What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Kevin_Lowe]

I am eating smoked fish (that I caught and a mate smoked) as I read this.

Delicious irony....

The fact that you don't know what irony is makes this post quite ironic.

 

[BTMO]

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually now I think about it there are quite distinct parallels between Ron's position and Rand's "objectivism".

Both involve standing on the shoulders of giants, and then pretending that you are at ground level.

The Randians do this economically, by taking advantage of a well-developed economic system created by social cooperation as their starting point and then claiming they have a moral right to take whatever they can damn well get from there without giving anything back.

Ron is doing this philosophically by living within a system that was conceived of by philosophers and which is made possible by people's mass adherence to moral rules of behaviour which are based on philosophy rather than pure science (since is does not imply ought, no moral rules based on pure science can exist even in theory), and denying that those moral rules of behaviour are any better or any worse than the moral rules of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or modern North Korea.

 

[Drudgewire]

Actually now I think about it there are quite distinct parallels between Ron's position and Rand's "objectivism".

Both involve standing on the shoulders of giants, and then pretending that you are at ground level.

The Randians do this economically, by taking advantage of a well-developed economic system created by social cooperation as their starting point and then claiming they have a moral right to take whatever they can damn well get from there without giving anything back.

Ron is doing this philosophically by living within a system that was conceived of by philosophers and which is made possible by people's mass adherence to moral rules of behaviour which are based on philosophy rather than pure science (since is does not imply ought, no moral rules based on pure science can exist even in theory), and denying that those moral rules of behaviour are any better or any worse than the moral rules of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or modern North Korea.

Veal parmesan is freakin' awesome.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Veal parmesan is freakin' awesome.

Thank you for your intelligent contribution to this thread. You are truly an ornament to the JREF forums.

 

[Cain]

I'm not sure if you're actually reading my posts Cain, your criticism doesn't seem very related to what I'm saying.

Perhaps your arguments are not cogent. I should say that it helps to use the quote function so I can see exactly how and where I misinterpret your words. Alternatively, if you have some sudden aversion to the mechanized quoting, which does get messy, you could refer directly to the words I have written rather than what you merely recall because I too must confess wondering if you are actually reading my posts.

Terms like descriptive moral relativist help tremendously. A repeated failure to answer basic questions is a hindrance, and non-standard definitions (e.g., social contract theory) are a step backwards.

I cannot navigate the discussion alone, especially when I have others going on at the same time...

--------------------
Mirrorglass:

Let's try to bring order to this exchange:

I've said it any number of times, already. For reasons other than suffering. Read previous posts by me, and add Cavemonster's social contracts, which I have adopted as part of my thinking now.

In other words, nothing resembling a rational, coherent standard

Re: reasons for eating animals:

I need food.

Conflation. There are non-animal sources for food.

On conditioning, which is -- or was -- related to future interests:

The Homo Sapiens species is known mainly for it's capacity for such things. In a famous example, Albert Einstein predicted the bending of light from stars as it passes the sun, which could only be observed during an eclipse, and his prediction later turned out to be correct. Other, less dramatic examples range from playing chess to keeping a calendar.

Einstein was a brilliant man, and a late convert to vegetarianism, but I'll restrict myself to commenting on the more familiar activities and only to say that I imagine some conditioning is still involved. The example of Pavlov's dog illustrates the point, but carries with it extraneous baggage. I'm talking about animals who have memories, anticipate the future; they do no wake up confused wondering why they're in a strange and unfamiliar place.

On cows not knowing they will die:

Now, I assert that from this it follows that cows have no opinion on whether or not they want to die.

Does that work on babies in their terrible twos? I mean... if we don't believe in that "social contract theory"/emotional revulsion stuff? I do wonder why you refused to look at whether or not they wanted to live, but I'm sure that's incidental.

Still on future interests:

But a comatose human has no such thing.

People wake from comas.

On suffering pain that is out of sight, out of mind:

Yes, it is indeed the effect on people that matters. However, the effect on people from just knowing animals are treated with unnecessary cruelty would be almost as bad as the torturing itself. It's not healthy to think just because something is hidden, it can have no effect.

Two things. How can you say almost as bad as the torture itself? This suggests the torture is itself bad. Also, I did not say that if something is hidden it will have NO effect. It will have less of an effect. If you're going to strive for any sort of consistency, then you must admit the way animals are treated today has an effect, not only on the public but especially -- especially -- the people doing the farming and killing. Moreover, since eating meat is not necessary, contrary to what you wrote above, it's not clear how you can favor animals as food.

On embryos and five year-olds, reasons:

..you thought they had the potential to develop rich mental lives,

Again, potentiality confusion.

or you had the natural tendency to want to take care of young members of your species,

Or maybe someone has a natural tendency to murder. I'm not thrilled with our natural tendencies. Should we give any moral credit to the vampires from literature and film who act contrary to their biological imperative?

or you thought the mothers of the embryos would not appreciate them dying,

So let's suppose all the organisms under threat had the same mother. Would a good mother would trade away her five year-old? There's around a million first trimester abortions a year in the United States alone, I don't think mothers would care that much. And even if they did, they're still mistaken. The mothers would be most upset are those without an eggs left at all (because their offspring IS not replaceable). But who cares about that? You said the freezer with hundreds of embryos was not worth it. I imagine it makes no difference if each embryo was a woman's last egg... yes, kept all in one basket.

Why on Earth would you consider an embryo more replaceable than a five-year old? They're both just as unique.

The five year-old's experiences are irreplaceable (For someone who claims to value the richness of a mental life, you sure don't show it). As for the embryos, would they be worth less if any had identical twins?

And if I waited fifty years, the ages would be 55 and 50. How is this relevant to the point?

That we could have embryos up and running again in less than six months.

As for the birth control part, I can assure you it does not. It helps if you don't look at each of my sentences in isolation; I've said before I don't consider sperm or ova to be worthy of moral consideration, since they cannot develop into (people on their own).

I suppose I should withdraw this claim since you do after all refer to the "people" you have heroically "saved." Although, "people" is certainly the wrong word, and since in addition to potentiality confusion you suffer from pain replacement confusion birth control denies the world all the people that would have been. Like, actual people... that would have been.

Concluding with some silly questions:
Re: "what if tomorrow everyone becomes a vegan?"

Well, you really ought to try and find a solution. Otherwise your ideas have no substance to them.

I know. Its such a plausible premise. Part of me thinks, "hey, people will not suddenly become vegan; it takes time, and as social change develops fewer cows will be produced and it really wouldn't be much of a problem." But still, I can't help but think there's going to be this rapture-like moment and I'll get caught without a plan! I've bought my emergency clipboard. It hangs on me wall. Yes, me wall. I just need to draw up a plan, laminate it and attach. ****, I'm also gonna need a bullhorn. ****.

 

[Cavemonster]

Perhaps your arguments are not cogent.

Several other posters have understood them thoroughly, I find the fault must lie with you.

I should say that it helps to use the quote function so I can see exactly how and where I misinterpret your words.

Most of your last post didn't address my points directly but relied on abstract, unfocused accusations of my lack of understanding.

Since your points were mostly untied to my posting in any direct and clear way, a point by point comparison would be impossible and fruitless.

The two points you made that actually almost addressed my argument were the accusation of moral relativism, which in the sense you intended the criticism was incorrect, and a clear misreading of my intent with discussion of emotion, which I feel I pointed out.

A repeated failure to answer basic questions is a hindrance

Which basic questions did I repeatedly fail to answer? The only ones in your last post were clearly tangential to the point, and I answered all your questions from the post before that.

, and non-standard definitions (e.g., social contract theory) are a step backwards.

Social contract covers a broad range ideas about how groups of humans form states to maintain social order. Any system where individuals give up some level of their liberty to act as they please to some law that provides stability falls very well under this term.

Like your other criticisms, you don't in any way say why you believe I am wrong or cite any particular part of my quote or use evidence or do any of those things that make a criticism intellectually honest. You simply make the assertion.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Bill Thompson]

If you are a cheetah, the excuse is that you are hungry and fresh zebra tastes amazing.

Seriously, human beings are not herbivores. That is why we eat meat. Sure, we can get by on veggies but notice there are no Olympic Power Lifters from India.

Also, in the eat or be eaten valley in Africa from which we all evolved, eating meat fueled the evolution of our brains. Mountain Gorillas are vegetarians (mostly) but they choose a different evolutionary path and habitat.

All primates are omnivores. Human being are primates. We can get by on plants but for some situations, meat might be a good idea.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If you are a cheetah, the excuse is that you are hungry and fresh zebra tastes amazing.

Seriously, human beings are not herbivores. That is why we eat meat. Sure, we can get by on veggies but notice there are no Olympic Power Lifters from India.

Also, in the eat or be eaten valley in Africa from which we all evolved, eating meat fueled the evolution of our brains. Mountain Gorillas are vegetarians (mostly) but they choose a different evolutionary path and habitat.

All primates are omnivores. Human being are primates. We can get by on plants but for some situations, meat might be a good idea.

The naturalistic fallacy. Stop posting it.

Also India has an Olympic weightlifting team. Stop making **** up and posting it as if it was a fact.

 

[cyborg]

Then it would seem fine.

So really why do you expect me to feel guilty if I just take the next step and get slightly more involved?

Look at you flail. Are you shaking.

Yes Cain, your might vegan arguments terrify my evil meat-eating ways.

As for this straw man, I wonder, do you expect hard moral calculations with "computational thresh-holds" when it comes to consuming goods with raw materials that came from different mines? Unions vs. non-unions vs. slave labor? Must we calculate the carbon foot print?

That is kinda what economic analysis is for. If you present a random factoid "X takes Y resources and this is bad!" then you really are going to have to be a bit more detailed in how you came to decide that is was a bad amount of resource as opposed to a good amount of resource. Otherwise you're just through a jumble of arguments and seeing what sticks rather than presenting a coherent case as for the economic justification for not eating meat.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Mirrorglass:

Let's try to bring order to this exchange:



In other words, nothing resembling a rational, coherent standard

Translation: non-vegans are stupid idiots, and therefore wrong.

Alternative translation: I don't understand your position, therefore you're wrong.

Re: reasons for eating animals:


Conflation. There are non-animal sources for food.

Sure. I eat those too.

On conditioning, which is -- or was -- related to future interests:



Einstein was a brilliant man, and a late convert to vegetarianism, but I'll restrict myself to commenting on the more familiar activities and only to say that I imagine some conditioning is still involved. The example of Pavlov's dog illustrates the point, but carries with it extraneous baggage. I'm talking about animals who have memories, anticipate the future; they do no wake up confused wondering why they're in a strange and unfamiliar place.

Certainly there is some conditioning involved, but for humans, the role it plays is much smaller. No matter how you try to misinterpret it, the point is clear: humans are capable of abstract thinking. Animals aren't. That is a distinction just as arbitrary and just as valid as "ability to experience pain".

On cows not knowing they will die:


Does that work on babies in their terrible twos? I mean... if we don't believe in that "social contract theory"/emotional revulsion stuff? I do wonder why you refused to look at whether or not they wanted to live, but I'm sure that's incidental.

You can't just say "if we accept your premises as false, then your conclusion is wrong". I do believe in the "social contract theory / emotional revulsion stuff". It's also not relevant to the point.

Look, the social contract, emotional revulsion, potentiality and other arguments only serve a single purpose here: to show we do not kill babies or torture animals even though we think eating animals is okay. This was your original point; you claimed non-vegans should be indifferent to such things. We have shown you we aren't. You have proceeded to argue that not our reasons for eating meat, but our reasons for not killing babies are illogical. Either you genuinely believe that we should eat babies, or you're making one, huge strawman. Which is it?

Still on future interests:


People wake from comas.

And embryos grow up to children. Perfectly analogous.

On suffering pain that is out of sight, out of mind:


Two things. How can you say almost as bad as the torture itself? This suggests the torture is itself bad. Also, I did not say that if something is hidden it will have NO effect. It will have less of an effect. If you're going to strive for any sort of consistency, then you must admit the way animals are treated today has an effect, not only on the public but especially -- especially -- the people doing the farming and killing. Moreover, since eating meat is not necessary, contrary to what you wrote above, it's not clear how you can favor animals as food.

Certainly, I agree that many of the animal farmers today treat their animals too cruelly. I believe the solution is to make the legislation tighter so they are treated more humanely and slaughtered as painlessly as possible. Veganism is an extremist stance based on premises I don't accept (animal rights).

As for the "meat is not necessary, me not understand why you eat it", well, I do realize you don't get it, but arguments from incredulity won't get you anywhere here.

On embryos and five year-olds, reasons:


Again, potentiality confusion.

This really is more about abortion than animal rights. Either start that new thread, or stop talking about it. I believe the potentiality matters, and that's the important point.

Or maybe someone has a natural tendency to murder. I'm not thrilled with our natural tendencies. Should we give any moral credit to the vampires from literature and film who act contrary to their biological imperative?

You miss my point. Your question was "why would you save embryos". One answer is "I have a natural tendency to care for the young members of my species". It isn't an abstract moral reason, but it nevertheless explains my actions.

So let's suppose all the organisms under threat had the same mother. Would a good mother would trade away her five year-old? There's around a million first trimester abortions a year in the United States alone, I don't think mothers would care that much. And even if they did, they're still mistaken. The mothers would be most upset are those without an eggs left at all (because their offspring IS not replaceable). But who cares about that? You said the freezer with hundreds of embryos was not worth it. I imagine it makes no difference if each embryo was a woman's last egg... yes, kept all in one basket.

You can confuse the issue all you like, but the point is just that I care about twelve embryos that will grow up to be children more than just one child. It's not a point that has anything to do with animal rights. Abortion thread, or stop talking about it.

The five year-old's experiences are irreplaceable (For someone who claims to value the richness of a mental life, you sure don't show it). As for the embryos, would they be worth less if any had identical twins?

I never said I consider past experiences to be important when determining the moral status of an individual. It should be clear from context that isn't what I refer to as "richness of mental life". You keep misrepresenting my points. It's dishonest and useless.

And no, having a twin doesn't make you more "replaceable".

That we could have embryos up and running again in less than six months.

We could find an orphan five-year old to replace the dead one in two. Why would that not do? The same reason as with the embryos.

If this example is so hard for you to understand, then just mentally replace the embryos with newborn babies. Maybe then you'll get where I'm coming from.

I suppose I should withdraw this claim since you do after all refer to the "people" you have heroically "saved." Although, "people" is certainly the wrong word, and since in addition to potentiality confusion you suffer from pain replacement confusion birth control denies the world all the people that would have been. Like, actual people... that would have been.

Not relevant to this thread. Want to talk about abortion and birth control? Not here.

Concluding with some silly questions:
Re: "what if tomorrow everyone becomes a vegan?"



I know. Its such a plausible premise. Part of me thinks, "hey, people will not suddenly become vegan; it takes time, and as social change develops fewer cows will be produced and it really wouldn't be much of a problem." But still, I can't help but think there's going to be this rapture-like moment and I'll get caught without a plan! I've bought my emergency clipboard. It hangs on me wall. Yes, me wall. I just need to draw up a plan, laminate it and attach. ****, I'm also gonna need a bullhorn. ****.

Ah yes. Just buy this bridge today, I'm sure in the near future it will be built, although I don't really have a plan yet. But hey, we're all in this together!

 

[soylent]

This wasn't directed at me but I'll answer it anyway.

You need to get your story straight.

A minute ago morality was, according to you, just whatever the society in question thinks is moral. By that argument Nazism and slavery were perfectly moral, because the people at that time thought they were.

It is ostensibly moral to the people who practiced it, this does not make it moral according to my particular set of morals.

Moral relativism is nothing more than the trivial fact that different groups of people operate according to a different set of morals. You are born with a limited and malleable set of morals, any other morals you happen to have are a result of conditioning and culture.

Now you're saying that morality is whatever society thinks right now is moral.

To that society, yes.

You're engaging in wishful thinking by resorting to the comforting delusion of absolute morality. Morals are nothing more and nothing less than an internalized set of heuristics for what is and what is not propper behaviour with respect to other entities.

So Nazis were bad people, but only because we think right now that they were bad people. Or possibly only because they lost - if they had won, we'd think they were moral, and hence they really would be moral.

Besides the problem of convincing people to internalize your beliefs at the point of a gun, rather than just temporarily play lip-service to avoid a bullet in the back of the neck; yes.

It's a part learned, part inherited set of internalized heuristics. It is nothing more. Morals are necessary to get out of the Nash equilbrium of prisoner's dilemma style games that we play with each other('both betray' being the Nash equlibrium and 'both cooperate' being globally optimal); we would never have gotten this far without a set of morals that heavily emphasize cooperation and compassion with at least a subset of people(the in-group has historically tended to increase from just the local tribe or a few friendly tribes, to a country, continent and the world).

Absolute morality is a comforting delusion that allows you to say that your particular rule set is always and forever the right one and everyone who disagrees is always and forever wrong.

Morality is not an eternal thing; it is always in flux and may be highly responsive to external conditions. It is a trivial fact that in todays world a society that allows their children to recieve an education and have a great deal of freedom is far richer than one which forces their children into low-skill labour from a young age. Moral repulsion against child labour would more than likely have destroyed your society in medieval Europe; it is vital to have your children earning their keep by watching the infants or toiling in the fields because margins between life an death are so thin and investing more resources in your child will not significantly improve food production.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This wasn't directed at me but I'll answer it anyway.

Everything you have said in this post has been said before, and replied to before. Forgive me if I don't repeat it just for your benefit: I assume you have a working mouse and can navigate your way to previous pages.

 

[CriticalSock]

Kevin Lowe you hide in the abstract and ignore the clear and simple. You reject the naturalistic argument without providing any adequate refutation. You resort to insults rather than addressing issues (the "I just ate meat... yum!" posts are making a point you are failing see). I therefore pronounce your argument a failure.

Now I will ride on my floating cloud of self-satisfaction to the top of my ivory tower (yep folks, it's real ivory!) and contemplate my future life as an omnivore with a clear conscience and an overwhelming sense of smug superiority.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Kevin Lowe you hide in the abstract and ignore the clear and simple. You reject the naturalistic argument without providing any adequate refutation. You resort to insults rather than addressing issues (the "I just ate meat... yum!" posts are making a point you are failing see). I therefore pronounce your argument a failure.

Now I will ride on my floating cloud of self-satisfaction to the top of my ivory tower (yep folks, it's real ivory!) and contemplate my future life as an omnivore with a clear conscience and an overwhelming sense of smug superiority.

Some definitions presented in this thread seem to suggest that if you're smug enough, then you are a vegan, whether you eat meat or not.

 

[JimBenArm]

Once again, in yet another thread, we've determined that meat eaters are evil poopyheads and vegans/vegetarians are overbearing, self-important ninnies.

Big surprise. I, for one, am shocked to find this out, yet again.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

The only criterion that I personally feel would be meaningful as an absolute cutoff is consciousness. I think it's likely that insects have no consciousness at all, and are just biological automata, but since we don't have a proper scientific understanding of consciousness that might be wrong. If you have no consciousness then to me you don't have any moral status in and of yourself.

Fish seem highly likely to be conscious, and the fact that only relatively recently has the f***ing bizarre notion that "fish can't feel pain!" been challenged indicates just how far we have left to go as a society on our long march towards not being stupid.

Would you please expand on this? I thought about it and wondered how you made the determination that conciousness in one is likely and in the other unlikely. I thought it must have something to do with the behavior of both insects and fish. They both act to avoid predators or perceived threats. They prepare nests and care for their young. I thought this was an interesting distinction and would like to know more about it.

I still disagree that nature is a fallacy, but since you are adamant about it I'll leave it alone.

I didn't see a response from you on this question. I figure you might have missed it.

You claim that killing animals is unavoidably cruel and thus immoral. We can minimize the cruelty but not eliminate it as long as the animal is killed. Arguements have been made that there are now alternatives to eating meat that make it unnecessary. These alternatives did not always exist. It seems that it became unnecessary at some point and that's when it became immoral to eat meat. How is that this objective morality is unchanging when at one point in time eating meat was not immoral?

Have I misunderstood your position here?

 

[volatile]

Have I misunderstood your position here?

No, you've just somehow arrived at a strange conclusion from a correct reading of Kevin's (and my, and Cain's - I think) position. The "....and that's when it became immoral to eat meat" is a non-sequitor.

The "necessity" is, and always was, the cornerstone of what I call the rational vegan position. It is not immoral to eat meat if to refrain from eat leads to death, for example. Cain has said so explicitly - the consumption of meat is not axiomatically immoral. The reverse is also true - eating a vegan diet is not axiomatically moral. Circumstances matter, and Kevin and Cain and I have explained this over and over again, with examples.

For most of us, the circumstances of our lifestyle and manner of food procurement make eating vegan easy and nutritionally complete. So why - if we agree, as many have in this thread and would do in casual conversation, that "harming animals unnecessarily" is in some fundamental sense wrong - eating meat is still OK?

It's not necessary. It's just... lazy, unquestioning, socially-conditioned.

 

[volatile]

Once again, in yet another thread, we've determined that meat eaters are evil poopyheads and vegans/vegetarians are overbearing, self-important ninnies.

Big surprise. I, for one, am shocked to find this out, yet again.

Actually, as usual, the situation is quite the reverse. Cain covered this upthread.

Martin Luther King, what an arrogant... what was it?... "ninny".

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

You keep saying this as if you think that it's news to someone. Repeating an irrelevant statement does not make it any less irrelevant.

You're entitled to your opinion that is irrelevant, but you still haven't justified why you think it is irrelevant.

Well yes there's that. But apart from the scientific method, democracy, the emancipation of women and racial minorities, the end of slavery, the Geneva Conventions, freedom of religion, the rule of law, the right to a fair trial, mathematics, logic, and the canonical argumentative fallacies, what have the Romans philosophers ever done for us?

Don't turn this into a "Which is better? Philosophy or Science?" argument. When I say I find philosophy a waste of time, I'm talking about its irrelevance in objective arguments (the ones that can only be settled by providing compelling evidence, and keeping moral values away). The reason you can read this post and reply to it is because a bunch of engineers and computer programers got their calculations right. Not because they sat down to ponder whether the glass is half empty or half full, or because they reached an agreement on which is the moral way to build an optic fiber connection.

Of course philosophy has been a major important aspect of human culture. You continue missing the point, though, that in this thread we are talking about nature and its internal, objective behavior. Culture doesn't enter into that. Nature doesn't know nor care about our moral contracts.

You know what is so deeply depressing about you? You're proving some of the most irritating Christian apologists to be absolutely right.

One of their favourite arguments is "But once people stop believing in God, they'll have no moral compass at all!". This is a fundamentally stupid argument because moral philosophy as a secular project happens to exist.

My God, Kevin. But if that's precisely what you are doing!! Don't you understand that I'm not arguing whether or not we should go around killing a bunch of animals in cold blood? I'm not saying that, because morality isn't inherent to nature, that we should kill anything that moves without a trace of guilt. That is exactly the image you seem to be getting of me. You are the one using that same exact Christian argument: that just because there is no God, then that means we can't be moral. This is the most outrageous case of projecting I've ever seen on this forum.

I'm all for morality. For reaching verbal agreements. For avoiding unnecessary violence. I'm all for peace and for life. But I don't deny that 1) These are agreements made exclusively by human beings, based on their culture, and they don't hold any inherent, objective truth (They don't speak for the Cosmos); and 2) We still have instincts and we can still eat the animals that we want/need to eat. And there's no one who can tell us that it is inherently wrong (they can disagree with us, and point fingers and try to make us feel bad). Because it's completely natural and normal and animals themselves are doing it all the time.

For example, we don't fight for the rights of the cancer cells because our lives are at stake. So we kill them. Why do we get to decide who has a right to live and who doesn't? In Florida, if a crocodile eats someone, the police usually has the animal killed. To us, it is wrong that the crocodile killed someone from our species. To the crocodile it was perfectly right and normal. Why does he get to be killed? Why do we have the right? Why does our right impose over the crocodile's right?

Every animal fights for his/her own survival and we are no exception. To attempt to justify our personal survival by saying we have an authority over everything else on what is moral, is dishonest and arrogant. Animals don't try to justify their killings, so maybe we should learn from them in that respect. There's nothing to justify.


I want to know if you, sincerely, have never swapped a fly, killed a mosquito, stepped on a cockroach. I think it's nearly impossible that you haven't, and so, I wanna ask you, how do you justify that inconsistency? Why is it ok to kill some animals and not others?

By the way, when I do things like asking you how you justify it, I recognize that the only creatures you can justify things to are you, or me, or some other humans. I recognize that we are having these debates while nature simply doesn't know nor care about anything we're doing. Our moral discussions only pertain us, humans: One species in a world with around 30 million species. I don't pretend to speak in the name of nature. But I do want to know how you deal with this inconsistency.

However if there are people like you running around claiming that science proves that they can do whatever they want, with absolutely no need for any kind of introspection or attempt at coherent moral thought, those Christian apologists are absolutely right. We really would be better off with people like you believing in a supernatural sky-daddy who will spank you if you are cruel to animals.

There you go, see? You are indeed supporting the Christian argument.

I think that there are indeed people out there who have found an excuse in science to do whatever they want. I think they're no less dangerous than the people who find an excuse in Religion to do whatever they want. The problem here is, of course, how one deals with the information. Like I said, I don't go around killing things randomly, I'm pretty much the opposite (and even developing some empathy for some small insects). But the truth is still the truth: Nature simply is. Doesn't make a difference what you think it ought to be.