Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 12:24 AM

The AntiChris:

Quote:

No reason at all if you believe that humans have the right to inflict unnecessary distress and suffering on other species.

You are ignoring the possibility that the "distress and suffering" may be considered necessary. I've never really understood this position though - if living conditions were better than anything found in nature and death were painless, would eating meat be okay?

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

Pomp · 03-23-2002, 12:25 AM

spin,

I put a serious post up which was not understood, which dealt with much or the moral argumentation that people have been putting forward here. Do you doubt that 95% of your thinking has been programmed into you?

Did you ever raise this issue in any context except that of your little rant? I don't remember seeing it. AT any rate, what is the relevance? Do you doubt that 95% of your thinking, most likely including the notion that it is morally wrong to cause sufferring to any sentient being, was programmed into you?

What has "moral subjectivism" got to do with reality?

Plenty. What has "moral objectivism" got to do with reality?

Again, if you'd like to start a new thread in which you make a positive case for your brand of morality instead of assuming it from the outset and rejecting arguments that do not comply to it, I would be more than happy to participate.

Edited to correct spelling.

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]

99Percent · 03-23-2002, 12:31 AM

The Antichris: unnecessary distress and suffering on other species

Hmmm, how can you tell that I (or any non vegetarian on board) is actually causing "suffering distress and suffering" on other species? Are you a qualified authoritative figure on bovine feelings? I rather enjoy munching on my club sandwich (which has slices of chicken and ham and maybe beef)...'

Sorry for butting in on this thread, No problem. Just be well prepared...

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 12:48 AM

Disclaiemr: I'm obviously just making this up and my puppet may say things the actual person would never say.

99Percent: Why should we stop eating meat?

spin*: You should stop eating meat because it causes unnecessary suffering and distress to the animals.

tronvillain*: Who decided it was unnecessary? It appears to be necessary to provide us with meat to eat.

spin*: The suffering and distress matter more than the meat!

tronvillain*: To you maybe, but obviously not to us, or we wouldn't be eating meat.

spin*: That's what Jeffrey Dahmer would have said!

tronvillain*: Probably. So?

spin*: You just admitted you're not better than Jeffrey Dahmer.

tronvillain: No, I didn't. I admitted that morality is subjective, but I'm free to consider myself better than Dahmer.

spin*: [rant on subjective morality without rational criticism]

tronvillain: So what do you have to offer in its place?

Well, that was fun.

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

The AntiChris · 03-23-2002, 01:02 AM

Oh shit! Only my second day on the board and I'm being tested.

I'm gonna reply to each of you separately as I've no idea how to post a single response to multiple posts with quotes.

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompous Bastard:
AntiChris,

No reason at all if you believe that humans have the right to inflict unnecessary distress and suffering on other species.

I do believe this.

Ok, what's your position on causing unnecessary distress and suffering to fellow humans?

Chris

The AntiChris · 03-23-2002, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
The AntiChris:

You are ignoring the possibility that the "distress and suffering" may be considered necessary. I've never really understood this position though - if living conditions were better than anything found in nature and death were painless, would eating meat be okay?

Assuming you mean a life that was completely free of any unnecessary suffering or distress, then yes. Athough the concept of a human induced death which caused neither suffering or distress seems unlikely.

However, this situation is purely hypothetical and certainly does not exist at the moment and is unlikely ever to happen, so long as commercial needs take precedence over animal welfare concerns.

Chris

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 01:25 AM

I know, but your question to spin was such a nice jumping off point for me. As I predicted, my puppet said things the actual person would never say (I think you being an objective moralist was registering in the back of my head when I wrote it, hence the disclaimer). In fact, I will now rewrite it so that you only appear asking the question.

The AntiChris · 03-23-2002, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent:
[
Hmmm, how can you tell that I (or any non vegetarian on board) is actually causing "suffering distress and suffering" on other species? Are you a qualified authoritative figure on bovine feelings? I rather enjoy munching on my club sandwich (which has slices of chicken and ham and maybe beef)...'

I guess I'd use the same kinds of thought processes I'd use when weighing up the existence or not of god - on balance, given the available information, is it more or less likely that god exists, is it more or less likely that animals slaughtered for human consumption suffer unnecessary distress?

Then again, you could always visit your local abattoir.

Chris

tronvillain · 03-23-2002, 01:35 AM

Would cattle be better off never being born, or being raised to be eaten?

Tom Piper · 03-23-2002, 01:40 AM

The Antichris,

I am not clear about your answer to the question about painless deaths for non-human animals. If a chicken is killed in a way that is painless, would it then be permissible, by your moral lights, to eat it? Is it the pain and suffering that you take to be present that makes eating meat wrong?

Tom

03-23-2002, 12:25 AM	#262
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	spin, I put a serious post up which was not understood, which dealt with much or the moral argumentation that people have been putting forward here. Do you doubt that 95% of your thinking has been programmed into you? Did you ever raise this issue in any context except that of your little rant? I don't remember seeing it. AT any rate, what is the relevance? Do you doubt that 95% of your thinking, most likely including the notion that it is morally wrong to cause sufferring to any sentient being, was programmed into you? What has "moral subjectivism" got to do with reality? Plenty. What has "moral objectivism" got to do with reality? Again, if you'd like to start a new thread in which you make a positive case for your brand of morality instead of assuming it from the outset and rejecting arguments that do not comply to it, I would be more than happy to participate. Edited to correct spelling. [ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

03-23-2002, 12:48 AM	#264
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Disclaiemr: I'm obviously just making this up and my puppet may say things the actual person would never say. 99Percent: Why should we stop eating meat? spin: You should stop eating meat because it causes unnecessary suffering and distress to the animals. tronvillain: Who decided it was unnecessary? It appears to be necessary to provide us with meat to eat. spin: The suffering and distress matter more than the meat! tronvillain: To you maybe, but obviously not to us, or we wouldn't be eating meat. spin: That's what Jeffrey Dahmer would have said! tronvillain: Probably. So? spin: You just admitted you're not better than Jeffrey Dahmer. tronvillain: No, I didn't. I admitted that morality is subjective, but I'm free to consider myself better than Dahmer. spin: [rant on subjective morality without rational criticism] tronvillain: So what do you have to offer in its place? Well, that was fun. [ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

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

03-23-2002, 12:31 AM	#263
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	The Antichris: unnecessary distress and suffering on other species Hmmm, how can you tell that I (or any non vegetarian on board) is actually causing "suffering distress and suffering" on other species? Are you a qualified authoritative figure on bovine feelings? I rather enjoy munching on my club sandwich (which has slices of chicken and ham and maybe beef)...' Sorry for butting in on this thread, No problem. Just be well prepared...

03-23-2002, 01:25 AM	#267
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I know, but your question to spin was such a nice jumping off point for me. As I predicted, my puppet said things the actual person would never say (I think you being an objective moralist was registering in the back of my head when I wrote it, hence the disclaimer). In fact, I will now rewrite it so that you only appear asking the question.

03-23-2002, 01:35 AM	#269
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Would cattle be better off never being born, or being raised to be eaten?

03-23-2002, 01:40 AM	#270
Tom Piper Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 78	The Antichris, I am not clear about your answer to the question about painless deaths for non-human animals. If a chicken is killed in a way that is painless, would it then be permissible, by your moral lights, to eat it? Is it the pain and suffering that you take to be present that makes eating meat wrong? Tom

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.