Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-14-2002, 06:45 AM

Bill Sneddon:
---------------------
some of the people writing here, PB for one, have dealt with <the ethics of eating meat> and you, in turn, have neglected to deal with their positions.
---------------------

I think you are simply wrong on both counts. PB has just attempted to sustain eating meat by a specious employment of "contract theory". You have not responded to the motivations of logic for the development for such a theory and how PB is not using it in that spirit.

Bill:
---------------------
Many of us (myself included) feel that human animals are specifically and materially different from non-human animals; so different that ethical treatment of non-human species does not preclude their consumption by humans.
---------------------

We are back to the arbitrary demarcations for the benefit on the ruling species.

Bill:
---------------------
From what I have read, the only response that you or punkersluta have offered to this line of argument is "are not". That's fine insofar as it indicates that you obviously disagree with the foundation of the ethical systems against which you argue, but unfortunately neither of you have yet provided any rational basis for your disagreement.
---------------------

I have argued that recent attempts to use ethical systems with the specific aim of exclusion are not in the spirit of those systems, and are bankrupt in morality, as the sole purpose for producing these attempts is self-justification.

Bill:
---------------------
Again, I suggest that if you wish to continue to argue that a proper human ethical system precludes the killing and eating of non-human species, you must provide a rational basis for that system. And, to be completely clear, "rational" doesn't mean "but we're all just animals inside".
---------------------

There is nothing "inside" about it. You make an arbitrary distinction that you are somehow different from other animals in your predicament and use that in lieu of logic.

I have argued that there is no need to eat meat to which the only response is "But humans are omnivores" implying that they have no choice in the matter. If you can choose to or not to eat meat and you continue to do so, the only justification I can see -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that it is habit which people have acquired and are unwilling to change. You may hedonistically say you like meat, but so what? I'm interested in the ethics of eating meat not the pleasure itmight give to your palate.

What I would like from you is not a detached attempt at reducing arguments, but a rational, ethical defence of meat eating that doesn't reduce to your palate.

bonduca · 03-14-2002, 06:51 AM

Why?

spin · 03-14-2002, 06:52 AM

Brighid:
------------------
If an animal is dead – why not eat it?
------------------

If an animal is a live why kill it?

Brighid:
------------------
Man cannot change his biology.
------------------

Vegetarians prove you wrong.

Brighid:
------------------
And cannibalism is taboo for a reason – evolutionary reasons. Cannibalism is counterproductive in evolutionary terms because it limits the gene pool and weakens that species (also why inbreeding is taboo). Cannibalism tends to lead to premature death and the stunting of growth with that species.
------------------

Primitive societies prove you wrong.

I don't advocate eating one's own species. It is merely a parallel to your eating of other species.

When you can choose not to eat animals without side-effects, why not?

spin · 03-14-2002, 06:56 AM

tronvillain:
----------------
I think the problem here may be that we have entirely different conceptions of what morality is.
1) The enjoyment I derive from eating specific animals outweighs the empathy I feel for those animals.

2) The enjoyment others derive from eating specific animals outweighs the empathy I feel for those animals.

3) The displeasure of those who do not hold positions one and two does not outweigh the enjoyment other and I derive from eating specific animals.

As a result, I do not consider eating meat "wrong."
-------------------

This is merely a repetition of the palate argument with no responsibility. There is no ethical content in the argument at all.

If you can choose not to eat fellow animals why not do so rather than gratuitously feeding your taste buds?

spin · 03-14-2002, 06:59 AM

Why?

Look at the title of the forum: "Moral foundations and principles".

Almost no meat eater responding to the topic has written anything in that category.

I would like you all to stop being off-track.

bonduca · 03-14-2002, 06:59 AM

But you have every right to be vegetarian, or vegan, or fruitarian. Anyone here would support you in this choice. Were you to be a guest in my home, I would not even eat meat in front of you. However, it is not illegal to eat meat, you are simply uncomfortable with what you feel are the ethics of the matter.

This does not make attacking others the correct choice, nor is it a particulary convincing means of converting strangers. It is probably about as effective and welcome an approach as that of the folks in the mall with the scary fetus pics.

If anyone has been converted by reading this thread, I would like very much to read their post.

x-member · 03-14-2002, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Primitive societies prove you wrong.

According to Scientific American Frontiers Dec, 2000, incidentsof cannibalism in primitive societies is not only very rare, but there is a good bit of contraversy whether it exists to any degree beyond rare ritual. I will provide further cites when I return home. Suffice it to say, you can't base your understanding of human cannibalism on what you saw when watching Gilligan's Island.

Jon "Three Hour Tour My Ass" Up North

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: Jon Up North ]

SallySmith · 03-14-2002, 07:17 AM

I don't think there is a case for complete animal rights, and by complete I guess I mean that killing an animal would then be akin to murder. It can be murder, but like people are saying, it depends upon your ethical system. It would be murder for me. It clearly isn't murder for, say, tronvillian. (I do, however, think there are a lot of meat-eating hypocrites out there.) Although I firmly believe that humans have choices and that is why we're not "made" to eat meat or do much of anything except die, I also realize that we are still animals. I don't know that I could deny someone the right to go hunt his/her own food. There is something primal about that which speaks to me. So I strike this balance between the two positions. I believe the common term for this is "fence-riding." I am completely open to someone presenting an argument that would firmly push me either way.

I am wondering, for all of the people who eat meat, do you think that animals have any rights? And why or why not? A brief explanation will do, I would just like to hear what people think. Anyone?

There is also something we haven't gotten into in this thread, which is the environmental impact of raising food animals. Although maybe we shouldn't go there - people seem a wee bit too tense already.

Bill Snedden · 03-14-2002, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
I think you are simply wrong on both counts. PB has just attempted to sustain eating meat by a specious employment of "contract theory". You have not responded to the motivations of logic for the development for such a theory and how PB is not using it in that spirit.

Apparently you fail to grasp the nature of the argument.

Contract theory holds that moral "rights" derive from contracts made between individuals, either between themselves or as part of society. Only entities capable of participating in the contract can have rights of any kind because "rights" only exist as an outcome of the contract. Non-human animals do not possess the ability to enter into social contracts and therefore have only such rights as those who engage in contracts are willing to extend to them.

Your entire argument against this ethos is apparently that non-human animals possess some "rights" that do not come from contract, but you have made no statement or argument and have provided no evidence that such rights actually exist. Obviously, I say "apparently" because you have not made any attempt to show rational justification for your beliefs, but this is the only one of which I can think. My apologies if I'm wrong, but the previously requested elucidation of a rational foundation for your ethos might just clear things up a great deal.

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
We are back to the arbitrary demarcations for the benefit on the ruling species.

To base a distinction between non-human and human animals on specific and material differences between the two is certainly not "arbitrary." To be arbitrary would imply that other differences would make the distinction just as well. I don't believe that this is the case.

Humans possess the ability of complex, abstract rational thought. Such an ability is necessary to the development of complex ethical systems, such as humans possess. There is no evidence whatsoever that non-human animals possess the ability to conceive of moral concepts as humans do. If the concept of "murder" is not possible to a non-human animal (and evidence would seem to indicate that it is beyond their capabilities), then how can it possibly be considered "murder" to kill such a creature outside of the human understanding of such a concept? Does the tiger "murder" the gazelle?

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
I have argued that recent attempts to use ethical systems with the specific aim of exclusion are not in the spirit of those systems, and are bankrupt in morality, as the sole purpose for producing these attempts is self-justification.

That's not quite accurate. You have certainly made this assertion. You have not, however, provided any rational justification for believing it to be true.

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
There is nothing "inside" about it. You make an arbitrary distinction that you are somehow different from other animals in your predicament and use that in lieu of logic.

The distinction is most certainly not "arbitary". It is inextricably connected to the very subject in question: ethics.

Besides which, it seems to me that your claim of arbitariness is most convenient. One could easily claim that the exclusion of plants from your ethical system is arbitary as well. You claim that it's the ability to feel pain that demarcates plants from animals. We claim that the ability to reason abstractly and develop moral and ethical systems differentiates non-human animals from humans. Why is your demarcation not arbitrary but ours is? This is logic?

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
I have argued that there is no need to eat meat to which the only response is "But humans are omnivores" implying that they have no choice in the matter. If you can choose to or not to eat meat and you continue to do so, the only justification I can see -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that it is habit which people have acquired and are unwilling to change. You may hedonistically say you like meat, but so what? I'm interested in the ethics of eating meat not the pleasure itmight give to your palate.

Choice has little to do with it. At least two or three of your opponents have provided rational justification for their belief that eating meat is not immoral. You have yet to provide any rational argument to counter this; all you've done is attempt to poke holes in your opponents' arguments. Unfortunately, in making the assertion, "eating meat is immoral" you bear a burden of proof. You'll need to supply some argument and evidence that your claim is correct.

Quote:

Originally posted by spin:
What I would like from you is not a detached attempt at reducing arguments, but a rational, ethical defence of meat eating that doesn't reduce to your palate.

I don't really need to do that. The OP in this thread was an attempt to argue that meat eating was immoral. The arguments provided in the OP have been called into question and so far I've seen precious little except emotional posturing in the way of rebuttal. To be completely fair, there's been a good deal of that on both sides.

But we can put a stop to that now. What rational justification can you provide to support the contention that meat-eating is immoral?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Kachana · 03-14-2002, 07:42 AM

Punker, may I ask for a bit of clarification on your argument please? You said:

Quote:

The reason I am a Vegetarian is because an animal is a conscious being, capable of suffering, and to cause suffering is immoral.

and also

Quote:

I am a Vegetarian because causing suffering to a conscious being is cruel.

And further:

Quote:

Of course, a plant is not capable of suffering, so whatever you do to it is about as equal moral as anything else you could do to it.

But, you still said it was wrong for me to eat meat from an animal that was painlessly killed WITH NO SUFFERING! What's the difference between a plant that is killed and experiences absolutely no suffering and an animal that is killed and experiences absolutely no suffering?

I don't want an attack in the form of an emotional appeal by analogy to humans here as this tells me nothing about YOUR position. I simply want to know what YOU SEE as the qualitative difference between a plant being killed and an animal being killed WITH NO SUFFERING, that mandates that the former is moral and the latter immoral, and further, why I should accept this distinction as a criterion to be applied to moral decisions concerning what I eat.

Cheers,
Kachana.

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

03-14-2002, 06:45 AM	#301
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Bill Sneddon: --------------------- some of the people writing here, PB for one, have dealt with <the ethics of eating meat> and you, in turn, have neglected to deal with their positions. --------------------- I think you are simply wrong on both counts. PB has just attempted to sustain eating meat by a specious employment of "contract theory". You have not responded to the motivations of logic for the development for such a theory and how PB is not using it in that spirit. Bill: --------------------- Many of us (myself included) feel that human animals are specifically and materially different from non-human animals; so different that ethical treatment of non-human species does not preclude their consumption by humans. --------------------- We are back to the arbitrary demarcations for the benefit on the ruling species. Bill: --------------------- From what I have read, the only response that you or punkersluta have offered to this line of argument is "are not". That's fine insofar as it indicates that you obviously disagree with the foundation of the ethical systems against which you argue, but unfortunately neither of you have yet provided any rational basis for your disagreement. --------------------- I have argued that recent attempts to use ethical systems with the specific aim of exclusion are not in the spirit of those systems, and are bankrupt in morality, as the sole purpose for producing these attempts is self-justification. Bill: --------------------- Again, I suggest that if you wish to continue to argue that a proper human ethical system precludes the killing and eating of non-human species, you must provide a rational basis for that system. And, to be completely clear, "rational" doesn't mean "but we're all just animals inside". --------------------- There is nothing "inside" about it. You make an arbitrary distinction that you are somehow different from other animals in your predicament and use that in lieu of logic. I have argued that there is no need to eat meat to which the only response is "But humans are omnivores" implying that they have no choice in the matter. If you can choose to or not to eat meat and you continue to do so, the only justification I can see -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that it is habit which people have acquired and are unwilling to change. You may hedonistically say you like meat, but so what? I'm interested in the ethics of eating meat not the pleasure itmight give to your palate. What I would like from you is not a detached attempt at reducing arguments, but a rational, ethical defence of meat eating that doesn't reduce to your palate.

03-14-2002, 06:51 AM	#302
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	Why?

03-14-2002, 06:52 AM	#303
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Brighid: ------------------ If an animal is dead – why not eat it? ------------------ If an animal is a live why kill it? Brighid: ------------------ Man cannot change his biology. ------------------ Vegetarians prove you wrong. Brighid: ------------------ And cannibalism is taboo for a reason – evolutionary reasons. Cannibalism is counterproductive in evolutionary terms because it limits the gene pool and weakens that species (also why inbreeding is taboo). Cannibalism tends to lead to premature death and the stunting of growth with that species. ------------------ Primitive societies prove you wrong. I don't advocate eating one's own species. It is merely a parallel to your eating of other species. When you can choose not to eat animals without side-effects, why not?

03-14-2002, 06:56 AM	#304
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	tronvillain: ---------------- I think the problem here may be that we have entirely different conceptions of what morality is. 1) The enjoyment I derive from eating specific animals outweighs the empathy I feel for those animals. 2) The enjoyment others derive from eating specific animals outweighs the empathy I feel for those animals. 3) The displeasure of those who do not hold positions one and two does not outweigh the enjoyment other and I derive from eating specific animals. As a result, I do not consider eating meat "wrong." ------------------- This is merely a repetition of the palate argument with no responsibility. There is no ethical content in the argument at all. If you can choose not to eat fellow animals why not do so rather than gratuitously feeding your taste buds?

03-14-2002, 06:59 AM	#305
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Why? Look at the title of the forum: "Moral foundations and principles". Almost no meat eater responding to the topic has written anything in that category. I would like you all to stop being off-track.

03-14-2002, 06:59 AM	#306
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	But you have every right to be vegetarian, or vegan, or fruitarian. Anyone here would support you in this choice. Were you to be a guest in my home, I would not even eat meat in front of you. However, it is not illegal to eat meat, you are simply uncomfortable with what you feel are the ethics of the matter. This does not make attacking others the correct choice, nor is it a particulary convincing means of converting strangers. It is probably about as effective and welcome an approach as that of the folks in the mall with the scary fetus pics. If anyone has been converted by reading this thread, I would like very much to read their post.

03-14-2002, 07:17 AM	#308
SallySmith Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 263	I don't think there is a case for complete animal rights, and by complete I guess I mean that killing an animal would then be akin to murder. It can be murder, but like people are saying, it depends upon your ethical system. It would be murder for me. It clearly isn't murder for, say, tronvillian. (I do, however, think there are a lot of meat-eating hypocrites out there.) Although I firmly believe that humans have choices and that is why we're not "made" to eat meat or do much of anything except die, I also realize that we are still animals. I don't know that I could deny someone the right to go hunt his/her own food. There is something primal about that which speaks to me. So I strike this balance between the two positions. I believe the common term for this is "fence-riding." I am completely open to someone presenting an argument that would firmly push me either way. I am wondering, for all of the people who eat meat, do you think that animals have any rights? And why or why not? A brief explanation will do, I would just like to hear what people think. Anyone? There is also something we haven't gotten into in this thread, which is the environmental impact of raising food animals. Although maybe we shouldn't go there - people seem a wee bit too tense already.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.