What is your excuse for killing animals?

[bruto]

You wouldn't have to cut the poor hapless worms in half with your shovel if you lived on squirrels.

 

[Cain]

As I said before, I think there is an emotional element here.

I dispute two things, separately: 1) that it's necessarily "emotional" 2) that it's merely an element. While cruelty to animals may trigger emotional reactions -- as do many other moral topics, including molestation -- we can separate feelings from justice concerns, or at least separate them inasmuch as we can for any other issue. For the "element" characterization, as I said before, there are laws that seem primarily about concern for animals; it is not a mere "element."

An emotionally based position has been taken, due to an emotional reaction to certain animals which is inconsistent ...

This is nonsense. If anything, animal liberation/rights advocates are less influenced by emotion because we strive to judge animals by rational criteria. The typical meat-eating person invests more concern in the "cute" animals, yet do not care one bit about cows raised in a land far away.

This topic is once again rather pointless, as the vegan position is both a matter of taste, and an emotional reaction to animals.

It's not necessarily either.

Why would you choose to classify that as moral?

Because your characterization is mistaken. This is an issue where moral arguments are inescapable, even if you're arguing against animal rights, or unnecessary suffering. You should take the slightly more defensible position that animals are of no moral concern.

----------------
Cyborg:

Okay, then I'll rephrase: why should I think it's wrong to get more involved in the death of the seal?

Tomkins-like density. If a tourist accidentally runs over an animal, and backpacking me suggests we eat it, then I see no problem. If I corral animals to their doom, then that is a problem because I'm causing them harm.

Re: yawn

Is it past your bedtime?

No, you're boring me.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Because not all moral claims are meaningless. Because, once again, I have not claimed anything against morality as it concerns us humans and our society. I'm arguing projecting human morality on nature, which is rooted in a Disney concept of nature. Nature does not think like us, because it doesn't even think in the first place. It lacks conscious and thus, moral.

Morality in nature is a meaningless concept. This is what I and everybody else on the omnivore side is arguing.

Around and around we go.

So in your "moral" scheme when you want to eat something, you can kill it and say "Nom nom nom, this is nature in action, and projecting human morality on to nature is meaningless". Okay, why can't Jeffrey Dahmer rape and murder (and eat) kids and say "This too is nature in action, and projecting human morality on to nature is meaningless"?

You're going to say something like "Humans and animals are different, duh, how can you not see that?".

What you are not going to do, based on past experience, is present any coherent explanation of why it's okay to eat animals that doesn't resort to blatant speciesism and doesn't make it okay to eat the mentally disabled.

But many of us have GIVEN you a justifiable reason. Let me spell it out for you one more time in greater specificity.

...

So basically, ethics serve the purpose of bonding humanity in a way that promotes functional and peaceful society...

Exactly how do farm animals contribute to human society? They are not a contributing part of it in any way other than as food.

You've got the same problem as Ron. You need to explain why is it moral to bond humans together to promote a functional and peaceful society in the first place, and why the same moral principle doesn't make it a good thing to bond humans to animals and promote a society that is peaceful in the sense that you don't kill animals. You need to do this without resorting to speciesism or other morally irrelevant (but convenient) distinctions.

The argument that entities which do not contribute to society can be killed was one that the Nazis rather liked and used to justify the mass killing of the elderly, the sick and the disabled. Most modern people think it's morally good not to kill people even if they can't contribute to human society. Once again, it's your job to explain why you think you can kill animals in this situations but not humans, without appealing to differences which are morally irrelevant.

Before you go further, you only have one point to address: Demonstrate please, if you would, why killing a life form with a central nervous system is immoral whilst killing life forms without such inner workings is not.

The good old shift-the-burden-of-proof strategy, I see. "I can kill microbes. Everyone agrees on that. Therefore it's up to you to prove I can't kill bonobos and dolphins".

I think the burden of proof to come up with a coherent moral theory is on the people killing things for food, or the supporters of that practice. You're the one killing things, or having them killed on your behalf, I think it's up to you to justify your own behaviour.

The justifiable reason is that there are different moral standards regarding the treatment of humans and animals. And around we go again.

Around and around indeed. What is it about animals that makes it okay to kill and eat a bonobo because you like the taste better than tofu, but not okay to kill a mentally disabled human because you like the taste better than tofu?

If there is enough food in the woods to support 100 deer but there are 200 deer there, how many of them starve (suffer)? The answer is, all of them. They all eat until the food is gone.

In theory, if human actions had not created that situation, and there was no other way of managing the population, then you could compare such a situation to road kill. Otherwise it's more like putting thirteen people in a twelve person lifeboat and then saying it's okay to murder one of them because they would have drowned anyway.

However dropping contraceptive baits and growing tofu might well end up being a more efficient way of preventing deer starvation, if that was ever really your goal in the first place. I suspect that the "we must stop the deer from suffering!" line was just a fairy story though, and the real goal was to find an excuse to kill and eat the deer. I suspect that you have absolutely no interest whatsoever in preventing the suffering of deer-like entities caused by natural events like winter, unless by an amazing coincidence you want to eat them.

The deer lacks a certain human quality. The quality of being a human. See, a deer is not a human. Different morals apply. Just as you feel that different morals apply for insects and plants.

I've got a consistent explanation for where and why I draw the line, and the burden of proof is on you to provide yours if you want to go around killing things and call yourself moral. Just asserting "Deers aren't humans, QED" gets you nowhere - everyone agrees on that fact, but you need to present the moral value judgements that turn that difference of fact into a moral difference you can kill over, without resorting to morally irrelevant distinctions like skin colour or species.

 

[Drudgewire]

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

Yeah, I totally rock.

 

[tsig]

Around and around we go.

So in your "moral" scheme when you want to eat something, you can kill it and say "Nom nom nom, this is nature in action, and projecting human morality on to nature is meaningless". Okay, why can't Jeffrey Dahmer rape and murder (and eat) kids and say "This too is nature in action, and projecting human morality on to nature is meaningless"?

You're going to say something like "Humans and animals are different, duh, how can you not see that?".

What you are not going to do, based on past experience, is present any coherent explanation of why it's okay to eat animals that doesn't resort to blatant speciesism and doesn't make it okay to eat the mentally disabled.



You've got the same problem as Ron. You need to explain why is it moral to bond humans together to promote a functional and peaceful society in the first place, and why the same moral principle doesn't make it a good thing to bond humans to animals and promote a society that is peaceful in the sense that you don't kill animals. You need to do this without resorting to speciesism or other morally irrelevant (but convenient) distinctions.

The argument that entities which do not contribute to society can be killed was one that the Nazis rather liked and used to justify the mass killing of the elderly, the sick and the disabled. Most modern people think it's morally good not to kill people even if they can't contribute to human society. Once again, it's your job to explain why you think you can kill animals in this situations but not humans, without appealing to differences which are morally irrelevant.



The good old shift-the-burden-of-proof strategy, I see. "I can kill microbes. Everyone agrees on that. Therefore it's up to you to prove I can't kill bonobos and dolphins".

I think the burden of proof to come up with a coherent moral theory is on the people killing things for food, or the supporters of that practice. You're the one killing things, or having them killed on your behalf, I think it's up to you to justify your own behaviour.



Around and around indeed. What is it about animals that makes it okay to kill and eat a bonobo because you like the taste better than tofu, but not okay to kill a mentally disabled human because you like the taste better than tofu?



In theory, if human actions had not created that situation, and there was no other way of managing the population, then you could compare such a situation to road kill. Otherwise it's more like putting thirteen people in a twelve person lifeboat and then saying it's okay to murder one of them because they would have drowned anyway.

However dropping contraceptive baits and growing tofu might well end up being a more efficient way of preventing deer starvation, if that was ever really your goal in the first place. I suspect that the "we must stop the deer from suffering!" line was just a fairy story though, and the real goal was to find an excuse to kill and eat the deer. I suspect that you have absolutely no interest whatsoever in preventing the suffering of deer-like entities caused by natural events like winter, unless by an amazing coincidence you want to eat them.



I've got a consistent explanation for where and why I draw the line, and the burden of proof is on you to provide yours if you want to go around killing things and call yourself moral. Just asserting "Deers aren't humans, QED" gets you nowhere - everyone agrees on that fact, but you need to present the moral value judgements that turn that difference of fact into a moral difference you can kill over, without resorting to morally irrelevant distinctions like skin colour or species.

I guess I missed that could you post it or a link to it?

 

[Morrigan]

It was some vague statement about consciousness he thinks some animals have that others don't, I recall. Such a solid foundation to get on the moral pedestal, huh?

 

[Piscivore]

Around and around we go.

So in your "moral" scheme when you want to eat something, you can kill it and say "Nom nom nom, this is nature in action, and projecting human morality on to nature is meaningless". Okay, why can't Jeffrey Dahmer rape and murder (and eat) kids and say "This too is nature in action, and projecting human morality on to nature is meaningless"?

He can. Maybe he did. Tough toenails for him, the people who disagreed with him had more power to enforce and influence others to enforce their contrary opinion.

You're going to say something like "Humans and animals are different, duh, how can you not see that?".

I wouldn't. They aren't.

 

[phantomb]

It was some vague statement about consciousness he thinks some animals have that others don't, I recall. Such a solid foundation to get on the moral pedestal, huh?

He said this, but it looks to me like he mostly dodged the question:

why would drawing the line at abstract thinking be more arbitrary than drawing it at capacity for suffering?

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

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

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

@Kevin_Lowe

Not sure if the above is the best representation of your position, but regardless, maybe it would help this discussion along if you were to explain your own position in full along with the reasoning you used to arrive at it. Thus far I believe we've only ever had such posts by meat-eaters, most of which being dismissed by you and a few others as arbitrary, inconsistent, etc.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Not sure if the above is the best representation of your position, but regardless, maybe it would help this discussion along if you were to explain your own position in full along with the reasoning you used to arrive at it. Thus far I believe we've only ever had such posts by meat-eaters, most of which being dismissed by you and a few others as arbitrary, inconsistent, etc.

Sure, although I suspect that this will not lead to any fruitful discussion.

As I said earlier I take it as a starting point that pain, suffering and death are bad for me, and that it's inconsistent not to universalise that judgment to all beings capable of pain and suffering. My pain and my happiness is extra-important to me, of course, but that's true of each individual's pain and happiness and that's no basis for thinking that my happiness is more important than anyone else's.

Neither of those two claims are scientific claims: they are value judgements. Because I'm an intelligent, rational entity capable of understanding whole paragraphs at a time, I understand the implications of those value judgments and apply them relatively consistently. Yes, that means that I think it's better to act in ways consistent with these value judgments than not to do so, and I think that I am a better person if I act in ways consistent with these value judgments than people who do not. Yes, that means I pass judgment on other times and other cultures from that perspective. Otherwise I would be inconsistent.

Causing bad things to happen to conscious entities is sometimes inevitable, and sometimes necessary to my survival, and in those cases I've got no moral problems with it. If it's not inevitable, and it's not necessary, then there's a prima facie moral case not to do it.

Alternative starting points are possible: I already talked about Kant's approach. Alternative starting points must be evaluated in terms of coherence and usefulness, and if they are incoherent or useless they should be rejected.

The meat-eaters here have been asked what their starting point(s), their initial value judgment(s), are, and their answers all fall to pieces with a few seconds' critical analysis. Social contractarianism boils down to "acting morally is doing whatever society lets me get away with", appeals to game theory go the same way, appeals to instinct would label rape and genocide as moral behaviour, appeals to the naturalistic fallacy at this point in the thread demonstrate abject stupidity, and appeals to the species boundary as a moral dividing line are straightforwardly idiotic.

The problem meat eaters have is that they need a consistent moral story that passes the sniff test and yields the conclusion that we can kill animals for pleasure but that we can't kill the mentally disabled for pleasure. They need a consistent moral story that passes the sniff test and yields the conclusion that we can keep pigs in US-style factory farms for pleasure but that we can't skin a live cat for pleasure. That or they can just embrace live cat-skinning and killing the mentally disabled, I suppose, but they tend not to want to do that.

 

[cyborg]

Tomkins-like density.

Please don't make me cry Cain; I just can't take the pain of your wit.

If a tourist accidentally runs over an animal, and backpacking me suggests we eat it, then I see no problem.

How do you know it was accidental?

What if you ran it over?

If I corral animals to their doom, then that is a problem because I'm causing them harm.

Please Cain, I know I'm a stupid moron just trying to drink at the font of your awesome intellect but again: why is that wrong?

Thus far you've given me nothing to indicate why I should really not choose to kill the animals if I wish since you certainly don't seem to be bothered by their actual deaths, just your involvement in them. Strangely enough since I am not you I don't have that problem.

No, you're boring me.

And yet you continue to reply with your facile child-like responses.

I'm concluding that it's past your bedtime and you should stop trying to converse with the adults.

 

[cyborg]

The meat-eaters here have been asked what their starting point(s), their initial value judgment(s), are, and their answers all fall to pieces with a few seconds' critical analysis.

As I said earlier I take it as a starting point that pain, suffering and death are bad for me, and that it's inconsistent not to universalise that judgment to all beings capable of pain and suffering.

You don't really know what beings those are - you just presume so based on their physical similarity to you.

The problem meat eaters have is that they need a consistent moral story that passes the sniff test and yields the conclusion that we can kill animals for pleasure but that we can't kill the mentally disabled for pleasure.

Homo sapiens, whilst being in the set of animals, is a distinct group. It's pretty easy to make moral distinctions on that basis. Just because you don't want to doesn't mean that doing so isn't completely sound and consistent.

Oh, and you were the one talking about the value of beings being based on their "rich mental lives" so I don't really know why you bring up the mentally disabled as if that isn't a problem for your value system. Presumably an indiviual no longer capable of suffering is fair game for you?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You don't really know what beings those are - you just presume so based on their physical similarity to you.

Not this again? We don't "really know" the mass of the hydrogen atom either, but for now I'm just going to assume that beings with very, very similar nervous systems and very, very similar brains work very, very similarly to the way I do. Otherwise we'd be chucking out most of what we know about mammalian biology and neurology.

Homo sapiens, whilst being in the set of animals, is a distinct group. It's pretty easy to make moral distinctions on that basis. Just because you don't want to doesn't mean that doing so isn't completely sound and consistent.

No, actually that would be completely stupid.

If an advanced alien race landed tomorrow and demonstrated that they were just as intelligent as humans, just as capable of feeling pain and in every other relevant respect similar to humans, then nobody who is not deranged would start arguing "Yes but they aren't human, so there is nothing at all unsound or inconsistent about torturing these aliens to death for giggles".

Species in and of itself is no answer. Qualities species have, on the other hand, could at least in theory be an answer.

Oh, and you were the one talking about the value of beings being based on their "rich mental lives" so I don't really know why you bring up the mentally disabled as if that isn't a problem for your value system. Presumably an indiviual no longer capable of suffering is fair game for you?

If they're no longer capable of consciousness, sure, shove them in the bin, they're just a pile of meat now.

 

[Cain]

How do you know it was accidental?

You ooze desperation. It's my example, but by all means offer your own examples where tourists in a strange land decide to run animals over.

What if you ran it over?

Are you really incapable of such a simple deduction? I merely put myself in the position of the herder to maintain parallel structure with your example.

Please Cain, I know I'm a stupid moron just trying to drink at the font of your awesome intellect but again: why is that wrong?

I've tried educating you. This has been answered in almost all possible ways, first as to why harming animals in general is wrong, and then relating to how this exchange began -- that is, vegan distinctions as to why consuming animals (or animal byproducts) is not inherently wrong (see for instance J. Haidt's five foundations of moral psychology, comparing harm to notions of "purity").

 

[phantomb]

Sure, although I suspect that this will not lead to any fruitful discussion.

As I said earlier I take it as a starting point that pain, suffering and death are bad for me, and that it's inconsistent not to universalise that judgment to all beings capable of pain and suffering.

This seems to be one of the major points of contention throughout the thread. How do you go about deciding which beings this includes?

Everything short of complex mammalian life completely lacks fundamental parts of the brain that we know are responsible for or at least greatly affect our conscious experiences, so we're probably safe to exclude them. However, if we imagine a progression of organisms with capacity for intelligence and abstract thought with ourselves at the end, we might find our great ape relatives are some of the closest to that "goal", but even they seem to be lacking in many abilities such as theory of mind that I would consider greatly important to how we experience the world.

At the moment we have no theory which is capable of taking a given brain and predicting what sorts of experiences that brain will produce. So, assuming I was to adopt your starting point, how would you suggest I go about making this decision? It's sort of a non-issue when it comes to dietary choice because non-animal life is almost certainly incapable of pain and suffering (though perhaps care would still have to be made to ensure that no pesticides, hunting licenses, or field-animal-killing agricultural techniques were used to produce the food), but on a simple walk down the street I'll probably step on a few insects here and there, and a drive around the block may even prove hazardous to squirrels, raccoons, or cats.

EDIT:

I see someone else asked the same question. I think your answer is fine, but it still seems somewhat off to me that two people could meet who have this same starting point but disagree significantly about what animals are the ones that are capable or incapable of pain and suffering. What would you say to such a person if you met him? Would you agree that his position is as legitimate and consistent as yours is, and if not, why not?

My pain and my happiness is extra-important to me, of course, but that's true of each individual's pain and happiness and that's no basis for thinking that my happiness is more important than anyone else's.

Neither of those two claims are scientific claims: they are value judgements. Because I'm an intelligent, rational entity capable of understanding whole paragraphs at a time, I understand the implications of those value judgments and apply them relatively consistently.

Makes sense.

Yes, that means that I think it's better to act in ways consistent with these value judgments than not to do so, and I think that I am a better person if I act in ways consistent with these value judgments than people who do not. Yes, that means I pass judgment on other times and other cultures from that perspective. Otherwise I would be inconsistent.

I don't. I went through a few courses in anthropology and came out a moral relativist.

Causing bad things to happen to conscious entities is sometimes inevitable, and sometimes necessary to my survival, and in those cases I've got no moral problems with it. If it's not inevitable, and it's not necessary, then there's a prima facie moral case not to do it.

Makes sense.

Alternative starting points are possible: I already talked about Kant's approach. Alternative starting points must be evaluated in terms of coherence and usefulness, and if they are incoherent or useless they should be rejected.

The meat-eaters here have been asked what their starting point(s), their initial value judgment(s), are, and their answers all fall to pieces with a few seconds' critical analysis. Social contractarianism boils down to "acting morally is doing whatever society lets me get away with", appeals to game theory go the same way, appeals to instinct would label rape and genocide as moral behaviour, appeals to the naturalistic fallacy at this point in the thread demonstrate abject stupidity, and appeals to the species boundary as a moral dividing line are straightforwardly idiotic.

I think I agree with your descriptions here for the most part. My own starting point, which I posted a few pages back, is probably closest to contractarianism. I'm not completely happy with it, but through introspection it appears to be how I actually do work these things out.

The problem meat eaters have is that they need a consistent moral story that passes the sniff test and yields the conclusion that we can kill animals for pleasure but that we can't kill the mentally disabled for pleasure. They need a consistent moral story that passes the sniff test and yields the conclusion that we can keep pigs in US-style factory farms for pleasure but that we can't skin a live cat for pleasure. That or they can just embrace live cat-skinning and killing the mentally disabled, I suppose, but they tend not to want to do that.

Agreed. I'm one of those rare ones then. I wouldn't do those things myself because of the negative emotions I was raised to feel about them and good old-fashioned empathy, but I'm not going to say that they're morally wrong just because they seem incredibly icky to me. I might support laws prohibiting them because they're probably unhealthy activities for someone to engage in, but I haven't done enough research to say that for sure.

 

[cienaños]

Around and around we go.

So in your "moral" scheme when you want to eat something, you can kill it and say "Nom nom nom, this is nature in action, and projecting human morality on to nature is meaningless". Okay, why can't Jeffrey Dahmer rape and murder (and eat) kids and say "This too is nature in action, and projecting human morality on to nature is meaningless"?

You're going to say something like "Humans and animals are different, duh, how can you not see that?".

What you are not going to do, based on past experience, is present any coherent explanation of why it's okay to eat animals that doesn't resort to blatant speciesism and doesn't make it okay to eat the mentally disabled.

What does Dahmer or 'eating the disabled' have to do with this?

Coherent Explanation by cienanos:

1. The origin of consciousness predates morality.
2. The existence of harmony predates the origin of consciousness.

Also birthed around the same time as "morality?": Subjectivity and Objectivity. Therefore, it appears harmonious societies can be [depending only on who you ask] both morally better and morally worse, simultaneously.

Broadly speaking then, we can assume living coupled with thinking about living informed the beginnings of "morality" or rather, the "behaviour" that appeared to yield *favorable results.

This included(-es) killing animals.

So the need to eat (to survive), and to not get eaten (to survive), was the foundation the species built a language upon. From that language grew 'morality.' Sustenance, therefore, is a necessity of nature. Morality, is an invention of civilized man.

*favorable as in 'having a bent towards species survival'

You've got the same problem as Ron. You need to explain why is it moral to bond humans together to promote a functional and peaceful society in the first place, and why the same moral principle doesn't make it a good thing to bond humans to animals and promote a society that is peaceful in the sense that you don't kill animals. You need to do this without resorting to speciesism or other morally irrelevant (but convenient) distinctions.

*snip*

Again, a functioning peaceful society pack survival came before any notion of "morality".

The good old shift-the-burden-of-proof strategy, I see. "I can kill microbes. Everyone agrees on that. Therefore it's up to you to prove I can't kill bonobos and dolphins".

I think the burden of proof to come up with a coherent moral theory is on the people killing things for food, or the supporters of that practice. You're the one killing things, or having them killed on your behalf, I think it's up to you to justify your own behaviour.

please see "Coherent Explanation by cienanos"

Around and around indeed. What is it about animals that makes it okay to kill and eat a bonobo because you like the taste better than tofu, but not okay to kill a mentally disabled human because you like the taste better than tofu?

In theory, if human actions had not created that situation, and there was no other way of managing the population, then you could compare such a situation to road kill. Otherwise it's more like putting thirteen people in a twelve person lifeboat and then saying it's okay to murder one of them because they would have drowned anyway.

However dropping contraceptive baits and growing tofu might well end up being a more efficient way of preventing deer starvation, if that was ever really your goal in the first place. I suspect that the "we must stop the deer from suffering!" line was just a fairy story though, and the real goal was to find an excuse to kill and eat the deer. I suspect that you have absolutely no interest whatsoever in preventing the suffering of deer-like entities caused by natural events like winter, unless by an amazing coincidence you want to eat them.

please see "Coherent Explanation by cienanos"

I've got a consistent explanation for where and why I draw the line, and the burden of proof is on you to provide yours if you want to go around killing things and call yourself moral. Just asserting "Deers aren't humans, QED" gets you nowhere - everyone agrees on that fact, but you need to present the moral value judgements that turn that difference of fact into a moral difference you can kill over, without resorting to morally irrelevant distinctions like skin colour or species.

I answer this with the hope that you'll respond in kind with your "consistent explanation for where and why you draw the line."

A. The_line_is imaginary.
B. I don't run around calling myself moral.
C. Moral values and their judgements are relative.
D. The instinct to eat and survive is what allowed us to get here so that we may pontificate eating and surviving.

By us I mean the super monkeys. Or 'chow time,' as the worms say.

 

[cyborg]

You ooze desperation.

Yes Cain, I'm desperate because if I can't outwit you then my meat eating ways are under threat.

It's my example, but by all means offer your own examples where tourists in a strange land decide to run animals over.

Why not? Isn't the argument that if you're not vegan then such activities are the sort of thing one would engage in?

Are you really incapable of such a simple deduction?

My deductions are irrelevant Cain since I want to know YOUR thought processes.

I've tried educating you.

No you haven't. You've tried throwing out random insults.

This has been answered in almost all possible ways

You say that I shouldn't kill an animal for food because of "suffering". But it's only suffering that I instigate that matters. It's presented as a more moral choice but it's not about reducing suffering, just transferring its origin. I don't have a problem with being more involved in the scenarios constructed. You have not convinced me that I should therefore become a vegan.

Simple.

 

[cyborg]

Not this again? We don't "really know" the mass of the hydrogen atom either, but for now I'm just going to assume that beings with very, very similar nervous systems and very, very similar brains work very, very similarly to the way I do.

Right Kevin - and as soon as you can give us a non-arbitrary assesment of what constitutes sufficient similarity we can drop it.

Reptiles, for example, don't have very similar brains to you lacking a neo-cortex. Good eating or no?

If an advanced alien race landed tomorrow and demonstrated that they were just as intelligent as humans, just as capable of feeling pain and in every other relevant respect similar to humans, then nobody who is not deranged would start arguing "Yes but they aren't human, so there is nothing at all unsound or inconsistent about torturing these aliens to death for giggles".

Really Kevin? Are you that naive to think that people wouldn't argue that?

We do these things to members of our own species we consider to be "subhuman" for a start. It's also the reason why we don't go ahead and eat those incapable of rich mental lives. It is how people morally reason, even if you don't think it ought to be how they do so.

Species in and of itself is no answer. Qualities species have, on the other hand, could at least in theory be an answer.

In theory?

You can't go around lambasting "meat-eaters" for their "incoherent" arguments whilst your own moral basis is ill-defined!

If they're no longer capable of consciousness, sure, shove them in the bin, they're just a pile of meat now.

Then despite your objections to the first point it really does all come down to how you determine "very, very similar".

 

[Mirrorglass]

You make less and less points in your posts, Cain. I suppose this argument is nearing it's end. I haven't bothered answering to the parts with little substance to them in the quote below.

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

On arbitrary non-rational standards:


You're boring me.



Non-responsive.



Humans are certainly capable of an abstract thinking inaccessible to animals. Some humans are capable of an abstract thinking inaccessible to other humans. I've already been over arbitrary and non-arbitrary standards, not worth restating, least of all to disabuse you of fanciful notions...

I do not think you understand what internal consistency means. I do not deny that you have invented reasons to your own satisfaction for arbitrarily discriminating. People have been doing that since they could. But you're not really making an argument, it's more chatter. I'm getting bored.

There's nothing "internally inconsistent" about my arguments. They can be summed up as the brutalizing effect animal cruelty has on humans, and other harmful effects to society. If you can't see how it applies to some specific case, I'll explain it. Just remember, all of my moral rules start from the assumption "beings capable of abstract thinking are worthy of moral consideration". That you claim it's arbitrary is not an internal inconsistency.

On a coma victim:


Negative. You're again confusing acorns and oak trees. Coma victims have already developed interests. I don't know why you continue to embarrass yourself on this point.

Developed and lost. They don't have any now. But this isn't really all that important. The response above is all you need to read of this post.

On ending all "unnecessary suffering pain"



Non-responsive (NR).

On embyros and five year olds:


NR.

Yes, it certainly does explain your actions. Alternatively you could say "because I wanted to" and that would be just as good, er, meaningless. We're in a moral context: do you think it justifies your actions? A person could believe in God because he's dumb, he's raised in a religious household (culture), he's innately predisposed to superstition (biology). These are good explanations for why he believes what he does, but terrible reasons. So, in a way, your answer is NR.

No, it goes to the value of life and arbitrary discrimination on the basis of species membership.

"Value of life"? Since when do we assume there's such a thing? Does it apply to all life, or just the animals you like?

Richness of mental life refers to the life led by the five year-old, but if that violates the copyrighted meaning for an idiosyncratic phrase I chose to mock, then I'll happily consign it the suffering bin. The central point is that a five year old is not as easily replaceable.

I maintain a new embryo is not a "replacement" any more than a new five-year old. Ask a woman whose given stillbirth if her other children were "replacements".

Not quite what I asked. You seemed to place value on the "uniqueness" of the beings in question. Are you withdrawing, or revising that claim?

Neither. Identical things aren't identical beings.

I already provided you with reasons why that's not the case.

Yes, well, I guessed that's where you're coming from. If you don't think there's a moral distinction between a five year-old and an embryo, then why should a newborn be anything special? Here's the problem. I think there are important moral differences between an embryo and a five year-old. I think there are fewer moral differences between a five year-old and an infant. You insist on confusing all of them.

Abortion stuff. Stop it.

If an advanced alien race landed tomorrow and demonstrated that they were just as intelligent as humans, just as capable of feeling pain and in every other relevant respect similar to humans, then nobody who is not deranged would start arguing "Yes but they aren't human, so there is nothing at all unsound or inconsistent about torturing these aliens to death for giggles".

I believe Kevin has been ignoring me since I stated he's in no position to judge me, but I'll answer this anyway.

We could give that race rights too. If cows develop intellect and ask us nicely, I'd give them moral rights too. Until we actually start eating aliens, this is not an argument.

 

[Belz...]

With that load of bricks coming down I'm glad I'm not a "moral nihilist".

"Nihilists! Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, but at least it's an ethos."

 

[Belz...]

As I said earlier I take it as a starting point that pain, suffering and death are bad for me, and that it's inconsistent not to universalise that judgment to all beings capable of pain and suffering.

How does this relate to eating meat ?

The meat-eaters here have been asked what their starting point(s), their initial value judgment(s), are, and their answers all fall to pieces with a few seconds' critical analysis.

"We need to eat" does not fall to pieces, unless you want humanity to cease to exist, which I'm sure you don't. What we decide to eat is a different matter, but if we slaughter our cattle in a humane way, I don't see how eating beef is any different from eating broccoli in that it kills one thing to feed another.

Social contractarianism boils down to "acting morally is doing whatever society lets me get away with"

I'll remind you that people who don't respect our social contract (in other words, criminals) are denied their rights. So society has the right and the means to do whatever the hell it wants to do. And if we can do it with humans...

appeals to game theory go the same way, appeals to instinct would label rape and genocide as moral behaviour, appeals to the naturalistic fallacy at this point in the thread demonstrate abject stupidity, and appeals to the species boundary as a moral dividing line are straightforwardly idiotic.

My, my. You do hate the opposition, don't you ?

The problem meat eaters have is that they need a consistent moral story that passes the sniff test and yields the conclusion that we can kill animals for pleasure but that we can't kill the mentally disabled for pleasure.

The problem with vegans, aside from protein deficiency, is that they value the lives of plants less than those of animals, but can't understand for the life of them why meat-eaters make the same judgment about animals vs humans.