Pyrrho

Why do you say that? At what point is an animal at "too high a mental level"?

Furthermore, if being at "too high a mental level" is what matters, then you must believe it is okay to eat severely mentally retarded people, as well as small children. Of course, using them for medical experiments would be more practical, so you may regard that as the right use.

If you object to such use for small children and the severely retarded, then being at "too high a mental level" is not the criterion that you actually use.

What I am interested in is people being consistent. Do you regard it as okay to use small children and mentally retarded people for food, medical experiments, etc.?

Pyrrho

Indeed, no one suggests that one stop killing microbes. So, as you say, there is a question of where to draw the line (unless, of course, one were to say that killing anything is okay, which is what some of the others who respond below seem to be saying). Some, I think, would say that it has to do with the ability to feel pain. Furthermore, in the case of the microbes attacking you, killing them with antibiotics may be viewed as self-defense.



As you say, your approach leaves us with the idea that it is okay to eat small children and severely retarded people, as well as use them for medical experiments. If you object to that, then if you are consistent, you must reject your own proposal for what matters.

And, if you do stay with the idea that self-awareness is the relevant feature, some animals appear to fit this:

http://ar.vegnews.org/self_aware.html

And, if you say that it has to do with moral decisions, some animals appear to fit this:

http://ar.vegnews.org/macaques.html

And as for the five-year old, it is generally thought that the great apes have approximately that level of intelligence. We perform painful medical experiments on them, because they more closely resemble us than other animals.

So, as you say you don't know where to draw the line, don't you think it would be best to be as cautious as possible, and avoid doing things that might be terrible to do? Or should we eat small children and severely retarded people until we can come up with a reason not to?

Pyrrho

PETA's web site is:

http://www.peta.org/

Take another look at the site to which I referred in the original post. There are many people and organizations who have something to say about these matters. PETA is only one of the organizations.

Most animals communicate with each other. How complex must the communication be for you to want to not eat them?

Here is a link for some discussion of animals and language:

http://ar.vegnews.org/language.html

Furthermore, if being intelligent is what matters, then you must believe it is okay to eat severely mentally retarded people, as well as small children. Of course, using them for medical experiments would be more practical, so you may regard that as the right use. And, of course, language use is associated with intelligence; small children are no more capable of using language than many animals.

If you object to such use for small children and the severely retarded, then intelligence (or language use) is not the criterion that you actually use.

What I am interested in is people being consistent. Do you regard it as okay to use small children and mentally retarded people for food, medical experiments, etc.?

Pyrrho

Do you really believe that might makes right? That the source of being right is having the power to act? If so, then everything that is ever done is right, because the person who acted, at the time they acted, had the power to do as they did. This would mean that every child molester is right, as they have the power to molest the child, and the child, being weaker, is wrong. Do you really believe this?

If you insist that it must be a "society" that selects these things, why would that be? Isn't that merely pretending that society is all-powerful when it is not? If the source of "rightness" is power, then it seems to me that society cannot be more right than it is powerful, and to the extent that a person can go against society, one would have the right to do so (again, assuming that the source of "rightness" is power).

But if you insist that it must be a "society" that selects these things anyway, then, of course, we have the example of slavery in the U.S. 150 years ago, the death camps in Germany in WWII, the Crusades in the middle ages, the Salem witch trials, etc. Do you believe that these were all right? And would you object to a society starting any of these practices now? It would seem that you would have no basis for such an objection, as, according to what you have stated, might makes right, so there is nothing that is objectively right or wrong; it is only whatever the powerful selects that determines, in a particular case, what is right or wrong. So, would you have a problem with the reintroduction of slavery into the U.S.?

Pyrrho

So, you are saying that all ethics is irrational? I am a bit puzzled, though, why someone who regards ethics as essentially irrational would be wasting their time discussing it? Why visit any thread in the "Moral Foundations & Principles" section of II? If you post in other threads in the "Moral Foundations & Principles" section of II, do you say that the discussion is bogus, and that all ethical principles are essentially irrational?

Pyrrho

Do you believe that everything that is "natural" is good? Rape is a natural activity, and so is murder. So, if being natural is all that is required to be moral, then rape and murder are moral as well.

For more on this, see:

http://ar.vegnews.org/meat_is_natural.html



Why do you believe that the animals you list are not sentient? Do you have any evidence for that claim? Or is it an article of faith?

You might be interested in:

http://ar.vegnews.org/where_consciousness_begins.html

And, if you have an interest in philosophy, you might be interested in David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, specifically SECTION IX. Of the REASON of ANIMALS.. Within the text, you can click on the symbol for the footnote to take you to the footnote, and from the footnote, if you click on the symbol for the footnote, it will take you back to the main text.



I believe that some people would say that that is why it is okay to eat plants, but not most animals. Often, I think, vegetarians are concerned with whether they are causing unnecessary pain.



Having the same level of "consciousness" may be irrelevant. Do all humans have the same level of "consciousness"? Is it okay to eat some humans, but not others, because of the differing levels of "consciousness"? Is it okay to eat severely retarded people and young children, because they lack some of the capacities of healthy adult humans?

What I am interested in is people being consistent. Do you regard it as okay to use small children and mentally retarded people for food, medical experiments, etc.?


To answer your first question, the reason why vegetarians use examples like the thought experiment to which I originally referred is to show that people are often inconsistent. People often say intelligence or some other such thing is what matters, but they fail to believe their own story, as they tend to object to eating small children. When someone says some inconsistent things about their religion, many want to make the inconsistency clear with a thought experiment. This is doing the same kind of thing. The reality is, most people eat meat and think it is okay because that is what they were told as children, and it is what they did as children, and, like most religious people, they just go along with what they were told as children. The idea that many atheists have that breaking free from religion has somehow made them free and independent thinkers is manifestly absurd. Most constantly show that they simply go along with the herd, and never bother to think clearly and rationally about the other aspects of their lives. They usually don't bother with things like consistency. Otherwise, they would be consistent in matters such as the topic at hand. But the simple fact is, most people don't think about what they do most of their lives, and consequently they do things that do not fit in with any principle that they themselves find acceptable.

I have not been interested in telling people in this thread to stop eating meat; I have been interested in them being consistent in what they say and do. At the present moment, I have nothing to say to those who say that it is intelligence that matters, and who eat small children and severely mentally retarded people. But I do have a problem with someone who says that it is intelligence that matters, but object to eating small children and severely retarded people, when they have failed to offer any justification for this. Those who are inconsistent are necessarily wrong, no matter what the truth might be.

Pyrrho

Do you mean to say that such discussions get more heated than the ones about religion, in which it is common to tell people that they are inconsistent and silly? Would you mind posting a couple of links to examples of what you have in mind?

Thank you in advance, if you provide any such links.

Pyrrho

Do you believe that everything that is "natural" is good? Rape is a natural activity, and so is murder. So, if being natural is all that is required to be moral, then rape and murder are moral as well.

For more on this, see:

http://ar.vegnews.org/meat_is_natural.html

You might also be interested in:

http://ar.vegnews.org/cat_analogy.html

Or did you mean literally that because something has always been done, that it must be okay? That is one of the reasons that slave owners gave before the Civil War in the U.S.; slavery had always existed. Do you really believe that doing something in the past makes it okay to do it in the future?


Furthermore, if you are interested in a long, healthy life, vegetarians live longer than those who eat meat. And vegans live longer than vegetarians. (A vegan is a vegetarian who also does not eat animal products, such as cheese and eggs.)



Do you imagine that vegetarians live without eating? Obviously, you do not need to eat meat to live.



The lion does not have much choice if it wishes to live. You, however, do have a choice. You do not have to eat meat to live. See:

http://ar.vegnews.org/prevent_predation.html

(As a side question, why do you mention PETA? PETA's web site is: http://www.peta.org/ Take another look at the site to which I referred in the original post. There are many people and organizations who have something to say about these matters. PETA is only one of the organizations.)



And what are those consequences of which you speak, that "are right there to see"? Do you mean to refer to the health benefits of being a vegetarian? You might also be interested in:

http://ar.vegnews.org/always_eaten_meat.html

Also, if we are incapable of "'rising' above our baser instincts", as you seem to suggest, then we must all be murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. Are you all of those things, or do you think that it really is possible to rise above such things?

Pyrrho

In point of fact, many animals smile (or the equivalent thereof), and it does not prevent humans from eating them. Why would you imagine that the aliens would be different from humans regarding such matters?



Regarding your last question, animals often do communicate with people (though obviously they don't typically speak English). Much of the communication that you do is done through body language, facial expressions, etc. And when a dog is barking at you as you approach a house, do you think maybe the dog is trying to tell you something? Animals commonly make cries of pain during the process of making meat, yet it does not prevent people from continuing the process. So, if your food can communicate with you, if you are the typical person, it makes no difference; you eat it anyway.

As you say, if they want to eat us, being more powerful, they will do so. But that was not the question. The question is this: Should they eat us? If not, why not?

Pyrrho

Do you mean that the ability to communicate is what matters?

Most animals communicate with each other. How complex must the communication be for you to want to not eat them?

Here is a link for some discussion of animals and language:

http://ar.vegnews.org/language.html

Furthermore, if being intelligent is what matters, then you must believe it is okay to eat severely mentally retarded people, as well as small children. Of course, using them for medical experiments would be more practical, so you may regard that as the right use. And, of course, language use is associated with intelligence; small children are no more capable of using language than many animals.

If you object to such use for small children and the severely retarded, then intelligence (or language use) is not the criterion that you actually use.

What I am interested in is people being consistent. Do you regard it as okay to use small children and mentally retarded people for food, medical experiments, etc.?