Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bree · 03-17-2002, 06:37 PM

I'm a little confused. Quite frankly, I don't know whether I should be offended (after being called a liar) or laughing my ass off (c'mon spin, what's your REAL relationship with chickens?) at the absurdity of it all.

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Quote:

Originally posted by Danya:

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

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:

This is not correct. I said I did not believe them. I did not say anything about their lying.

Emphasis mine, by the way.

All right - so you don't think that I'm lying about having endometriosis and needing lysine to quell the symptoms - you just think I'm not telling the truth about it. Pray tell - what's the difference? The last time I checked lying and not telling the truth (also known as non-truth telling and look, I'm not telling a lie) were the same thing.

The person who recommended I include a natural source of lysine (i.e. not from pills or supplements) was not an MD. Most doctors in the United States are quite loath to recommend paths of healing not coinciding with the Western way of medical thought. It is a rare doctor indeed who will perscribe certain foods as a cure instead of pills.

Regarding my endometriosis - I get a masculine vibe off you. It's okay that you've not heard of the disorder (or that you don't believe it exists, one of the two) since most males do not know jack about female reproductive problems - for those men out there who do, kudos. I've included a few helpful URLs to get you on the path to knowledge.

<a href="http://www.drcook.com/pics.html" target="_blank">Pictures of Endometriosis</a>

<a href="http://www.endometriosisassn.org" target="_blank">Endometriosis Organisation</a>

<a href="http://www.endometriosis.org" target="_blank">Endometriosis.org</a>

<a href="http://www.endocenter.org" target="_blank">Endometriosis Centre</a>

<a href="http://www.centerforendo.com" target="_blank">Centre for Endometriosis Care</a>

<a href="http://www.endo.org.uk" target="_blank">Endometriosis Society of the United Kingdom</a>

<a href="http://www.endozone.org" target="_blank">Endometriosis ZONE</a>

<a href="http://www.endometriosisinstitute.com" target="_blank">Endometriosis Institute</a>

Bill Snedden · 03-17-2002, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
You can only argue optatively, as the example of children indicates. You have to waive your criterion to include them. "It's all right to include children because they will one day have the capabilities you give as a prerequisite, ostensibly excluding them unless one provides an escape clause.

Of course, when you create a strawman of an argument it's usually a lot easier to attack.

I don't have to waive my "criterion" to include children or the mentally deficient because they are contained within it.

The differentiation is whether the being possesses the capability or capacity for higher-order abstract thought. Children and the mentally deficient DO possess this capacity; it is only either in a stage of development or impaired respectively.

Regardless of whether they exercise or possess the ability to actually exercise the capacity, it does exist. This is a fundamental and material difference between human and non-human animals.

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
It is still you apparently shaping the rules to suit yourself. Do you know any other animal who meets your criteria of comprehension and intellectual abilities? I will reiterate my charge, if your position entails you justifying the consumption of other animals based on your distinction: your boundaries are arbitrary of the sort "your skin is black so you can't come in here", "you're a woman so there's no need for you to have an education". "You're not a human animal so we can eat you."

Well, this is certainly interesting. Apparently you are unwilling to accept as moral ANY defence which involves differentiation between humans and non-humans. Congratulations! You've "cooked the books" so you can't help but win!

Neverthless, my differentiation is not intended to separate humans from non-humans; it is a "byproduct" if you will. The differentiation is based on identification of moral agents. As it happens, non-human animals are not and cannot be moral agents.

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
I think you are going around in circles. Either your category for inclusion is being human or it is having the ability to reason abstractly and develop & comprehend ethical systems.

The category is "having the capacity or capability to reason abstractly and develop & comprehend ethical systems." Without a doubt, humans have this capacity. Children and mentally deficient adults are still humans, and do, in fact, possess this capacity (dormant or dysfunctional as may be) as much as you seem to want to deny that fact.

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
What does the requirement of individuals being able to develop ethical systems have to do with whether the individual should receive the protection of those who can protect or not?

First, there is no requirement for "individuals". As I indicated earlier, I am approaching this from a macro level; we're talking about groups.

Secondly, IMNSHO ethics are "rules for living." Guideposts and checkpoints to aid in determining how we should live. But, as such, they are only useful and can only be developed and used by rational creatures. Non-rational creatures have developed alternative systems (instinct) to guide their behavior appropriately.

Creatures that function by instinct therefore have no need of ethics or values. Neither do they have any conception of them. They are not moral agents; they neither live by nor require an ethical code. There is no need, therefore, to treat them as though they do.

This doesn't mean that eating meat becomes a moral "good". It does mean, however, that it cannot be considered immoral.

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
morality involves the benefit and protection of the most lives; where this fails, morality involves the resolution of the situation requiring the least damage to lives.

But this is exactly the same passage I quoted earlier.

So I guess I have to ask the same question again, as you didn't answer it before.

If morality involves the benefit and protection of the most lives, how do you justify eating plants? They're certainly alive.

If it's a "least damage" issue, why not eat non-human animals instead of plants?

You obviously make some additional distinctions here, but you'll need to spell them out in order for me to understand what you're saying...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

emphryio · 03-18-2002, 07:57 AM

I think you can make a non-arbitrary distinction between animals and plants. Or if not a distinction, you can definitely atribute a much greater degree of ....(intelligence, genetic complexity, something resulting possibly in greater individual human happiness through the things existence,(unless its existence can cause harm to the individual human)), in animals than plants.

Excuse me if that's hard to understand. (It isn't well thought out.) Call ....[((intelligence, genetic complexity, something resulting possibly in greater individual human happiness through the things existence,(unless its existence can cause harm to the individual human))], call all of that quality, the thing's "ability to provide" "amusement" or "entertainment" for the individual so involved in the decision of what to kill.

What I'm saying is that if you have the choice between destroying an animal or a plant, destroying the plant is usually more "moral" because with optimum thinking on the part of the individual they will obtain more happiness by not destroying the more complex life form.

But what is my defintion of moral?
Whatever causes the most happiness to the individual.

But what time frame of happiness?
I don't know. I personally usually think relatively long-term. (As in forever). If you are thinking very short term survival. Maybe go ahead and eat the meat.

But it may cause an individual the most happiness to kill and eat an animal?
As opposed to dying, yes. But otherwise, I assert the individual is simply wrong in his thinking of how to achieve the greatest happiness.

Also, personally I think some animals are definitely "smarter" than some mentally handicapped people. And actually I do think that therefore in some cases it would be better to kill and eat a human than an animal.

I respect you very much Bill, but I really don't agree with what you have said. I think your distinction between animals and humans is arbitrary, in that it doesn't seem to relate directly to a resulting increase in individual human happiness. Certainly it does relate to human happiness, but not directly I'm thinking.

I would try to explain further, but I've got to go.

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-18-2002, 10:42 AM

I wonder how many flying insects the average motorist kills every time he takes out his car: why take a car, when you can ride a bicycle and not kill these insects?

I wonder how many insects and burrowing mammals are displaced or killed when a homeowner builds a house: why live in a house when you can live in a tent and not kill these animals?

Why use insecticides when insects have invaded your home? Can't you learn to live with the flies and the roaches?

Why wear garments made of silk, wool, or leather when synthetics will suffice?

Let's face it, we harm other species all the time for our convenience. It seems kind of arbitrary to say that we can hurt them in these thousands and millions of ways, yet to hurt them for the most natural reason of all, food, is wrong.

A bit hypocritical, I think.

Jeff

SallySmith · 03-18-2002, 11:53 AM

The point (at least my point) is to do what you can. Giving up meat is easy. Not wearing silk and wool is easy. Not wearing leather is...okay it's not easy, but it can be done. Not using insecticides is easy, I think - but then I've never had a major infestation. Not driving a car could be easy or hard, depending on circumstances. It would make my life extremely difficult. And I think living in a tent classifies as ridiculously difficult. I try and do what I can to lessen my impact on other species. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite. Or, if it does, it's a lot better in my eyes to be a vegetarian hypocrite than a non-hypocritical meat-eater. I feel sure that the cows, pigs, chickens etc. would agree, if they could grasp the concept.

Pomp · 03-18-2002, 11:57 AM

SallySmith,

I feel sure that the cows, pigs, chickens etc. would agree, if they could grasp the concept. (emphasis mine)

Exactly!

Pomp · 03-18-2002, 12:04 PM

emphryio,

I think you can make a non-arbitrary distinction between animals and plants. Or if not a distinction, you can definitely atribute a much greater degree of ....(intelligence, genetic complexity, something resulting possibly in greater individual human happiness through the things existence,(unless its existence can cause harm to the individual human)), in animals than plants.

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you claiming that the existence of things with greater intelligence/complexity/whatever is genrally more conducive to the individual's happiness than the existence of things without?

What I'm saying is that if you have the choice between destroying an animal or a plant, destroying the plant is usually more "moral" because with optimum thinking on the part of the individual they will obtain more happiness by not destroying the more complex life form.

What if we have the choice between raising animals to kill or not raising animals to kill? By raising them and then killing them, we get the benefit of having more complex/intelligent/whatever things around and we get food out of the deal.

Also, personally I think some animals are definitely "smarter" than some mentally handicapped people. And actually I do think that therefore in some cases it would be better to kill and eat a human than an animal.

Why? Does a "smarter" animal's existence necessarily make you happier than the existence of a "dumber" human?

I respect you very much Bill, but I really don't agree with what you have said. I think your distinction between animals and humans is arbitrary, in that it doesn't seem to relate directly to a resulting increase in individual human happiness. Certainly it does relate to human happiness, but not directly I'm thinking.

That doesn't mean that his distinction is arbitrary. By his standard, ethics are based on rational, abstract thought. The capacity of a being for such thought is certainly a nonarbitrary property under his system

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-18-2002, 06:38 PM

Sally,

My point is that entire cultures have done without these things, and so could we, in theory. But we don't, because these things make our lives richer and we're willing to sacrifice animals to do it. It seems (and is) cruel, but that's how life operates. It's not fair that something as tiny as a bacterium can kill a man, but it's true. Everything ultimately kills everything else.

Jeff

emphryio · 03-18-2002, 06:55 PM

Pompous Bastard wrote:
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you claiming that the existence of things with greater intelligence/complexity/whatever is genrally more conducive to the individual's happiness than the existence of things without?

-------------------------------------------
Reply:
Yes. That's the idea I was toying with.

-------------------------------------------
Pompous wrote:
What if we have the choice between raising animals to kill or not raising animals to kill? By raising them and then killing them, we get the benefit of having more complex/intelligent/whatever things around and we get food out of the deal.

-------------------------------------------
Reply:
If the choice came down to that, then yes, kill the animals. I'm talking about what action has the greater morality, such is a matter of degree. I don't think morality is black and white, right and wrong.

Does the choice come down to that? Maybe it often does.

-----------------------------------------
Pompous wrote:
Why? Does a "smarter" animal's existence necessarily make you happier than the existence of a "dumber" human?

------------------------------------------
Reply:
Generally speaking a more intelligent organism is capable of a larger variety of actions. Personally that is more interesting to me. What is interesting is enjoyable. What is repetitious is not. Well not usually.

----------------------------------------
Pompous wrote:
That doesn't mean that his distinction is arbitrary. By his standard, ethics are based on rational, abstract thought. The capacity of a being for such thought is certainly a nonarbitrary property under his system

-------------------------------------------

I was thinking of the meaning of "arbitrary" in a different sense. Thinking that unless it is directly related to increasing happiness, it is arbitrary. His is related to increasing happiness but not directly in that I consider a moral contract an unneccessary structure along the road to being "moral"/(increasing happiness). But I don't know. I think I might be wrong to call it arbitrary. I think I need to think more on the subject.

But if I might comment on Bill's thoughts a bit.
To me the idea of being moral means what action increases a person's happiness. So once you've decided that you have the "right" to do whatever you want to animals, then what? That doesn't mean it is in your best interest to kill and eat them. But I think I simply have a different definition of what is meant by "acting moral".

Also I might have misunderstood something along the way in this thread. If so, sorry.

Also one last general comment. Isn't it strange that cruelty to animals is condemmed. Animal scientific experiments are controversial. And yet McDonalds is no big deal? It would seem killing an animal because it tastes good would be worse than killing an animal for knowledge or simply hurting an animal without neccessarily killing it.

Possibly the PETA type people try to attack the less powerful "evils" out of practicality. And are successful in influencing people somehow?

Or more likely, cruelty to animals and scientific experimentation is far less common then eating meat and therefore less "stable", less a tradition, and therefore not ruled by dogmatic thinking?

Bree · 03-18-2002, 08:36 PM

Spin:

If you want to quote someone, type and put whatever they said in between the two.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Bree ]

03-18-2002, 08:36 PM	#200
Bree Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Twin Cities, USA Posts: 3,197	Spin: If you want to quote someone, type and put whatever they said in between the two. [ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Bree ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-18-2002, 07:57 AM	#193
emphryio Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: WV Posts: 4,369	I think you can make a non-arbitrary distinction between animals and plants. Or if not a distinction, you can definitely atribute a much greater degree of ....(intelligence, genetic complexity, something resulting possibly in greater individual human happiness through the things existence,(unless its existence can cause harm to the individual human)), in animals than plants. Excuse me if that's hard to understand. (It isn't well thought out.) Call ....[((intelligence, genetic complexity, something resulting possibly in greater individual human happiness through the things existence,(unless its existence can cause harm to the individual human))], call all of that quality, the thing's "ability to provide" "amusement" or "entertainment" for the individual so involved in the decision of what to kill. What I'm saying is that if you have the choice between destroying an animal or a plant, destroying the plant is usually more "moral" because with optimum thinking on the part of the individual they will obtain more happiness by not destroying the more complex life form. But what is my defintion of moral? Whatever causes the most happiness to the individual. But what time frame of happiness? I don't know. I personally usually think relatively long-term. (As in forever). If you are thinking very short term survival. Maybe go ahead and eat the meat. But it may cause an individual the most happiness to kill and eat an animal? As opposed to dying, yes. But otherwise, I assert the individual is simply wrong in his thinking of how to achieve the greatest happiness. Also, personally I think some animals are definitely "smarter" than some mentally handicapped people. And actually I do think that therefore in some cases it would be better to kill and eat a human than an animal. I respect you very much Bill, but I really don't agree with what you have said. I think your distinction between animals and humans is arbitrary, in that it doesn't seem to relate directly to a resulting increase in individual human happiness. Certainly it does relate to human happiness, but not directly I'm thinking. I would try to explain further, but I've got to go.

03-18-2002, 10:42 AM	#194
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	I wonder how many flying insects the average motorist kills every time he takes out his car: why take a car, when you can ride a bicycle and not kill these insects? I wonder how many insects and burrowing mammals are displaced or killed when a homeowner builds a house: why live in a house when you can live in a tent and not kill these animals? Why use insecticides when insects have invaded your home? Can't you learn to live with the flies and the roaches? Why wear garments made of silk, wool, or leather when synthetics will suffice? Let's face it, we harm other species all the time for our convenience. It seems kind of arbitrary to say that we can hurt them in these thousands and millions of ways, yet to hurt them for the most natural reason of all, food, is wrong. A bit hypocritical, I think. Jeff

03-18-2002, 11:53 AM	#195
SallySmith Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 263	The point (at least my point) is to do what you can. Giving up meat is easy. Not wearing silk and wool is easy. Not wearing leather is...okay it's not easy, but it can be done. Not using insecticides is easy, I think - but then I've never had a major infestation. Not driving a car could be easy or hard, depending on circumstances. It would make my life extremely difficult. And I think living in a tent classifies as ridiculously difficult. I try and do what I can to lessen my impact on other species. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite. Or, if it does, it's a lot better in my eyes to be a vegetarian hypocrite than a non-hypocritical meat-eater. I feel sure that the cows, pigs, chickens etc. would agree, if they could grasp the concept.

03-18-2002, 11:57 AM	#196
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	SallySmith, I feel sure that the cows, pigs, chickens etc. would agree, if they could grasp the concept. (emphasis mine) Exactly!

03-18-2002, 12:04 PM	#197
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	emphryio, I think you can make a non-arbitrary distinction between animals and plants. Or if not a distinction, you can definitely atribute a much greater degree of ....(intelligence, genetic complexity, something resulting possibly in greater individual human happiness through the things existence,(unless its existence can cause harm to the individual human)), in animals than plants. I'm not sure I understand you. Are you claiming that the existence of things with greater intelligence/complexity/whatever is genrally more conducive to the individual's happiness than the existence of things without? What I'm saying is that if you have the choice between destroying an animal or a plant, destroying the plant is usually more "moral" because with optimum thinking on the part of the individual they will obtain more happiness by not destroying the more complex life form. What if we have the choice between raising animals to kill or not raising animals to kill? By raising them and then killing them, we get the benefit of having more complex/intelligent/whatever things around and we get food out of the deal. Also, personally I think some animals are definitely "smarter" than some mentally handicapped people. And actually I do think that therefore in some cases it would be better to kill and eat a human than an animal. Why? Does a "smarter" animal's existence necessarily make you happier than the existence of a "dumber" human? I respect you very much Bill, but I really don't agree with what you have said. I think your distinction between animals and humans is arbitrary, in that it doesn't seem to relate directly to a resulting increase in individual human happiness. Certainly it does relate to human happiness, but not directly I'm thinking. That doesn't mean that his distinction is arbitrary. By his standard, ethics are based on rational, abstract thought. The capacity of a being for such thought is certainly a nonarbitrary property under his system

03-18-2002, 06:38 PM	#198
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	Sally, My point is that entire cultures have done without these things, and so could we, in theory. But we don't, because these things make our lives richer and we're willing to sacrifice animals to do it. It seems (and is) cruel, but that's how life operates. It's not fair that something as tiny as a bacterium can kill a man, but it's true. Everything ultimately kills everything else. Jeff

03-18-2002, 06:55 PM	#199
emphryio Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: WV Posts: 4,369	Pompous Bastard wrote: I'm not sure I understand you. Are you claiming that the existence of things with greater intelligence/complexity/whatever is genrally more conducive to the individual's happiness than the existence of things without? ------------------------------------------- Reply: Yes. That's the idea I was toying with. ------------------------------------------- Pompous wrote: What if we have the choice between raising animals to kill or not raising animals to kill? By raising them and then killing them, we get the benefit of having more complex/intelligent/whatever things around and we get food out of the deal. ------------------------------------------- Reply: If the choice came down to that, then yes, kill the animals. I'm talking about what action has the greater morality, such is a matter of degree. I don't think morality is black and white, right and wrong. Does the choice come down to that? Maybe it often does. ----------------------------------------- Pompous wrote: Why? Does a "smarter" animal's existence necessarily make you happier than the existence of a "dumber" human? ------------------------------------------ Reply: Generally speaking a more intelligent organism is capable of a larger variety of actions. Personally that is more interesting to me. What is interesting is enjoyable. What is repetitious is not. Well not usually. ---------------------------------------- Pompous wrote: That doesn't mean that his distinction is arbitrary. By his standard, ethics are based on rational, abstract thought. The capacity of a being for such thought is certainly a nonarbitrary property under his system ------------------------------------------- I was thinking of the meaning of "arbitrary" in a different sense. Thinking that unless it is directly related to increasing happiness, it is arbitrary. His is related to increasing happiness but not directly in that I consider a moral contract an unneccessary structure along the road to being "moral"/(increasing happiness). But I don't know. I think I might be wrong to call it arbitrary. I think I need to think more on the subject. But if I might comment on Bill's thoughts a bit. To me the idea of being moral means what action increases a person's happiness. So once you've decided that you have the "right" to do whatever you want to animals, then what? That doesn't mean it is in your best interest to kill and eat them. But I think I simply have a different definition of what is meant by "acting moral". Also I might have misunderstood something along the way in this thread. If so, sorry. Also one last general comment. Isn't it strange that cruelty to animals is condemmed. Animal scientific experiments are controversial. And yet McDonalds is no big deal? It would seem killing an animal because it tastes good would be worse than killing an animal for knowledge or simply hurting an animal without neccessarily killing it. Possibly the PETA type people try to attack the less powerful "evils" out of practicality. And are successful in influencing people somehow? Or more likely, cruelty to animals and scientific experimentation is far less common then eating meat and therefore less "stable", less a tradition, and therefore not ruled by dogmatic thinking?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.