diana

Awww. We were just having a little fun....

<hangs head in shame; kicks dirt, accidentally murdering an ant>

d

JL

Why did you not respond to my assertion that these 'poor' animals live and die better in our hands than in nature? What is immoral in that?

Then you have mischaracterized my argument. I am simply saying there is nothing bizarre or out of the ordinary here. Precedence and heritage hold sway in the moral sphere.

So you're not gonna be worm food some day?

I lose responsibility over my life by eating meat? I don't understand.

So I can infer from this you find natural selection disturbing?

I made no claim that we are bound by whimsy. More like we should celebrate our socially driven success and indulge some of those whims. In what way is the world worse off for our foodlust? I'll never misteak my neighbor for a cow.

luvluv

lol "miSTEAK"....

Pomp

spin,

Finally, you've begun to describe your own moral theory! I'm only going to address limited portions of yourt post, as most of it is not directly related to the question of moral theories.

I have proffered a very simple idea of morals for those who have asked: morality involves the protection and benefit of the most possible lives; where this is not possible, morality involves reducing the resultant damage to a minimum.

All right, this is a start. First if all, I assume that you meant to say "the most possible sentient lives" or something of the sort, otherwise you are taking the rather bizarre position that it is better to starve to death than to kill two carrots.

Second, and more importantly, what justification do you use for your moral system? Why is it better to preserve (sentient) lives than to destroy them, or to remain indifferent to them?

I'm not sure exactly what the second part of your two-part moral theory (the one that begins "where this is not possible...") is supposed to mean. Can you elaborate? In what cases would it not be possible to protect as many lives as possible? Isn't that a contradiction?


My basic position is that the eating of meat is institutionalised...

Yes, "institutionalised" by our biology. As has been pointed out to you time and again, we are "designed" to eat meat. Meat eating is the default choice, and we do it unless good reason exists to refrain from it. The fact that many of us can choose to avod meat and still live healthy lives does not imply that we ought to avoid meat.

1) "I like it and I can" which includes a vocal variant, "and I can cook the situation so I can" euphemistically called "contract theory". The cooking the books to exclude other animals is strictly analogous to cooking the books to exclude people who were not born here, or who are not white, or who believe something other than you. It all depends on who writes the contract. The people who wrote the American constitution attempted to be as inclusive as possible. It has still needed a bill of rights and several amendments.

I realy don't see why you keep making this invalid comparison. Contract theory is based on our ability to negotiate a contract and agree to it. I want to you to think very carefully and see if you can figure out the objective differences in this ability between a cow, a member of "our" society," people who were not born here, and non-white human beings. If you are too obtuse to realize that contract theory may not, by its very nature, exclude any of these classes of thing except the cow, then I don't know what else can be said to you.

As Bill Snedden has demonstrated conclusively, you are mistaken about the way contract theory works. You do not have to agree with the theory, and I never presented it with the intent to "convert" you to it (I merely used it as an example of a moral theory that did not extend protection to cows). You, if you are intellectually honest, do, however, have to admit that you are in error and that Bill and I are not "cooking" the theory in any way. Appeals to what you feel to be the "spirit" of the theory are disingenuous, at best. As I have explained, your interpretation of the "spirit" of an idea is not something we can verify. We can, however, verify what the theory actually says. According to what the theory actually says (and I have helpfully and repeatedly provided a link to an article which might educate you on the theory itself), you are objectively wrong, and it is exceedingly dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

I am done talking about contract theory on this thread. Either you will acknowledge that you are wrong, or else you are too obtuse to grasp why you are wrong, or else you are too intellectually dishonest to admit that you are wrong. In the first case, there is no need for further discussion. In either of the other two cases, such discussion will be unfruitful.

This is the criterion with which I judge the attempts at a moral defence of eating meat. I have found all attempts deficient. However, one needn't agree to the moral standard I use. If not, one needs to provide a coherent alternative moral standard.

I have done so, as have several others. You have not demonstrated that our moral theories are incoherent, you have merely observed that they do not meet your standard.

The two alternatives that I have noticed voiced are:

1) I myself am my moral standard (moral subjectivism, I guess also the standard of Jeffrey Dahmer); and

You show a gross misunderstanding of moral subjectivism. No subjectivist considers him/herself a standard unto him/herself. Rather, we take as our starting point the fact that every moral agent has individual values and attempt to negotiate principles that are mutually satisfactory, rather than try to impose one set of values on everyone.

So, if people do not object to my moral standard, they will appreciate that I haven't seen a moral defence of eating meat. If they don't, they can happily ignore my comments and accept the alternatives offered.

If you are only willing to discuss the issue with people who already accept your standard, you are going to be talkng to yourself. I, for one, am more interested in discussing your standard itself to find out how you arrived at it.

spin

spin:
----------------------------------
Naturally, this is a different matter from participating in a contract. It now comes down to assuming comprehension, which unfortunately I have seen here cannot be assumed.
----------------------------------

Bill Snedden:
----------------------------------
Assuming comprehension? Not at all. It's an inductive argument based upon empirical data.
----------------------------------

You can only argue optatively, as the example of children indicates. You have to waive your criterion to include them. "It's all right to include children because they will one day have the capabilities you give as a prerequisite, ostensibly excluding them unless one provides an escape clause.

Bill:
----------------------------------
There have been numerous studies made of non-human animal comprehension and intellectual abilities. None have concluded that animals are capable of the level of abstract reasoning displayed by humans.
----------------------------------

It is still you apparently shaping the rules to suit yourself. Do you know any other animal who meets your criteria of comprehension and intellectual abilities? I will reiterate my charge, [i]if your position entails you justifying the consumption of other animals based on your distinction[/]: your boundaries are arbitrary of the sort "your skin is black so you can't come in here", "you're a woman so there's no need for you to have an education". "You're not a human animal so we can eat you."

Bill:
----------------------------------
My differentiation has nothing whatsoever to do with being able to enter into contracts. It has to do with having the neurological capacity to reason abstractly and develop & comprehend ethical systems.
----------------------------------

spin:
----------------------------------
A child, if you read Piaget, is not capable of abstract thought for many years.
----------------------------------

Bill:
----------------------------------
Goodness, I don't need to read Piaget to realize that. I have nieces and nephews! Ultimately, however, normal human children will be capable of such activity. Even more importantly, human children belong to a group for which this capability is an intrinsic qualifier.
----------------------------------

So it is all right to waive your criteria while they gain them.

Bill:
----------------------------------
Again, the differentiation I am employing is at a "macro" level. It is based on the cognitive capabilities of human vs. non-human animals. A human child or a mentally deficient adult, regardless of it's specific cognitive abilities, is still human and therefore falls within the differentiating line.
----------------------------------

I think you are going around in circles. Either your category for inclusion is being human or it is having the ability to reason abstractly and develop & comprehend ethical systems

spin:
----------------------------------
This is nitpicking, Bill. It is an arbitrary choice of a particular intrinsic distinction.
----------------------------------

Bill:
----------------------------------
Not at all. The choice (higher-order cognitive abilities) is a necessary requirement for the development of ethical systems. It is therefore intrinsic to the subject of ethics, which is exactly the subject in which the distinction is being made.
----------------------------------

What does the requirement of individuals being able to develop ethical systems have to do with whether the individual should receive the protection of those who can protect or not?

spin:
----------------------------------
It is a rule of thumb only. The guiding principle for me is the morality I have attempted to outline elsewhere.
----------------------------------

Bill:
----------------------------------
I'm sorry, I must have missed that. The only statement I saw was that about not harming sentient life. Could you perhaps reiterate or point me to where you outlined it elsewhere?
----------------------------------

You probably have read it; it is rather simple and something like this:

morality involves the benefit and protection of the most lives; where this fails, morality involves the resolution of the situation requiring the least damage to lives.

Danya

I have to stop reading this thread due to the fact that one more mention of the word 'contract' will cause me to become psychotic.

Pomp

contract contract contract contract contract

spin

LadyShea:
---------------
Hey guys, if there is no further discussion on the topic, please let's not add a few pages of one liners...I really want this thread to either die or stay somewhat sane.
Spin, I for one will not step in on individual off topic posts unless they are in blatant violation of the rules...heavy handed moderating is for other boards.
---------------

It is difficult enough dealing with the free-for-all of mostly unanalaysed received morality or substitutes thereof, of facetious comment, of parody or attempts at paradox, and retorted arguments apparently for the sake of doing so, but as many people are not prepared to control themselves nor the moderators prepared to do control proceedings, I will leave you all to it.

Sorry, to anyone who was seriously attempting to deal with any of the issues.

emphryio

Here's my "for eating meat" argument:
------------------------
Imagine life without pain, without competition.
When I imagine such, I don't see some wonderful heaven, I see extreme boredom. I see no reason left for anything.

Life is competition. Competition means winners and losers. It would be nice if in the human world losing simply meant having less to be proud about,(in reality we're not remotely that civilized). But in the animal world it often means dying. Without the dying(losing), without the competition, there is very little reason left for any action for your average deer, for example.

More so, without humans eating meat, there'd be a billion chickens and cows that would never have had the opportunity to exist at all. (To me, it seems obvious that a short unhappy life is better than never existing at all.)
----------------------------
Here's my argument for vegetarianism:
----------------------------
We are not animals. Just because in the course of competition they kill each other, that doesn't mean we have to also. We can rise above, and turn ourselves into something more than just another animal. We can change the rules. Losing doesn't have to mean something horrible like dying. We can let animals continue to play their games of killing each other while go into a better direction.

Furthermore, no matter what perfectly logical argument you give for eating meat, when it comes down to it, to me at least it simply "feels" wrong to destroy life. You make the world a boring place when you destroy beautiful things.

There seems to be a lack of justice in killing an innocent animal.
---------------------------

So personally I'm torn. I do eat meat. I was a vegetarian for 8 months once. One thing I can say for certain is you won't be as physically strong if you don't eat meat. But so what? Are 20 pounds of muscle worth that? Well actually sometimes yes. But in the "civilized" world of today, maybe not.

BTW, I ate alligator for the first time yesterday. I was thinking that although I feel somewhat like a monster for eating fish, chicken, and cow, I had no problem with alligator because they're not particularly innocent creatures.

Tasted awesome too.

So maybe if I only ate carnivores?
(Too expensive).

I think the argument against meat is probably stronger that for meat, but I'm not certain, so I continue to eat meat because it keeps me strong. If I was a woman, and mistakenly thought that being a vegetarian would keep me thin and good-looking, than I would definitely be a vegetarian, and I would probably rave about how immoral it was to eat meat.

Baloo

Spin, please differentiate:

1) A man walks into a children's ward of a hospital with a gun and the stated intention to shoot all of the children in that hospital.

2)An exterminator walks into a roach-infested house, with a canister of bug spray and the stated intention of killing all of the roaches in the household.

As a bystandard to these situations, and abiding by your morality, what is the moral thing for me to do in situation 1? Situation 2?