classify the so-called "moral codes" of other animals as being moral codes at all (perhaps with the limited exception of some primates). Nor do I think this interesting vis-a-vis human obligations even if true. Furthermore, I regard the fact that lions kill zebras as a somewhat sad consequence of existence. I'm rather sure this stance is not at all exclusive to -- or even particular to -- moral vegans and vegetarians. I mean, do you consider it "wrong" when a lion breaks her leg accidentially? Do you think in terms of "right" and "wrong" when a boy dislocates his kneecap playing basketball by himself? I think it is unfortunate.
I think in terms of right and wrong when a moral agent causes the above outcomes; n fact, I've said precisely this on a number of occasion -- in this thread of all places! It is wrong for a human to hunt and kill a zebra like a lion. It is wrong for a moral agent to purposely dislocate a boy's kneecap. Let us also, while we're here, dispense of this "absolute" canard you keep throwing out. Is it *absolutely* wrong for person X to dislocate person Y's knee? Is it *absolutely* wrong for humans to hunt and kill zebras? No, I don't think so. I can imagine scenarios when and where it might be justified. However, these scenarios are not what I would classify as "normal circumstances" (nor are they, in my view, theoretically interesting).
Randfan:
And why is the propagataion of the species important again? Your arbitrary number, it turns out, is vital to supporting an arbitrary end. If your justification has anything to do with some inchoate appeal to "evolution", then I direct you to the relevant section above. This house of cards has already collapsed.
Cain:
RandFan:
As for the "why not" -- I already said why not right there! Because it's hopelessly arbitrary. Your counter-examples completely miss the point because you're asking me to consider people who suffer from a pathologies that does not allow for moral agency, the consideration of interests.
So what if non-human animals cannot look after the interests of humans. This unfortunate non-argument is as prevalent as it is meaningless. We cannot expect the severly retarded, infants, etc., to look after the interests of rational moral agents. Almost nobody considers that a good argument for eating babies.