Vegetarianism, carnivorism and morality.

[mumblethrax]

Objectivity is the only basis for aquiring truth. There are axioms and it is ok to question those axioms. But at the end of the day we have to accept what we have but not be dogamatic in our acceptance of those axioms.

If objectivity is the only basis for acquiring truth, how did you acquire the truth of the statement that objectivity is the only basis for acquiring truth?

No, I'm afraid this won't do. If you take objectivity as axiomatic, you set yourself up for relativism: you cannot then say that someone who takes God as axiomatic is any less arbitrarily selecting truths than you are. You cannot use objectivity to assert objectivity.

The consequences of the regress argument is skepticsim (see Regress argument Skepticsim). I AM a skeptic. The more objective the basis for your argument the more likely I am to accept it. Give me some reason. Give me some logic. Give me something.

This very neatly demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about. The consequence of the regress argument is philosophical skepticism; specifically, the rejection of logical inquiry altogether. No philosophical skeptic would request logical argumentation; they rejected it because of the regression.

So, as you have told me over and over again, you are a skeptic, and this is a skeptics' forum, but you have no idea what it even means to be a skeptic in the modern sense. I will risk another pathetic cry of "Straw man!" and submit that you probably meant to say that you're a scientific skeptic, that you value inquiry into the natural world using the scientific method. This position is fine and good, and I consider myself likewise a skeptic, but this form of skepticism is useless for philosophical inquiry. Logical positivism is a philosophy which modelled itself on the empiricism of science, but what I just showed above caused it to come tumbling down: you cannot prove empiricism with empiricism.

The inimitable Michael Shermer on the topic:

"But what does it mean to be skeptical? Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this is not a practical position to take. Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions."

http://skeptic.com/manifesto.html

The currently fashionable and probably best theory of justification underpinning scientific knowledge is coherentism. I won't go into here.

Now you are mixing up your concepts. How is morality axiomatic but not objective? This is just nonsense.

Axiomatic, in this context, means "taken for granted." Not necessary proved correct, mind you.

But moral universalism is not simply taken for granted, it is informed by science. Specifically by anthropology, neurobiology, evolutionary psychology, and so on. It posits that in the intersection of all moral system there is an underlying universal truth, a premise from which a secular ethic can be constructed.

NO! I have told you that. I can't find it. You said it was the second post. I have asked you over and over to make the argument. Why won't you link to it or repost it?

I presented it again in my previous post.

FWIW, I don't at all think the Golden Rule is axiomatic. Where the hell did you get that notion? And what the hell does it have to do with animals?

From anthropology, sociobiology, neurobiology, evolutionary psychology... Moral universalism is informed by many scientific fields.

Here is a good run down of where and in which cultures it occurs:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

 

[AmateurScientist]

Axiomatic, in this context, means "taken for granted." Not necessary proved correct, mind you.

Oh, indeed, axioms cannot be proved. By definition, all axioms are givens. They are starting points and are concessions to the truth that we have to start somewhere that has no underpinnings to support it. We simply have to accept them.

(See, I am was a mathematician and I happen to be very familiar with axioms. Contrary to your obnoxious, insulting, and unfounded remark that I appear to be incapable of reasoning, I can and do reason quite well, thank you. You had your own pompous blinders on, however, and were incapable of seeing beyond your own ego. That's why I stopped responding to you there).

But moral universalism is not simply taken for granted, it is informed by science. Specifically by anthropology, neurobiology, evolutionary psychology, and so on. It posits that in the intersection of all moral system there is an underlying universal truth, a premise from which a secular ethic can be constructed.

Where and what exactly is this underlying universal truth? is? It sounds like it could be the meaning of life that Monty Python never got around to telling us about in the movie.

From anthropology, sociobiology, neurobiology, evolutionary psychology... Moral universalism is informed by many scientific fields.

Moral universalism sounds very much like the logical fallacy of appeal to the majority. It's a house of cards.

AS

 

[mumblethrax]

Woo-woo.

What are you doing? Is this your idea of rational discourse? I post a thoughtful and meaningful discussion of the problems of attempting to get at objective knowledge, and you regress to toddlerhood?

I know this is a fashionable exclamation around here, but your a priori rejection of philosophical discussions on the basis of its unfalsifiability (Is this what you're doing? I don't even know. Surely, you understand that you cannot scientifically test epistomological claims) is unwarranted. It's semantically void sloganeering.

Yeah, and to some lights in the sky look like UFOs and strange movement in the water looks like the loch ness monster. Sorry, I don't live in that land.

Yes, you live in a magical pixie land where anything you say is not true is not true, anything you say is true is true, and you justify it all with "skepticism," while thoroughly failing to understand what skepticism actually means. I am not making testable scientific claims I am discussing epistomology and ethics, branches of philosophy. These are not fields of scientific inquiry. Your attempt to apply scientific skepticism to them reveals that you understand neither science nor philosophy.

Hold the phone. What in the SAM HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? When did I say that I had come up with the golden rule? I don't even necassarily accept the golden rule. It is a nice sentiment and has value but it is not the be all end all as the basis for my ethics.

Here:

Originally posted by RandFan
Finally, I have the utility of survival and my own feelings of empathy. I know that other people value their lives and the lives of their loved ones. I would not want anyone to kill me or my loved one. It is in the interest of myself and others to share an ethic that states that murder is wrong.

You have reformulated the golden rule by recognizing the interests of others. All by yourself. Interesting, eh?

 

[AmateurScientist]

You have reformulated the golden rule by recognizing the interests of others. All by yourself. Interesting, eh?

Yes, and it's interesting that you haven't acknowledged or countered his argument that the golden rule, such as it is, has no application to how humans treat other animals. It cannot, by your own definition, as they aren't moral agents.

Care to explain its relevance to this discusion?

AS

 

[mumblethrax]

I didn't see that argument. I have asked for it over and over again. This post is the first that I have heard of it. I don't accept the golden rule. And I have no idea what the golden rule has to do with animals.

I gave it to you. You unduly dismissed it out of hand. Anyone with a non-evidentiary worldview can do the same with science. Yet you accept science. Strange.

You have no points. You are arguing that objective truth is a red herring and that we can't know the objective truth. It's true we can't absolutely know it but we ought to have some objective basis for those things we do believe in.

"Objective truth" is of no value in inquiring into the relative value of belief systems. You cannot assert the superior explanatory power of the scientific worldview if you do not engage in this comparison. It is a deeply flawed epistomology.

For example: I accept that penicillin is an effective antibiotic. That is based on objective and empirical knowledge. Now, I have no problem with anyone questioning our understanding of penicillin but they better have a good reason to do so.

It is not based on objective knowledge. It is based on provisional knowledge. All scientific knowledge is provisional and conditional on the truth of your epistomological objectivism, which I have shown you have no way to prove, and, more importantly you have no way of comparing its relative worth.

And I'm saying I don't buy it. Further you have not made a viable argument why I should agree with you. "Golden Rule". What lion is going to treat me the way I want to be treated? It doesn't work. Further some people like to be verbally and physically abused. I do not. What if they practice the golden rule on me? It's a lousy rule.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the golden rule. It is a not a literal command to do unto others what they would do unto you; you do not have license as, for example, a masochist, to beat people up.

The critical point of the golden rule is to consider the interests of others. It is an acknowledgement of our intuitive sense of altruism.

Eating animals isn't counter to established morals and ethics so only I am getting anywhere.

The argument for vegetarianism follows logically from acceptance of the universal ethic. It is again clear that you do not actually understand the very clear and thoughtful manner in which I am communicating with you. I attribute this to the fact that you have probably read Atlas Shrugged, and been severely brain-damaged in the process.

Only in this instance for the reasons stated. You can't then apply this rule to every behavior to every species. Not killing animals offers no such utility.

It does. To the animals. You don't actually think adopting the golden rule changes the probability of you being killed by another, do you? If you adopt it out of self-interest, you are utterly failing to see the point, since you cannot force others to adopt it. The golden rule is an explicit statement of our intuitive sense of altruism. We help others not because we have anything to gain (this is obviously untrue), but because altruism is a basic human trait. It results from group selection. We did not formulate it, it formulated us.

 

[bignickel]

Gah. Another vegetarianism thread.

Can't we all just eat tapas and get along?

 

[mumblethrax]

But there must be some reason that we can come to some conclusion. And if we are going to have an inquiry we should seek to do it objectively. And if in the end there is no objective standard then by god we should have the balls to admit that and not play games.

You cannot "inquire objectively". I have already showed you why this doesn't make sense. You can only seek to limit your own biases.

Yeah right, the second post. I tried to find your argument but could not. So we debate on and on because you refuse to restated it. Why is that?

I did restate it.

YES I DID!!!! We even discussed where I explicitly stated it. Back when I first mentioned that I grew up on a farm and worked to minimize their suffering.

No, you didn't. You refused to address the moral argument. In fact, you said that the animals on your farm didn't suffer, which is absurd.

When you claim that I hold a position that I do not hold then it is...... ready....... are guessing what I'm going to say? A STRAW MAN!

Only if I do so with the intention of misrepresentation your viewpoint, and not of pointing out why your line of argumentation is flawed. Which makes your contention that I am creating a straw man...*gasp*...a straw man!

I don't accept that the golden rule is universal. Further, many cultures did not practice the golden rule. Finally it has nothing to do with animals.

Name some cultures that don't practice it. See how many you consider aberrant. And then think about what that means.

It has everything to do with animals in that animals are others, and morally important others, in that they have interests and the capacity to communicate them.

Your first premise bit the dust so the rest isn't even worthy of comment.

Yes, by your unyielding "Because I say so" principle. Good work, Junior Skeptic!

I accept that this is your definition. It is not mine and therefore has no real value to the discussion.

You have added semantics to the list of topics about which you know nothing. I am beginning to think you really are a philosophical skeptic.

And for the fiftieth time my argument is NOT to justify eating meat. You know this. You persist in this straw man. The argument was to Jambo's revulsion. We have talked about it again and again so why do you continue to misstate my argument. This is disingenuous.

Please tell me why you would bring up the fact that a diet high in meat allowed us to colonize remote climes in the context of a discussion of the psychology. I can tell you why, if you like. And then you can say "Straw man!" again. Ah, the joys of equivocation.

 

[mumblethrax]

"Which can reasonably be said..." Rhetorical claim. Meaningless and I don't at all accept it as a universal truth.

Oh, yes, it's certainly rhetorical to point out where reason is appropriate.

But there was an underlying positive consequentialism. You just don't agree with it.

Please describe the positive consequences of Nazism as you see them. Or any reasonable person would see them. To save you time, I'm not actually all that interested in what an unreasonable person or a psychopath might consider a positive consequence.

The problem is that six billion people DON'T agree.

Evolutionary and developmental psychology disagree.

For anyone to accept it, James Randi, Michael Schermer, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, do you really want me to list them all?

Oh, yes, there's a startlingly clever idea: celebrity epistomology. Anyway, appeal to authority.

I'm sorry but you are the one making the woo-woo argument. By your logic ID should be kept in schools.

No, by my acceptance of coherentism, I can make real claims about the superior explanatory power of science.

It is by your argument, which incidentally lends itself to relativism, that creationism cannot be said to be inferior.

Then stop saying "universal" 'k?

You're going to have a lot of trouble understanding people if you keep up this insistence on literalism. I have made it clear what is meant by moral universalism. Invent some phrase that makes you happier if you like. Or do you not understand the difference between the ideas expressed by words and the sounds they make?

And that a majority of people accept something doesn't make it right.

I am not trying to "make it right." The point of universalism is to create a systematic ethical system premised on a universal ethic common to a vast majority of people precisely because it appeals to the vast majority of the people. Its truth is conditional on the correctness of this underlying moral, just as the provisional truth of science is conditioned on the accuracy of our powers of observation and reason. We cannot escape this.

This acceptance can be in part a basis for an ethic but it is still relative and it could still be wrong. (see an appeal to the gallery). Ethics are not the same in all cultures. On the contrary they are very different. That we share some seemingly common trait is useful in a discussion of ethics and even in the formulation of those ethics. However you cannot go from there to it is unethical to kill animals. That is a non-sequitur. [/B]

Yes, like I said, it is relative to the experience of moral agents. Think about what this means. What would morality be without moral agents? It could only be wrong in the sense that the majority of moral agents don't actually act ethically, but this is very likely to be a flaw in our reasoning, rather than the shared morality, since it defines our moral preferences.

And you are wrong about the non-sequitur. It follows elegantly and simply from the basic underlying ethic, as I have already shown.

 

[mumblethrax]

Just one straw man after another. I NEVER said it did. I said that meat has provided for ever increasing life spans. Sheesh, will you at least get my arguments right?

It's. Not. A. Straw. Man. I. Am. Pointing. Out. That. You. Are. Again. Committing. The. Genetic. Fallacy.

You have proffered the golden rule which has zero relevance to animals.

It does. The golden rule explicitly states our altruistic tendencies. We have genuine empathy for animals. Therefore, it is relevant.

If I accept the golden rule at all then I'm going to accept it for its utility and there is no golden rule when it comes to animals. No lion or tiger or bear is going to practice the golden rule so there is no reason for me to practice it with him. It won't increase my survivability or the survivability of my family.

Note that the golden rule says "others." Not "other humans." Animals can reasonably be considered others.

And you are again missing the point: you gain nothing from adopting the golden rule. You already acknowledge it, by virtue of your normal psychological development. Unless you are a psychopath.

My argument was that animals who evolved to eat meat are unlikely to feel revulsion at seeing another eat meat. Would a lion feel revulsion at seeing another lion eat meat? Why not? You answer that question and you will understand my argument.

I don't think you'll get very far with this theory of cross-species comparative emotional genetic determinism wrt undercooked blood sausage.

We have taste preferences. We express them with revulsion. Have you ever tried to give a child food that they don't like? Taste preferences are not strictly psychological. Therefore, her revulsion cannot be shown to be purely psychological, even in this most reductive and pointless argument.

Simple parsimony. Animals like what they evolved to eat. Lions like meat. Bears like meat and plants. Bears don't experience revulsion just because they CAN exist on only plants.

Humans can (and should, if they would like to be healthy) override their taste preferences. Ta-da.

 

[mumblethrax]

Oh, indeed, axioms cannot be proved. By definition, all axioms are givens. They are starting points and are concessions to the truth that we have to start somewhere that has no underpinnings to support it. We simply have to accept them.

That's not true. You are confusing mathematical and philosophical axioms.

That's why I stopped responding to you there.

Please let me know what I can do to get you to do the same here.

Where and what exactly is this underlying universal truth? is? It sounds like it could be the meaning of life that Monty Python never got around to telling us about in the movie.

I guess you didn't watch it to the end.

Moral universalism sounds very much like the logical fallacy of appeal to the majority. It's a house of cards.

The appeal to the majority is not a fallacy where the opinion of the majority is relevant. Given that universalism is an attempt to create a systematic transcultural secular ethical system that appeals to the basic moral belief of the vast majority of the world's people, their basic moral beliefs are certainly relevant. Therefore, it is not a fallacy.

Between you and RandFan, after two days and far too many posts, you have now identified both of the potential flaws I volunteered in my original formulation of a simple argument for universalism. Good job.

 

[Tricky]

Inclusion of animals into the human system of morality is a fairly recent development (I blame Walt Disney). Some might call this attitude "specism", and they would be right. My primary dedication is to my own species. That does not mean that I take the position that man has dominion over all things (I'm actually an environmentalist). It means that we operate out of what Alexis de Tocqueville called "enlightened self-interest". We want to do what makes us happy, but truly enlightened people also want to plan for humans to be happy as long as possible.

So eating meat makes many of us happy. Is it worth the suffering of animals for our happiness? As I pointed out in the OP, we humans seem to care a lot more for the species that are like us or that like us. Eating a cow may disgust a vegetarian but eating a porpoise is horrifying. They are intelligent. Eating a family pet would be likewise unthinkable. But why? If nutritional values are similar, then why should we care about where it came from? I say it is because we are specist that we do not care as much about the pain and suffering of fish or even of vegetables. We are incapable of empathizing with them because we are too unalike, yet they are living organisms as well.

Various comments have also been made about the relative environmental impact of livestock raising versus agriculture. Both sides have points. Essentially, though, it boils down to a problem of overpopulation. We have to grow foodstuffs in great excess of what would be expected from the land in order to feed the masses. There are great and long-term difficulties in doing this. It is probably true that we could feed a lot more people if we ate only vegetables. I'm not sure that having a lot more people on the earth is the wisest thing. Even if fed, it causes lots of other problems.

So my position on omnivority is that our diet is not the critical problem facing mankind, so you should eat whatever makes you overall happiest (noting that heart-attacks tend to decrease your happiness). If your own personal level of empathy dictates that you can't eat meat, then don't eat it. I will not comment as you are eating about how many soybeans died so you could be happy.

 

[AmateurScientist]

That's not true. You are confusing mathematical and philosophical axioms.

I'm not the one who is confused and defining terms to suit my own self-serving arguments. No one is buying your wares. Sell them to some other vegan with an idealistic agenda.

Please let me know what I can do to get you to do the same here.

You don't get to decide, get it? I'll respond if I like. Your pompousness and obnoxious tone towards those with whom you do not agree is grating, as are your condescending insults and self-aggrandizing. Get over yourself or prepare to be insulted yourself, over and over until you're marginalized as one of the board kooks. You'll see.

I guess you didn't watch it to the end.

Seen it many times. Apparently, you didn't get the whole running joke of the movie. There is no meaning. Not a fan, are you?

The appeal to the majority is not a fallacy where the opinion of the majority is relevant. Given that universalism is an attempt to create a systematic transcultural secular ethical system that appeals to the basic moral belief of the vast majority of the world's people, their basic moral beliefs are certainly relevant. Therefore, it is not a fallacy.

Nice try. Using the same argument, I could assert that God must exist, as the acceptance of his existence seems to fit the same criteria you're using to attempt to prove that there is a universal truth.

Keep going, though; it's amusing.

Between you and RandFan, after two days and far too many posts, you have now identified both of the potential flaws I volunteered in my original formulation of a simple argument for universalism. Good job.

Nice. Between you and Cain, you've done a nice job of belittling and insulting RandFan and me and doing nothing to further the cause of addressing Darat's point. In fact, you co-opted it for your self and turned it on its head. Good job. We all get that you have an agenda, and it's not having a rational debate. It's proselytizing for your own pet cause.

AS

 

[AmateurScientist]

Inclusion of animals into the human system of morality is a fairly recent development (I blame Walt Disney). Some might call this attitude "specism", and they would be right. My primary dedication is to my own species. That does not mean that I take the position that man has dominion over all things (I'm actually an environmentalist). It means that we operate out of what Alexis de Tocqueville called "enlightened self-interest". We want to do what makes us happy, but truly enlightened people also want to plan for humans to be happy as long as possible.

Yes, I would go with that. I almost mentioned "enlightened self-interest" yesterday when I was called amoral by more than one poster. Unfortunately, I was going to misattribute it to Ayn Rand, rather than de Tocqueville, so I'm glad you mentioned it instead.

So eating meat makes many of us happy. Is it worth the suffering of animals for our happiness? As I pointed out in the OP, we humans seem to care a lot more for the species that are like us or that like us. Eating a cow may disgust a vegetarian but eating a porpoise is horrifying. They are intelligent. Eating a family pet would be likewise unthinkable. But why? If nutritional values are similar, then why should we care about where it came from? I say it is because we are specist that we do not care as much about the pain and suffering of fish or even of vegetables. We are incapable of empathizing with them because we are too unalike, yet they are living organisms as well.

Yes, I agree, and I wish more vegans and vegetarians would simply admit that they don't care about mosquitos and wasps. They're not about ending animal suffering. They want to appease their own, personal senses of guilt or obligation. Worse, too many of them want to instill the same misguided senses in the rest of us. It's a political agenda, not a principled, philosophical one.

So my position on omnivority is that our diet is not the critical problem facing mankind, so you should eat whatever makes you overall happiest (noting that heart-attacks tend to decrease your happiness). If your own personal level of empathy dictates that you can't eat meat, then don't eat it. I will not comment as you are eating about how many soybeans died so you could be happy.

Yep. Meat isn't murder, no matter how loudly or often you declare it to be so.

AS

 

[mumblethrax]

You don't get to decide, get it? I'll respond if I like. Your pompousness and obnoxious tone towards those with whom you do not agree is grating, as are your condescending insults and self-aggrandizing. Get over yourself or prepare to be insulted yourself, over and over until you're marginalized as one of the board kooks. You'll see.

Please do not think the reason I ridicule you is that you disagree with me. Disagreement is well and good; unreasonable, insistent and out-of-hand disagreement from a position of ignorance is not. The whole conversation brings to mind another Monty Python skit.

"An argument is a series of statements for or against on a given hypothesis. You're just contradicting every thing I say!"

"No I'm not."

I patiently await my ostracization. It will be a good indicator of whether these boards are a waste of time or not.

Seen it many times. Apparently, you didn't get the whole running joke of the movie. There is no meaning. Not a fan, are you?

Do you remember the last scene of the movie?

"Well, that's the end of the film. Now, here's the meaning of life. Thank you, Brigitte. M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations, and, finally, here are some completely gratuitous pictures of penises to annoy the censors and to hopefully spark some sort of controvers...."

Of course, the joke is that the entire movie is a set-up for something so trivial. But it's interesting that they produce the reciprocal ethic again, and don't satirize it. There's no need to, it's nothing special, hell, it's even trite.

Nice try. Using the same argument, I could assert that God must exist, as the acceptance of his existence seems to fit the same criteria you're using to attempt to prove that there is a universal truth.

You fundamentally misunderstand the point I was trying to through the cloud of your mind. It is not, for example, a fallacious appeal to the majority to say that, "In England, people drive on the left side of the road, therefore you should drive on the left side of the road in England."

Similarly, it is not a fallacious appeal to the majority to say that, "Among moral agents, the intuitive sense of altruism is held by a vast majority. Therefore, when constructing a universal ethic to appeal the moral intuition of the vast majority, it is reasonable to acknowledge the intuitive sense of altruism."

When making declarative statements about a metaphysical question on the nature of reality, the opinion of most people on such a high-level question such as god is not relevant, but the fundamental capacity of humans to observe and collect evidenceis. We must accept this, or science is impossible. If you and me and 6 billion other people see an apple, and one guy sees a banana, we can be pretty sure that what we're seeing actually is an apple.

I am not trying to "prove" that some objective morality exists outside of the experience of humans. This is nonsensical, it would be like looking for reason in the universe; it isn't there, except in us. I am simply acknowledging the obvious: most of us have altruistic instincts.

Nice. Between you and Cain, you've done a nice job of belittling and insulting RandFan and me and doing nothing to further the cause of addressing Darat's point. In fact, you co-opted it for your self and turned it on its head. Good job. We all get that you have an agenda, and it's not having a rational debate. It's proselytizing for your own pet cause.

Did you notice that I was the only one who returned to the topic of the thread when Darat requested it? You are doing nothing more than throwing a temper tantrum.

 

[Rasmus]

(spin-off of this thread over in politics)

What do you eat? Do you think about it much in terms of morality?

I do eat meat.
Yes, i do think about the moral implications of what I eat.

The argument has been put forward that vegetarianism is more moral than omnivorism (or carnivorism) because it shows empathy with the animals who would otherwise be eaten.

I do not think it is immoral to eat meat. I think killing animals that feel pain or have interests is wrong though.

(yes, I know that this makes me an immoral person. I guess I will have ti live with not being perfect ...)

As a dedicated omnivore, I can actually see the reasoning behind this argument, but I still disagree with it. In the presence of many food choices, I think much of our morality of eating derives from what David Brin calls "otherness".

Here and in the following you describe why we probably do not mind killing and eating animals. I agree. It is part of the reason why eat certain animals and not others. But that explanation doesn't seem to affect wehther it is moral to kill ad eat animals.

[stuff snipped]

I think our dedication should be to our own species. We want our own to be healthy and (importantly) happy. If a person would be unhappy without meat in their diet, then I believe that is an important consideration, as long as it is not detrimental to the species. That, of course, is a point for debate too.

Why not replace "our species" with "our race" or "our nation"? If someone considered foreigners to be different enough, why not make them part of the "others"?

Also, do you think it is moral to go out and bash mammals to death just for hell of it? If it makes one hapy, that is.

I think the importantr question really is who should be treated well, and why. I am certain that rocks and algae do not require being treated nicely. I suspect that the barrier lies somewhere between "rocks" and "humans".

Rasmus.

 

[mumblethrax]

Inclusion of animals into the human system of morality is a fairly recent development (I blame Walt Disney). Some might call this attitude "specism", and they would be right. My primary dedication is to my own species. That does not mean that I take the position that man has dominion over all things (I'm actually an environmentalist). It means that we operate out of what Alexis de Tocqueville called "enlightened self-interest". We want to do what makes us happy, but truly enlightened people also want to plan for humans to be happy as long as possible.

That's not true at all. There have always been cultures that engaged in vegetarianism, or at least questioned the morality of eating meat. Benjamin Franklin was a vegetarian for a time (and then stopped, with a good deal of good-humored self-parody of the convenience of his reasoning, when he reasoned that fish eat other fish, and so would he).

"Enlightened self-interest" is either altruism or nonsense. It is obviously untrue that it is in your interest to accept altruism in the name of self-preservation; the best strategy in that situation is to pretend to adopt the golden rule, rule deceptively going about your nefarious egoistic business. The only way it can be in your self-interest to consider the interests of others is to acknowledge that altruism makes you feel like a good person. Which is just another way of saying "We are altruistic."

So eating meat makes many of us happy. Is it worth the suffering of animals for our happiness? As I pointed out in the OP, we humans seem to care a lot more for the species that are like us or that like us. Eating a cow may disgust a vegetarian but eating a porpoise is horrifying. They are intelligent. Eating a family pet would be likewise unthinkable. But why? If nutritional values are similar, then why should we care about where it came from? I say it is because we are specist that we do not care as much about the pain and suffering of fish or even of vegetables. We are incapable of empathizing with them because we are too unalike, yet they are living organisms as well.

You are getting at the critical question here: it is not species but concrete moral properties which must govern who we deem worthy of consideration. A zygote is a member of my species; I care not for a zygote. We care more about great apes and dolphins because they have properties which allow them to have interests that other animals do not. The are not only aware, but self-aware. They have a limited understanding of consequence, they seek better solutions (for example, in tool use). This renders them worthy of greater consideration than other animals, by virtue of moral properties, not (necessarily) biological ones.

There is debate about whether lobsters feel pain in the meaningful sense or not; whether their neurobiology allows them to be aware of pain, or they just engage in reflex reaction. In that case, it would be ethically acceptable to eat them. I hedge my bets and avoid it (which isn't hard for me to do, blech).

It is probably true that we could feed a lot more people if we ate only vegetables. I'm not sure that having a lot more people on the earth is the wisest thing. Even if fed, it causes lots of other problems.

Yeah, neither am I. But it doesn't follow that we will necessarily have more people if we are all vegans, the current trend is that population growth is decelerating, and our agricultural footprint could then be decreased.

Arguments for opportunity cost or the cruelty inherent in producing plant-foods don't make a lot of sense; all of these problems are made worse by increasing the demand for plant foods (which we do by consuming meat).

So my position on omnivority is that our diet is not the critical problem facing mankind, so you should eat whatever makes you overall happiest (noting that heart-attacks tend to decrease your happiness). If your own personal level of empathy dictates that you can't eat meat, then don't eat it. I will not comment as you are eating about how many soybeans died so you could be happy.

I very much hope to have shuffled off this mortal coil by the time soybeans have been genetically engineered to the point where they are morally relevant.

I understand and appreciate your position; not everyone has the same ethical priorities. Veganism satisfies a lot of mine (reducing suffering, reducing agricultural footprint, having impossibly long discussions on the internet), so I accept it.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Similarly, it is not a fallacious appeal to the majority to say that, "Among moral agents, the intuitive sense of altruism is held by a vast majority. Therefore, when constructing a universal ethic to appeal the moral intuition of the vast majority, it is reasonable to acknowledge the intuitive sense of altruism."

Among hungry agents, the intuitive sense of meatlust is held by a vast majority. Therefore, when constructing a dietary ethic to apeal to the famished intuition of the vast majority, it is reasonable to acknowledge the intuitive sense of meatlust.

 

[Iacchus]

(spin-off of this thread over in politics)

What do you eat? Do you think about it much in terms of morality? The argument has been put forward that vegetarianism is more moral than omnivorism (or carnivorism) because it shows empathy with the animals who would otherwise be eaten.

Hey, so long as they could get it to taste like chicken, I could care less.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Among hungry agents, the intuitive sense of meatlust is held by a vast majority. Therefore, when constructing a dietary ethic to apeal to the famished intuition of the vast majority, it is reasonable to acknowledge the intuitive sense of meatlust.

Exactly, but then you're likely to be condescended to and told that you're committing the naturalistic fallacy again, just like I keep doing.

See, Marquis, mere mortal posters like you and me commit fallacies. This mumble fellow is of a higher order. He speaks universal truths. He's God, actually, or Moses.

AS

 

[mumblethrax]

Exactly, but then you're likely to be condescended to and told that you're committing the naturalistic fallacy again, just like I keep doing.

See, Marquis, mere mortal posters like you and me commit fallacies. This mumble fellow is of a higher order. He speaks universal truths. He's God, actually, or Moses.

I do not think I'm God, I think I'm a reasonable human being, and you are not.

For example, you agreed with the Marquis' statement, which I will restate here so that it is true and makes more sense:

"Among humans, taste preferences are held by a vast majority, one of which is a taste for meat. Therefore, when constructing a diet to appeal to the the taste preferences of the vast majority, it is reasonable to acknowledge the taste for meat."

Do you understand what is being said here? It means "Most humans like the taste of meat." Did you not notice where I volunteered this in my argument? And explained why taste preferences are a relatively minor interest in relation to animal cruelty? You are very busily occupying yourself trying to prove things I have already admitted as true, as if this will somehow help you.