Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 05:32 PM

Maybe. How nice is the closet? Still, whether I would or not doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether, say, a chicken would or not.

spin · 03-23-2002, 05:33 PM

The existential bind for the would-be moral subjectivist is, in order to express that subjectivity in order to eat dead animals, s/he appeals either to the fact that s/he has no choice in the matter (great subjectivity, isn't it?) or that s/he is ruled by his/her mouth (again, great subjectivity, isn't it?).

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 05:36 PM

spin:

Quote:

Nothing?

Yes, nothing. Cattle do not live in a closet, nor do they live anywhere that would be comparable to a closet for a human.

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

spin · 03-23-2002, 05:38 PM

tronvillain:
---------------------
Maybe. How nice is the closet?
---------------------

Not as nice as a railway station toilet cubicle in Egypt.

tronvillain:
---------------------
Still, whether I would or not doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether, say, a chicken would or not.
---------------------

Well, you did ask your question. All you've done here is put it off.

spin · 03-23-2002, 05:47 PM

tronvillain:
----------------------
Yes, nothing. Cattle do not live in a closet, nor do they live anywhere that would be comparable to a closet for a human.
----------------------

You obviously haven't seen the full range of options regarding cows.

I was originally thinking of another animal, but dairy cows in various parts of the world don't get any range whatsoever, but stay indoors all the time. Other cows just get shot with hormones to get there flesh right.

spin · 03-23-2002, 05:51 PM

PB:
-------------------
Spin, I'm done with you.
-------------------

Bye!

PB:
-------------------
If, at any time, you decide to present an actual case for your view, rather than asserting it over and over until our ears bleed, then, trust me, I'll be the first in line to discuss it with you.
-------------------

When you stop the inane stuff about contract theory and how it conveniently justifies you eating meat, then perhaps you might think a bit more and say something worthwhile listening to, instead of being ruled by your gut.

PB:
-------------------
Until such time, have fun talking to yourself.
-------------------

Well, I guess I'd get a more interesting conversation that way!

Tom Piper · 03-23-2002, 05:57 PM

Spin,

You have, I assume, seen my question asking if you have done more than simply restate your view that it is wrong to take the lives of sentient creatures. By that I meant have you done more in the way of making a case for this view, more in the form of an attempt to help others see what you think you see. The answers that I have gotten from the other are all 'No!'. Is this an accurate characterization of what you have done, as you see things?

Tom

spin · 03-23-2002, 06:06 PM

Tom Piper:
-------------------
I have found Spin's assertion that (it is his view that) taking the life of any sentient being is wrong. Has he/she ever done anything beyond simply restating this to try to make a case for this view?
-------------------

I gave a brief description of a moral position, Tom, which may be what you saw as a simple restatement. What I basically said was:

Morality involves the benefit and protection of the most possible sentient beings; where conflicts arise, morality involves resolving them with the least damage to those sentient beings.

As eating meat is inessential to the human being, despite the omnivore advocates in the audience -- one can if one wants get the protein from meat elsewhere --, one cannot put the benefit to the humans stomach over the benefit of the life of the sentient being involved.

I have not asked people to adhere to the morality I have stated, though many have attempted, instead of answering my plea to defend eating meat, to challenge my right to ask for the defence.

Others have simply been challenged by the request and have attempted to ridicule because they were asked to put together such a defence. Eating meat after all, is something that one has always done, so why should we stop or even think about it?

The answer to the last question of course, is that every idea that one holds as valuable must be able to be both questioned and survive the questioning.

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 06:06 PM

spin:

Quote:

The existential bind for the would-be moral subjectivist is, in order to express that subjectivity in order to eat dead animals, s/he appeals either to the fact that s/he has no choice in the matter (great subjectivity, isn't it?) or that s/he is ruled by his/her mouth (again, great subjectivity, isn't it?).

You try to make having no choice in the matter sound like a bad thing. It is not apparent that you have any more choice in the matter than me. Are you by any chance a proponent of the magical type of free will?

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

MeBeMe · 03-23-2002, 06:07 PM

Spin,
Not to be mean, but I would just give up. I mean, nothing anyone has said on here is anything new, interesting, or anything along those lines. I mean, the standard "oh, well we breed them for that purpose" is such a lame reason I'm surprised anyone would even put it up.
I also think you're wasting your time with a lot of the people, who, when in this thread take a relativistic type view of morality (in one sense or another) concerning meat, as if just because they think it's okay, then *poof*, it is. This is more cute than something to be taken seriously, because a lot of these same people are the ones who suddenly become objective moralists in a sense when discussing God, particularly God and morality. In my experience, there are very few actual people who don't believe certain things are wrong simply because they're wrong, regardless of one's opinion. I doubt the majority of these people would say "yeah, well, i enjoy raping women, so that makes it right". However, it seems to me that is still a reason why they feel they are justified in eating meat, so you may want to respond to that.
As for some of the people who actually want you to lay out your moral code, that is just plain stupid. You don't need to sit there and lay out your entire belief system in an area to discuss things, especially considering so many people, including professional philosophers, don't even have one.
I read all the posts briefly, and it seems to me you're on the right track concerning consciousness and interests, since an animal being both conscious, able to feel pain, experience pleasure, etc., should make a moral person at least consider them, especially considering how animals are treated in the big meat farms.
I also find the argument brought up a long time ago that we may not know that they feel pain (or anything) else extremely weak, since animals give all the physiological indicications, have pain receptors, central nervous system, etc., necesary for what we know to experience pain, pleasure, etc. Just because I can't know exactly what it's like to be in their body, or be them, seems rather silly to just along my merry way eating meat. It seems more appropriate to say "wow, when i stab this horse and it yelps and tries to run off i think maybe it's feeling pain". I mean, this isn't the most profound realization.
Overall, it seems to me you've let the question turn on yourself, so that now you're defending why you don't eat me, rather than the original topic of why do they eat meat. Considering it's much harder to tear down a position than defend one, this should't be surprising. But, you may want to turn it back around again.
It doesn't seem to me anyone has offered any good reasons why we should kill animals and eat them, which makes me wonder why they feel we shouldn't eat humans.
While there have been attempts, particularly against Peter Singer, to downplay and question his moral argument (a utilitarian approach), I think you are on the right track, and I agree, that eating animals, keeping them penned up, etc., is immoral. Not taking into account the pain, pleasure, etc., of animals while claiming to be a moral being, or at least one who can discuss morals, seems incredibly odd. I doubt anyone in here would let the Christian slide if he said something as stupid as "God made us to eat us, so he's justified morally in doing so since that was our purpose".
Finally, I would argue morality is not simply a matter of opinion. If I were walking through a field with a friend and we came across a woman being raped, to which he said "isn't that beautiful?", and I said "isn't the wrong?", it would be rather silly to just walk away and think "we're both right". Rather, my friend is wrong, whether he thinks so or not.

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

03-23-2002, 05:32 PM	#311
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Maybe. How nice is the closet? Still, whether I would or not doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether, say, a chicken would or not.

03-23-2002, 05:33 PM	#312
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	The existential bind for the would-be moral subjectivist is, in order to express that subjectivity in order to eat dead animals, s/he appeals either to the fact that s/he has no choice in the matter (great subjectivity, isn't it?) or that s/he is ruled by his/her mouth (again, great subjectivity, isn't it?).

03-23-2002, 05:38 PM	#314
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	tronvillain: --------------------- Maybe. How nice is the closet? --------------------- Not as nice as a railway station toilet cubicle in Egypt. tronvillain: --------------------- Still, whether I would or not doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether, say, a chicken would or not. --------------------- Well, you did ask your question. All you've done here is put it off.

03-23-2002, 05:47 PM	#315
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	tronvillain: ---------------------- Yes, nothing. Cattle do not live in a closet, nor do they live anywhere that would be comparable to a closet for a human. ---------------------- You obviously haven't seen the full range of options regarding cows. I was originally thinking of another animal, but dairy cows in various parts of the world don't get any range whatsoever, but stay indoors all the time. Other cows just get shot with hormones to get there flesh right.

03-23-2002, 05:51 PM	#316
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	PB: ------------------- Spin, I'm done with you. ------------------- Bye! PB: ------------------- If, at any time, you decide to present an actual case for your view, rather than asserting it over and over until our ears bleed, then, trust me, I'll be the first in line to discuss it with you. ------------------- When you stop the inane stuff about contract theory and how it conveniently justifies you eating meat, then perhaps you might think a bit more and say something worthwhile listening to, instead of being ruled by your gut. PB: ------------------- Until such time, have fun talking to yourself. ------------------- Well, I guess I'd get a more interesting conversation that way!

03-23-2002, 05:57 PM	#317
Tom Piper Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 78	Spin, You have, I assume, seen my question asking if you have done more than simply restate your view that it is wrong to take the lives of sentient creatures. By that I meant have you done more in the way of making a case for this view, more in the form of an attempt to help others see what you think you see. The answers that I have gotten from the other are all 'No!'. Is this an accurate characterization of what you have done, as you see things? Tom

03-23-2002, 06:06 PM	#318
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Tom Piper: ------------------- I have found Spin's assertion that (it is his view that) taking the life of any sentient being is wrong. Has he/she ever done anything beyond simply restating this to try to make a case for this view? ------------------- I gave a brief description of a moral position, Tom, which may be what you saw as a simple restatement. What I basically said was: Morality involves the benefit and protection of the most possible sentient beings; where conflicts arise, morality involves resolving them with the least damage to those sentient beings. As eating meat is inessential to the human being, despite the omnivore advocates in the audience -- one can if one wants get the protein from meat elsewhere --, one cannot put the benefit to the humans stomach over the benefit of the life of the sentient being involved. I have not asked people to adhere to the morality I have stated, though many have attempted, instead of answering my plea to defend eating meat, to challenge my right to ask for the defence. Others have simply been challenged by the request and have attempted to ridicule because they were asked to put together such a defence. Eating meat after all, is something that one has always done, so why should we stop or even think about it? The answer to the last question of course, is that every idea that one holds as valuable must be able to be both questioned and survive the questioning.

03-23-2002, 06:07 PM	#320
MeBeMe Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: . Posts: 35	Spin, Not to be mean, but I would just give up. I mean, nothing anyone has said on here is anything new, interesting, or anything along those lines. I mean, the standard "oh, well we breed them for that purpose" is such a lame reason I'm surprised anyone would even put it up. I also think you're wasting your time with a lot of the people, who, when in this thread take a relativistic type view of morality (in one sense or another) concerning meat, as if just because they think it's okay, then poof, it is. This is more cute than something to be taken seriously, because a lot of these same people are the ones who suddenly become objective moralists in a sense when discussing God, particularly God and morality. In my experience, there are very few actual people who don't believe certain things are wrong simply because they're wrong, regardless of one's opinion. I doubt the majority of these people would say "yeah, well, i enjoy raping women, so that makes it right". However, it seems to me that is still a reason why they feel they are justified in eating meat, so you may want to respond to that. As for some of the people who actually want you to lay out your moral code, that is just plain stupid. You don't need to sit there and lay out your entire belief system in an area to discuss things, especially considering so many people, including professional philosophers, don't even have one. I read all the posts briefly, and it seems to me you're on the right track concerning consciousness and interests, since an animal being both conscious, able to feel pain, experience pleasure, etc., should make a moral person at least consider them, especially considering how animals are treated in the big meat farms. I also find the argument brought up a long time ago that we may not know that they feel pain (or anything) else extremely weak, since animals give all the physiological indicications, have pain receptors, central nervous system, etc., necesary for what we know to experience pain, pleasure, etc. Just because I can't know exactly what it's like to be in their body, or be them, seems rather silly to just along my merry way eating meat. It seems more appropriate to say "wow, when i stab this horse and it yelps and tries to run off i think maybe it's feeling pain". I mean, this isn't the most profound realization. Overall, it seems to me you've let the question turn on yourself, so that now you're defending why you don't eat me, rather than the original topic of why do they eat meat. Considering it's much harder to tear down a position than defend one, this should't be surprising. But, you may want to turn it back around again. It doesn't seem to me anyone has offered any good reasons why we should kill animals and eat them, which makes me wonder why they feel we shouldn't eat humans. While there have been attempts, particularly against Peter Singer, to downplay and question his moral argument (a utilitarian approach), I think you are on the right track, and I agree, that eating animals, keeping them penned up, etc., is immoral. Not taking into account the pain, pleasure, etc., of animals while claiming to be a moral being, or at least one who can discuss morals, seems incredibly odd. I doubt anyone in here would let the Christian slide if he said something as stupid as "God made us to eat us, so he's justified morally in doing so since that was our purpose". Finally, I would argue morality is not simply a matter of opinion. If I were walking through a field with a friend and we came across a woman being raped, to which he said "isn't that beautiful?", and I said "isn't the wrong?", it would be rather silly to just walk away and think "we're both right". Rather, my friend is wrong, whether he thinks so or not.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.