spin

Mad Kally:
-----------------------
"Why is it that every time someone starts a topic like this, the vegans go completely nuts? "
-----------------------

I'm not a vegan: I just don't eat meat.

Mad Kally:
-----------------------
"Surely you can do better than having space aliens eat us, ya think?"
-----------------------

Think about it as a meaningful analogy, as human beings are so self-righteously proud of being the most intelligient species on the planet, they're too stupid to see that they are simply humano-centric and unable to behave morally with regard to the other species on the planet. Hence one needs an example of something far superior to this creature. Can you think of a better, more illustrative analogy? If not, deal with the one I provided.

x-member

I'd suggest the reptoids:

<a href="http://www.reptoids.com" target="_blank">www.reptoids.com</a>

They are highly evolved dinosaurs which live in the giant cave beneath antarctica. They've aparently been in leagues with the Thrid Reich for some time and continually both experiment on and eat humans.

Jon

spin

Reptoids? Same difference. Doesn't change my original comment or the critics'.

bonduca

If I see anyone holding a book titled "How to Serve Man," I'm gonna run really fast!

x-member

Boduca: Not only could I eat a human if I had to, but I'd make gravy!

Mad Kally

I stand corrected. I should have said some people who do not eat meat.

spin,
Has anyone in your family ever had:
Vaccines and antibiotics to prevent and treat infections or anesthetics used in all forms of surgery? Diabetes, asthma or high blood pressure?

How about cancer, heart disease, depression, or newly emerged infections such as HIV. Have you ever owned a pet? Veterinary medicine is, by definition, the result of animal research.

How about research to give hope to millions who suffer from serious conditions such as cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer's disease, stroke, spinal cord damage and third world infections like malaria?

If so, maybe you should thank our animal friends or you probably wouldn't be here to go nuts in the first place.

echidna

By the same token, if we were to use human prisoners for further involuntary medical experimentation, an enormous amount of additional human suffering could be alleviated.

But that doesn’t necessarily morally justify it.

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

Pomp

spin, I am going to assume that you are capable of having a rational discussion and sincere enough to listen to what others in the discussion have to say. Here goes:

”Contract theory"! This is cute...

Yes, cute enough to be taken seriously by a number of philosophers. Contract theory has a long history; I didn’t invent it this morning

Justification through obfuscation. Old trick, still doesn't work.

I’m not sure what you think I’m trying to obfuscate. You implied that one could not justify a non-vegetarian diet without also justifying Dahmer’s behavior. I demonstrated how this could be done, simply by using a moral theory that differs from yours, one that I happen to accept. None of us are bound to accept your particular conception of morality and, in fact, few of us do. Your argument is based on premises that many of us do not believe to be valid. You may as well tell us that we cannot justify eating shellfish because the Bible forbids it.

Let's get into Plato's heaven...

I don’t know what that means.

So, you'll take Swift's advice and eat children who are in no position to negotiate such things.

...people in comas, the insane...


This has been covered in other threads. I’m not going to explain the finer points of contract theory to you. The important point here is that you recognize that there are widely accepted moral theories under which it is quite possible to justify killing cows for meat without justifying Dahmer’s behavior.

Dalmer of course simply rejected your logic, thus nullifying your argument.

Actually, no, Dahmer did not reject my logic. If Dahmer can be said to have behaved rationally at all, his actions are best described as an attempt to "cheat" on the contract, not an attempt to pretend that the contract doesn't exist. As I have argued elsewhere Dahmer would find his aberrant interests best served by agreeing to the social contract and then breaking it in secrecy, which is essentially what he did.

Did you ask the animals if they wanted to die? Did you attempt to negotiate with them?

No, because as I have noted, to the best of my, your, or anyone’s knowledge, the animals commonly raised by humans for food are unable to negotiate or even to communicate with us in any meaningful way.

They mightn't have the same mental facilities as you or Dalmer, but they'll tell you in no uncertain terms, given the opportunity, that they don't want to die.

Good, you provide them with the opportunity and the means to communicate, get them to express their preferences, get them to agree to respect my preferences, and we’ve got a deal.

You weren't able to demonstrate anything.

I think I did a passable job of demonstrating that there are moral theories under which your argument doesn’t hold water.

echidna

Whether it’s necessary or not, ideally the suffering is not preferred. If one cares at all, is there not an anomaly ? If I place any value on their suffering, then I am also weighing that up against my value of eating them.

Medically and scientifically it does seem that we are able to survive maybe not on no meat at all, but at least on less meat than our present diets. So essentially much of our value of eating meat is an aesthetic one. So to me, we are generally comparing our personal aesthetic taste preference, to our preference to reduce suffering.

I still see a moral discrepancy.

I don’t understand what you mean.

Pomp

Reptoids? Same difference. Doesn't change my original comment or the critics'.



Fear the reptoids!

Hmmm...maybe someone ought to drop Smoking Jesus' head on top of the reptoid body...