The AntiChris

No, he eats Tarka Daal because it's 'otter.

Chris

The AntiChris

Hi DT
Ok, we've switched it round. I'd still like some proof for your suggestion that knowledge of evolution somehow directly affects human empathic responses to 'organisms'. Is there any evidence that all (or most) people who are selectively empathic are ignorant of evolution?

The basis of your argument is that selective empathy is irrational. Well, it's hardly surprising - empathy is an emotional response.

I agree with you that the completely unemotional, rationally consistent, position is that:

However, our rationality is informed by our emotions. Can you honestly say that crushing a kitten underfoot has exactly the same emotional impact on you as crushing an ant?

I'm not suggesting that our subjective empathic responses necessarily carry any moral weight, but to suggest that:
displays an amazing ignorance of human nature.

Chris

Oolon Colluphid

All I’m saying is that it is irrational to feel guilty. But we are irrational creatures, swayed by our emotions, so it is not a surprise if we do feel guilty about it. I suppose the question really is, should we let our emotions, in preference to logic, inform our moral choices? For many people the answer is a clear ‘yes’. Personally I don’t have an answer to the question -- though I’m inclined towards making informed rational decisions rather than be influenced by sentimental appeals.

And I’m not making a moral equivalent, but pointing out a natural one. It is vegetarians who bring in the morality, by arguing that morally some living things should not be eaten. I simply say that, the ‘suffering’ question notwithstanding, they are being inconsistent in their application of their morality. Which is fine too. Being inconsistent goes hand in hand with irrationality -- and as I say, that is part of human nature.
That is making a (false) dichotomy out of a gradient, and is heavily loaded in favour of one extreme being ‘evil’. It is also circular. We’re trying to decide what is moral and immoral, and you are assuming the outcome, that some of it is ‘evil’.

And anyway, my constant proviso is that reasonable precautions should be taken to prevent (hypothetical) suffering. We don’t know if they suffer, there’s a good chance that animals are not aware of anything much, but it is as well to err on the side of caution.
Yup. It’s up to them what the eat.
Sure. But you are conflating two arguments here: suffering, and killing for food. If the suffering aspect can be removed by humane husbandry -- as I suggest it should be (barring the possibility of one cow whispering to another that those showers are really gas chambers) -- then the reason for not eating the animals collapses. Or rather, it then has to rely on the other line, that it is wrong to kill for food. Hence my questioning the location of the line of demarcation.

Remember that we are playing god with all of our food. We kill it when we want to, and with farms (which we need to sustain our unnatural population size), it is only alive at all because we want it to be. Is it morally better that a cow -- or a cabbage -- lives a reasonable life before dying (which everything does anyway), or that it never lives at all? I don’t know. The only comment I can make on it is that from the perspective of evolution, there is no ‘purpose’ to life, beyond getting your genes into future generations. Whether there is any moral to reasonably draw from that I cannot say; however, beef cattle, say, have ‘succeeded’ in this one purpose.
I take your point, but your examples are both faulty. AFAIK there was a huge drop in beef consumption during the BSE epidemic -- hence Gummer feeding burgers to kiddies to persuade us it was okay. (You don’t need publicity campaigns to persuade people to do what they are already doing. I don’t know how much was hype -- which would be needed why? -- but the talk at the time was of the beef industry being in crisis. You don’t get crises if nothing is different.) And salmonella has always been a hazard -- a known hazard we are used to (if not prepared for), so there’s no reason to assume that it would make much difference; it is localised in its outbreaks; and you can be sure that wherever there are salmonella -- or E coli 157, or whatever -- outbreaks, the relevant local butcher does indeed see his trade reduced. In other words, the trade does dip, but then bounces back. I’d suggest though that it doesn’t return to exactly previous levels: some more vegetarians will be created with each food scare.
True. I’m pretty confident they don’t. And provided the animals I eat do not suffer -- they shouldn’t be allowed to, even accepting the maybe unwarranted assumption that they are able to -- I still fail to see why it is wrong to eat them. If the suffering element is addressed, whether an organism can move about or not is irrelevant. I still sense an anthropomorphism and a kingdomism in any other suggestion.
Yes, vegetarians. It seems it is unreasonable to question why they are so concerned about one part of the living world -- one set of relations -- yet are not about another.

Cheers, DT

Oolon Colluphid

Hiya Chris, me again

I guess it’s hard to say, because so few people seem to look at things in the ‘time-plane across the tree of life’ way I’ve suggested. However, people most closely concerned about biodiversity -- who de facto ‘care’ most -- tend to be the ones who understand our kinship with the rest of life. I’d cite E O Wilson and Richard Dawkins, for instance, and I expect Morpho here would agree.

No idea. I would just suggest that people tend to be more concerned for the welfare etc of things that are most like us, and there is a better chance of being concerned about rats, snakes, spiders or whatever if you realise that they’re relatives. I’m not pushing the ignorance of evolution angle particularly. Simply that one consequence of evolution -- which I suggest is the bit not widely thought about -- is that our kinship with the rest of life has implications for how we view and treat it -- or ought to have.

Thank you. At least someone understood.

Hmmm. Haven’t tried it with a kitten before... Someone fetch one, and I’ll let you know...

Of course it doesn’t, and have never denied being human (though my wife occasionally accuses me of being Vulcan ). Just that part of science is looking at things coldly, rationally, unencumbered by our emotions... and when we do, we often find that the reality is counter-intuitive, ie not as our emotions would lead us to believe. Looked at rationally, we ought to be as concerned for ant as for kitten.

Then we agree.

Ahem...? Excuse me? Subsequent elaborations should surely have disabused you of the idea I meant it as baldly as you make it sound. I forgot that I was trying to be rational about an irrational, emotional subject, and that might not come across. But since I did put it that plainly to start with, let me rephrase (ie add in two words, so that I doubt you would then disagree): “Viewed rationally, it is ludicrous to refrain from killing animals while merrily killing plants”. I never said that people were rational. I merely hope that sometimes they might be.

Cheers, DT

Note: No kittens were harmed during the making of this post.

The AntiChris

Hi DT

Ok, I see what you're saying now: If someone were completely unemotional and perfectly rational "it would be ludicrous to.....".

I'd have thought the completely emotionless, perfectly rational response would be to only value those organisms which are necessary to sustain our lives. To value all organisms equally, as you claim to do, doesn't make rational (absent emotion) sense.


Mmm, I can see why.

Chris

Oolon Colluphid

Okay... okay... How about simply “It is irrational to refrain from killing animals while merrily killing plants”?

And yet humans are irrational creatures, so such behaviour, while it’s illogical (Captain ), is not unexpected.

Erm, haven’t I already pretty much said that?

So, we’re back to my earlier question: should our morals be based on irrational, emotional responses, and if so, to what extent? Hey, that looks like a good title for a new thread...!
Your conclusion would be correct if your premise were sound. But I don’t see how it is. Why would the perfectly rational response be to only value those of use? The rational response might be to only pay attention to those that are, and to ignore the rest, leaving them value-neutral. Or to decide that none should be automatically dismissed as valueless, because they all have made it to the present just as we have -- let each make its case on its individual merits. Or to realise that in the ‘tangled bank’ of existence, the safest bet is to put some value everything, since ecosystems are so interlocked. Or some other option. So please explain your premise a bit more.

And anyway, I don’t claim to value all organisms equally. Being human, I’m not sure it’s possible to feel equally enamoured of a hamster and a hookworm. I just think it is something worth aspiring to. It is an extension of my opposition (contra the suggestion in a certain poster’s unpleasant PM) to racism. Speciesism, and even kingdomism, is irrational and immoral for the same reasons: there is no scala natura, nothing is ‘higher or ‘lower’, more or less morally worthy -- be that human races or races of peafowl, subspecies or kingdoms. They just are.

Cheers, DT

The AntiChris

DT

Well, no. Your version of rationality, in this particular context, appears to be defined by either a complete absence of empathic feelings or empathic feelings which are equitably distributed across all organisms. By any 'conventional' standards, anyone conforming to your definition of rationality would be deemed insane. Seems to me you're defining moral rationality out of existence.
And yet you find such expected behaviour, "ludicrous". What I'd find laughable and worthy of derision would be anyone whose behaviour demonstrated that they gave equal empathic consideration to both their children and their houseplants.
I think you'd find that there would be no moral issues in the absence of emotion. As to which emotions and to what extent they should be taken into consideration, it's up for negotiation - unless you believe you've got the objectively true answer!

Chris

Oolon Colluphid

Hi Chris

Oh, whatever. Just attempting to look at it objectively.

Actually, no, I won't quite stop there (I ain't a terrier for nothing )...
Nope. Just that they should not get in the way of viewing the natural world before we make moral decisions about it. Once we have coldly, rationally surveyed the situation, then our empathies can help us decide what to do about it. Hence me having no problem with those who choose not to eat animals if they don't want to... but wondering if they are fully aware of the situation. Maybe they have, maybe they haven’t. That’s the point of questioning one’s beliefs.
Nope. Dished out according to what the things are like. Hence giving consideration to possible suffering of food animals, and less so for plants, since their suffering is less of a problem. Hence appreciating the marvellous adaptations of Plasmodium while working to prevent malaria. And so on.
Okay, I withdraw the 'ludicrous'.
But that's not what I'm suggesting. The response has to be tailored to the circumstances. Children need more attention than houseplants. What about some tropical plant that needs more care -- a water spray twice a day, frequent repottings, etc? Then because you've taken on ownership of it, it 'deserves' that care.

Or a pet. If it's a goldfish, the care may be just feeding once a day and a water change once a month. If it is a large long-haired dog, there are long walks, brushings and baths, more frequent feedings, playing with it, and so on. If you have children, then they require plenty of empathy and care, so it may be better simply not to have half a dozen large dogs too.

But if you did have the dogs, they would still deserve the care they require. If you have children and a chicken battery-farm, then something has to give. Don’t let your children starve while feeding the chickens in a nice clean field you’ve spent months putting them in -- don’t have the chickens (or the children)!
Course not! I suspect you are right. I just hope for people to rationally gather all the facts first, before getting their emotions involved. To take an extreme: there's plenty of theists who are very emotionally attached to their belilefs. Their emotions come first, regardless of the evidence. And hence their moral decisions can be skewed in odd directions, away from rationality, as with their views on homosexuality.

The answer, as so often, may be found in the Greeks’ saying: meden agan -- ‘nothing in excess’.

Cheers, DT

The AntiChris

Agreed.
Boring!

Chris

paul30

I have been a vegetarian for a long time, for health, ethical, and environmental reasons.

The distinction between killing animals and killing plants is simple: plants do not have a nervous system and cannot feel pain.

(There are those who say plants do, however.)

But what about necessary-carnivores, like cats?

There is a Buddhist tale. In one of his incarnations, the Buddha is said to have come upon a starving tigress with some kittens.

It was clear she would soon die of starvation, and so would the kittens. At first, the Buddha thought he would go kill a deer and bring it to her, since she was too weak to hunt.

But on reflection he realized this would only be prolonging the circle of suffering.

So he lay down in front of the tigress, and let her eat him.