Should we allow the eating of dog and cat meat?

[Last of the Fraggles]

There are two clear arguments for promotion of the interests of others as non-arbitrary:

1. Simply, this is the most pervasive common definition of morality which doesn't fall apart due to logical inconsistency.

If we were talking about bananality, then you would have a good argument that maximizing bananas is a good non-arbitrary basis. But we're not talking about bananality. We're talking about Morality. A word, and concept, with a long history and a robust meaning.

Keeping the meaning in line with the meaning makes sense.

2. It's rather the opposite of self interest. Valuing the interest of others and devaluing the interest of the self.

Self-interest being non-arbitrary and the one thing which is certainly not morality (that is naturally the absence of it), its opposite is non-arbitrary.

That is, the semantic opposite; e.g. selfish vs. selfless (which means considering others interests above oneself)

Like I said, it is a semantic argument, but those two points are both very strong.

They may or may not be strong but they aren't objective and as such nothing built on them can be objective. They simply create a circular logic whereby you define morality to mean this and therefore this is by definition the closest thing we have to morality.

It might be reasonable to accept it, but it would also be reasonable not to accept it.

Can I ask does it inherently exclude self-interest or does it balance the two? If it excludes self-interest presumably I can conclude it would be immoral for any attractive young lady not to offer me sexual favours on demand as it would benefit me greatly and harm no others?

There is a scale which is very clear in the context of an individual (his or her own). It's just not always entirely clear how moral good and bad accumulates or compares between individuals.

We can say Bob hates being shocked by electricity, and loves bongo music.

That allows us to know that (ignoring outside influences), it is more moral to play bongo music for Bob than to shock him.

This is sufficiently clear.

No its not clear. He may enjoy bongo music but it may trigger in him an innate desire to kill schoolchildren. He may grow spoiled by constant bongo music and grow up to be horrible person inflicting pain on suffering on others. A good shock might be exactly what he needs to start him on the path to discovering a cure for Aids and Cancer. Someone walking past the bongo lab might become jealous of Bob and decide to become a suicide bomber. There are a million and one things that can't be measured. Bob might be mentally ill. He might be lying.

Yes we can just draw arbitrary lines around things and pretend we can measure them but we can't.

Equally it seems in your morality gang rape is OK provided the rapists enjoy more than the victim hates it?

A "skepticism" which denies that is such extreme philosophical skepticism as to be incapable of making any value judgements, or claims about reality, at all.

No, its just an admission that 'its more complicated than that' and a prompting that your were pretty premature in insulting people on this thread who took a different view from yours.

 

[Piscivore]

We would allready have an idea if that were the case.

I was joking.

Although; would we? Is that something that's been studied at all?

 

[RelativeSpace]

They may or may not be strong but they aren't objective and as such nothing built on them can be objective.

That is a profoundly false assertion.

You don't understand the concept of semantics.

You might as well say Science is meaningless because the word can be abused and used in a different way.

The concept itself is objective- my argument is the valid applicability of the term.

They simply create a circular logic whereby you define morality to mean this and therefore this is by definition the closest thing we have to morality.

Science (the concept) is called science, because that's what the word means.

Your reasoning:

That's circular logic! Therefore science doesn't objectively exist and/or is totally up to opinion! Your opinion that the Earth orbits the sun is no better than my opinion that the Earth is flat, and the sun is a small sphere that travels around in circles above it. I just single handedly proved science false!


No, logic does not work that way.



I defined a concept.

I named this concept Objective morality.

I provided a clear semantic justification for the usage of this word to express the concept.

I debunked the claim that other concepts are validly represented by this word- based on the meaning of the word, and my premise regarding logic.

It might be reasonable to accept it, but it would also be reasonable not to accept it.

It would only be as reasonable to not accept it as to not accept the nature of science because the concept is linked to a word "science" which now has come to represent that concept.

That is, not even the slightest bit reasonable.

Can I ask does it inherently exclude self-interest or does it balance the two?

It excludes it.

If it excludes self-interest presumably I can conclude it would be immoral for any attractive young lady not to offer me sexual favours on demand as it would benefit me greatly and harm no others?

Ignoring all other factors (and there are plenty of them to ignore), it would be moral for them to make the offer. Failing to make the offer would not be immoral.

You could say it would be relatively immoral (but not objectively so).

No its not clear. He may enjoy bongo music but it may trigger in him an innate desire to kill schoolchildren.

You need to read more carefully:

That allows us to know that (ignoring outside influences), it is more moral to play bongo music for Bob than to shock him.

There are a million and one things that can't be measured.

We can measure the most prominent and likely factors, but in no case- in any science- can we measure everything. Not only are there chaotic functions involved, but the very nature of quantum physics precludes it.

That, therefore, means that all knowledge is useless, all science is just opinion, and we should just give up trying to know anything about the universe around us and just believe whatever woo we want because it's all equal?

Do you believe that?

Because if you do, you probably shouldn't be here. And if you don't, your double standards are showing.


Our uncertainty in measurement- based on probability- is why we have statistical methods that take those into account.

We can not know if an action will certainly have a moral outcome, just as we can know nothing with certainty in any empirical science, but we can know that it probably will.

Probably is the basis of all moral decision making.

It is CLEAR that certain actions will most probably have a moral, or immoral, outcome. The error bars are very small. The measures very different.


That is how we understand the entirety of the universe- ever fact that we provisionally know- through science.

Yes we can just draw arbitrary lines around things and pretend we can measure them but we can't.

Then give up trying to know anything about the world around you. Retreat back into whatever ignorance you favor.

Equally it seems in your morality gang rape is OK provided the rapists enjoy more than the victim hates it?

Is that an honest question, or an attempt at a straw man?

No, that's not OK. If it's an honest question, I can explain why... but not if you're set on this whole anti-knowledge crusade.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Very interesting. Of course, "Carniculture" has been part of sci-fi for years.


I found this part especially intriguing:
"Perhaps one of the trickiest hurdles that Prof Post and his colleagues are yet to overcome is the taste of in vitro meat. "We don't really know where the taste of meat comes from," he said. "We assume it comes from fat, but there may be other components, most of them are unknown so it's a bit of a mystery how the conditions we use during the culturing of the meat will affect the taste."

What if it turns out that what makes meat tasty is some hormone or chemical that is produced by fear and suffering?

In South Korea it is traditionally believed that hanging and beating the dog to death improves the flavour.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I was joking.

Although; would we? Is that something that's been studied at all?

not studied but anecdotally I have eaten both animals that were scared when killed and animals that weren't and they both taste just like animals.

 

[Cain]

What if it turns out that what makes meat tasty is some hormone or chemical that is produced by fear and suffering?

Not possible. As someone who has seen many animal "rights" threads here on JREF, I've been assured more than once that "stressed meat" tastes awful. This is why hunters instantly kill animals, and industrial slaughterhouses take every precaution, some even showing happy cows pictures of rolling green mountains as Enya plays in the background. Then hippies come in to hug the animals to death.

 

[Nihilianth]

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm

But we are progressive as well as changeable: we continually make new inventions in mechanical things, and keep them until they are again superseded by better; we are eager for improvement in politics, in education, even in morals, though in this last our idea of improvement chiefly consists in persuading or forcing other people to be as good as ourselves. It is not progress that we object to; on the contrary, we flatter ourselves that we are the most progressive people who ever lived. It is individuality that we war against: we should think we had done wonders if we had made ourselves all alike; forgetting that the unlikeness of one person to another is generally the first thing which draws the attention of either to the imperfection of his own type, and the superiority of another, or the possibility, by combining the advantages of both, of producing something better than either.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm

Yep, it couldn't possibly be about the animals.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

That is a profoundly false assertion.

You don't understand the concept of semantics.

You might as well say Science is meaningless because the word can be abused and used in a different way.

The concept itself is objective- my argument is the valid applicability of the term.



Science (the concept) is called science, because that's what the word means.

Your reasoning:

That's circular logic! Therefore science doesn't objectively exist and/or is totally up to opinion! Your opinion that the Earth orbits the sun is no better than my opinion that the Earth is flat, and the sun is a small sphere that travels around in circles above it. I just single handedly proved science false!


No, logic does not work that way.



I defined a concept.

I named this concept Objective morality.

I provided a clear semantic justification for the usage of this word to express the concept.

I debunked the claim that other concepts are validly represented by this word- based on the meaning of the word, and my premise regarding logic.




It would only be as reasonable to not accept it as to not accept the nature of science because the concept is linked to a word "science" which now has come to represent that concept.

That is, not even the slightest bit reasonable.





It excludes it.




Ignoring all other factors (and there are plenty of them to ignore), it would be moral for them to make the offer. Failing to make the offer would not be immoral.

You could say it would be relatively immoral (but not objectively so).






You need to read more carefully:









We can measure the most prominent and likely factors, but in no case- in any science- can we measure everything. Not only are there chaotic functions involved, but the very nature of quantum physics precludes it.

That, therefore, means that all knowledge is useless, all science is just opinion, and we should just give up trying to know anything about the universe around us and just believe whatever woo we want because it's all equal?

Do you believe that?

Because if you do, you probably shouldn't be here. And if you don't, your double standards are showing.


Our uncertainty in measurement- based on probability- is why we have statistical methods that take those into account.

We can not know if an action will certainly have a moral outcome, just as we can know nothing with certainty in any empirical science, but we can know that it probably will.

Probably is the basis of all moral decision making.

It is CLEAR that certain actions will most probably have a moral, or immoral, outcome. The error bars are very small. The measures very different.


That is how we understand the entirety of the universe- ever fact that we provisionally know- through science.





Then give up trying to know anything about the world around you. Retreat back into whatever ignorance you favor.




Is that an honest question, or an attempt at a straw man?

No, that's not OK. If it's an honest question, I can explain why... but not if you're set on this whole anti-knowledge crusade.

I don't ask dishonest questions. And I still don't buy your argument. Repeatedly asserting that its logical and objective doesn't make it so and you still haven't shown it to be so. Your analogies to other areas don't hold and your system doesn't work.

Apart from that its fine.

Your argument sets up 'objective morality' as nothing more than a religion where the rules of right and wrong are 'revealed' as being that which minimises harm/maximises benefit to 'others'.

If thats the best we've got then either its not objective morality or objective morality is not very useful other than for post hoc rationalisation of whatever we already decided was moral and pretending we reached it by objective means.

 

[GlennB]

Your argument sets up 'objective morality' as nothing more than a religion where the rules of right and wrong are 'revealed' as being that which minimises harm/maximises benefit to 'others'.

If thats the best we've got then either its not objective morality or objective morality is not very useful other than for post hoc rationalisation of whatever we already decided was moral and pretending we reached it by objective means.

mmmm

At a personal level I'm damned if I can find any 'objective' morality that I would care to formulate.

For example, I'll happily haul in a fish on the end of spiky line, on the grounds that I *truly* believe (i.e. know) the fish has few nerve endings in its mouth and precious little sentience anyway (if any). Even then I'll make a major effort to minimise any damage.

Haul in a 20-ton whale in a similar fashion and I'll be outraged.

Value judgements? Yep.
Based on knowledge? Somewhat.

 

[RelativeSpace]

I don't ask dishonest questions.

It should become obvious if you think about it a little more.

There are books you could read on the topic, but frankly even the wikipedia articles cover this.

And I still don't buy your argument.

My 'argument' is that words have certain meanings. You reject that concept. Stop using words, then.

Repeatedly asserting that its logical and objective doesn't make it so and you still haven't shown it to be so.

This? This is dishonest. In the very least, you're being intellectually dishonest here- probably more so. I have explained this to you multiple times.

There are TWO, count them: TWO components here.

1. The concept.

2. The usage of certain words to name that concept.


Try again- read all my posts from start to finish. I'm getting tired of repeating myself because you choose not to understand the distinction.

Your argument sets up 'objective morality' as nothing more than a religion where the rules of right and wrong are 'revealed' as being that which minimises harm/maximises benefit to 'others'.

Woo peddlers are fond of calling any science a religion. Seems you enjoy good company there.

objective morality is not very useful

This is another topic entirely.


Why should a society choose to base its rules on morality rather than bananality?

 

[tcseacliff]

Horse steak is delicious.

buffalo is awesome, and healthier, fat content wise, than beef. and i did not feel any different, but if it wer dog, would make a difference, personnally.

 

[tcseacliff]

In that case, it's probably fair to say that it would be unfair to legislate based on that.



Poaching (which is already illegal) != farming.




There's no legitimate nutritional reason in which a human has to resort to eating meat either. This is not an argument against something.



You can say that for any type of meat. Dog? Plenty of other sources or meat and protein. Cat? Pig? Cow?

That's not a valid argument for banning it. That's only an argument against an imagined argument against banning it- not at all the same thing.



Making gay marriage illegal also only affects the rights of a small percentage of the population. Or how about red-heads? There aren't many of them- it should be fine to keep them as slaves, since that only affects the rights of such a small minority.

Again, this is not an argument.


How about real arguments for cannibalism?

Like:

Cannibalism would allow us to displace a portion of farmed meat which is damaging to the environment, and causes animal welfare concerns, thus alleviating some environmental and ethical problems.

Cannibalism would solve the problem of disposing with human remains- which is otherwise very costly to families, and the government- without burning them and releasing more greenhouse gases and wasting resources.


I don't necessarily support cannibalism, but there are more arguments for than against. The only good argument against is simple: Prions.

clowns would be banned, "cause they taste "funny"!

with all the diseases out there, cannibalism would be a crap shoot, unless we do the soylent green thing!

 

[Nihilianth]

Yep, it couldn't possibly be about the animals.

Animals =! humans.

 

[RelativeSpace]

Animals =! humans.

Biology 101: Humans are animals.

 

[Cain]

 

[deaman]

Why lookie there! You put that puppy in a tortilla!

 

[Earthborn]

-A 'moral system' which is not logically consistent is not legitimate (e.g. does not qualify)

Let us know when you have a full description of a logically consistent moral system. No one so far has even managed that, let alone prove it is "objective".

You don't understand the concept of semantics.

I think Semantics is a very important science. I don't think it says that words have objective meanings.

You might as well say Science is meaningless because the word can be abused and used in a different way.

It is not meaningless, but the word also doesn't have an objective meaning. Its meaning has changed over time and has different groups of people may mean something different by it.

Therefore science doesn't objectively exist and/or is totally up to opinion! Your opinion that the Earth orbits the sun is no better than my opinion that the Earth is flat, and the sun is a small sphere that travels around in circles above it. I just single handedly proved science false!

The shape and movement of the Earth around the Sun is unaffected by how humans decide to define "science".

I defined a concept.

I think of it more as a proposal for a definition. For it to be defined that way, you need other people to agree with you that the definition is a valid one.

I named this concept Objective morality.

I provided a clear semantic justification for the usage of this word to express the concept.

No, you haven't. You haven't effectively shown that your concept is "objective" or even "morality".

 

[marksman]

Thanks, Cain. Now I'm hungry. And I just had a whole bowl of kitten stew. I'm totally off my diet.

 

[RelativeSpace]

Let us know when you have a full description of a logically consistent moral system. No one so far has even managed that, let alone prove it is "objective".

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Objective is easy. Many systems have done this; what they don't always do is qualify as morality.

I think Semantics is a very important science. I don't think it says that words have objective meanings.

That's irrelevant; what is relevant is whether it means that here and now.

The shape and movement of the Earth around the Sun is unaffected by how humans decide to define "science".

Exactly my point.

I think of it more as a proposal for a definition. For it to be defined that way, you need other people to agree with you that the definition is a valid one.

Look up "the golden rule".

No, you haven't. You haven't effectively shown that your concept is "objective" or even "morality".

I have done both.