Pomp

emphryio,

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).

<nitpick>I'm the contractarian here. Bill has been defending the contractarian view against misrepresentation, but he does not hold that view himself.</nitpick>

David Gould

This thread has exploded very rapidly and as it was a long weekend in Canberra, this is my first opportunity to post a reply.

If there is no absolute moral standard, then isn't all morality by default a matter of personal choice?

Even if there is an absolute moral standard, if no-one can agree on what it is then isn't all morality by default a matter of personal choice?

The only way you can alter someone's opinion about any moral issue, whether it be eating meat or something else, is to determine what it is that they value.

For example, if a Nazi valued the preservation of the German state over the lives of Jews then to convince him not to kill Jews it would do no good appealing to the sanctity of human life.

The best method available is to attack the hidden premise - that Jews will cause the destruction of the German state.

(You could of course try to change the value order itself but that is a lot harder)

Thus, I choose to eat meat because my values put my feelings/rights above other animals.

You then need to target my feelings and demonstrate (or cause! - bit dubious that, though) that I will feel better not eating meat than eating it.

Trying to get me to not eat meat because animals are cute and smart and suffer may have no impact because that does not go to the point of why I eat meat.

brighid

I think it is an unfair assumption to believe that meat-eaters do not do the same sort of things.

I, as a meat-eater do all of these things. I purchase synthetic items when I can, I purchase free-range meats and attempt to buy my fish from a producer that takes precautions to preserve the environment, I recycle, I finally have my own yard to build a compost bin it, I try not to use pesticides or herbicides that are toxic, and because I do not have the time to properly tend to my own garden very well, I purchase seasonal vegetables and fruits through an organic farm that sends out weekly bushels of their delicious fair, I take daily vitamins supplements (not that single, useless multivitamin crap) that includes daily doses of Omega's and other good stuff, I use only natural products for my hair and skin ...

There are plenty of unconscious, stupid people in the world who could care less about the environment and the impact human society has upon the earth - they are generally called Republicans

But there are very many (at least in the groups that I circle) that care very much for the environment and do well to take care of the animal and plant life that they share a community with.

I think it's an excellent idea to tread lightly, but sometimes it is necessary to kill all sorts of life in order that we might live. We should work to find the best possible and conservative way to achieve our housing, living, dietary needs, etc. But we cannot escape the fact that many forms of life will die by our mere presence here. I probably killed a thousand bugs on my way into work today and I killed the damned plant I had growing on my desk. There is a hierarchy of life value and humans are at the top. This does not mean that other life forms are not valuable - they are very valuable and we should preserve life whenever we can. But their is a sliding scale of value and different animals do have different value, along with other life, including plant life. You simply place all animal life at a higher value, where as meat-eaters place some animal life higher (such as my dog) and others lower. As a vegetarian, plant life happens to be lowest on your list.

I will continue to be a conservative, conscientious meat eater, environment loving, tree hugging liberal for all of my days. I find no cause to describe all meat-eaters (we are not carnivores you know ) as hypocritical simply because we honor our biology and incorporate meat into our diets. For crying out loud - we aren't our Paleolithic ancestors whose diets consisted of 50-65% of that free range wild game meat! Cut us some slack - most of us only eat half that

Brighid

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

Not Prince Hamlet

David Gould,

That's an excellent post. You really bring up a good point, one that I was implicitly trying to explain but wasn't able to formulate as succinctly as you did. You're right: we all have different values, and rather than imposing our own values on other people, it's much more effective to show them how what we're asking them to do is consistent with their values.

Excellent post!

Jeff

SallySmith

Brighid, you're right - just because you eat meat doesn't mean that you aren't or can't be a "conscious consumer." My post was more about the accusation of hypocrisy that often gets slung at vegetarians because they aren't perfect. And it makes a huge difference to me that people make the effort to buy meat responsibly, considering the inhumanity of factory farming. I don't know how people can eat meat in good conscience when conditions in factory farms are so ugly. This varies from country to country, but the track record in the good 'ol U.S. of A. pretty much sucks. Anyway, again, my post was not a slam on meat-eaters. My best friend eats meat. Do I think it more ethical not to eat meat? Of course, that's why I stopped eating it. But I still respect my friend and think her a caring person (she has also cut down on her meat intake upon learning about factory farming conditions, which impressed me).

SallySmith

Yeah, but we can make life less cruel. That's why I don't eat meat. That's why I give money to Amnesty International. Etc.

Tom Piper

Spin,anyone,

I am coming to this dicussion late, so bear with me, please.

In the opening post, Spin says,

"This latter is in response to the argument that animals are sentient beings, mostly with some degree of consciousness, able to be frightened, perceive danger and are victims of gross acts against them for the full lengths of there lives."

'This latter' refers to some of the moves that were made in attempts to deal with 'the argument' referred to in the above quoted passage.

I would appreciate it if someone, Spin/anyone, would take a minute and fill out 'the argument' that is being referred to so that I can know the details of the challenge.

If this is already done somewhere in the posts in this thread, just give me a reference.

Thanks,

Tom

brighid

I think most people just don’t know what goes on in a slaughter house. I really didn’t know until I began investigating it on my own and I find it pretty repulsive. Unfortunately, I can’t always afford to buy the free range meat at the local health food market – sometimes it is way too expensive. This is a by product of living in an affluent area, but not being nearly as affluent as most of my neighbors. We own a nice home, but it is one of the least expensive houses in the whole damn city. And fruits and vegetables aren’t always cheap or available in decent quantities where I live either. Many non-vegetarian people are limited by their income and availability of fruits and vegetables. A very good friend of mine was getting her Masters Degree at Baylor University in Texas and she and her husband are vegetarians, as well as non-Christians. She teaches ethics, logic, critical thinking, Asian studies and is doing her dissertation on Spinoza. She hated living there and commented often how difficult it was to be a vegetarian in Texas. She has some interesting stories as to how some Texans define what is meat and what is not meat (such as ham is not ‘meat&#8217 She and her husband also use to be vegan and found they had to stop not only for some health reasons, but because it made it nearly impossible to be social even amongst vegetarians because it was a constant struggle over what food was at the party, what could they and could they not eat, etc. And they live in California!

So, when taking into consideration hypocrisy of some meat-eaters you really need to take into consideration their circumstances. And we must eat to survive and sometimes we don’t have a choice to buy free-range chicken or ripe and diverse fruits and vegetables – more or less have access to other protein sources like soy.

For those of us who are aware of the deplorable conditions in some meat factories, we do what we can when we can. Other times, it’s just not possible to avoid certain circumstances and always make the most moral or ethical choice. I remember when I was what you would call dirt poor and sometimes it was difficult to afford food period and you sure as the hell aren’t going to find meat substitutes or soy anything at the one grocery store I could afford to buy fruits and vegetables at. I know too many people who live this experience and sometimes you take what you can get. So, try not to be too harsh on people just because they eat meat. Sometime their circumstances don’t allow for much choice and some just don’t even have the slightest clue what goes on in those factories and it never enters their mind when choosing meat at the market.

Brighid

JL

I think spin has left the building.

David G. wrote:

Not to digress too far off topic, but I just wanted to say I think reality lies somewhere in the middle with the majority of the population believing in an absolute moral standard all the while absorbing small tweaks and changes to it through time (because in fact there is no absolute standard) as circumstances change and science progresses. Just slow enough to escape their awareness. Then you have a small fringe that recognizes the lack of an absolute but is still bound by the popular notion of it in as much as they wish to remain a free and respected member of that populace.

Not Prince Hamlet

Sally, my point was that if you really, absolutely did not want to hurt or harm animals, you'd give up on wool, leather, and silk, wouldn't drive a car, wouldn't live in a home, never take antibiotics, never have a pet, never fly in an airplane, nor do any number of other activities.

But let's face it, to avoid all these activities (and more), would represent a huge inconvenience to your life. So essentially, you're trading the safety and happiness of these animals for comfort and covenience. It's inevitable.

That you're concerned with the problem is admirable. And being a vegetarian is a great way to show it, as are the other things you mentioned. But the point I'm making is that it's not absolutely black and white. We all are concerned about animals to some degree or other, and we all draw a line at some point where we say, "After this point, my comfort is more important than the safety and comfort of animals."

These points may be a different degrees for different people, but we all have them.

Jeff

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Not Prince Hamlet ]</p>