Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Viti · 03-16-2002, 04:09 PM

spin...what you seem to have trouble understanding is that many people simply do not see meat eating as a moral or ethical dilemma. If you don't feel that something you do is wrong in any way, if you don't have any guilt feelings, if you do not question "is this right or wrong" then you have no reason or motivation to justify it.

Meat eating is an ethical issue to you, but that doesn't make it so for others. I personally don't feel the need to justify or explain my stance on this to you, because it is a non-issue to ME. You think it is wrong to eat meat, I do not think it is wrong to eat meat. That's it. (you and I also representing "vegetarians" and "meat eaters"...not necessarily personal)

As Malaclypse the Younger said "I am simply not answerable to you..." again, I can represent anyone.

Pomp · 03-16-2002, 04:13 PM

LadyShea said:

spin...what you seem to have trouble understanding is that many people simply do not see meat eating as a moral or ethical dilemma. If you don't feel that something you do is wrong in any way, if you don't have any guilt feelings, if you do not question "is this right or wrong" then you have no reason or motivation to justify it.

Exactly! Most of us see no ethical dilemma in killing and eating non-human animals. Spin, if you're going to suggest to us that we ought to find a dilemma there, you need to provide some reasoning for that. The closest I've seen from you thus far is:

Quote:

I think taking the life of any sentient being is wrong.

Fine. As I disagree, I might ask you why you think this. Well? Why?

Edited for UBB tags.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

spin · 03-16-2002, 04:23 PM

baloo,

Life.

Viti · 03-16-2002, 04:25 PM

Koy and I somewhat cross posted, but he said it better!

Pomp · 03-16-2002, 04:31 PM

spin,

Life.

Define life.

spin · 03-16-2002, 04:46 PM

spin:
---------------
I'm glad you have made it plain that you place yourself in the category of moral relativist, which cashes out to me to mean amoral.
---------------

PB:
---------------
You are entitled to your opinion. Moral subjectivists, however, acknowledge that they are bound by any number of moral constraints, so I fail to see how we can be acurately described as "amoral." Further, mainstream ethical philosphy considers moral subjectivism to be a defensible stance. If you believe that it is amoral, I suggest that you provide justification for yoru view, rather than dismiss all subjectivist arguments.
---------------

Subjectivism aims at self, morality aims at relations with others.

spin:
---------------
I think it also nullifies your abuse of contract theory,
---------------

PB:
---------------
I don't know what you mean. How does my stance as a moral subjectivist "nullify" my supposed abuse of contract theory?
---------------

It is irrelevant to your basic position.

PB:
---------------
Further, it has been pointed out to you several times that I am not abusing contract theory in any way. Did you read the link I provided to a short encyclopedia entry on contractarianism? It's a quick read, and I think your understanding of the theory would benefit greatly from it.
---------------

You actively attempted to exclude with it.

spin:
---------------
...so, while your "moral relativism" can justify Dahmer, your contract theory, is merely a trapping, probably because you don't think it's good to reservedly put your moral relativism behind his stance.
---------------

PB:
---------------
I have no idea what you are saying.
---------------

"Your contract theory" stuff is irrelevant to your basic position.

PB:
---------------
I get the impression that you're trying to insinuate that I'm "guilty" about holding a philosopical position that could justify Dahmer's behavior so I feel the need to hide it behind contract theory. I assure you that this is not the case.
---------------

It's hard to know what your assurances are worth. I'm not trying to insinuate anything, but to elicit a coherent moral defence of eating animals.

PB:
---------------
Once again, I will repeat my request: rather than repeatedly asserting that you think it's wrong to kill non-human animals for food, please describe the moral theory that you used to arrive at that position, thereby giving us an argument to consider.
---------------

I am asking for a defence of eating meat, that doesn't say "I like it and I can", which justifies almost anything, or "I can't help it (we're omnivores, etc)".

Koyaanisqatsi · 03-16-2002, 04:48 PM

I am asking for a defense of eating plants that doesn't hinge upon assertion, as that can, after all, be used to defend anything.

Toto · 03-16-2002, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
<strong>Toto:
-----------------------
I avoided the previous thread, because life is too short, etc. I tried to be a vegetarian for many years, but I finally had to admit that I could not stay healthy on a non-meat diet. Some people have the body make up to survive as a vegetarian, but most of us do not. I had to accept myself as someone who could not live on tofu alone. (And it's not the taste - I really got to like tofu and brown rice, and I could eat Chinese vegetarian food all day.)
-----------------------

No-one has asked you to live on tofu alone. I have never eaten tofu. As there is such a wide range of food available, I find it hard to believe you. You may be correct.</strong>

The wide range of food does not include sources with adequate protein to maintain my health. I know this from my experience, you have also read Bree's story, and if you went to <a href="http://www.beyondveg.org" target="_blank">www.beyondveg.org</a> you could read other stories. The human species evolved to be healthy by eating other animals.

Is this not a moral argument for meat eating? The moral vegetarians base their case on the idea that no one needs to eat meat. If that idea is wrong, where does it leave you?

spin · 03-16-2002, 05:23 PM

spin:
------------------------------
You need to make the difference, not assume it. I don't dictate morals. I'm asking for a moral justification of eating meat, which didn't fit the categories I provided, as I indicated I didn't find either ethical.
------------------------------

Jeff:
------------------------------
I've not only made the difference, I've demonstrated it. The fact that you're too stubborn to recognize it is irrelevant. The points I have made don't support your arguments, so as usual, you simply ignore them and respond with your canned vegetarian propaganda.
------------------------------

You kid yourself. -- Perhaps, it was so fast, I missed it. If so, could you run it past me a bit more slowly.

What canned vegetarian propaganda are you referring to?

spin:
------------------------------
Cannibalism has been practised in various parts of the world, as I have already stated.
------------------------------

Jeff:
------------------------------
Agreed, but never indiscriminately.
------------------------------

spin:
------------------------------
But that was never a criterion.
------------------------------

Jeff:
------------------------------
Wrong. It was one of my criteria to differentiate between the two. Just because you don't like it doesn't invalidate it.
------------------------------

But you've not done anything with your difference.

Jeff:
------------------------------
Or are you saying that your morality is superior to my morality, and if so, by what right do you make that claim? (And if you claim it's so because you don't eat meat, congratulations: you've made a circular argument.)
------------------------------

I haven't seen your morality, so I can't make a comparison.

spin:
------------------------------
What's the difference between eating one's own species and some other animal species?
------------------------------

Jeff:
------------------------------
No more than, say, the difference between an F-15 fighter jet and a lemming. I mean, they both move forward, right? They must be the same thing, by your logic.
------------------------------

We are talking about causing the death of sentient life leading to the eating of them. I think you should attempt to find an intelligent analogy.

Jeff:
------------------------------
I was explaining why being carnivorous and being cannabalistic in the human race has different social ramifications.
------------------------------

spin:
------------------------------
What has that got to do with eating either human or other animal meat to you? And how do those ramifications affect your views on the ethics of eating dead animals?
------------------------------

Jeff:
------------------------------
I have no response to that. You just asked me what an answer to question X has to do with question X.
------------------------------

Phrases like "social ramifications" do not communicate anything tangible, speak again.

Jeff:
------------------------------
And my opinion on the ethics are irrelevant for this particular point. I was demonstrating that eating meat and cannibalism are equivalent. Whether they are wrong is an entirely different (and broader) subject.
------------------------------

OK. You say they are the same.

Jeff:
------------------------------
Essentially, this entire discussion I've been having with you has been to address a single point you brought up: namely your comparing meat-eaters to cannibals. I have explained why this is not an apt analogy, but have not touched at all upon whether meat-eating is moral or not.
------------------------------

I must have missed the end of your address.

Jeff:
------------------------------
Once we resolve this cannibalism side-bar, however, I may be inclined to continue on the broader topic. In the meantime, I prefer to keep the discussion focus so that when we're done with this point, it won't keep coming up endlessly.
------------------------------

I thought you've just said that they are the same.

spin:
------------------------------
Man has often been a pack animal and if you didn't belong to a particular pack, well, you suffered the consequences.
------------------------------

Jeff:
------------------------------
Yes, and historically, under rare occasions cannibalism was performed on the losers of a battle, although this was very rare. The key word is "Indiscriminately". To my knowledge, there is not now, nor has there ever been a culture that practiced cannibalism indiscriminately and has survived to present day.
------------------------------

spin:
------------------------------
What has whether cannibalism was practised indiscriminately or not got to do with the comparison between eating other animals and eating your own species?
------------------------------

Jeff:
------------------------------
Everything. It proves that society considers them different.
------------------------------

Is society now your criterion?

spin:
------------------------------
Ubiquity is not a useful criterion for morality.
------------------------------

Jeff:
------------------------------
No, right. Apparently the only useful criterion for morality is: "Does Spin approve of it?"
------------------------------

That's comfortable for you.

Jeff:
------------------------------
Sadly, apart from divine fiat (and most Judeo-Christian religions support eating meat) or viewing things from a Natural Selection perspective (which definitely supports eating meat), I can think of no better criteria than whether society deems it moral or not.
------------------------------

So society, such as that in Germany before and during WWII is acceptable to you as well? Or, a little less extremely, the society that justified the McCarthy era?

Jeff:
------------------------------
Now, if you have some innovative direct hotline to the source of all moral imperatives, I'm sure that the other 6 or so billion people on this planet would love to hear why all their morals are wrong and yours are right.
------------------------------

6 or so billion people! That must be reassuring.

Pomp · 03-16-2002, 05:26 PM

spin,

We're running in circles. Can you please address my arguments instead of dismissing them? I can only repeat myself so many times before it becomes an exercise in frustration.

Essentially, you have asserted that you find it unethical to eat animals and asked those of us who disagree for a moral justification of our disagreement. A number of people have provided such justifications to you. You have dismissed each in turn because it does not meet with your personal criteria for morality, which you have not shared with the rest of us. In order to break out of the assert-argue-dismiss spin cycle, I would like you to please answer the following questions:

1) What, to you, does it mean to say that an act is "right" or "wrong?"
2) Why do you think it is "wrong" to kill any sentient being? Please base this answer on your answer to question 1 and be sure to explain why sentience is not an arbitrary criterion you have invented to justify killing and eating innocent plants for the sake of your stomache.
3) Why should any of us adopt your answers to 1 and 2 as our own?

Thanks in advance.

Edited for poor grammar.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

03-16-2002, 05:26 PM	#50
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	spin, We're running in circles. Can you please address my arguments instead of dismissing them? I can only repeat myself so many times before it becomes an exercise in frustration. Essentially, you have asserted that you find it unethical to eat animals and asked those of us who disagree for a moral justification of our disagreement. A number of people have provided such justifications to you. You have dismissed each in turn because it does not meet with your personal criteria for morality, which you have not shared with the rest of us. In order to break out of the assert-argue-dismiss spin cycle, I would like you to please answer the following questions: 1) What, to you, does it mean to say that an act is "right" or "wrong?" 2) Why do you think it is "wrong" to kill any sentient being? Please base this answer on your answer to question 1 and be sure to explain why sentience is not an arbitrary criterion you have invented to justify killing and eating innocent plants for the sake of your stomache. 3) Why should any of us adopt your answers to 1 and 2 as our own? Thanks in advance. Edited for poor grammar. [ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

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

03-16-2002, 04:09 PM	#41
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	spin...what you seem to have trouble understanding is that many people simply do not see meat eating as a moral or ethical dilemma. If you don't feel that something you do is wrong in any way, if you don't have any guilt feelings, if you do not question "is this right or wrong" then you have no reason or motivation to justify it. Meat eating is an ethical issue to you, but that doesn't make it so for others. I personally don't feel the need to justify or explain my stance on this to you, because it is a non-issue to ME. You think it is wrong to eat meat, I do not think it is wrong to eat meat. That's it. (you and I also representing "vegetarians" and "meat eaters"...not necessarily personal) As Malaclypse the Younger said "I am simply not answerable to you..." again, I can represent anyone.

03-16-2002, 04:23 PM	#43
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	baloo, Life.

03-16-2002, 04:25 PM	#44
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Koy and I somewhat cross posted, but he said it better!

03-16-2002, 04:31 PM	#45
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	spin, Life. Define life.

03-16-2002, 04:46 PM	#46
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	spin: --------------- I'm glad you have made it plain that you place yourself in the category of moral relativist, which cashes out to me to mean amoral. --------------- PB: --------------- You are entitled to your opinion. Moral subjectivists, however, acknowledge that they are bound by any number of moral constraints, so I fail to see how we can be acurately described as "amoral." Further, mainstream ethical philosphy considers moral subjectivism to be a defensible stance. If you believe that it is amoral, I suggest that you provide justification for yoru view, rather than dismiss all subjectivist arguments. --------------- Subjectivism aims at self, morality aims at relations with others. spin: --------------- I think it also nullifies your abuse of contract theory, --------------- PB: --------------- I don't know what you mean. How does my stance as a moral subjectivist "nullify" my supposed abuse of contract theory? --------------- It is irrelevant to your basic position. PB: --------------- Further, it has been pointed out to you several times that I am not abusing contract theory in any way. Did you read the link I provided to a short encyclopedia entry on contractarianism? It's a quick read, and I think your understanding of the theory would benefit greatly from it. --------------- You actively attempted to exclude with it. spin: --------------- ...so, while your "moral relativism" can justify Dahmer, your contract theory, is merely a trapping, probably because you don't think it's good to reservedly put your moral relativism behind his stance. --------------- PB: --------------- I have no idea what you are saying. --------------- "Your contract theory" stuff is irrelevant to your basic position. PB: --------------- I get the impression that you're trying to insinuate that I'm "guilty" about holding a philosopical position that could justify Dahmer's behavior so I feel the need to hide it behind contract theory. I assure you that this is not the case. --------------- It's hard to know what your assurances are worth. I'm not trying to insinuate anything, but to elicit a coherent moral defence of eating animals. PB: --------------- Once again, I will repeat my request: rather than repeatedly asserting that you think it's wrong to kill non-human animals for food, please describe the moral theory that you used to arrive at that position, thereby giving us an argument to consider. --------------- I am asking for a defence of eating meat, that doesn't say "I like it and I can", which justifies almost anything, or "I can't help it (we're omnivores, etc)".

03-16-2002, 04:48 PM	#47
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	I am asking for a defense of eating plants that doesn't hinge upon assertion, as that can, after all, be used to defend anything.

03-16-2002, 05:23 PM	#49
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	spin: ------------------------------ You need to make the difference, not assume it. I don't dictate morals. I'm asking for a moral justification of eating meat, which didn't fit the categories I provided, as I indicated I didn't find either ethical. ------------------------------ Jeff: ------------------------------ I've not only made the difference, I've demonstrated it. The fact that you're too stubborn to recognize it is irrelevant. The points I have made don't support your arguments, so as usual, you simply ignore them and respond with your canned vegetarian propaganda. ------------------------------ You kid yourself. -- Perhaps, it was so fast, I missed it. If so, could you run it past me a bit more slowly. What canned vegetarian propaganda are you referring to? spin: ------------------------------ Cannibalism has been practised in various parts of the world, as I have already stated. ------------------------------ Jeff: ------------------------------ Agreed, but never indiscriminately. ------------------------------ spin: ------------------------------ But that was never a criterion. ------------------------------ Jeff: ------------------------------ Wrong. It was one of my criteria to differentiate between the two. Just because you don't like it doesn't invalidate it. ------------------------------ But you've not done anything with your difference. Jeff: ------------------------------ Or are you saying that your morality is superior to my morality, and if so, by what right do you make that claim? (And if you claim it's so because you don't eat meat, congratulations: you've made a circular argument.) ------------------------------ I haven't seen your morality, so I can't make a comparison. spin: ------------------------------ What's the difference between eating one's own species and some other animal species? ------------------------------ Jeff: ------------------------------ No more than, say, the difference between an F-15 fighter jet and a lemming. I mean, they both move forward, right? They must be the same thing, by your logic. ------------------------------ We are talking about causing the death of sentient life leading to the eating of them. I think you should attempt to find an intelligent analogy. Jeff: ------------------------------ I was explaining why being carnivorous and being cannabalistic in the human race has different social ramifications. ------------------------------ spin: ------------------------------ What has that got to do with eating either human or other animal meat to you? And how do those ramifications affect your views on the ethics of eating dead animals? ------------------------------ Jeff: ------------------------------ I have no response to that. You just asked me what an answer to question X has to do with question X. ------------------------------ Phrases like "social ramifications" do not communicate anything tangible, speak again. Jeff: ------------------------------ And my opinion on the ethics are irrelevant for this particular point. I was demonstrating that eating meat and cannibalism are equivalent. Whether they are wrong is an entirely different (and broader) subject. ------------------------------ OK. You say they are the same. Jeff: ------------------------------ Essentially, this entire discussion I've been having with you has been to address a single point you brought up: namely your comparing meat-eaters to cannibals. I have explained why this is not an apt analogy, but have not touched at all upon whether meat-eating is moral or not. ------------------------------ I must have missed the end of your address. Jeff: ------------------------------ Once we resolve this cannibalism side-bar, however, I may be inclined to continue on the broader topic. In the meantime, I prefer to keep the discussion focus so that when we're done with this point, it won't keep coming up endlessly. ------------------------------ I thought you've just said that they are the same. spin: ------------------------------ Man has often been a pack animal and if you didn't belong to a particular pack, well, you suffered the consequences. ------------------------------ Jeff: ------------------------------ Yes, and historically, under rare occasions cannibalism was performed on the losers of a battle, although this was very rare. The key word is "Indiscriminately". To my knowledge, there is not now, nor has there ever been a culture that practiced cannibalism indiscriminately and has survived to present day. ------------------------------ spin: ------------------------------ What has whether cannibalism was practised indiscriminately or not got to do with the comparison between eating other animals and eating your own species? ------------------------------ Jeff: ------------------------------ Everything. It proves that society considers them different. ------------------------------ Is society now your criterion? spin: ------------------------------ Ubiquity is not a useful criterion for morality. ------------------------------ Jeff: ------------------------------ No, right. Apparently the only useful criterion for morality is: "Does Spin approve of it?" ------------------------------ That's comfortable for you. Jeff: ------------------------------ Sadly, apart from divine fiat (and most Judeo-Christian religions support eating meat) or viewing things from a Natural Selection perspective (which definitely supports eating meat), I can think of no better criteria than whether society deems it moral or not. ------------------------------ So society, such as that in Germany before and during WWII is acceptable to you as well? Or, a little less extremely, the society that justified the McCarthy era? Jeff: ------------------------------ Now, if you have some innovative direct hotline to the source of all moral imperatives, I'm sure that the other 6 or so billion people on this planet would love to hear why all their morals are wrong and yours are right. ------------------------------ 6 or so billion people! That must be reassuring.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.