Gurdur

um, sorry, I'm just in a kinda aggro mood at this time, resulting from my month-long trip to Australia, wherein among other things I resolved to be more proactive and more quick on the board here.
I didn't mean to be offensive to you (at least not to you )
I'm afraid that the act of choice itself in building an ethical system implies a necessary value judgment.
For example:
As you know, I defend the proposition that there are objective elements that go to building up that overall human meta-system of ethics, resulting from biological evolution, that are objective by virtue of their statistical significance; yet when we cold-bloodedly look at each objective element, we are not bound to accept each element, and can indeed reject them, either to form new ethics or to become absolute sophists and nihilists.
Therefore my point that there can be no valid differentiation on a categorical level.

Yes, I'm just playing hobgoblin here, or going for the end-goal already.

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Bill Snedden

There's been quite a lot of posts on this topic, and I can't hope to respond to them all, but none of them have really dealt with the issue I've raised. But that's okay; there's been some good discussion anyway (and certainly all of it civil!).

pug846 actually expressed much better what I was getting at with my OP:

This is really a better, more succint description of my general idea: I would like to see an explanation of a foundational principle or value upon which an argument for ethical vegetarianism can be made.

And by "ethical vegetarianism", I certainly do mean a belief that the eating of meat is wrong, so this does imply a belief regarding the actions of others. To clarify, from the tone of posts in some of the other threads, the essential idea being defended was that the killing of non-human and human animals for the purpose of food were equally wrong.

That doesn't necessarily entail an argument based on objectivist morality; it could be intersubjective as well.

Finally, I don't want to steal any of the "thunder" from the upcoming debate between MtY and Automaton. I'm just trying to get some different viewpoints. This topic has really, really made me think and rethink some of my own conclusions in this area. I have seriously considered vegetarianism in the past and actually stopped eating meat for a period of a little more than a year (trying to eat more "healthy"! ). I only started again because I was traveling quite a bit for my job and it was just too difficult to try to maintain the diet on restaurant fare. However, I can say with all seriousness that if someone were to present me with a compelling ethical argument against the consumption of meat, I'd give it up again tomorrow.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Bluebird

Bree- Being a mathematician in training, I am not at all qualified to scientifically answer this question. However, I can speak briefly of my personal experience.

Growing up on a midwest meat-n-potatoes food plan my diet never varied much, and was really quite bland ultimately. Becoming a vegetarian forced me to eat far more varied food, epecially more grains, vegetables, and legumes, which it seems most nutritionists agree are good for you! As a result, I am more healthy now than I ever was as an omnivore.

Every vegetarian cookbook I own begins with a chapter about the health benefits of a vegetarian diet. So, I am sure if you look at almost any vegetarian cookbook, they will attempt to answer your question. Granted, they are trying to sell their cookbook so who knows how accurate they are but it's a start.

Bluebird

Bill Snedden

No offense taken. I actually assumed as much.

Yes, that's understood. That's why I referred to the "messy" infinite regress, because all choices require a value judgement. In order to stop the regress we must have a value that stands alone; one that doesn't require a judgement.

It seems to me that the only type of value that would meet that requirement would be one that was objective or intersubjective ("why" would require no answer or the very question would encumber a logical contradiction).

At this point, I'm not claiming that any such values exist, merely pointing out that their existence would stop the regress and thus render them non-arbitrary (for if their denial encumbers contradiction, they cannot be other than they are).

Regards,

Bill Snedden

P.S. Welcome back!

AdamWho

Does anybody ever use the arguement..

All animals are only about 10% efficient at extracting energy from that food that they eat.

Therefore it takes about 10lbs of grain to make 1lb of meat. Assuming the energy content to be the same for grain and meat.

If a person chooses plants over meat then they would be wasting less resources and minimizing the damage to lands and watersheds done by ranchers and their cattle.

Is it an objective good to not wasting natural resources, reduce damage to the environment?

pug846

AdamWho said:

I’m not sure if you are actually giving this argument or if you were merely wondering if anyone has argued this point and nothing more…assuming you think it is a good argument…

Why is this an “objective” good? Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises unless this principle is asserted.

tronvillain

Not only that, it isn't an accurate argument.

AdamWho

Sorry for making such as weasle worded arguement. I was trying to add a non philosophical piece of information.

Ideas like "moral" and "immoral" are just human constructs and are doomed to be subjective so the philosophical arguement for the "morality of vegetarianism" is a non-starter.

It is a fact that large scale meat production is harmful to the environment, mostly by opening up new lands to grazing.

It is also a fact that diets with less meat and more vegies make for a more heathy life.

I make the assersion:
If a person believes that long term human health and survival is a "good". Then that person should do things to futher this end.

Some things would be the protection of the environment, making sure everyone had enough food to eat and that people lived healthier lives. These things can be helped if people eat less meat.

But of course this is all just a non-sequiter

The AntiChris

AdamWho

If this statement were true, it would presumably need to be true for any issue, not just vegetarianism.

The moral subjectivists here (see the responses to my previous posts in this thread) assure me that it is possible, if rather tricky, to argue that a particular activity is immoral for others. The mere existence of this thread suggests that Bill Snedden accepts that it could be possible to argue that eating meat is immoral.

I'm interested to see if anyone can come up with an argument which satisfies (as opposed to "persuades" ) the moral subjectivists.

Chris

Tom Piper

Malaclypse,

I think I understand your 'Singer' post up until I get to the last sentence.

As it appears in your post, that last sentence is,
By chance, should the phrase be ?

If the last sentence is correct as it appears, will you please rephrase it for me!

In advance, thanks,

Tom

Please disregard this message-- I have it now-- dunno why I was having trouble


[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]</p>