spin

tronvillain:
---------------
Of course, that species difference is not morally relevant does not mean that the difference between species cannot be morally relevant. Anyone who denies that they can, while not necessary irrational, has an extremely unconventional system of morality - they would presumably be indifferent between the death of a gorilla and the death of a trout. If they are not, then they admit morally relevant differences between species, though they may not consider these differences significant enough to justify eating that species.
---------------

It's normal for species to find closer affinities with species closer to them. Gorillas are closer to humans than trout. You may institutionalise these differences, but they all come down to one feels closer to one species than another. (Oh, one may feel close to one's pets as well, by projecting human qualities onto them that have been trained in a human environment and reflect that environment somewhat.)

spin

Tom Piper talks of the attitude of white supremacy as possibly being Singer's reaction to tronvillain's views about moral differents felt regarding gorillas and grasshoppers.

tronvillain:
---------------
Well, I am not a member of either of the species in question, so the positions are not comparable. Still, are you saying that you see no morally relevant differences between grasshoppers and gorillas? You are completely indifferent between the death of a gorilla and the death of a grasshopper?
---------------

Let's change it from white supremacy to apartheid. Your view, tronvillain, may be analogous to that of the Afrikaans, who preferred coloureds to blacks.

--------

If all life is precious then can you take either?


<Put the penultimate sentence in the past tense.>

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

spin

Corwin,

I may be at the barnyard door, but that's because I heard the noise you were stirring up.

Corwin

Well that kind of chewing and such makes noise. At least I wasn't screwing them.

spin

PB:
--------
Ah, the argument from burping and farting...how persuasive.
--------

I would think so, considering you are the farter and burper. You appeal to such things as your physical structure as a basis for your "morality".

spin

spin:
--------
I may be at the barnyard door, but that's because I heard the noise you were stirring up.
--------

Corwin:
--------
Well that kind of chewing and such makes noise. At least I wasn't screwing them.
--------

Gawd, you could have been a bit more relevant. The noise you were stirring up? Chewing? You wouldn't make it to better tables, would you? You'd be there outside alongside PB, the burper and farter.

Besides I would think you were screwing them, though maybe not sexually.

Corwin

Snappy comeback homeboy.... keep working on it, k?

And in all this time you have yet to actually ANSWER the question.... could it be that you either don't have one or you realize how much of a farkin NUTCASE your answer would make you look like?

Answer the question: If there's no objective difference between animals and humans, if both are 'conscious,' thus making it somehow wrong to eat animals.... is it or is it not 'ok' to have sex with them?

Tom Piper

Malaclypse the Younger

I don’t know how much of your post is directed at my remarks, and how much isn’t. Some of the things you say seem utterly irrelevant to what I have said, but I won’t conclude that they aren’t directed at my remarks. I don’t always express things as clearly as I would like the first time. If I mistakenly answer as though one or your remarks was addressed to one of my posts when it was not, a simple ‘That was not directed at your post, Tom’ is a sufficient response.

Yes, Singer's argument is flawed, because it is not "different species" that is the criterion used to determine eatability.

Why are you making this comment? Did I say something that lead you to believe that I was making such a move? If so, what was it?

Concerning your remark that it is absurd to assert that there are no objective criteria to separate humans from animals, I haven’t suggest anything of this sort, have I? Clearly there are, for example, genetic differences that will do this. (One tangential question-- You speak of separating ‘humans from animals’. Is it your view that humans are not animals or is this just ‘common parlance’ at work here?). And I agree that there are all sorts of fairly obvious ways of determining what you have labelled ‘sapience’, understood at as ‘human-like quality and quantity of thought’ (we can just leave this as intutitively clear enough for our purposes at this time). However, not all human beings have the sapience that you and I now have, and virtually all humans are without this sapience at the beginning of their lives. Moreover, as I understand it, the relevant research indicates that human beings don’t achieve the cognitive level of adult chimps until about three years of age. (In addition, we are learning more and more about other species all of the time.) One can, of course, set the level of sapience high enough to exclude all non-human inhabitants of this planet, but, of course, one will then also exclude a lot of humans.

I will note, at this point, that as I understand him, Singer does not accept ‘sapience’ as the appropriate criterion. Rather his criterion is the capacity for suffering.

Will you elaborate, please! On the face of it, there is a contradiction in saying that non-sapience is a sufficient condition for ‘permissible to eat it’ and that it is impermissible to eat non-sapient humans. Once again, please say more! Apparently I have missed something.


Aren’t you merely saying that the relevant difference between those non-sapients that we may eat and those non-sapients that we may eat is difference of species? Aren’t you saying that if, for example, there are other beings in the Universe like Vulcans, or like whatever Yoda was, we couldn’t, of course eat the adults, but the babies-- yeah!, we can eat the babies, or use them for research, etc. Perhaps, I misunderstand you.

Before I close, just a point that might help us avoid confusion in the future. I have no problem whatsoever with the use of formal notation-- sometimes it can be helpful. But, as I tell students in my logic classes, please don’t assume that your implicit assignment of proposition letters is always as clear to others as it is to you.

Tom

Malaclypse the Younger

Tom Piper

My remark is directed at the "speciesist" argument that you suggest Singer makes, and why it is fallacious.

I apologize to the extent that I inadvertently attributed (by implication) my rebuttal to your own views.

To the extent that Singer wishes to justify his own moral views, he is logically entitled to use accept or reject any particular objective criterion he chooses--such is the finding of subjectivism. Additionally, I find nothing objectionable about using the criteria of "capacity for suffering".

However, to the extent that he wished to find other criteria objectively wrong, he must show that those alternative criteria are internally contradictory or false-to-fact. I'm not aware that he's able to do so.

I am not saying, however, that individual nonsapience is a sufficient condition to eat. I'm saying that it's only a necessary condition.

Depends on the alternative species. Since I know of only one sapient species (humans), of which I am a member, my own-species prohibition presently applies to all known sapient species.

Much would depend, I would speculate, on the particular nature of an hypothetical sapient alien species. If they strongly resembled human beings wrt their child-rearing, physically and emotionally, I would probably form a species-specific moral against eating their nonsentient children.

However, an hypothetical sentient species that went through a metamorphic change and themselves enjoyed eating their own nonsapient juveniles, I might well approve of, and engage in, such an activity. Obviously, speculating without facts is just that: speculation. I would hestitate to make a firm ethical commitment either way until actual (and not hypothetical) facts were available.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

emphryio

To the AntiChris,
I liked your last post.

Since I won't be debating anytime soon....

From a vegetarian standpoint you can say the following:

The important way in which people and animals are the same is that we both make decisions and use forethought. (It could be debated maybe that animals don't make decisions and have forethought, but I personally feel confident they do.)

Anything which has decision making abilities and forethought, will find life meaningless if upon death they cease to exist. (That is what makes the decision making and forethought quality of extreme importance). (This statement could of course also be debated much further.)

Therefore for all practical purposes such individuals as described above live as if they shall exist forever. (Even if they logically think otherwise). (This too could be debated in great detail).

And they assume all other creatures also capable of forethought and decision making shall also exist forever. (Otherwise the laws of the universe would be inconsistent).


This would mean there is an infinite time frame during which cooperation between such creatures can be beneficial.
In other words, not harming others may cause happiness in the far future past death.

Therefore maybe don't eat meat?

I personally think it's far, far, more complicated than what I have stated. This barely even touches upon my moral system. But I'll leave it at that for now.