Pomp

spin,

Yes, PB, we are all helpless automatons, slaves to our passions, so who gives a fuck about morality at all, why not simply rape and pillage like our forebearers were programmed to do? Why argue about eating meat, when it is a physical imperative, or is it a mental imperative, or is it a moral imperative or who the fuck cares any way, as long as I can burp and fart the way I want, take sex the way I want.

Revulsion? I'm revolted by those people who want to stop me from raping and pillaging, burping and farting.

Ah, the argument from burping and farting...how persuasive.

Presumably, this is in response to my statement that I will not do things that I find repulsive unless I have a reason strong enough to overwhelm my revulsion. You, apparently, are making the case here that personal taste is not a valid reason to do anything.

emphryio

BTW, I'm pretty sure Spin is MeBeMe. That's sad.

I personally am very torn about eating meat and would like to discuss it with some very intelligent thoughtful vegetarians.

Spin/MeBeMe has some ideas that are very "un-assimilated" on the subject, (which is nice) but on the other hand he/she doesn't even seem to grasp that different people have chosen different moral systems. In that way Spin/MeBeMe is the equivalent of a Fundie Christian in thinking that his/her moral system is the only real moral system. And all other people are simply immoral.

Therefore it is pointless to discuss this further with Spin.

The real thing to discuss concerning the morality of eating meat, would be to discuss which moral system is the "best". (That is if there is such a thing as the "best" moral system.)

The first problem is that most people's moral systems are rather shaky, inconsistent sorts of things. This is because you can't know the truly correct (if there is such a thing) moral system unless you have absolute knowledge. And you may waver on what you believe you know.

For example if you know you and all other living creatures will exist for infinity in some form, you would most likely have a different moral system that someone who "knew" they would cease to exist when they died.

So then the question would be: "Should we assume we shall exist forever or cease to exist upon death?" Whichever you choose could result in a different moral system. Maybe choose one and eat meat; choose the other, and don't eat meat.
Is one more correct than the other? I'm thinking maybe yes.

I'd sort of like to see a list of the different moral systems that different people follow and why they follow that particular system.

Certainly it's a complicated subject. I don't like the formal debate idea because you only get one person's ideas. I think this can be done on a normal thread, the thing would be to ignore the posts that almost purposely make incorrect assumptions and just try to start fights.

I personally lean towards believing there maybe is a higher degree of morality in not eating meat.
But I think underneath it all, I ultimately believe this simply by my "feelings" as opposed to my logic.

emphryio

Actually, just for the heck of it, I might be willing to debate this formally. (Even though I'm not currently a vegetarian). But lets wait a few days and see.
If I did, I would want to present a moral system in which eating meat is usually of lower morality than not. Have other person present theirs. Maybe get various examples to clarify each system. Then attempt to justify the moral system. (Ultimately a monumental task that may not be successfully completed.)

The problem with this is truthfully I might be making up a few things as I go along. And in general I enjoy conversing simply to learn. I have no aspirations to "win" a debate.

Also it might be preferred to have an actual vegetarian. (Although I once was one, and might end up becoming one again by the end of the debate.)

Pomp

spin,

This {killing 1,000 sentient beings for the protection and benefit of 10,000 sentient beings} would deliberate contravention of the first part of the statement.

You are not protecting the ones you want to hack up. You start with the maximum and when an entity contravenes the second part applies. As what you are advocating contravenes then it is stopped.

I'm struggling to connect this statement to your moral theory. The last three sentences of yours that I quoted are not very clear. The only conclusion that seems to make sense to me is, as another poster has suggested, that your theory advocates no "look ahead." We ought to do whatever will benefit the most sentient beings right now, with no regard to the number of sentient lives our actions will benefit or destroy in the future. Can you clarify?

Humans have become a plague on this planet, going from occupying a minimal part to having stolen the habitat from so many species which have now been driven into extinction. Why not use humans instead of baboons, PB? They would be more relevant to the experiments.

Are you asking me why I wouldn't personally use humans instead of baboons or why someone who adhered to your moral standard would not use humans instead of baboons? I personally would not use humans because, first, I value human more than baboon life and, second, I adhere to a moral system that grants higher consideration to humans than to baboons. Assuming that research would, indeed, be more efficient (in terms of sentient beings saved/sentient beings killed) if it used human subjects, a person who adhered to your moral theory would prefer to use humans, unless there is some aspect of your theory that I have missed.

Now, having established that,would you have an ethical problem with a system in which an annual lottery was held to determine which citizens were to be used for medical testing? Why or why not?

I asked for clarification about the concept of consent which, although not explicitly included in your moral theory as you have presented it, seems to factor in your moral deliberation. You replied:

I suppose one can consent to give up one's existence. But then it's only applicable to consenting adults anyway, so we don't need to change the system to allow one consenting human to *uck another consenting human.

What on earth does this have to do with the question I asked? You objected to a scenario in which a number of sentient beings were sacrificed in order to preserve the lives of a rather larger number of sentient beings on the grounds that the sacrificial "victims" were not consenting. I asked you to describe how consent factors into your moral system, as it clearly is not implied by the two sentences I am quoting at the top of each post. Can you please clarify this point?

Tom Piper

part of Peter Singer's argument against eating (raising for food) non-human inhabitants of this planet is his claim that there is no morally relevant difference between humans and those non-humans that we put on our plates.

"Morally relevant" difference is intended simply to get oponents to focus on differences that count. Singer acknowledges that there are differences between cows and humans (different species) just as people will acknowledge that there are differences between blacks and whites (skin-color), between men and women (sex), between japanese and non-japanese. But these differences are not morally relevant when it comes to evaluating the 'worth' of individuals.

Singer maintains that difference of species is a difference that is as irrelevant to worth/value as skin color, etc. Singer would, for example, acknowledge the equal worth of persons from other planets, if there are any; if there happen to be Vulcans, or beings such as whatever ChewBacca (sp?) or Yoda are, in the Universe, these entities would be persons (albeit non-human persons) entitled to the same treatment that humans are entitled to, even though they are not of the same species. Once again, According to Singer, species difference is an irrelevant difference. According to Singer, our current treatment of non-humans on this planet is as misguided as our treatment of blacks was in the United States, before the time when people acknowledged that skin color was an irrelevant. Our treatment of non-human inhabitants of this planet is as misguided as the treatment of jews in nazi germany.

I searched the archives of this site to see what had been said about this line of argument, but I couldn't find anything, so I thought it might be worth seeing what responses will be made.

Tom

tronvillain

Of course, that species difference is not morally relevant does not mean that the difference between species cannot be morally relevant. Anyone who denies that they can, while not necessary irrational, has an extremely unconventional system of morality - they would presumably be indifferent between the death of a gorilla and the death of a trout. If they are not, then they admit morally relevant differences between species, though they may not consider these differences significant enough to justify eating that species.

Tom Piper

Tronvillain,

Of course! But the mere fact that one individual is a trout and the other a gorilla, does not, so far, mark a relevant difference. To evaluate a claim that there is a relevant difference between a trout and a gorilla, one would have to be given a specific 'relevant difference candidate'.

The rest of your remark is,
I am not clear about your remark. Are you suggesting merely that relevant differences are where you find them-- there may be relevant differences between fish and primates, even though the relevant difference is not mere difference of species?

Are you also allowing that there may be relevant differences within species-- that mere membership in a species is not enough to secure treatment that other members of the species might enjoy?

Just a request for clarification...

Tom

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]</p>

The AntiChris

I agree with Emphryio that any further "discussion" with Spin is unlikely to be productive.

However, I don't feel that Spin is solely to blame. Because Spin is clearly passionate about his position, he's prone to emotional outbursts. You guys are very quick to pick up on his more extravagant statements, add a little distortion, then rebut these "easy targets" and demand a response. Spin in turn gets even more frustrated....... Whilst this is entertaining, it does little for someone like me who has a degree of sympathy with Spin's position and would like to understand the apparent gulf that exists between the two sets of views.

My position is probably similar to Emphryio's, in that I'm an uneasy meat-eater. Im hoping that the subject can be explored further in a climate of mutual enlightenment rather than confrontation.

The basic premise seems to be that, because we value humans above non-humans, we treat the two differently. I have no problem with this. Where I do have a problem is the apparently irrational way we treat non-humans.

Most people feel repugnance at overt animal cruelty. When I see an animal trembling with terror and pain I have very similar emotions to those I'd experience seeing a human in a similar state. Although I accept that there are differences, the suffering I see transcends the human/non-human divide. In other words, the value I receive from the absence of that suffering in the two instances is not vastly dissimilar. It seems, therefore, irrational to propose that something as trivial as taste-pleasure outweighs animal suffering.

On a slightly different tack, my wife is a vegetarian and, as you can imagine, the topic frequently comes up in conversation with friends. The discussion always starts with friendly interest in my wife's vegetarianism but almost invariably results in pretty robust questioning of my wife's position - "So, of course you don't use; animal products; leather; drugs/medicines; insecticides; etc". It always appeared to me that by trying to expose potential hypocrisy they were attempting to assuage their own feelings of guilt. Some of the posts on this subject on this MB have a similar feel.

Apologies for the lack of technical jargon (or misuse thereof) but my Knowledge of formal philosophy/ethics is zero.

Chris

tronvillain

As, I said before, that species difference is not morally relevant does not mean that the difference between species cannot be morally releant. In other words, while the mere fact of species difference is not morally relevant, a specific species difference could be, by virtue of morally relevant differences between the species.

Most of us would claim that there are morally relevant differences between grasshoppers and apes, and do not require a specific
"revevant difference candidate" except the general candidates "gorilla" and "grasshopper." Now, there could be differences in specific cases, but we are talking about the general case.
While it is possible to hold that there are not any morally relevant differences between a gorilla and a grasshopper, I consider such a position extremely odd.

Oh, and of course there are relevant differences between species and mere membership in a species is not enough to secure treatment that other members of the species might enjoy.

Tom Piper

This looks as though you are saying that there is, as far as you are concerned, a morally relevant difference between a grasshopper and a gorilla, but you won't say/haven't said what it is.

The move that I think Singer would make at this point woould be to say that, so far, your position is comparable to the position of a white supremicist (sp?) who says that there is a morally relevant difference between blacks and white, while refusing to specify what that relevant difference is.

Tom