If eating meat is unethical, why is it ok to kill babies?

[antifreeze]

Ethical vegetarians think the important difference is the difference first pointed out by Jeremy Bentham, who wrote that we should not ask "Can they talk? Can they think?" but "Can they suffer?"

is it the vegetarian position that all animals can perceive pain?

 

[TW Scott]

That's false. While the species is still evolving, humans today are almost exactly the same animal as humans 4,000 years ago were.

Actually no we are not. We have evolved to be taller, heavier, greedier, more articulate, more agressive, have longer average phalli, and a host of other minute changes.

So are some great apes and dolphins humans*? Both have experimentally demonstrated very nearly human levels of self-awareness. For that matter, what about people in persistent vegetative states? Are they no longer human?

* Before you go answering that, no. They are not humans. They are great apes and dolphins, respectively.

Notice the "very nearly human". As for people in persistant vegetative stats that is becuase of damage, supposedly they were capable of self-awareness. When an injury takes that away it does not make them not human, just someone who should be taken off lifesupport.

However it total this is a false dilemma. We do not eat Great Apes or Dolphins with any regularity, thus it is moot if they are nearly as self aware as we are. Now show me a cow that can ponder "To be or not to be?" in depth and I will consider not eathing that one.

 

[baumgarten]

Actually no we are not. We have evolved to be taller, heavier, greedier, more articulate, more agressive, have longer average phalli, and a host of other minute changes.

Notice the "almost exactly the same." I wonder if the greater influence of testosterone is an indicator of lower average intelligence. Probably not, but it's a thought.

Notice the "very nearly human". As for people in persistant vegetative stats that is becuase of damage, supposedly they were capable of self-awareness. When an injury takes that away it does not make them not human, just someone who should be taken off lifesupport.

You got me there. c7's argument about the distinction between animals and humans was based on level of self-awareness, which is why I brought up the absurd examples.

However it total this is a false dilemma. We do not eat Great Apes or Dolphins with any regularity, thus it is moot if they are nearly as self aware as we are. Now show me a cow that can ponder "To be or not to be?" in depth and I will consider not eathing that one.

I agree completely.

 

[wsionynw]

is it the vegetarian position that all animals can perceive pain?

Most animals, it's not clear if all insects, small sea creatures, etc, feel pain.
You could go all the way to single cell organisms that do not feel pain. Vegetarians are talking about animals used in various industries that certainly do feel pain and suffer greatly.

 

[Oniw17]

I won't. And the so called "weakness" can also be a strength.

You would if your life depended on it. Your primal instincts would kick in, and you would have no control.

Animals have every right to behave the way they do. A lion can kill and it has done no wrong, but humans are more advanced, so our responsibility is greater, our laws are greater..

Humans are animals.

What's the point in creating more advanced technology?

There is none.

Yes, and animals also have the right to complain.

If animals don't have the responsibilities of people as you said, what gives them the rights of people?

 

[Oniw17]

q0101:

Imagine you could kill a wealthy businessman you know and steal $1 million from him. The chances of you being caught for the crime you reliably calculate to be less than 1%. Would you kill him? Wouldn't it be "logical" to do that?.

It would not be logical beacause that is materialism. Materialism is not part of nature, thus to advocate it would be illogical.

when you would not want somebody to kill and eat you.

I can't speak for whoever you were talking to, but if someone could kill and eat me , then I wouldn't care, because that is life. However, I would put up a struggle, because of the compelling feeling to survive that I have.

 

[c7ityi_]

That's false. While the species is still evolving, humans today are almost exactly the same animal as humans 4,000 years ago were.

Humans that lived 400000 years ago were a lot more intelligent than what we're now.

Also false. Take a genius's word for it.

I doubt he who invented the IQ thing was a genius.

So are some great apes and dolphins humans*?

Obviously not because they're not conscious on a mental state. They don't think about stuff, why they exist and so on.

But all creatures, even plants, are self aware on some level.

Humans are animals.

The definition of the word animal is stupid. Life should be categorized according to how self aware it is.

If animals don't have the responsibilities of people as you said, what gives them the rights of people?

Feelings.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

is it the vegetarian position that all animals can perceive pain?

Does it matter? Being a vegetarian doesn't mean you do not kill or hurt animals.

Modern agriculture is based on industrialization. This turns harvesting into slaughterfields. Countless animals get killed and maimed each year during the harvesting of the diet of vegetarians.

There is no moral high ground for vegetarians, unless you decided that killing less is better than killing more. I would say killing is killing.

 

[Oniw17]

If animals have feelings, then why wouldn't they think about life? The only reason that humans think about life so much is because we have exceeded our purpose. Through the use of societies, we have eliminated our need to find food and to build shelter. So, since we go against our nature simply by being born into the modern world, we begin to wonder what our purpose is. In the wild, animals have no reason to wonder about life, because they know their purpose. I wouldnn't doubt that captive gorillas, such as Koko wonder about life.

 

[q0101]

So youd only commit an act of compassion if it benefied you, only....in special circumstances you *would* actually help someone despite no benefit to yourself?
And you want to be a being of pure logic, except you actually still want to keep your emotions?
Sounds like your deeply confused to me, nothing wrong with that though, arnt we all eh.

It may seem like if I am contradicting myself. I wouldn’t sacrifice my life for my family or friends. I would risk my life for them but I wouldn’t take a bullet for them. I would sacrifice my life for a genius that has the same socialist / Transhumanist desires that I do. I would sacrifice my life for anyone that has a higher probability of playing an important role in creating the futuristic utopian world that I want to live in. My physical body may not survive to see the utopia, but I am one with the universe, therefore I will experience it.

You may have heard the Buddhist philosophy that says there is no I. The concept of I is just an illusion. You can click on the link below to learn what I think about the universe and existence.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55964&page=2&pp=20

I want most of my decisions to be based on the logic but what would be the point of existing without emotions? I still want to experience things like pleasure, pain, and fear. (Especially the pleasure) I just want to have the ability to be in complete control of my emotions. I don’t want to have any irrational fears or phobias. I don’t want to make any illogical decisions because of things like fear, sadness, or anger.

 

[q0101]

So, if somebody killed your family, I guess you wouldn't care. No, wait, that's wrong. You'd care, but only because their deaths would affect you.

Exactly.

I think it's fair to say that other people have no value except in relation to you, according to your view. Is that correct? Other people are just means to your ends, and not valuable in and of themselves?

That is partially correct. Every person on this planet has some value because their existence affects my existence.

You'd probably love to be a dictator like Saddam Hussein.

Yes I would, but I wouldn’t treat my people like shit.

That's drawing a long bow. The chances of the death of everybody in a small village somewhere in Sudan is unlikely to have any effect on you at all. In fact, that's happening right now. You can't tell me you really care about that, can you? And if you do, why do you care, really, given that it isn't because it affects you.

As I said before, the cause and effect may not always be noticeable, but I believe that every action on this planet does affect me in some way. The deaths of everyone in a small village in Sudan would affect me in a negative way if I saw it on the news. It would make me aware of the ignorance of humanity. It would make me sad for a second or two.

Suppose you suspect somebody stole from you. Would you find it acceptable to torture them to get them to confess, and perhaps reveal what they did with your property?

I would be breaking the law if I decided to torture someone. And I wouldn’t physical torture people if I had the powers of a dictator. Physical torture does not work very well. It causes people to confess to things that they did not do. Psychological torture works much better.

So, if you were in Saddam Hussein's position (before the US attack on Iraq), you would have had no problem with torturing political opponents?

Saddam Hussein is not Superman. He is a human being with the same fragile body that we all have.

So, faced with a situation where there is a 90% chance of you benefiting from an action that some would call immoral, you would take that action, on logical grounds, I suppose.

Maybe. It would depend on what I was doing.

Imagine you could kill a wealthy businessman you know and steal $1 million from him. The chances of you being caught for the crime you reliably calculate to be less than 1%. Would you kill him? Wouldn't it be "logical" to do that?

1% is too high. It would have to be at least 0.01%. And even then it would only be logical if the businessman did not have any friends or family that cared about him.

Consider this, then. The bottom-line "Golden Rule" in ethics is often quoted as "Treat others as you would have them treat you."

Do you think this is logical?

If so, please justify why you consider it acceptable to kill and eat cows, when you would not want somebody to kill and eat you.

It is logical if it applies to the sentient life forms that can harm me. I wouldn’t mistreat a cow unless I had a gun or some kind of weapon in my hand.

I have a question for you. Do vegetarians ever think about what the world would be like if carnivores were not here to prevent the overpopulation of herbivores? I don’t think there is anything wrong with human beings playing the role of a wolf or lion. And think about the fact that most scientists agree that the human brain would not have evolved to where it is today if our ancestors did not eat meat.

 

[Satyr]

Why are so many vegans/vegetarians aghast at the idea of raising dumb animals for food meat, yet believe it's an unalienable right to kill unborn babies?

Killing unborn babies is no more unethical than killing born babies.

Humans struggle with the sanctity of life or the desirability of life or human rights when they want to protect their own existence from the unjustifiable.
They want to preserve an excuse for putting up with living.
They want to feel blessed.

 

[heliocentric]

However it total this is a false dilemma. We do not eat Great Apes or Dolphins with any regularity, thus it is moot if they are nearly as self aware as we are. Now show me a cow that can ponder "To be or not to be?" in depth and I will consider not eathing that one.

That positions entirely erroneous, if youre saying anything that doesnt have our self awareness is fair game, then why not use retarded kids for medical experimentation or a source of food too?
And before you say...'oh but we wouldnt want to upset their parents' lets assume theyre orphans.

As wsionynw rightly said the only factor of awareness that should come into play when you decide to use something for food/experimentation is its awareness of pain and suffering. Not their ability to ponder philosophical concepts.

 

[Satyr]

I’m for more baby killing.

In a world of over 6 billion and diminishing resources it’s hard to argue from a ‘human life is precious’ angle.
Human life is precious when it clings onto existence with its nails and struggles to remain.
When it spreads like a disease over the landscape eradicating and laying waste to its environment then its ‘holiness’ subsides.

Consider this: Precious, adorable babies grow up to be imbeciles flying planes into buildings in the name of Allah or fat-assed morons consuming their way into hedonistic oblivion and self-righteously spreading their dullness of mind as a new form of ‘happiness’ and the ‘good life’ and ‘freedom’.

I bet Hitler was an adorable baby.
But I’m partial to Adolph.

 

[wsionynw]

Does it matter? Being a vegetarian doesn't mean you do not kill or hurt animals.

Modern agriculture is based on industrialization. This turns harvesting into slaughterfields. Countless animals get killed and maimed each year during the harvesting of the diet of vegetarians.

There is no moral high ground for vegetarians, unless you decided that killing less is better than killing more. I would say killing is killing.

Can you substantiate this?
For humans to survive we must leave a footprint on the rest of of the natural world, be it plant life or animal life, veggies do not question this. Certainly vegetarians and vegans are directly and indirectly responsible for some animal deaths, be it from treading on an ant to these so called countless animals killed during the harvest of veggie foods (?).
The point is that the current meat producing industries abuse animals by the millions, simply because humans have been bred to believe that they need meat in their diet. As a child I didn't like eating meat, simply because I didn't like the taste and texture. My parents convinced me that meat was good for me and I should eat it, and because it was expensive and starving Africans didn't have meat to eat so I should be grateful, etc. It's a meat eating epidemic! Even if you argue that humans should eat some meat for nutritional reasons, then that does not excuse the horrendous conditions in which animals are farmed and slaughtered.

 

[heliocentric]

It may seem like if I am contradicting myself. I wouldn’t sacrifice my life for my family or friends. I would risk my life for them but I wouldn’t take a bullet for them. I would sacrifice my life for a genius that has the same socialist / Transhumanist desires that I do.

You are what you do at the end of the not what you say so i guess you'll just have to wait for those types of situations to arise (although i doubt very much that they ever will) to see how much faith you actually have in your beliefs.

You may have heard the Buddhist philosophy that says there is no I. The concept of I is just an illusion. You can click on the link below to learn what I think about the universe and existence.

I read the link you posted btw, its seems to be a fusion of scientific reductionism with some buddism thrown in.
As i said viewing the universe as a bunch of chemical reactions IS a valid viewpoint but its just one of many, you might as well see humans are meme hosts or whatever. 'The map is not the territory' is a brilliant phrase and i think it certainly applies here, science throws up models to help us understand but the model isnt reality; rather its an abstraction of it.
I also think youre underselling the potential of what emotions can do, they can instantly bring about that 1:1 connection with reality that you believe in and they can make you feel strong and passionate about the people and animals around you.
I really think youre debasing emotions if all you want to have them around for is so you can have a rollercoaster ride inside your brain everytime you get bored with playing at being the logic automaton.
Other than that i agree with (or rather lean towards) your views on the holistic nature of reality and your idea that everything that we do in this life impacts on the future reality that manifests after we're gone.

Im working hard for my eutopia everyday (although i could always be doing more of course)

I want most of my decisions to be based on the logic but what would be the point of existing without emotions? I still want to experience things like pleasure, pain, and fear. (Especially the pleasure) I just want to have the ability to be in complete control of my emotions. I don’t want to have any irrational fears or phobias. I don’t want to make any illogical decisions because of things like fear, sadness, or anger.

I think it would be worth studying logic and the different types of logic there are if thats what youre about then. Because at the moment you seem to have a pretty simple lay-persons idea of what logic entails, its not nearly as concrete and objective a concept as you seem to believe it is.
Theres never any guarantee that by using every day Informal logic (or what you assume is you being logical) that your brain will magically spit out the correct answer at the other end.
This is especially true i think when your logic is built on foundations of assumptions and things you believe without having irrefutable proof.
For example - you believe that we're all interconnected and you will exist in some other form or another after you die. Well, i lean towards that too, but logically i know that i dont *really* know that for sure, its just what ive experienced would seem to point in that direction.
Ya dig? :m:

 

[heliocentric]

It's a meat eating epidemic! Even if you argue that humans should eat some meat for nutritional reasons, then that does not excuse the horrendous conditions in which animals are farmed and slaughtered.

I agree, meat in the west has just become a vice, its not even about survival anymore, its pure greed and this pathological need to have endless variety of choice.

 

[q0101]

I think it would be worth studying logic and the different types of logic there are if thats what youre about then. Because at the moment you seem to have a pretty simple lay-persons idea of what logic entails, its not nearly as concrete and objective a concept as you seem to believe it is.
Theres never any guarantee that by using every day Informal logic (or what you assume is you being logical) that your brain will magically spit out the correct answer at the other end.
This is especially true i think when your logic is built on foundations of assumptions and things you believe without having irrefutable proof.
For example - you believe that we're all interconnected and you will exist in some other form or another after you die. Well, i lean towards that too, but logically i know that i dont *really* know that for sure, its just what ive experienced would seem to point in that direction.
Ya dig? :m:

I think logic is mathematics and common sense. If I want to get from point A to point B the shortest distance will be a straight line. The point A to point B could represent your needs and desires. The common sense aspect of logic could be something like realizing that if you put your hand in fire you are going to get burned. Unfortunately our emotions can make us do self-destructive things that we wouldn’t normally do.

As for my belief that we are all interconnected, it is just something that I choose to believe. We all have to believe in something. It seems logical to me, but I know that it could be absurd to someone else. And I am always willing to admit that my beliefs could be wrong. The only absolute truth is the fact that there is no absolute truth.

 

[c7ityi_]

If animals have feelings, then why wouldn't they think about life?

Because feelings are not thoughts.

So, since we go against our nature simply by being born into the modern world, we begin to wonder what our purpose is.

We don't go against our nature... this is our nature.

The concept of I is just an illusion.

It doesn't matter because it feels real.

I still want to experience things like pleasure, pain, and fear.

Wanting to experience pain and fear is illogical. Wanting anything except nothing is illogical and pointless.

Do vegetarians ever think about what the world would be like if carnivores were not here to prevent the overpopulation of herbivores?

It would be fun.

And think about the fact that most scientists agree that the human brain would not have evolved to where it is today if our ancestors did not eat meat.

Scientists often talk a load of crap.

Certainly vegetarians and vegans are directly and indirectly responsible for some animal deaths, be it from treading on an ant to these so called countless animals killed during the harvest of veggie foods (?).

Ants? Insects aren't as important as animals because they're less conscious. Killing some things is not so bad if you have a good reason. It isn't wrong if you pick up some flowers and give them to someone. But cutting down a tree without any good reason is wrong.

 

[heliocentric]

As for my belief that we are all interconnected, it is just something that I choose to believe. We all have to believe in something. It seems logical to me, but I know that it could be absurd to someone else. And I am always willing to admit that my beliefs could be wrong. The only absolute truth is the fact that there is no absolute truth.

Is it really logical to say 'i believe xyz, because hey, everyone has to believe in something'. That doesnt seem rooted in any kind of logic atall, certainly none that ive ever come across.
And that my whole point; these things seems logical to you but every day logic can be very very subjective, its not the same thing as mathematics/symbolic logic. And in some instances id assert that youre not actually using logic atall (even going by every-day logic).
I really think you could do with reading up on different forms of logic and its applications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

^ pretty good link for it there.