What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Mirrorglass]

The cliche you want is "raises the question". "Begs the question" means something entirely different.

Hm, I suppose you're right. Well, learn something new every day.

Also, I already explained to you once that I brought up Kant in answer to your specific question asking for multiple, independently coherent objectivist theories. If you're still trying to make a talking point by twisting that answer either you're not paying attention or you're incapable of following an argument.

You've done no such thing. But it isn't an important point, anyway, so I'll let it slide.

Asked and answered. People who aren't psychopaths consider animal cruelty wrong whether or not we can prove that the animal in question is capable of abstract thought. Torturing the mentally ill or mentally disabled is considered bad whether or not we can prove that the person in question is capable of abstract thought.

So now you're claiming I'm a psychopath? That or just trying to confuse people. A lot of people who aren't psychopaths - the majority, in fact - don't consider farming animals animal cruelty.

We can value humans more than animals because of their capacity for abstract thought, certainly, although that does entail putting some mentally disabled in the same bin as animals.

I've said this before. There's no need for my reason for treating humans with no cognitive functions well to be the same as my reason for treating intelligent humans well. These two do not depend on each other.

Also, people so severely retarded they really can't be considered higher than animals are extremely few. Please do not try to make it sound like I thought of retarded people who possess some human intelligence as less valuable than other individuals. To me, humanity is a binary value; either you have it, or you don't. Nobody's more human than others.

Singer would have us put them in the same bin as animals and then be nice to them, and nice to animals. However it's equally consistent to put them in the same bin as animals and then butcher them all for pet food.

I'd like to hear this Singer's definition of "retarded" before making a decision on his views.

Yes, the "acorns are oak trees" argument. We never treat potentiality as actuality. Except in this one case you want to do that, because you think this ad hoc move gets you out of a hole.

There's no hole, Kevin. You're not a judge sentencing me; you're a rude member of a minority who's loudly claiming everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You can call me stupid all you want, but it won't change the facts.

Also, strawman. I never said children are adults; just that they have the potential to become adults, and as such, I consider them worthy of moral consideration.

Your argument is silly, anyway. So potentiality doesn't matter? Does that mean you don't care if there is dynamite under your bed? After all, it isn't actually killing you know. Sure, it has the potential to do so in the future, but why should that matter? Potentiality isn't actuality, so there's no reason to think dynamite with an unlit fuse is worthy of considering a risk.

"Arbitrary" in this sense means "has absolutely no discernible basis except for the desire by meat-eaters to draw a target after they have shot the arrow". Lots of moral systems don't have assumptions that are arbitrary in that sense.

Of course it does. My argument doesn't start from me wanting to eat meat. I would gladly give up meat if it did conflict with my morality. It doesn't however. The basis for my idea is that I believe abstract thinking to be much more important to humanity than a sensory reaction. I also deeply value humanity; in fact the concept forms the basis for almost all of my morals. This line of thinking simply leads to the conclusion that animals are not humans, and as such, are worth less than we are.

Fair enough. The same people who called Singer a Nazi would call you one for that, but at least you are consistent. As long as you're up for slaughtering the mentally disabled then there's nothing philosophically inconsistent about your position.

Should I consider this thread Godwined?

Silly strawman again. Like I've said, there are other reasons not to "slaughter the mentally disabled". You saying those reasons are stupid doesn't make them so.

That's a stupid reason to refrain from doing something.

Nope, that didn't do it either. Maybe if you repeat in another ten of your posts, not bringing in anything new?

It would save loads of money if we could put down the seriously mentally disabled the same way we put down an unwanted pet.

And it would brutalize humans terribly. Well, you might not change much, but many of the nice people would become numb to killing humans. In something like this, a slippery slope really is a possibility.

1. Incorrect.
2. Incorrect.
3. I can't speak for Cain but I'm not here to be your bestest friend, nor am I here to get tactical advice from butthurt meat eaters.

Do you realize you're the guy in a forum who makes rude posts, then shouts "I pwned you!"?

No matter how many times you say so, you haven't "won" this debate. You've just called your opponents stupid, over and over again, then claimed you've won, over and over again. You've presented very little in the way of arguments.

Honestly, I don't think you're even trying to convert anyone to veganism. You like feeling superior, and wouldn't want to be "normal". You don't really care much about animals, but really like telling other people you're better than they are. Unfortunately, this attitude is common among vegans, which I fear may be partially responsible for the strong resistance. This is truly a shame, since there are many good reasons for adopting a vegan diet. It just seems none of you vegans actually know about them, or at least want to share.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Aww, I'm feeling a little left out.
I posted an internally consistent, rational argument for why I would kill animals for food and not humans and it has not been addressed by the vegans claiming such a position is not possible

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5832929#post5832929

I'm guessing they don't like addressing arguments like yours that can't be twisted to killing babies.

Anyway, to make a prediction: if one of the vegans addresses your idea, they will say it's a naturalistic fallacy, say that in your world, people who don't help society should be killed and eaten, and say you are immoral for causing animals pain.


Seriously, though, I like your theory, and think it might not only be a consistent moral theory, but also an evolutionary explanation to why we have developed our moral systems concerning animals.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Aww, I'm feeling a little left out.
I posted an internally consistent, rational argument for why I would kill animals for food and not humans and it has not been addressed by the vegans claiming such a position is not possible

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5832929#post5832929

Cain addressed your argument already.

There's a recurring theme in this thread of people claiming that their arguments haven't been addressed, when in fact the exact point has been addressed very clearly and often repeatedly.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Your question is irrelevant, stupid and has already been answered over and over again.

Scroll up. Do you see a big picture of Hume, captioned "David Hume says IS does not imply OUGHT"? There's your answer. It has already been provided in lolcat format for the truly thick. There is nothing more I can do.

And who do you think decides the "ought", Kevin? We go back to the same issue I keep pointing at your face and which you keep ignoring: Who the Hell speaks in the name of nature with such self importance? WHO?

In what way can I illustrate to you that judgements of any kind are a subset of human culture?
I've ran out of ways to explain to you that what you're doing is basically projecting a human perception on the rest of nature, which is a typical, self-important, egocentric impulse of human beings.

Nature does not have a moral code. Morality is a Meme. Do you know what a Meme is, Kevin? Maybe we should start from there.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And who do you think decides the "ought", Kevin? We go back to the same issue I keep pointing at your face and which you keep ignoring: Who the Hell speaks in the name of nature with such self importance? WHO?

In what way can I illustrate to you that judgements of any kind are a subset of human culture?
I've ran out of ways to explain to you that what you're doing is basically projecting a human perception on the rest of nature, which is a typical, self-important, egocentric impulse of human beings.

Nature does not have a moral code. Morality is a Meme. Do you know what a Meme is, Kevin? Maybe we should start from there.

Ron: "Nature has no morals!".
Kevin: "We are a part of nature yet we have moral ideas".
Ron: "You aren't listening, nature has no morals!".
Kevin: "Even if we we did not, IS does not imply OUGHT".
Ron: "When I say nature has no morals, I mean that morals are social and/or philosophical constructions with no inherent existence of their own!".
Kevin: "That's meant to be news to someone? Have you understood any part of this thread?".
Ron: "I've run out of ways to explain this to you!".

 

[Cavemonster]

Cain addressed your argument already.

There's a recurring theme in this thread of people claiming that their arguments haven't been addressed, when in fact the exact point has been addressed very clearly and often repeatedly.

No, he mentioned my argument in reference to someone else's.
In that mention he did not address it or show any flaws in it, only showed that it was inconsistent with the other poster's argument. A fact which has nothing to do with my post really.

If my argument has been addressed clearly and repeatedly, you should be able to link me to the post where this was done.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, he mentioned my argument in reference to someone else's.
In that mention he did not address it or show any flaws in it, only showed that it was inconsistent with the other poster's argument. A fact which has nothing to do with my post really.

If my argument has been addressed clearly and repeatedly, you should be able to link me to the post where this was done.

Here.

You never bothered responding to Cain, but you felt entitled to post the same story four pages later and pretend that you had never gotten a response.

 

[Cain]

Cavemonster - I think Mirrorglass' posts track with what you say. While I may not have explicitly talked about killing babies, it's safe to say that I was thinking about it.

--------------------

Because you misrepresented my view, clearly and intentionally, while still claiming to be quoting me. That is about the rudest th-- [snipping self-righteous posturing, which makes this vegan smile]

No, I did not misrepresent your view. You're wounded ego is filibustering...

A dog doesn't "anticipate the future" either, at least not to any great degree. For the rest of the points, see below.

Pavlov lies.

Basically, my definition of suffering requires the capability of abstract thinking; or to put it more simply, you can only suffer if you understand what the concept of suffering means.

Adjectives escape me. First, you're inconsistent on this matter. In some posts you say it it unique to humans, in others you say it's possible for other primates to suffer. Earlier on you said rights are built on moral agency (or the potential for moral agency), yet you were also willing to grant rights to primates who learn sign language. It's difficult to follow this position if you keep changing it. Second, it's just silly. What does an "abstract concept of suffering" entail? On this view babies, toddlers, children(?) cannot suffer.

Animals don't think about pain; they just react to it. Have you ever seen a dog with a broken leg? It keeps on moving forward the best it can, and goes on with it's life. It may spend time resting it's leg, but it won't give up seeking food and doing everything it normally would. A human, on the other hand, may stop walking completely, become depressed or do any number of things that will not benefit him at all. It is this ability that makes the humans capable of suffering in a way that is beyond animals.

Uh-huh. So, in order for a dog to have rights it needs to throw itself a pity party and moan, "My leg! My leg! How will I hump? How will take a ****** I'll never play fetch again!"

Silly strawmen. I asked whether you think cows know they will die.

You asked me "if a cow understands what death is."

An excellent demonstration of two themes consistent in your posts: dishonesty and mean-spiritedness.

B.S. That involves a set up and a pay-off.

Good point. I could have worded that better. I should say, I consider it wrong to hurt animals without a reason stemming from a necessity. In this case, I need food, and as an animal is food to me, I have a reason to kill it. I will do it as painlessly as possible.

In what case? You do not need to kill them; you have alternatives. And again with the "as painlessly as possible" -- why as painlessly as possible if pain doesn't matter? What do you personally care if animals die under horrendous conditions? Because it "dulls" the human spirit, as Kant would say? If it's fully robotic, automatic and violent, then it's morally kosher?

By the way, do you have any knowledge of the question I asked about the feasibility of vegan farming on a global scale? This is a very important question to the debate.

Global veganism? I haven't gotten there yet. I still need to figure out what we're gonna do with all the cows.

I'm starting to think you're just a troll.

THAT was funny (my thing about soccer... not your thing about trolling).

I suppose I could have been clearer here too. When I spoke of potential, I was speaking of beings that have the potential to develop into humans more or less on their own.

So you think it's fair to say that infants develop "more or less on their own"?? They're born Reaganites, rugged individualists.

I don't consider to have a moral responsibility to implant embryos grown in test tubes to women any more than I consider it my responsibility to make sure each of my sperms will fertilize an egg.

As for the revised question, assuming these embryos can be expected to develop into healthy children, then yes. It would essentially be a question of saving one child or twelve babies. Not hard for a practical thinker.

Practicality, that's what I like! You did the right thing by saving the IMPLANTED embyros, but this is kind of a trick question because you're supposed to knock out the five year-old. You know, if you wanna do the super-moral thing. Good job, though. Maybe not the quickest thinker, but you have the right priorities.

I want to use the potentiality to talk about some things you said to Kevin:

I never said children are adults; just that they have the potential to become adults, and as such, I consider them worthy of moral consideration.

Your argument is silly, anyway. So potentiality doesn't matter? Does that mean you don't care if there is dynamite under your bed? After all, it isn't actually killing you know. Sure, it has the potential to do so in the future, but why should that matter? Potentiality isn't actuality, so there's no reason to think dynamite with an unlit fuse is worthy of considering a risk.

This is a version of the equivocation fallacy. When we're talking about potentiality we mean harm to a morally significant being. So, suppose a woman gets pregnant, but drinks lots of alcohol and smokes crack. As far as the organism she carries is concerned, her behavior is only immoral IF... she chooses to go through with this pregnancy. If we discover she plans on having an abortion next week, then she has no problem (apart from the drug and alcohol addiction).

Alternatively, let's suppose somebody plants a nuclear bomb under Manhattan and sets it to detonate in 150 years. This is immoral if we expect morally significant beings to be affected, regardless of whether or not they currently exist. What matters is they WILL exist.

What a delightfully childish non-response to a point you can't refute.

Delightful is right. But I didn't think there was anything to refute because there was no real argument.

So could you explain to me why you killed a dog, not one of the humans?

I think the typical adult human being leads a richer, more important life than the typical dog. Since I'm forced to choose between the two, I choose the human. Isn't it crazy how I chose to save people and you chose to save embyros? Ooops, I don't want misrepresent. You chose to save IMPLANTED embryos. You get a key to the city.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ron: "Nature has no morals!".
Kevin: "We are a part of nature yet we have moral ideas".
Ron: "You aren't listening, nature has no morals!".
Kevin: "Even if we we did not, IS does not imply OUGHT".
Ron: "When I say nature has no morals, I mean that morals are social and/or philosophical constructions with no inherent existence of their own!".
Kevin: "That's meant to be news to someone? Have you understood any part of this thread?".
Ron: "I've run out of ways to explain this to you!".

Who decides what things "ought" and "ought not" to be, Kevin?

You continue escaping the painful answer to the obvious question.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Who decides what things "ought" and "ought not" to be, Kevin?

You continue escaping the painful answer to the obvious question.

This is like a small child interrupting a discussion of algebra to say "Who says two plus two is four? Who says? ANSWER MY QUESTION!".

We decide for ourselves. If we're rational our decisions about what is moral are internally consistent (among other criteria which are not relevant, since your problem is one of inconsistency).

 

[Cavemonster]

Kevin:
Thanks for the link, I had done a page search on all those pages for my name and somehow missed Cain's response. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by my ineptness in wading through a very dense thread.


Cain:

Obviously we can find contractarianism lacking on more fundamental, non-vegan grounds. Putting these objections aside for a moment, it appears animals lose status on your view. What's to stop me from abusing cats for fun? I own them, they're mine, and there's no threat of a united animal uprising (I mean, we are talking about cats here). Your reasoning strongly implies torture, dog-fighting, take-your-pick should be allowed... unless the contract contains a mechanism unknown to me.

And here lies a basic tension: meat-eaters want a justification to consume animals, but almost everybody also wants reasoning that prohibits cruelty. How can your social contract reconcile these demands?

The social contract by itself doesn't reconcile these demands.
Our desire for no cruelty to animals is an emotional preference, while our desire not to harm humans stems from a practical reality.

Whether animals are harmed or not for my needs or wants, doesn't effect me in a practical way, but it does in an emotional way. It is (mostly) a whole different system that leads me to prefer no cruelty to animals than the one that prevents me from acting so towards humans. You've noted that the social contract doesn't apply directly to animals, but what does?

Through a combination of mirror neurons, other neurologically hardwired instincts, a childhood diet of parental values and television featuring anthropomorphised animals, and persistent cultural memes that I've picked up, I have a negative emotional response to the idea or image of suffering in some kinds of animals (see my earlier post of the descending heirarchy of sympathy).

For me as an individual, knowing that animals are made to suffer unnecessarily makes me feel bad, for those biological and cultural reasons outlined above. I don't like to feel bad, so I'd prefer animals not suffer unnecessarily. It's that simple. My emotional connection is deeper to our housecat than it is to a fly. But that's the more or less arbitrary emotional wiring I'm working with. I can't change it just by wanting to, so I adjust my behavior and my position on various issues so that my emotional system won't produce an unwanted negative output.

When other people harm animals, that trips my emotional trigger, so I'd rather they didn't. Depending on the severity of their actions, harming animals could violate the human social contract by causing other humans and society in general emotional harm.

For instance, the beastiality farm that was just shut down, was a brutal operation that, when revealed, illicited an emotional response from most observers, in effect an attack on those observers. And the people involved will be punished for violating that social contract. If they had perpetrated the same abuse on insects of crustaceans who both have pain receptors, the public outcry could not have been nearly so great. The condemnation was wholly dependent on the degree public emotional sympathy with the animals in question.

A couple important clarifications. As a meat eater, I don't want or need a justification to eat animals. No one needs a justification to do anything. What we need are logical reasons for any prohibitions on behavior.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, you continue to maintain that no argument for the morality of eating meat provides an adequate protection for children or the developmentally disabled. I think both classes are well provided for with the human social contract. It even extends to protect some animals against some kinds of abuse as I've noted above.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

This is like a small child interrupting a discussion of algebra to say "Who says two plus two is four? Who says? ANSWER MY QUESTION!".

Thank you for the silly and false analogy, Kevin but it is not like that. That's just what happens when you continuously avoid a question and pretend people are gonna let you go off the hook. I, for one, don't let important questions unanswered. If you found my persistence pedant, you should know better next time and simply confront a question when it is put in front of you.

We decide for ourselves.

Thank you! (For finally answering the question, that is)
The problem is that that's not quite right when you say "for ourselves", because when you're talking about the rights of all the living creatures you're clearly deciding for us and for every single creature. You do realize that is what's being discussed in this thread: The "moral" rights of all living creatures on the Universe. And we, we human beings, are gonna be the ones to decide for them. And this doesn't strike you as arrogant at all?

If we're rational our decisions about what is moral are internally consistent (among other criteria which are not relevant, since your problem is one of inconsistency).

Rational? And how is this decided? Have you kept track of the constant shifting of the moral Zeitgeist?? (See: Dawkins on "The Shifting of the Moral Zeitgeist", which can be found on youtube) And why do we, humans, get to dictate what is rational for all the creatures on the universe? (Since by "nature" we refer to the Cosmos itself and everything within it).

At this point, I don't expect you to realize/admit that what you're suggesting is a self important attempt at projecting human values on the rest of the Universe. I'm not gonna expect you to realize this is basically a Disney perception of nature. But I do appreciate you finally answered the question (It did take a lot of persistence, though)

No further questions, your honor.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin:
Thanks for the link, I had done a page search on all those pages for my name and somehow missed Cain's response. Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by my ineptness in wading through a very dense thread.

In that case I apologise for being rude, if it was simple error.

Thank you for the silly and false analogy, Kevin but it is not like that. That's just what happens when you continuously avoid a question and pretend people are gonna let you go off the hook. I, for one, don't let important questions unanswered. If you found my persistence pedant, you should know better next time and simply confront a question when it is put in front of you.

It's only an important question if asking it leads somewhere. Otherwise my analogy holds.

Thank you! (For finally answering the question, that is)
The problem is that that's not quite right when you say "for ourselves", because when you're talking about the rights of all the living creatures you're clearly deciding for us and for every single creature.

No, it's precisely correct. As an objectivist (page back if you need a refresher on why your quasi-nihilist and quasi-relativist position is inconsistent and/or useless) I must apply any moral judgement I make to all relevantly similar people and situations.

You do realize that is what's being discussed in this thread: The "moral" rights of all living creatures on the Universe. And we, we human beings, are gonna be the ones to decide for them. And this doesn't strike you as arrogant at all?

It strikes me as necessary to any internally consistent attempt at practical morality.

Rational? And how is this decided? Have you kept track of the constant shifting of the moral Zeitgeist?? (See: Dawkins on "The Shifting of the Moral Zeitgeist", which can be found on youtube) And why do we, humans, get to dictate what is rational for all the creatures on the universe? (Since by "nature" we refer to the Cosmos itself and everything within it).

At this point, I don't expect you to realize/admit that what you're suggesting is a self important attempt at projecting human values on the rest of the Universe. I'm not gonna expect you to realize this is basically a Disney perception of nature. But I do appreciate you finally answered the question (It did take a lot of persistence, though)

No further questions, your honor.

This is postmodernist nonsense. "How do we really know what is rational, huh? Isn't it arrogant to think that you are rational and irrational people are not?".

In case you hadn't noticed the whole reason the JREF exists and hence these forums exist is the "arrogant" idea that rationality is better than irrationality and that some of us are equipped to tell the difference.

 

[Manopolus]

Aww, I'm feeling a little left out.
I posted an internally consistent, rational argument for why I would kill animals for food and not humans and it has not been addressed by the vegans claiming such a position is not possible

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5832929#post5832929

Yeah, they're constantly ignoring me too, for some reason. I guess I just won't bother to read this thread anymore.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

No, it's precisely correct. As an objectivist (page back if you need a refresher on why your quasi-nihilist and quasi-relativist position is inconsistent and/or useless) I must apply any moral judgement I make to all relevantly similar people and situations.

You're entitled to your opinion and your view of the world. But the world isn't how you view it.

It strikes me as necessary to any internally consistent attempt at practical morality.

Good for you. Good luck on your attempts to speak for the Cosmos and how it should be ruled.

This is postmodernist nonsense. "How do we really know what is rational, huh? Isn't it arrogant to think that you are rational and irrational people are not?".

I meant "rational" in the context of morality. There is such thing as scientific rationality, and we humans are capable of studying it, and science is the tool to study it. Again (and I know you won't cause you're stubborn like a rock, but I'll bring it back again), you should read/listen to "The Shifting Moral Zeitgeist" for a reminder of how morality has changed over time, just like art values. They're constantly changing. Because they're made up by humans. So what was morally rational back then, isn't now.

That's where Memetics comes into place. But I'm not holding my breath about you taking this information seriously. You only seem to be seeking confirmation bias and treating any argument that challenges you, as an attack.

In case you hadn't noticed the whole reason the JREF exists and hence these forums exist is the "arrogant" idea that rationality is better than irrationality and that some of us are equipped to tell the difference.

Well, if I ever had a suspicion that you were a woo, it can now be entirely confirmed. Everything makes sense now.

 

[Cain]

Cain:
For me as an individual, knowing that animals are made to suffer unnecessarily makes me feel bad, for those biological and cultural reasons outlined above. I don't like to feel bad, so I'd prefer animals not suffer unnecessarily. It's that simple.
...

When other people harm animals, that trips my emotional trigger, so I'd rather they didn't. Depending on the severity of their actions, harming animals could violate the human social contract by causing other humans and society in general emotional harm.

By legislating emotions you empower the government to restrict flag-burning or speaking ill of religion. Indeed, if we're talking about non-rational emotional triggers then the state has ample justification for far more ominous activity.

A couple important clarifications. As a meat eater, I don't want or need a justification to eat animals. No one needs a justification to do anything. What we need are logical reasons for any prohibitions on behavior.

Yet, you provide no logical, free-standing reasons for restricting animal abuse -- Unless... "it makes humans feel bad" IS a logical reason, in which case we can imagine an amoral society where eating animals is outlawed on identical grounds. Or more likely, the public will outlaw eating kitties, doggies and horsies, while pigs, cows and chickens are a-OK. Interestingly, you seem to leave no rational basis for evaluating these three societies. How can we say any one is better than the others?

As I said earlier, when it comes to killing, or profoundly acting against someone's interests, the burden of proof sits with the figure (or institution) claiming authority in the matter. This is why you're mostly on the right track in demanding reasons for prohibitions. So, what if Peter wants to kill Paul? It's incumbent upon Paul to plead his case? "I'm a nice guy..." No, Peter needs grounds for justifiable homicide: "the victim had a knife, made threatening comments, was running at me."

This should be such a simple, five-minutes-case-closed matter when it comes to truly trivial creatures/objects.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, you continue to maintain that no argument for the morality of eating meat provides an adequate protection for children or the developmentally disabled. I think both classes are well provided for with the human social contract. It even extends to protect some animals against some kinds of abuse as I've noted above.

I don't think you gave any explicit argument, and so I'm left to infer the reason why children and the developmentally disabled have rights is because of the non-rational public sentiment that's responsible for outlawing cruelty. If this is correct, then I do not think you've put together a compelling case.

----------------------------
Manoplus:

Yeah, they're constantly ignoring me too, for some reason. I guess I just won't bother to read this thread anymore.

Irony.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I meant "rational" in the context of morality. There is such thing as scientific rationality, and we humans are capable of studying it, and science is the tool to study it. Again (and I know you won't cause you're stubborn like a rock, but I'll bring it back again), you should read/listen to "The Shifting Moral Zeitgeist" for a reminder of how morality has changed over time, just like art values. They're constantly changing. Because they're made up by humans. So what was morally rational back then, isn't now.

That's where Memetics comes into place. But I'm not holding my breath about you taking this information seriously. You only seem to be seeking confirmation bias and treating any argument that challenges you, as an attack.

I'd post the lolHume again but since it didn't sink in the first time it would clearly be a waste of pixels in your case.

We get it. You're a relativist. You think that because opinions about morality have changed over time that nobody is entitled to criticise anyone else's moral claims.

Your philosophical position is useless and almost certainly incoherent to boot, for reasons that have already been explained. Go back and engage with those reasons if you want to have an intelligent discussion instead of trumpeting the same debunked and nonsensical claims over and over again.

Well, if I ever had a suspicion that you were a woo, it can now be entirely confirmed. Everything makes sense now.

Nope, I'm a person who is rational scientifically and philosophically. You're at best a person who is rational scientifically and irrational philosophically.

 

[Cavemonster]

By legislating emotions you empower the government to restrict flag-burning or speaking ill of religion. Indeed, if we're talking about non-rational emotional triggers then the state has ample justification for far more ominous activity.

Yes, it does open up some unpleasant possibilities, but remember, that part of my argument was descriptive, not prescriptive. So your objection is an appeal to consequences fallacy.

The fact is that we do legislate emotions, laws are passed by humans, gay marriage is illegal for mostly emotional reasons. This inarguably results in a lot of terrible laws, but recognition of emotional harm as real harm results in a lot of positive legal frameworks too.

That's why we have crimes like harassment. That's why civil courts look at emotional cruelty in divorce proceedings and in awarding damages for emotional distress. That's why, when a child is sexually assaulted by a stranger, who does no physical damage, we have a charge we can press.

Recognizing and legislating to include human emotion is not the same as making decisions emotionally. Failling to include it would be quite illogical.

Yet, you provide no logical, free-standing reasons for restricting animal abuse -- Unless... "it makes humans feel bad" IS a logical reason,

You minimize it, but human emotion is the glue that holds families and societies together. Yes, violating that is not a fantastic idea. Not if you value getting along with other humans.

To answer your question about different societies with different values, it would depend how these cultures interacted with the broader world. A self contained society that banned all meat consumption, that banned only certain animals, or one that allowed animal cruelty could all be internally consistent. And, in fact, historically, we've had all of these. You're right, I can't find any basis to judge them, but I also can't find any reason to judge them until they come into active contact with a society that doesn't share their values.

As I said earlier, when it comes to killing, or profoundly acting against someone's interests, the burden of proof sits with the figure (or institution) claiming authority in the matter. This is why you're mostly on the right track in demanding reasons for prohibitions. So, what if Peter wants to kill Paul? It's incumbent upon Paul to plead his case? "I'm a nice guy..." No, Peter needs grounds for justifiable homicide: "the victim had a knife, made threatening comments, was running at me."

No, I'd say that to be logical, before Paul has to defend himself against a murder charge, we must first understand why murder must be prohibited. Only then does he require an excuse, when the prohibition has been established to be rational.

I've laid out a rational and consistent prohibition against murder that does not include the protection of animals. You have yet to create a similar argument that includes animals aside from the bare assertion that harming a feeling being is 'wrong'.

I don't think you gave any explicit argument, and so I'm left to infer the reason why children and the developmentally disabled have rights is because of the non-rational public sentiment that's responsible for outlawing cruelty. If this is correct, then I do not think you've put together a compelling case.

I apologize if I haven't made myself clear. Nobody has rights in any moral sense. We have practical protections which are always provisional.

There are three main reasons that children and the developmentally disabled are protected.


Both children and the developmentally disabled actively contribute to society, and at least the children hold the potential to contribute to a much greater extent. if you believe otherwise, you haven't interacted with either. Humans in a pure vegetative state don't fall under this category, they are protected more under the other reasons.

Individual strong emotional attachment to family/friends makes an attack on one, functionally an attack on many. This is why I can't kill other people's children, or disabled family members, because it breaks my social contract with them. we have a whole legal apparatus to ensure that my life and freedoms will be endangered if I do so. This also protects pets.

General emotional attachment to humans, sympathy and revulsion to harm. This will make it unpleasant for me as an individual to kill another human. In the event that this unpleasantness is outweighed by something I stand to gain, or if I'm a sociopath and don't feel this sympathy, then the whole human collective who does feel it is at the ready to enforce their emotional distress. If wanted to kill a developmentally disabled person or a child with no family, first, I'd need to somehow overcome my own revulsion, and then I'd be breaking my social contract by harming the rest of society who would be repulsed by my act and bring down their wrath on me.

You may ask, what would happen if humans didn't have these feelings? Well, some of them are biologically rooted, so that would partially mean that we would be a different species. But ignoring that, at various points in time fetus's have come under that protection and sometimes have not.
I have no problem with fetuses being unprotected. If society as a whole develops a stronger emotional attachment to them again, they will once again have the protection of the social contract.

 

[Roboramma]

I don't know if you're just using plain sophistry or what, but I don't think you've answered my question within that bunch of confusing rhetoric. So I guess I'm going to try again. See if you can please answer it in a way that's clear, concise and simple:

What does Darwin's finding tell you about morality in nature? Do you still feel nature has any morality at all when it allows things like that to happen? Regardless of whether your answer is yes or no, please explain why.

Nature doesn't determine morality. So, no, nature doesn't have any inherent moral system. In nature people kill each other pretty frequently. I watched this talk by Steven Pinker the other day, for instance: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html
In which he points out that men in hunter gatherer societies have something like a 1/4 chance of being killed by other men (it varies from society to society, the numbers he gave ranged from 15-60%, but is generally something like that). But that doesn't suggest to me that murder is good, or even not bad.

Similarly, the fact that animals cause suffering in each other doesn't mean that their suffering is good, or even not bad.

 

[Roboramma]

Cavemonster, I think you make some good points in your above post, but I have to wonder what you think about moral questions from a personal, rather that societal, standpoint.

Specifically, if you were in a position to steal from me, and knew you could get away with it without being caught, would you?

You may suggest that it's impossible to know for certain that you'd get away with it. Perhaps, but you can certainly judge the likelihood. If, then, you were in a position to steal $1,000,000, and looked at the evidence and judged that your chance of being caught was 1/100,000,000,000, would you do so? If not, why not?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but rather I find the viewpoint that there is no "morality", only a social contract to be difficult to accept, mainly because I personally would not steal in that situation. I suppose you may say that rationally you should, but you have an emotional feeling that leads you not to want to steal, which is interesting, and fair enough if it's the case.
Anyway, I'll stop trying to guess your answer and let you respond for yourself.