tronvillain

Well, then we obviously don't all agree.

shamon

About what?

tronvillain

shamon:
I see. So you think that the vast majority of people think vegetarians are committing suicide. Do you have any evidence to back up these assertions?

I don't think it's strictly necessary to keep me alive. So?

tronvillain

shamon:
That it's wrong to kill "unecessarily." You know, the thing you asked if we agreed about earlier?

Rational Ag

Shamon,

Your posts are so riddled with assumptions it's hard to get through them. Please, when you make an assertion, back it up with some evidence or reasoning behind the assertion.

You are contradicting the foundation of your argument here. You are trying to convince us that eating meat is needless killing. You do this by saying that it's innate within us all that needless killing is wrong and we don't do it. However, the fact that there are meat eaters attests to the fact that your assertion that we already do the innate is wrong.

Prove it!

How about ANY evidence? I am quite aware of the world around me, and it seems to me that humans DO needlessly kill each other. In many cultures around the world what you would call "needless killing" is quite accepted in society. All evidence I have seen is that humans do not have an innate aversion to "needless killing". It's quite possible that in civilized societies in which we live it is much more prominent, but we are not alone in the world, and other societies behave differently than we do.

You would have to show me some evidence that humans innately don't needlessly kill before I will buy that assertion.

I am curious why or how you seem to be able to differentiate between humans and fish, but not humans and cows. Why do you draw the line there? That's terribly puzzling to me and I don't understand the logic behind it. I'm curious where you draw the line between what you are morally OK with killing and what you are not morally justified in killing.

-Rational Ag

Bill Snedden

Hoo-ah! That would be virtually every book I've ever read on ethics. If I can remember any of the particularly good ones that deal with this topic (meta-ethics, I'd say), I'll post them.

Well, no. Traffic itself wouldn't exist without humans and therefore neither would the need for traffic laws.

However, I think I see what you're getting at. Traffic laws do have objective existence. That is, once created they do exist independently of what any individual human might think.

However, the laws themselves are not necessarily moral principles. They are, as indeed are all laws, based on moral principles that do not (IMO) have objective existence.

In other words, we don't create a law making it illegal to run a red light simply because we value not running red lights. We create those laws because they serve other values (probably human life). It is those other values that we're talking about.

The existence of moral principles enshrined in laws or commandments does not prove the objective existence of those principles. All it proves is that someone cared enough about them to write them down. That someone may feel strongly about them, but agreement by the rest of humanity will still involve a subjective value judgement (why should we obey?).

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Bill Snedden

Someone else has already pointed out that you're contradicting yourself here, so I won't bother.

However, the problem is that identifying "need" requires a value judgement. You seem to be equating need with physical requirements. The problem is that not all of us agree.

What if I simply hate the taste of vegetables? I still need to eat, does this make my consumption of meat acceptable?

What if mere physical existence simply isn't enough for me? What if I crave, on a psychological level, the gastronomic pleasure of consuming meat? In this case, restricting my diet could cause me to be severely unhappy or depressed. Does this justify meat-eating?

You see, the very "simplification" you crave requires that you demonstrate the moral values that support it. "Need" is necessarily a value-laden concept; therefore it cannot serve as a moral principle. You have to identify something deeper.

In addition, the argument you pose has another serious flaw. To see it, let's suppose that you're right. "Needless killing" is morally unacceptable. We'll also accept that "need" is restricted to a purely physical basis.

Now, most people would agree that if something is "wrong", it's wrong for everyone (that's really what we're discussing here, right?). So, if "needless killing" is morally unacceptable, we should do not only refrain from it ourselves, but do everything within our power (short of needless killing) to prevent others from engaging in it as well.

If that's so, then don't we have a moral obligation to prevent other animals from engaging in the same behavior? If humans can get all nutritionally required elements from non-animal sources (vegetables and/or synthesized substitutes), then it's clear that most if not all non-human predators could as well. Isn't it our duty then, in order to stop the "needless killing" which we have already agreed is morally impermissible, to provide non-human predators with a proper substitionary diet and restrict them from predation?

If not, why not?

One possible response might be that animals are not moral agents, so they can't be held morally responsible for their actions. While that's true, it doesn't excuse us from not taking action to restrict them from committing acts that we consider immoral. After all, we certainly don't permit the insane (who aren't moral agents either) to run around killing people just on the basis of their inability to distinguish right from wrong, do we?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

vixstile

I don't see how you can separate NEED from WANT, and would challenge anyone to find a definition of NEED that doesn't include some kind of WANT.

I don't necessarily need to eat any thing at all, and simply starve to death, because i don't need to live. But i WANT to live, so i need to eat if i am to achieve life.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]</p>

shamon

Do you? Humans never naturally hate the taste of vegetables. Our food preferences are entirely cultural and can’t be used as a justification for anything. Your tastes don’t matter morally.

I understand the “what ifs” but the larger question that I’m addressing is, Is mere physical existence, FOR YOU, so horrible that the only thing you can do to rectify it is to eat meat? I’m not talking about hypothetical situation. How can I know if humans all agree on simple moral ideas if all anyone every gives me is hypothetical situations that don’t occur 99.9% of the time.

I was referring to the physical. Need can by physical or psychological but I was referring to the physical in this case. It’s wrong psychologically also, but that’s just related to the physical wrongness.

You don’t have to force others to do anything. Informing them is your obligation but not using force.

Animals cannot be reasoned with generally. It is not our right to control other species.

Animals are never immoral b/c they need to kill.

You still haven’t told me whether or nor you agree that it’s morally wrong to needlessly kill, TO YOU. Please, no more hypotheticals. This IS a conversation of sorts.

Bill Snedden

You must not have any children.

Besides, I hate the taste of beets. Yuck!

Everyone in my family except me loves beets. There is nothing in my culture that deals with beet-taste love. While there certainly is evidence that supports the cultural associations of food preferences, there is nothing that supports the idea that all taste preference is culturally oriented.

You say my tastes don't matter morally. If my tastes are an important part of my life, I say they do. In order to demonstrate to me that I am wrong, you must support your position with argument and evidence. Saying it doesn't make it so.

Besides which, IMO proper "intersubjective" values should cut across cultural boundaries. In other words, they should be founded upon a unitary value; something that arises from our common nature.

That's not the point. I'm trying to demonstrate to you that others may have good reason to reject your "moral idea". You should be thinking about reasons why they should accept it, not arguing that "most people don't think that way."

If there is a valid reason not to accept your moral ideas, it doesn't matter how many people might choose to accept it. For example, you say "taste doesn't matter morally," but never say why. Unless you can demonstrate why, no one who believes that taste is important need accept your argument.

Ah. Having informed the psychopath that his pathological need to rape and kill children is wrong are we justified then in letting him go his merry way? If you think about this, I think you'll agree that, in cases where the subject is clearly incapable of controlling its behavior, we do have an obligation to use force if necessary.

Really? Do you mow your lawn? Vacuum your house? Would it be okay with you to allow packs of wild dogs to roam through the streets of your city? Again, I think that if you'll think about this you'll see that under the right circumstances, we not only have the right, but also the obligation to control other species.

But non-human animals only need to kill because we refuse to provide them with proper substitutes. If "needless" killing is immoral, then we have a responsibility to prevent it whenever possible. It's certainly possible to provide substitutes to carnivores and then prevent their predation. It seems to me that this is the ineluctable conclusion of your own line of moral reasoning.

Okay. I agree that it is morally wrong to kill needlessly. However, I do not agree that killing animals for the purpose of consumption is "needless".

Why do you seem so opposed to hypothetical situations? They are very useful in cutting through emotions that must necessarily be attached to real-life situations so that people can discuss things rationally. Are you not interested in exploring why you feel the way you do?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>