Freethought & Rationalism Archive

shamon · 04-09-2002, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompous Bastard:
shamon,

There aren�t various factors that I�m aware of. If you don�t need horses in your diet and you kill one and eat it you are committing murder.

What are these various factors? Do they negate the above statement?

The first relevant factor is that most people don't consider the killing of an animal that is not capable of abstract thought, such as a horse, to be murder. I understand that you do, but you haven't presented any argument to indicate that the rest of us should.

You might skim through the entire thread. A number of arguments have been presented by both sides. It's a bit more complex than "Meat is murder!"

Astract thought is not a characteristic humans keep in mind whenever they kill animals. They only keep in mind whether or not the killing is needed. When it�s not needed, then when isn�t meat murder? Is it wrong to needlessly kill? It doesn�t matter whether it�s capable of abstract thought.

What is murder but unneeded killing, meaning it�s not your life or theirs? Disagree?

If you agree then meat IS murder, b/c it�s unneeded. Is there ANY word I wrote that is ambiguous?

shamon · 04-09-2002, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Whether or not a being is capable of abstract thought should have little input on whether or not it is justifiable to eat them, particularly when there are other options easily available. While it may end up being a factor in a moral situation involving one on a boat with only a dog and a grand-parent to eat, in contemporary society(ies) overall it is not necessary to eat any animal.

So what you�re saying is, you agree?

Quote:

An argument of this sort is generally weak, since the majority of people view eating retarded people, young children, people in coma's, dead people, etc., as morally unacceptable, yet all of these people lack abstract thought.
I also find the standard utilitarian approach to not eating meat rather weak. It's not okay to eat a cow if we have bread to eat, but it is okay to eat a cow if it helps with your cancer. I doubt such people would consider the eating of a child as morally acceptable if it would help alleviate symptoms of one sort of another in themselves. (Ignoring the obvious fact that a utilitarian approach is generally hard to put into practice since there are so many factors one would have to consider.)

It�s OK to eat meat if you will die without it. There are no moral dilemmas surrounding this.

shamon · 04-09-2002, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Well, you can call it murder if you like, but it strips the word of a lot of its meaning.

Can we not even agree on what murder is? Murder is killing when it�s not your life or theirs.

Quote:

I generally simplify the factors to the empathy one feels for the horse versus the enjoyment one derives from eating the horse. There are potentially other factors as well, but those are the primary ones that I weigh against each other.

These have NOTHING to do with the argument. It doesn�t matter how much you enjoy an activity. The rightness or wrongness isn�t affected by the amount of enjoyment.

tronvillain · 04-09-2002, 12:13 PM

shamon:

Quote:

Can we not even agree on what murder is? Murder is killing when it’s not your life or theirs.

As I said, that definition strips the word of a lot of its meaning. Under that definition, murder can be a trivial act.

Quote:

These have NOTHING to do with the argument. It doesn’t matter how much you enjoy an activity. The rightness or wrongness isn’t affected by the amount of enjoyment.

Interesting. How exactly do you judge something as "right" or "wrong"? As far as I can tell, you weight the various factors and behave accordingly. Why would I judge eating meat wrong? Well, the empathy I feel for an animal seems the primary factor. Why would I judge eating meat right? Well, the pleasure I derive from eating meat seems the primary factor. I weigh them against each other and eating meat emerges as "right."

Pomp · 04-09-2002, 12:19 PM

Tom Piper,

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I have two compelling reasons not to eat baby burgers. First and foremost, the idea sickens me, as I have quite a bit of empathy for human babies and I do not want to think about them being harmed. Second, even if I did not feel this way, it is an observed fact that most contracting human beings are sickened by the idea, and to kill babies for food would cause them to act aganst me.

The short answer to "Do babies have rights under the hypothetical contract?" is "No."

The long answer is "No, but we afford them a high degree of protection anyway, because most people who do have rights under the contract happen to value babies."

The AntiChris · 04-09-2002, 02:01 PM

Pompous Bastard

Thanks for your patience.

Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "rationalise." If you're asking if I've attempted to figure out why I feel that way then, while I don't have a definitie answer for you, I think that a good case can be made from evolutionary psychology. As I've said before, some sort of social contract is necessary for any society to function. Cruelty is usually detrimental to social cooperation, thus people who value cruelty are likely to suffer from social ostracization and decreased reproductive success. Hence, an aversion to cruelty is probably, to some degree, a biological feature of the human species. That portion of the aversion that is not biological is likely explainable by social evolution, using the same line of reasoning. To the extent that a non-human animal is simlar to us, that general aversion to cruelty will apply to that animal.

I've often wondered why animal suffering can often engender reactions in us similar to those we feel when a human is suffering. It seems to me that to suppress or deny those feelings has a negative effect on our overall capacity for compassion. Now it seems clear to me, that the more compassionate we are as a society, the happier we are (compassionate actions tend to satisfy our intersubjective values). It could therefore be argued that trading off our natural instinct to empathise with animals against something as relatively trivial as taste pleasure is in fact reducing our overall potential happiness.

This is a pretty flimsy argument but, as I'm trying to avoid the obvious objectivist pitfalls and the side issues of health and economics, it's the best I can come up with at the moment.

Quote:

Yes. The difference, to me, is that I am repelled to a vastly greater degree by the thought human suffering than I am by the thought of non-human suffering.

I find it interesting that most of the meat-eaters on this MB appear to share your very clear-cut distinction between animal and human suffering. Whilst I would of course agree that there is a difference, I can't help feeling that to say the two are "vastly" different is an exaggeration in order to justify the distinction.

I have no reason believe you are exaggerating, but my experience is that most people do not react to the two in a "vastly" different way. Of course it depends on the animal and the nature of the suffering but, on the whole, people demonstrate remarkably similar emotions when faced with animal and human suffering.

Currently, I think it's probably impossible to argue, from a subjectivist point of view, that meat-eating is immoral. However, I think that this may not always be the case. I encounter far more ethical vegetarians nowadays than, say, 20 years ago and, in Europe at least, pressure for more stringent animal welfare legislation continues to grow.

It's gonna take a long time, but it wouldn't surprise me if one day meat-eating is viewed in the same way as slavery is viewed now.

Chris

Pomp · 04-10-2002, 11:08 PM

The Anti Chris,

Thanks for your patience.

You're very welcome.

I've often wondered why animal suffering can often engender reactions in us similar to those we feel when a human is suffering. It seems to me that to suppress or deny those feelings has a negative effect on our overall capacity for compassion.

To an extent I might agree with you. I don't think that most of us are suppressing or denying any empathic feelings for nonhuman animals though. I don't have to fight down my pity to eat a turkeyburger (I don't eat red meat), I just don't "naturally" feel enough empathy for turkeys for it to be an issue. I suppose that, if I really worked at it, picturing the horrible deaths that my meals died every time I ate, I might eventually develop a significant degree of empathy for food animals, but I see no compelling reason to do so.

Now it seems clear to me, that the more compassionate we are as a society, the happier we are (compassionate actions tend to satisfy our intersubjective values). It could therefore be argued that trading off our natural instinct to empathise with animals against something as relatively trivial as taste pleasure is in fact reducing our overall potential happiness.

I'm not sure how much a greater degree of compassion for animals would influence the degree of compassion we have for other humans, which is, of course, the sort of compassion that would make us happier. It hasn't been my experience that vegetarians/vegans, as a group, are any more or less compasionate towards other humans than most other groups of people.

I find it interesting that most of the meat-eaters on this MB appear to share your very clear-cut distinction between animal and human suffering. Whilst I would of course agree that there is a difference, I can't help feeling that to say the two are "vastly" different is an exaggeration in order to justify the distinction.

In the post to which you are responding, I wasn't claiming that there is a vast objective difference between humans and other animals, but that there is a vast difference in the degree of empathy that I feel for humans and the degree of empathy that I feel for other animals. You're going to have to take my word for that.

It's gonna take a long time, but it wouldn't surprise me if one day meat-eating is viewed in the same way as slavery is viewed now.

I doubt it, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a general decline in meat eating habits over the next century or so, as I think that there is fairly good medical evidence that human health is best served by a low-meat (but not meatless) diet.

hal9000 · 04-11-2002, 06:41 PM

All this moral and gastronomic huffing and puffing and you vegetarians still have no answer for the question in<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000118" target="_blank">This thread.</a> Not very impressive on your part Spin, Shamon., The AntiChris, and the rest of you vegetarians. Hell at least MeBeMe gave it a shot. His last shot as it turned out. You guys keep hiding here, I understand your fear of the question DP posed for you.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: hal900069 ]

The AntiChris · 04-12-2002, 01:22 AM

hal900069

Quote:

All this moral and gastronomic huffing and puffing and you vegetarians still have no answer for the question in This thread.

I have no wish to participate in a thread insultingly entitled - "How do you achieve a morally sound vegetarian utopia? Vegies have no clue."

Quote:

Not very impressive on your part Spin, Shamon., The AntiChris, and the rest of you vegetarians.

You really shouldn't make assumptions.

Quote:

You guys keep hiding here, I understand your fear of the question DP posed for you.

I find your implied accusation of cowardice offensive.

As for how we achieve a meat-free society - well it's happening right now! It's a very slow
process of change and I'm not at all certain that it will ultimately result in a completely meat-free society. However, I am certain that animal welfare concerns, with the added impetus of the undoubted health benefits of a reduced meat diet, are influencing , and will continue to influence, attitudes to meat-eating.

The fact that change is happening and that some meat-eaters here feel threatened by this is clearly demonstrated by some of the desperately crude attempts to ridicule the vegetarian argument.

Chris

Valmorian · 04-12-2002, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The AntiChris:

As for how we achieve a meat-free society - well it's happening right now! It's a very slow
process of change and I'm not at all certain that it will ultimately result in a completely meat-free society.

Isn't this self contradictory? "We're reaching a meat-free society right now, but I'm not at all certain we'll get to a meat-free society."?

The most you could (possibly) conclude is that there are more vegetarians now than there used to be.

Quote:

However, I am certain that animal welfare concerns, with the added impetus of the undoubted health benefits of a reduced meat diet, are influencing , and will continue to influence, attitudes to meat-eating.

And I'm just as certain that there are a significant number of people who enjoy eating meat enough that such concerns simply don't matter to them.

Quote:

The fact that change is happening and that some meat-eaters here feel threatened by this is clearly demonstrated by some of the desperately crude attempts to ridicule the vegetarian argument.

Chris

Eh? Perhaps they're just annoyed at some vegetarians telling them they are immoral?

04-11-2002, 06:41 PM	#118
hal9000 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: just over your shoulder Posts: 146	All this moral and gastronomic huffing and puffing and you vegetarians still have no answer for the question in<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000118" target="_blank">This thread.</a> Not very impressive on your part Spin, Shamon., The AntiChris, and the rest of you vegetarians. Hell at least MeBeMe gave it a shot. His last shot as it turned out. You guys keep hiding here, I understand your fear of the question DP posed for you. [ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: hal900069 ]</p>

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

04-09-2002, 12:19 PM	#115
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Tom Piper, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I have two compelling reasons not to eat baby burgers. First and foremost, the idea sickens me, as I have quite a bit of empathy for human babies and I do not want to think about them being harmed. Second, even if I did not feel this way, it is an observed fact that most contracting human beings are sickened by the idea, and to kill babies for food would cause them to act aganst me. The short answer to "Do babies have rights under the hypothetical contract?" is "No." The long answer is "No, but we afford them a high degree of protection anyway, because most people who do have rights under the contract happen to value babies."

04-10-2002, 11:08 PM	#117
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	The Anti Chris, Thanks for your patience. You're very welcome. I've often wondered why animal suffering can often engender reactions in us similar to those we feel when a human is suffering. It seems to me that to suppress or deny those feelings has a negative effect on our overall capacity for compassion. To an extent I might agree with you. I don't think that most of us are suppressing or denying any empathic feelings for nonhuman animals though. I don't have to fight down my pity to eat a turkeyburger (I don't eat red meat), I just don't "naturally" feel enough empathy for turkeys for it to be an issue. I suppose that, if I really worked at it, picturing the horrible deaths that my meals died every time I ate, I might eventually develop a significant degree of empathy for food animals, but I see no compelling reason to do so. Now it seems clear to me, that the more compassionate we are as a society, the happier we are (compassionate actions tend to satisfy our intersubjective values). It could therefore be argued that trading off our natural instinct to empathise with animals against something as relatively trivial as taste pleasure is in fact reducing our overall potential happiness. I'm not sure how much a greater degree of compassion for animals would influence the degree of compassion we have for other humans, which is, of course, the sort of compassion that would make us happier. It hasn't been my experience that vegetarians/vegans, as a group, are any more or less compasionate towards other humans than most other groups of people. I find it interesting that most of the meat-eaters on this MB appear to share your very clear-cut distinction between animal and human suffering. Whilst I would of course agree that there is a difference, I can't help feeling that to say the two are "vastly" different is an exaggeration in order to justify the distinction. In the post to which you are responding, I wasn't claiming that there is a vast objective difference between humans and other animals, but that there is a vast difference in the degree of empathy that I feel for humans and the degree of empathy that I feel for other animals. You're going to have to take my word for that. It's gonna take a long time, but it wouldn't surprise me if one day meat-eating is viewed in the same way as slavery is viewed now. I doubt it, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a general decline in meat eating habits over the next century or so, as I think that there is fairly good medical evidence that human health is best served by a low-meat (but not meatless) diet.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.