Bill Snedden

Ah, finally a substantive response!

I don't think so at all. You suggest that the distinction I make between human and non-human animals is arbitrary and based simply on my preference when in fact it is not. It is an objectively true differentiation. It is rational and takes into account the general purpose of ethics.

Further, I find your "exclusionary" principle somewhat inconsistent considering that you are doing exactly the same thing in differentiating between plants and animals. But we'll have more on that later.

Uh, no it doesn't. The distinction I am making is between human and non-human animals. My children are human, therefore your reply is non-sequitur.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point you're attempting to make, here.

Really? Please provide an example of a society that includes beings that do not possess the capability to conceive of societies or ethical principles. Note that children and the mentally deficient actually DO fit these criteria. Regardless of their specific characteristics, they are HUMANS and therefore belong to a group that does possess such abilities.

You will find that you're unable to provide any examples; they don't exist.

I'm sorry, but this is demonstrably false. Merely having the ability to set the "goal posts" does not mean ipso facto that such placement is arbitrary. Perhaps a definition would be helpful:

Using this definition, you will note that the differentiation I made is obviously NOT arbitrary as it is based on the intrinsic nature of both human and non-human animals.

The comment is certainly not specious; this is yet another example of your capacity for obfuscation.

You made a very particular claim. To wit, PB and I were distorting contractarian ethical theory. I demonstrated by example and reference that we were not and that you were in error.

Despite this, you continue to argue that it is we, not you, who "misapply" the theory. In doing so you bring to bear all sorts of irrelevant comments having to do with your idea of the purpose of ethics and the effect of time on changing value. These are all, in their own right, perhaps very effective criticisms of contractarian theory. However, they do not dispel the objective fact that contractarian theory does not include those who cannot be party to the contract.

Let me be clear: I do not contend that contractarian moral theory is applicable to this dilemma. In fact, I would agree with you that its greatest weakness is that it fails to "cover" those who cannot be party to the contract. However, this is a problem inherent to the theory itself, not one arising from a misapplication of it, as you continue to claim.

This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not contractarian theories are being misrepresented. It is an argument against using them, not an argument to show that they are being misapplied. This should not be so difficult to understand.

This seems inconsistent. You seem to acknowledge here that you have been making criticisms of contractarian theory but elsewhere you persist in claiming that PB and I have been distorting it.

You have indeed claimed that we were distorting the theory. In addition, I am not applying it at all! I have never argued that contractarian theories are applicable. I'm merely trying to get you to acknowledge that your claim of "distortion" was in error.

It's not the "conditions of development" or the "moral intent" that you're ignoring; it's the theory itself. You persist in assuming that it's something that it is not and then deride those whose application does not fit your strawman conception.

YES! You've got it! Contract theory does indeed exclude those persons. I am not using contract theory to justify my diet, so your comments are non-sequitur, but at least you seem to understand the issue: Contract theory does not include those who are unable to contract!

First, such an approach would not be ad hoc. As you do seem to understand, contract theory excludes those unable to contract. It is the nature of the beast.

But secondly, and more importantly, I am not using contract theory in my argument. I'm merely trying to get you to acknowledge your error.

In fact, it's not. Contract theory wasn't developed to justify meat-eating. It has a long and involved history on it's own. To use it to "justify" meat-eating therefore cannot be a variation of "I like meat" as you claim as its foundation has nothing whatsoever to do with dietary ethics.

You all but admitted in your first paragraph that, in fact, you had ignored or failed to respond to my argument. You can do better than this, I hope.

Now, on to your own "justification"

Please explain how your distinction is any less arbitrary than the ones we have employed in our arguments. In particular, as you note that your "definition" includes the "protection and benefit of the most possible lives", it would be instructive to outline exactly why and how you exclude plants from your moral system (as they are undoubtedly alive).

In other words, your moral system would seem to reduce to "I don't like the idea of eating animals and therefore it's immoral."

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

spin

Here is another gem from Koy:
-------------------------------
At least when I bite into a burger I'm not deluding myself. As I eat, so will I be eaten. Thus the cycle of life is a crap heap. Literally.
-------------------------------

Munching on that burger he will know: as he eats, so will he be eaten. Who the fuck believes this?

You, eating your burger, never facing the food you eat honestly, never looking at the disgusting conditions the animals have lived in all their lives, never seeing it get slaughtered to feed your unnecessary appetite, will never be killed and cut up to feed someone in an analogous superior MacDonalds. The best you can hope for is worms when you are dead.

You're out? Bye.

spin

Koy again:
---------------
If you want to pretend you're above nature or that plants aren't just as alive as you are with all of the same rights you claim for the animal kingdom, then have at it and enjoy all the chicken embryos your hypocritical stomach can handle.
---------------

Above nature? Naaa. Not so constrained by nature. Just like you in your burger king joint. If you are constrained by nature why are you using a computer? Why are you even wearing clothes? You weren't born with them. It is not natural for you to wear them.

Munching the burger, with its bun based on vegetal products, shows that you are hypocritical in the foundations of your argument. The bankrupt lack of moral integrity imposed on the naffness of yet another argumentum reductio ad absurdum we can do without.

And for your trivial information

1) eggs are not chicken embryos (duh);

2) I've have eaten fewer eggs in a year than you have meat in a day.

This fake irateness of yours is pure theatrics.

Danya

Like I said, you dismissed them because you choose to believe they are lying. I don't doubt they are telling the story like it is since not all humans can tolerate the same diet. Again think of allergies, diabetes, high cholestorol, anemia, and many other reasons why one persons diet is necessarily different from anothers.

I thought you said that you ate eggs. What about milk or any dairy product? If so doesn't the fact that the institutionalisation of consuming eggs or dairy products which involves the raising of animals in such squalor should disgust the average person go against your personal beliefs?

Unless you are eating people or one of my pets I really have no interest in what your diet is. But thanks for being concerned about mine.

spin

Bill Sneddon:
--------------
Ah, finally a substantive response!
--------------

No. It's mainly all been said before. Where were you?

Bill:
----------------
You suggest that the distinction I make between human and non-human animals is arbitrary and based simply on my preference when in fact it is not. It is an objectively true differentiation. It is rational and takes into account the general purpose of ethics.
----------------

When the person who makes the rules makes them so as to fit his/her preconceived mores, this is called cooking the books. You choose one thing, say a being can consent, someone else chooses another a being must have white skin, someone else chooses another a being must have wings (if you are a bird). This is only reflecting oneself in one's construction of things. This is no moral standard at all nor is it objective.

Bill:
------------------------------
Further, I find your "exclusionary" principle somewhat inconsistent considering that you are doing exactly the same thing in differentiating between plants and animals. But we'll have more on that later.
------------------------------

Ultimately, I make no distinction at all.

Bill:
------------------------------
Therefore, animals have no conception of ethics or morality and such concepts are moot when applied directly to them.
------------------------------

spin:
------------------------------
That permits you to eat your children.
------------------------------

------------------------------
Uh, no it doesn't. The distinction I am making is between human and non-human animals. My children are human, therefore your reply is non-sequitur.
------------------------------

The distinction you were making before was based on consent. Changing the rules to suit your purpose. Children are not able to participate in your theoretical contract, so they must be excluded unless your contract is a crock, which I think it is and you are ultimately arguing for the sake of amusement.

Bill:
------------------------------
Animals have no conception of "murder" or "cannibalism". Lions don't murder gazelles. If a non-human animal were even capable of conceiving its place in the "food chain", it would still have no conception of the rightness or wrongness of any actions taken by the other animals above or below it.
------------------------------

spin:
------------------------------
As you can conceive, you are not bound by it.
------------------------------

Bill:
------------------------------
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point you're attempting to make, here.
------------------------------

As you can conceive, be aware, of the differences you outlined, you are not bound by them.

Bill:
------------------------------
Animals, therefore, lack what I would call a "right of self-determination" simply because they do not possess the ability to conceive it.
------------------------------

spin:
------------------------------
Societies usually protect those within the society who fit into these criteria.
------------------------------

Bill:
------------------------------
Really? Please provide an example of a society that includes beings that do not possess the capability to conceive of societies or ethical principles. Note that children and the mentally deficient actually DO fit these criteria.
------------------------------

This is you having moved the goalposts. Those who cannot consent to enter your contract are not protected by it and are therefore liable to being eaten.

Bill:
------------------------------
Regardless of their specific characteristics, they are HUMANS and therefore belong to a group that does possess such abilities.
------------------------------

Are you now of the opinion that only humans may participate in your contract, either consenting or not?

spin:
------------------------------
Having control of where one places the goal posts puts the situation in the hands of the goal post controller and their whims. This is obviously arbitrary.
------------------------------

Bill:
------------------------------
I'm sorry, but this is demonstrably false. Merely having the ability to set the "goal posts" does not mean ipso facto that such placement is arbitrary. Perhaps a definition would be helpful:
------------------------------

quote:
------------------------------
arbitrary: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something .
------------------------------

Precisely, Bill.

Bill:
------------------------------
Using this definition, you will note that the differentiation I made is obviously NOT arbitrary as it is based on the intrinsic nature of both human and non-human animals.
------------------------------

The arbitrary boundary you have chosen is human versus other animals. The distinction is based on intrinsic nature as you point out, just as sexual or colour discrimination is.

spin:
------------------------------
As I said to bypass the speciousness of this sort of comment, as you don't live in the conditions of those who first formulated this notion (and it goes back to Plato as well), it is irrelevant to you. Do you have a local society for the prevention of cruelty to animals? Was there such a thing in the time of Hobbes or Locke?
------------------------------

Bill:
------------------------------
The comment is certainly not specious; this is yet another example of your capacity for obfuscation.

You made a very particular claim. To wit, PB and I were distorting contractarian ethical theory. I demonstrated by example and reference that we were not and that you were in error.
------------------------------

Saying so doesn't demonstrate what you assert. You have not demonstrated anything that I have seen to show that you have considered the specific nature of the cultural context in which the contracts you refer to were drawn up (though never applied, hence theory). This is more arbitrary application of ideas taken out of a (moral) context.

Bill:
------------------------------
Despite this, you continue to argue that it is we, not you, who "misapply" the theory.
------------------------------

Too right you do.

Bill:
------------------------------
In doing so you bring to bear all sorts of irrelevant comments having to do with your idea of the purpose of ethics and the effect of time on changing value. These are all, in their own right, perhaps very effective criticisms of contractarian theory. However, they do not dispel the objective fact that contractarian theory does not include those who cannot be party to the contract.
------------------------------

Back to the first set of goalposts, Bill. You shifting like sand. Children cannot be party to the contract.

Bill:
------------------------------
Let me be clear: I do not contend that contractarian moral theory is applicable to this dilemma.
------------------------------

Contract theory is not moral per se.

Bill:
------------------------------
In fact, I would agree with you that its greatest weakness is that it fails to "cover" those who cannot be party to the contract. However, this is a problem inherent to the theory itself, not one arising from a misapplication of it, as you continue to claim.
------------------------------

I didn't talk of misapplying the contract itself, but misapplying, or not applying, it based on the context we are in, but that of the original theorists. We don't live in those times.

Perhaps though, contract theory is ultimately only a theory and not applicable in real life.

spin:
------------------------------
In our day and age when we are attempting to protect those who cannot protect themselves, what you are on about is using models for an idea that is not appropriate for today, while it was for the era in which they were developed. This should not be so difficult to understand.
------------------------------

Bill:
------------------------------
This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not contractarian theories are being misrepresented.
------------------------------

The ideal of the contract theory, based on the moral conceptions of the theorists, was aimed at protecting the most lives possible. Your application, given modern awareness is simply wrong as it doesn't fulfil the notion of protecting the most lives possible.

Bill:
------------------------------
It is an argument against using them, not an argument to show that they are being misapplied. This should not be so difficult to understand.
------------------------------

1) I have said that it is a misapplication; and

2) they are probably only theory and not applicable in real life.

spin:
------------------------------
If you hadn't noticed before you went through this the previous three times it has been precisely this which I have been talking about.
------------------------------

Bill:
------------------------------
This seems inconsistent. You seem to acknowledge here that you have been making criticisms of contractarian theory but elsewhere you persist in claiming that PB and I have been distorting it.
------------------------------

Yup. But not inconsistent as I see it.

spin:
------------------------------
What I have said to you was that you are not distorting the theory (and let me add, in your slavish application), you are missing the intent of protection. And you will support the protection of beings unable to enter into the contract despite the fact that the contract doesn't cover them.
------------------------------

Bill:
------------------------------
You have indeed claimed that we were distorting the theory.
------------------------------

Intent, Bill, intent. By not dealing with the intent of the theory you are distorting the original spirit of the idea.

Bill:
------------------------------
In addition, I am not applying it at all!
------------------------------

All right, Bill. Then let's cut the crap. I've been talking about moral defences for the eating of meat, not the theoretical applicability of contract theory. Shit, Bill, why waste your time on something that you are not attempting to apply, but feel that it has been treated badly or somesuch abstract notion.

I wonder if there is any point in dealing with the rest of this (sorry to say it sport, but) off topic wasting of the thread space.


Bill:
------------------------------
To use &lt;contract theory&gt; to "justify" meat-eating therefore cannot be a variation of "I like meat" as you claim as its foundation has nothing whatsoever to do with dietary ethics.
------------------------------

When the scope of making the distinction is to justify eating meat as was the original user's attempt, you have simply missed what was going on.

spin:
------------------------------
It is a common response by those who don't like what they receive as a reply to their arguments to claim that their arguments are being completely ignored. You can do better than that, I would hope.
------------------------------

Bill:
------------------------------
You all but admitted in your first paragraph that, in fact, you had ignored or failed to respond to my argument. You can do better than this, I hope.
------------------------------

This makes two counts of misread on your part.
Now, on to your own "justification"

spin:
------------------------------
I have proffered a very simple idea of morals for those who have asked: morality involves the protection and benefit of the most possible lives; where this is not possible, morality involves reducing the resultant damage to a minimum.
------------------------------

Please explain how your distinction is any less arbitrary than the ones we have employed in our arguments. In particular, as you note that your "definition" includes the "protection and benefit of the most possible lives", it would be instructive to outline exactly why and how you exclude plants from your moral system (as they are undoubtedly alive).
------------------------------

You aren't really Koy are you?????

In other posts I have talked about sentient life forms (as sentient life forms have independence and some form of consciousness). However, if you can help supply another alternative to plant life I am a willing listener.

------------------------------
In other words, your moral system would seem to reduce to "I don't like the idea of eating animals and therefore it's immoral."
------------------------------

Poor caricature, Bill. My moral system says nothing about eating meat. This is just your unjustified reduction. Not eating meat is a consequence. Your statement is a pure non sequitur.

Aethernaut

SK:
-----------
I choose NOT to eat meat because I feel healthier doing so. It's a choice not a moral imperative.
-----------

spin:
-----------
This is convenient to ignore the fact that what you are eating belonged to animals that had life and were slaughtered for your taste buds, your appetite, your lust. That it is healthier to do so is institutionalised propaganda.
------------

How can "what you are eating belonged to animals" apply when I don't eat meat? Are you even reading these posts? Or are you implying that animals have property rights over vegetables now?

-SK

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Schroedinger's Kitten ]</p>

spin

spin:
------------------------------
I have responded to Bree and co.
If they are telling the story like it is (I personally doubt it, because of the institutionalisation of eating animals which involves the raising of animals in such squalor it should disgust the average eater who looks on the animals) and accept the moral stance I have put forward, then I think some solution will be arrived at from the second part of what I defined.
------------------------------

Danya:
------------------------------
Like I said, you dismissed them because you choose to believe they are lying.
------------------------------

This is not correct. I said I did not believe them. I did not say anything about their lying. I did say that meat eating is so institutionalised that doctors are not necessarily correct when tehy advocate meat in certain situations.

Danya:
------------------------------
I thought you said that you ate eggs. What about milk or any dairy product?
------------------------------

I have never bought eggs. The only time I have eaten them is if someone cooks with eggs. Most people now know that I don't normally eat them.

spin

SK:
--------------
How can "what you are eating belonged to animals" apply when I don't eat meat? Are you even reading these posts?
--------------

Sorry, SK. I do skim and I do misread sometimes.

Not even I am infallible.

Not Prince Hamlet

"I don't normally eat people," Jeffrey Dahmer says. "Just once or twice a year, on special occasions. Is that so bad?"

spin

Jeff, admitting an error of judgement:
--------------------------------------
I was wrong. Spin and Punkerslut aren't one and the same: they're master and slave.
--------------------------------------

This is the sort of post that the moderator should intervene about.

It doesn't argue a case.

It adds nothing to the discourse.

It's sole aim is flame.

----------------------
Jeff, if you have nothing better to say, please say nothing, which would be better.

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>