JamesR said:
As far as I can see, you're now arguing only one substantive point.
Now? Well, that's largely what our portion of the discussion is reduced to. Indeed, my earlier arguments considered the notion of redefining humanity's subsistence spectrum in order to respect a moral assertion. I called that moral assertion unfounded. You disagreed. There's a reason we're focused at this point on fewer aspects of the issue. Apparently I must take you through them one at a time. Yes, that's rather a harsh way of putting it, but this seems to be the way you want it.
You are asserting that my moral argument is not an argument about ethics at all, but rather one about "aesthetics".
Actually, I am arguing that the foundation of your moral argument is an aesthetic standard, and therefore no sound foundation for a moral assertion.
Aethetics is all about what is or is not beautiful, as you know. How this relates to my argument that it is morally reprehensible to kill sentient, conscious beings for no good reason is beyond me, I'm afraid.
I could, I suppose, make it about ignorance and mean spirit, but despite your lack of knowledge about the experiences of various flora (humanity knows more about what those experiences aren't than what they are) and your absurd denigration of human carnivores it seems to me that aesthetics is more relevant. Underpinning your calculations regarding sentience and nervous systems and experiences is merely an aesthetic sympathy such as Huxley discussed.
The basis of my argument is ethics.
A very immediate ethical context, one that rejects considerations of the wellbeing of the species. As a tradeoff for the feelgood reward, it seems rather an unethical deal.
Of course you should. To hold a moral view and yet to think that others should not hold the same view would be strange indeed, would it not? Can you think of any examples?
Opinions are akin to recta: everyone has one, there's a lot of crap involved, and some people need help making theirs function. Is the moral assertion reasonably and rationally founded? Is it considerate of its own diverse facets? Your moral assertion is not reasonably and rationally founded; your moral assertion would prefer to hide from many of its diverse facets than consider them. We return to the morality of having morals.
I think you need to explain why you are mistaking my moral argument for an aesthetic one.
I'm not mistaking your moral argument for an aesthetic one. Rather, you're mistaking aesthetics as morals.
Why does sentience matter?
What is the difference to you between these two scenarios?
(1) On NPR once I heard a man discussing the sense of taste, as in what our tongues &c. do. He described an experience when he went into a Korean restaurant in L.A. and selected a large prawn from a tank, expecting the process to be something like choosing a lobster. He was at first mortified when they brought him the live prawn wrapped in wax paper and expected him to eat it as such. And then he reconsidered, and decided to go forward with the endeavor. (He waxed artistically about all manner of the psychology of consuming a living organism. A greater vitality to the food, a sense of empowerment, &c. You know, discussion of the sense of taste.)
(2) Around here we can get at the average grocery store what's called a Bibb head, which is a small head of lettuce on the root, contained so that the organism is alive when you purchase it and take it home. Preparing the lettuce immediately before serving the meal, I am aware that it is still alive and in the process of dying as I eat it. And, yes, it is better the closer to the kill you eat it.
What, to you, is the difference between eating a live prawn and a live head of lettuce? What is your criteria for discrimination between these two forms of life? Apparently, it is the perception of one organism's suffering and the lack thereof in the other. I'll allow you to explain for yourself, but it doesn't seem to be much more than aesthetics to me. Why does that sentience matter?
I do not believe in the progress of humanity at any cost. Some prices are too high to pay.
You're changing the subject. Why is that?
I mean, it seems implicit that you're also saying that eating meat is too high a price to pay for the continued existence of our species, but I won't hold you to it, lest you think I'm attacking your character again.
But it's quite the change of subject:
T: The better my sociofunctional rhythms, the greater my contribution to the human endeavor.
J: I regard the lives of animals as more important that the mundane "human endeavors" which you consider take moral precedence.
T: Good for you. But the term is endeavor, in the singular. The “human endeavor” relates to the progress of humanity as a species in its environment, that is, the Universe.
J: I do not believe in the progress of humanity at any cost. Some prices are too high to pay.
Now, can we have a personal moment 'twixt us here? Seriously: how many times have I used the phrase "human endeavor" at Sciforums? It puzzles me that you would suddenly confuse that phrase for "human endeavors", which is the term you use in order to relegate the consideration to the realm of the mundane, and presumably not worth considering. That's rather a slick maneuver for someone complaining that everyone is attacking him. Why stoop so low? Is that the best way you can think of to avoid arguing that people should lower their contributions to society in order for you to feel better about being human? Because that's exactly what your argument comes down to: Humanity should reduce itself in order that you might feel better about being human. That, frankly, is disturbing enough in and of itself, but here we come back to aesthetics. Humanity should reduce itself in order that you can feel better about being human all because of an aesthetic discord?
Do you really wonder why I used the word "fanaticism"? Or why I compared your message to the evangelization of the Gospels?
But you're happy to kill a cow and eat it. Why?
Because it's a better option than squashing the thing under my shoe and leaving it to decay in the sun? Because I can't find a magnifying glass or fishhook large enough to do the job?
How about, "Because it's
food"?
We come back to considerations you've already chosen to cast aside: bovines make good steaks, good jackets, and great shoes. This is what they're for in relation to humanity. If we find a better purpose for them, we will put them to it. If we find a more positive relationship between human and bovine, we will develop it. Some cultures eat dogs; I should probably ask one of those cultures what they think of the strange Western habit of using dogs to contain, herd, and drive other food sources. We come back to economics: to use the dog as food, or in the production of food?
Besides, I've never killed the cow myself. By habit, however, I would imagine that I would thank it much like I do the herb or the tree or whatever.
Perhaps so. Please explain why you think I have a "moralistic dualism". Then I might understand your point.
You're the one who perceived Huxley's considerations an assertion of moral authority on his part; you're the one who has, thus far, argued that eating meat is too high a price for the human endeavor; you're the one basing right and wrong on what, sincerely, seems to be aesthetics. You reduce disagreement to mere greed, complain that disagreement is character assassination. There seems to be a simple, dualistic aspect to the moral assertion; either we agree with you, or we're wrong, greedy, and hateful. You're demonizing those who disagree with you instead of developing a rational foundation for your argument. Seriously, do you wonder why I compare your argument to certain religious discussions we're all familiar with? You would cast rape as something so simple as to be about mere pleasure? You would compare a body's sudden, unexpected demand for a food it has previously rejected to addiction? Either we agree with you, or we're wrong, and you'll say damn near anything in order to believe it.
Transcend that dualism and you will, first off, notice a reduction in that feeling that you're being persecuted or treated unfairly; secondly, you'll find that things are a lot more complex than you're casting them in order to foster your argument. You might even come to understand why the foundation of your argument is merely aesthetic.
I don't see the relevance of this.
Again, a result of the moralistic dualism.
Consider the statements place in the dialogue; we can try the longer form if you like:
J: As for life being sacred, I do not regard all life as of equal value.
T: The simplicity of such a statement explains much. Equal value in such a context has little to do with the sacred. How many people would die for a symbol or a myth? In the United States, when we hear someone ranting about flag-burning, we are sometimes given to wonder what is so important about a piece of cloth that one would kill and die for it.
J: I don't see the relevance of this.
Whether or not you assign equal value to all forms of life has little to do with the point you seemed to be addressing; that you perceived what you did in Huxley suggests something about the strength of the moralistic dualism dominating your outlook in this discussion. Is a piece of cloth of "equal value" to a human life? To hear angry veterans tell it, a piece of cloth is more valuable than human life. This is as absurd a notion as can be in the context of the human species in general; that great value of a flag, though, comes because someone holds the symbol of a given flag as sacred. As for life being sacred, you missed a great deal of what Huxley was trying to explain.
Let's revisit a short quote from Huxley:
"Sensitive souls, whom a visit to the slaughterhouse has converted to vegetarianism, will be well advised, if they do not want to have their menu still further reduced, to keep clear of the Bose Institute. After watching the murder of a plant, they will probably want to confine themselves to a strictly mineral diet. But the new self-denial would be as vain as the old. (Jesting Pilate)
Look at the two boldfaced sentences above. Very simply: the aesthetic value of watching the plant suffer would possibly have such impact on a moral vegetarian that their morals would be required to extend to plants; to do so, however, would be in vain, an accidental or perhaps narcissistic self-deception. "But the new self-denial would be as vain as the old," writes Huxley.
And I agree, especially when the moral assertion of the vegetarian is rooted in aesthetics.
The relevance, essentially, is to point out the functional impropriety of your statement, "
As for life being sacred, I do not regard all life as of equal value."
I don't know how this relates to my point, as you understand it.
I don't wish to dismiss your statement about culpability out of hand, but I do find it rather an odd standard. Human culpability in fighting disease? We aren't blameless, as sexually transmitted diseases might attest, but you're barking up the wrong tree.
As to the issue of selfishness, you are consistent in that your prime concern here is the effects of your actions on yourself, rather than on things outside yourself. Your attitude to meat-eating is the same. To me, it shows a narrowness in your circle of consideration. It seems to me that you are concerned about a cow, let's say, only to the extent that it affects you, and for no other reason. Things that are beyond your direct and immediate control therefore take a very low precedence for you. Of course, I might be wrong.
You're using too broad of brushstrokes to paint the picture. The selfishness of self-preservation and the species is something considerably different from the selfishness of smoking dope or
casual sex. This, incidentally, pertains to the "rudeness" section to follow. I am not morally troubled about destroying millions of organisms (e.g. bacteria) whose sum effect includes my possible destruction.
Nor am I morally troubled about "eating meat"
per se. But here the line where I do have moral issues treads into questions of economy, which you have already dismissed, e.g. methods of distribution and allocation of wealth. To the one, I see that a large moral issue pertaining to methods of raising meat for market can be addressed and solved by addressing the economic issues that pertain to it. You, on the other hand, write of multi-tasking, but your eventual goal is to throw out meat consumption altogether. To analogize, I would seek to cure the disease while you would simply give yourself something for the pain. Your moral assertion is quick and sounds simple; a more realistic and vital solution is a more difficult undertaking than a steady diet of exaggeration and condemnation.
My "general rudeness". Hmmm... Have I offended you in some way, other than by disagreeing with your stance? Be specific.
Condemnation, demonization, exaggeration, distortion, ducking issues ... given the crap that qualifies as a valid argument around here, no, you haven't offended me specifically. But I understand well why people are reacting poorly to your message. It's all in how you say it.
For instance, you wrote a post to MrHero54 (
#1025583), in which you discussed a theoretical child rapist; the severity of your comparison is absurd, and the simplicity of your view of child rape in that post is ridiculous. The reduction of child rape to mere pleasure is irresponsible. But you're willing to undertake that dereliction because you think you're making a point. Did you notice my response? I mean, your response skipped the couple of lines pertaining to that issue. Comparing carnivores to predatory pedophilia offends several sensibilities at once. Add to that comparisons of murder?
Or your bit about the animals' rights, the intangible aspects of humanity and the tangible aspects of the animals' lives: the whole episode regarding moral parity between humans and other animals left you looking deceptive at best.
Your dismissal of the evolutionary implications of converting humanity to a vegetarian diet leaves your issue as something more immediate and impulsive than well-considered.
And hollering "fallacy" when committing so many of your own. Don't just complain, disarm them. Of course, as our discussion of aesthetics shows, disarming the fallacy can be a difficult issue.
Denial of the inexorable connection between the individual organism and its species doesn't help your argument at all. You wrote, "
The simple fact is that ... you value human life more than animal life, for no good reason." And truly, that verged on offensive. For no good reason? Who's ignoring what?
What about cutting certain explanations into shorter segments in order to disconnect the points from one another? About the only appearance of utility that manages is making it easier for you to offer shorter responses to the point. (See
#1041466.) Would you not rebuke that behavior should, say, a Christian poster slice up your argument in order to miss the point and avoid the thematic issue?
Don't get me wrong, though. I'm aware the arguments you're encountering are problematic. It's just that, given the intelligence you've shown over time here, I wonder why you're so blazingly aggressive in this issue. Are you just an ass? I doubt it. Are you really this mean-spirited? I doubt it. We come back to the moralistic dualism: you're in the throes of a moral fervor that corrupts your sense of rationality.
And since I'm both revisiting the history of this topic
and discussing the sense of offense you've generated, I'll harp on two issues worth revisiting: "
Consider: do humans have a moral obligation to preserve biodiversity? Many people think that is a worthy goal. It there, then, a 'right' of nature associated with this?" And, "
Is it not more reprehensible to breed animals solely for our pleasure in killing them?"
As to the first, I thought I had already raised and answered that question (
#1034659):
"Does 'Nature' have any rights? Only what she asserts." Recall my attempt to sum up and respond to the diverse arguments you had put forth elsewhere (
#1029180):
"After all, though many may write and speak of 'animal rights', who considers 'animal responsibilities'? On the one hand, when cows show rational contributions to the political discourse, or simply show the capability of voting, I will consider bovine suffrage. May they do better by the vote than we humans have done." At least they're consistent principles. And while it may be extreme to ask an animal lacking fingers, much less opposable thumbs, to write or type a philosophical treatise, we might consider an extreme scenario: If the aliens come and decide to eat us, the aliens come and decide to eat us. Humans, however, will not go down without asserting ourselves. Think, for a moment, of news footage of, say, a circus elephant on the rampage. People are hurt, cars are smashed, and eventually the poor animal is put to death. Remember, though, at the gun, the score was Elephant 14, People 1. Nature asserts her rights.
Secondly, to characterize ranching as an enterprise "solely for our pleasure in killing them" is just a bit inflammatory, don't you think? I mean, really ... whatever poor manners you perceive in your opposition will only intensify in response to such characterizations.
In the end, I don't think your rudeness stems from being stupid or fundamentally mean-spirited, but rather because this is a moral issue for you, one founded on a logical assertion that is both piecemeal and myopic. The only reason I care what you eat is if I'm going to serve or buy you food. I would no more lay a steak on your plate than I would bacon on a Jew's, and I have far greater intellectual respect for conscientious objections to the nature of farming and ranching than I do a simple religious dictate. But the moment you advocate that moral standard for others, the issue changes character. Your aesthetics are
your aesthetics, and hardly grounds for eugenics.
On the contrary, you were the one complaining that I was repeating myself.
Well, simply repeating it doesn't make it true. A point of mine you seem to have passed over:
"I can’t speak for the others, but it would seem that you consider my failure to agree with your points a choice to ignore them. Quite obviously, I disagree. Or am I just ignoring your point again?"
It seems rude to complain that your point is being ignored when people are trying to address it.
I am simply pointing out their greed to them. I'm not surprised when they get defensive about that. Nobody likes having their faults pointed out.
Should I choose the more civil response, or simply advise you to buy a clue next time before making a fool of yourself? Do you really view humanity as simply as you depict those who disagree with you? Or is it just the carnivores who are so simplistic?
I have already dealt with the rape thing above.
And poorly, at that.
Do you have any further questions regarding my point there, or can we drop that now?
As long as such a comparison is pertinent to your argument, we must consider it. Have you an inkling of why people think it's cheap mud slung recklessly?
This is more complex than you suppose. Talk about instinctual actions and conscious desires, if you like. When the female walrus protects her offspring, I am sure that at the time, in her walrusy brain, she thinks she is doing so because of some kind of walrusy "love", or something. However, her natural impulse to protect them also has a perfectly logical genetic basis. You need to go to the next level, beyond immediate conscious choices and ask questions such as "Why does the walrus love her offspring?"
So ... why? I would, honestly, dearly love to see a PET scan and other imagery on a walrus brain experiencing love. I can't tell you how much that would affect my understanding of nature.
Well, what's the difference to you? Either way suits my point.
