Is eating meat morally wrong
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
tiassa:
If you want the foundation of my argument, start with the Principle of Equal Consideration. Stated simply, it says: treat all lifeforms equally (in terms of rights and moral considerations) unless you can give a good reason for treating them differently.
This must be applied to each suggested right individually.
Example: consider the right to vote. By the Principle of Equal Consideration, cows should have the samel right to vote as human beings, unless a good reason can be given for them not to have that right. Now, given that cows cannot understand human politics (as far as I can tell), nor seem to care about them, it seems to me that it is unnecessary to extent the right to vote to cows.
Now consider the right not to be eaten for the pure selfish pleasure of another animal. This right, too, should be extended to cows if we are to extend it to humans, unless a compelling reason can be given not to do so. Can you think of one?
Now, I don't think this foundation is just an "aesthetic standard". Please correct me if I am wrong.
"The species" is an abstraction. You don't know what is and what is not for the ultimate wellbeing of the (human) species. And why concentrate on the wellbeing of the human species to the exclusion of the wellbeing of the cow species, for example? Speciesism?
Be specific. What is unreasonable and irrational about the foundation I have given above? What facets am I "hiding" from?
Given that you want to make a distinction between purportedly-moral argument which are actually aethetics, and actual moral arguments, perhaps you should give me a few examples of non-aestethic moral arguments, and some aesthetic ones, so I can understand your point better.
As you eat a live prawn, what does it do? Does it try to escape? Does it exhibit signs of pain? Does it seem to you to suffer? What about a lettuce? What about a dog? What about a human child?
See any differences, other than "aesthetics"?
I can only repeat what I said before. I do not consider "the human endeavor" (there you go - singular - happy?) the be-all and end-all of everything.
Also, tell me why you think humanity would be "reduced" by becoming vegetarian. I say it would be improved. Your religious-style argument that human evolution is somehow pre-ordained, and humans making moral choices interferes with that pre-determined path for the worse, is perplexing, to say the least. I could even argue that it is "aesthetic".
So would human beings, I'm sure. So what?
What gives us the right to use cattle as we see fit? Just because we can? Might makes right? I ask again: Why do you consider that the only value in a cow is in its economic value to you? Has it no intrinsic value? And if not, why the double standard when we come to consider human beings?
Nice rhetorical flourish, but it doesn't hold much water. Some corrections:
1. I did not perceive Huxley's comments as an assertion of moral authority.
2. My argument is not based on "aethetics", in the sense that I understand that term.
3. You disagree with me AND you act immorally. One of these actions does not cause the other - they are separate.
4. My argument is perfectly rational. Despite a lot of waffling about this and that, you haven't yet shown any irrationality.
5. I have not cast rape as "about mere pleasure". That is a straw man.
6. I do not feel persecuted or "unfairly treated", as you put it.
Your comment regarding complexity is mere condescension. My argument is no more complex than it needs to be to get my point across. Additional complexity would amount to little more than obfuscation. If you feel that I am over-simplifying an issue which must be more complex, then get off your soap box and get down to business - point out the complexities you think are relevant, and explain.
I examined Huxley's point in a previous post, and explained why I disagree with him. I do not think that watching a plant undergo the kind of "suffering" Huxley talks about would or should change a vegetarian's mind about where to draw the moral line. I do not think the focus in this debate should be on "life" versus "non-life" as creating the relevant moral imperative, and I certainly do not think that Huxley's attempt at redefinition of all things to be "alive" is helpful.
What worries me about your abstraction of "the species" is that it removes all immediate moral responsibility back one step, so that no moral obligations are immediate and personal any more. Only things that are "good for the species" or "bad for the species" matter to you, you claim. What value then is an individual human life (let alone an animal's life)? Stack up any individual's interests against "the good of the species" and you can justify anything as being for the "good of the species".
Would it be for the "good of the species" to sterilise all Down's syndrome children, for example? Would it be for the "good of the species" to kill all disabled people who cannot or will not work for a living, and so are a drain on society?
How do you determine "the good of the species" in advance, tiassa?
Ok. Tell me why (a sentence or two should be sufficient) it is acceptable to kill and eat a cow, but not a human being? What's a "good reason" for the distinction?
I must respond to this, lest you accuse me of doing this in the current post.
I do not think I "disconnect points from one another". If you think I have not addressed "the thematic issues" in your posts, again I ask you to be specific about which thematic issues you feel have not been given sufficient attention. I admit that I occasionally carve up a paragraph when quoting. If I do so, it is almost invariably because several different issues are raised at once, and I want to deal with each one separately.
On a more personal note, I am sure that I will not be the first to point out to you that your posts tend to be wordy and convoluted - often unnecessarily so, in my opinion. Disagree if you like, but that is a common perception. If I skip parts of your posts and do not quote every sentence, it isn't because I am ignoring your points. Either I think I've answered them sufficiently while quoting enough context to make it clear what I am responding to, or else perhaps I regard the unquoted parts of your posts as diversionary tangents with little substance of consequence. My apologies for any offence this may cause you.
It is interesting that in this, probably one of the longest ongoing interaction I have had with you on this forum in years, you regard my posts as "blazingly aggressive". Perhaps it is just that you are used to dealing with people whose arguments are more easily dismissed or derided, and your projecting your frustrations onto me. Or maybe you're right - maybe I really am in throes of an uncontrollable moral fervor which makes me stark raving mad.
To other readers, I say: judge by my posts. Ask yourselves: are the points I am making really irrational and fanatical? Or is it just that I am questioning some deeply-held assumptions of the people who feel compelled to participate in this discussion? (Or, maybe it's both...)
By the same argument, you ought to extend the right not to be killed and eaten to cows when they show the capability of suffering in a similar way that humans suffer when they are killed and eaten.
Suppose we can do nothing to stop these aliens from eating us. We can run away, or try to fight, or whatever, but they'll get us if they want us. Does that make their actions morally acceptable, then?
Cows assert themselves as best they can against being killed, just as we would assert ourselves as best we could against vicious aliens.
So, do you have a double standard here - that the aliens would be doing evil to eat humans, but humans do not evil eating cows? Or does might make right again? (Or is there some other basis which makes human-munching aliens as moral as cow-munching humans?)
It would be - if I had ever made that claim.
There are many reasons one might own a ranch. Taking pleasure in the killing of animals is only one possibility.
If you're really interested, I suggest you buy a copy of Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene. I could give you the summary, but it would take us too far afield in this thread, I fear.
Non-human animals ought to have basic rights as a result of the Principle of Equal Consideration, mentioned above. My default position is "extend the same rights unless there are good reasons not to", whereas yours seems to be "extend no rights unless they are won by strength of arms in a
tooth-and-nail fight".
Clearly, there are many human activities in which animals have no interest, or which do not affect animals positively or negatively. The right to bungy-jump at will is probably not going to be of concern to many non-human animals. Similarly, there are many activities of animals which need not concern humans. But there are also shared interests and similar activities, which ought to attract similar rights, barring compelling mitigating circumstances.
Forget arbitrary. Ask whether the reasons are morally defensible. That's what the thread is about.
I specifically refuted that claim in my previous post. My argument is a moral one, not one based on "ugliness". Why try to slip this back in as if I hadn't refuted it?
What do you do with slaves? Keep them imprisoned in one location against their will. Control their associations with other human beings. Force them to work for you, possibly against their will. Punish them on a whim. Treat them as property, to dispose of as you see fit.
What do you do with cattle? Keep them imprisoned in one location against their will. Control their associations with other human beings. Force them to work for you, possibly against their will. Punish them on a whim. Treat them as property, to dispose of as you see fit. Oh... and eat them.
If you want the foundation of my argument, start with the Principle of Equal Consideration. Stated simply, it says: treat all lifeforms equally (in terms of rights and moral considerations) unless you can give a good reason for treating them differently.
This must be applied to each suggested right individually.
Example: consider the right to vote. By the Principle of Equal Consideration, cows should have the samel right to vote as human beings, unless a good reason can be given for them not to have that right. Now, given that cows cannot understand human politics (as far as I can tell), nor seem to care about them, it seems to me that it is unnecessary to extent the right to vote to cows.
Now consider the right not to be eaten for the pure selfish pleasure of another animal. This right, too, should be extended to cows if we are to extend it to humans, unless a compelling reason can be given not to do so. Can you think of one?
Now, I don't think this foundation is just an "aesthetic standard". Please correct me if I am wrong.
"The species" is an abstraction. You don't know what is and what is not for the ultimate wellbeing of the (human) species. And why concentrate on the wellbeing of the human species to the exclusion of the wellbeing of the cow species, for example? Speciesism?
Be specific. What is unreasonable and irrational about the foundation I have given above? What facets am I "hiding" from?
Given that you want to make a distinction between purportedly-moral argument which are actually aethetics, and actual moral arguments, perhaps you should give me a few examples of non-aestethic moral arguments, and some aesthetic ones, so I can understand your point better.
As you eat a live prawn, what does it do? Does it try to escape? Does it exhibit signs of pain? Does it seem to you to suffer? What about a lettuce? What about a dog? What about a human child?
See any differences, other than "aesthetics"?
I can only repeat what I said before. I do not consider "the human endeavor" (there you go - singular - happy?) the be-all and end-all of everything.
Also, tell me why you think humanity would be "reduced" by becoming vegetarian. I say it would be improved. Your religious-style argument that human evolution is somehow pre-ordained, and humans making moral choices interferes with that pre-determined path for the worse, is perplexing, to say the least. I could even argue that it is "aesthetic".
So would human beings, I'm sure. So what?
What gives us the right to use cattle as we see fit? Just because we can? Might makes right? I ask again: Why do you consider that the only value in a cow is in its economic value to you? Has it no intrinsic value? And if not, why the double standard when we come to consider human beings?
Nice rhetorical flourish, but it doesn't hold much water. Some corrections:
1. I did not perceive Huxley's comments as an assertion of moral authority.
2. My argument is not based on "aethetics", in the sense that I understand that term.
3. You disagree with me AND you act immorally. One of these actions does not cause the other - they are separate.
4. My argument is perfectly rational. Despite a lot of waffling about this and that, you haven't yet shown any irrationality.
5. I have not cast rape as "about mere pleasure". That is a straw man.
6. I do not feel persecuted or "unfairly treated", as you put it.
Your comment regarding complexity is mere condescension. My argument is no more complex than it needs to be to get my point across. Additional complexity would amount to little more than obfuscation. If you feel that I am over-simplifying an issue which must be more complex, then get off your soap box and get down to business - point out the complexities you think are relevant, and explain.
I examined Huxley's point in a previous post, and explained why I disagree with him. I do not think that watching a plant undergo the kind of "suffering" Huxley talks about would or should change a vegetarian's mind about where to draw the moral line. I do not think the focus in this debate should be on "life" versus "non-life" as creating the relevant moral imperative, and I certainly do not think that Huxley's attempt at redefinition of all things to be "alive" is helpful.
What worries me about your abstraction of "the species" is that it removes all immediate moral responsibility back one step, so that no moral obligations are immediate and personal any more. Only things that are "good for the species" or "bad for the species" matter to you, you claim. What value then is an individual human life (let alone an animal's life)? Stack up any individual's interests against "the good of the species" and you can justify anything as being for the "good of the species".
Would it be for the "good of the species" to sterilise all Down's syndrome children, for example? Would it be for the "good of the species" to kill all disabled people who cannot or will not work for a living, and so are a drain on society?
How do you determine "the good of the species" in advance, tiassa?
Ok. Tell me why (a sentence or two should be sufficient) it is acceptable to kill and eat a cow, but not a human being? What's a "good reason" for the distinction?
I must respond to this, lest you accuse me of doing this in the current post.
I do not think I "disconnect points from one another". If you think I have not addressed "the thematic issues" in your posts, again I ask you to be specific about which thematic issues you feel have not been given sufficient attention. I admit that I occasionally carve up a paragraph when quoting. If I do so, it is almost invariably because several different issues are raised at once, and I want to deal with each one separately.
On a more personal note, I am sure that I will not be the first to point out to you that your posts tend to be wordy and convoluted - often unnecessarily so, in my opinion. Disagree if you like, but that is a common perception. If I skip parts of your posts and do not quote every sentence, it isn't because I am ignoring your points. Either I think I've answered them sufficiently while quoting enough context to make it clear what I am responding to, or else perhaps I regard the unquoted parts of your posts as diversionary tangents with little substance of consequence. My apologies for any offence this may cause you.
It is interesting that in this, probably one of the longest ongoing interaction I have had with you on this forum in years, you regard my posts as "blazingly aggressive". Perhaps it is just that you are used to dealing with people whose arguments are more easily dismissed or derided, and your projecting your frustrations onto me. Or maybe you're right - maybe I really am in throes of an uncontrollable moral fervor which makes me stark raving mad.
To other readers, I say: judge by my posts. Ask yourselves: are the points I am making really irrational and fanatical? Or is it just that I am questioning some deeply-held assumptions of the people who feel compelled to participate in this discussion? (Or, maybe it's both...)
By the same argument, you ought to extend the right not to be killed and eaten to cows when they show the capability of suffering in a similar way that humans suffer when they are killed and eaten.
Suppose we can do nothing to stop these aliens from eating us. We can run away, or try to fight, or whatever, but they'll get us if they want us. Does that make their actions morally acceptable, then?
Cows assert themselves as best they can against being killed, just as we would assert ourselves as best we could against vicious aliens.
So, do you have a double standard here - that the aliens would be doing evil to eat humans, but humans do not evil eating cows? Or does might make right again? (Or is there some other basis which makes human-munching aliens as moral as cow-munching humans?)
It would be - if I had ever made that claim.
There are many reasons one might own a ranch. Taking pleasure in the killing of animals is only one possibility.
If you're really interested, I suggest you buy a copy of Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene. I could give you the summary, but it would take us too far afield in this thread, I fear.
Non-human animals ought to have basic rights as a result of the Principle of Equal Consideration, mentioned above. My default position is "extend the same rights unless there are good reasons not to", whereas yours seems to be "extend no rights unless they are won by strength of arms in a
tooth-and-nail fight".
Clearly, there are many human activities in which animals have no interest, or which do not affect animals positively or negatively. The right to bungy-jump at will is probably not going to be of concern to many non-human animals. Similarly, there are many activities of animals which need not concern humans. But there are also shared interests and similar activities, which ought to attract similar rights, barring compelling mitigating circumstances.
Forget arbitrary. Ask whether the reasons are morally defensible. That's what the thread is about.
I specifically refuted that claim in my previous post. My argument is a moral one, not one based on "ugliness". Why try to slip this back in as if I hadn't refuted it?
What do you do with slaves? Keep them imprisoned in one location against their will. Control their associations with other human beings. Force them to work for you, possibly against their will. Punish them on a whim. Treat them as property, to dispose of as you see fit.
What do you do with cattle? Keep them imprisoned in one location against their will. Control their associations with other human beings. Force them to work for you, possibly against their will. Punish them on a whim. Treat them as property, to dispose of as you see fit. Oh... and eat them.
I really didnt think this thread would get this far...page 19!!
Ohhh well, thanks to James R and Tiassa who made it all possible!
btw, meat tastes sooo good its practically a 'sin' not to eat it.
Ohhh well, thanks to James R and Tiassa who made it all possible!
btw, meat tastes sooo good its practically a 'sin' not to eat it.
On that note James, you better go and repent, quickly
at this rate tiassa and james will be occupying each page with only two posts they are that long
i know, half way through i usually just switch off. My eyes gradually start to sting and then ever so slowly begin to close, lol maybe i should learn to read faster!
James R,
I suppose it all boils down to what each individual considers 'a good reason'.
Lets look at your Principal of Equal Consideration (see, i capitalized the letters too. Makes it seem more important, doesn't it?)
(1) Does a cow have the right to eat the vegetable garden you planted to feed your child, along with the insects that lived on the vegetables?
(2) Does your child have the right to eat a hambuger made from the cow that ate all his vegetables?
(3) Does an alligator have the right to eat your child and the hambuger?
It may seem cruel, but that is nature's way, all these things are right for the principles involved. Is the cow, the child, or the alligator 'immoral'? No, morals are an 'invention' by the human species, not an evolution of the species. Each human has the right to define this invention the way he chooses, from the religious perspective to the so-called 'humane' perspective. As I mentioned before, a devout member of any particular religion can proclaim all other religions and atheists immoral. Does this make it true, or is morality just an invention used by the individual to make himself 'feel good', see himself as superior to all others that do not follow his brand of morality?
Good gosh, James R, was that a post or an essay?
I suppose it all boils down to what each individual considers 'a good reason'.
Lets look at your Principal of Equal Consideration (see, i capitalized the letters too. Makes it seem more important, doesn't it?)
(1) Does a cow have the right to eat the vegetable garden you planted to feed your child, along with the insects that lived on the vegetables?
(2) Does your child have the right to eat a hambuger made from the cow that ate all his vegetables?
(3) Does an alligator have the right to eat your child and the hambuger?
It may seem cruel, but that is nature's way, all these things are right for the principles involved. Is the cow, the child, or the alligator 'immoral'? No, morals are an 'invention' by the human species, not an evolution of the species. Each human has the right to define this invention the way he chooses, from the religious perspective to the so-called 'humane' perspective. As I mentioned before, a devout member of any particular religion can proclaim all other religions and atheists immoral. Does this make it true, or is morality just an invention used by the individual to make himself 'feel good', see himself as superior to all others that do not follow his brand of morality?
john smith:
If you have nothing useful to contribute to the debate, why contribute at all. I really don't care if you want to join the squad of people trumpeting their own immorality, though I must say I find it an interesting phenomenon. Safety in numbers, I guess.
If you have nothing useful to contribute to the debate, why contribute at all. I really don't care if you want to join the squad of people trumpeting their own immorality, though I must say I find it an interesting phenomenon. Safety in numbers, I guess.
2inquisitive:
The cow and the child and the alligator ought to have the same rights, unless there is a good reason they should have different rights. So, think. Any good reasons for differences here?
Unless you believe morals are God-given...
I don't know what point you are trying to make by the evolution comment. Humans evolved to have morals, obviously. At some point they were "invented", sure, but so were all other human ideas.
I can only repeat a point I have made several times: some morals are more defensible than others.
For example: "Anything I enjoy doing is right, and damn the consequences" is one possible basis for a moral system, but not a defensible one.
The cow and the child and the alligator ought to have the same rights, unless there is a good reason they should have different rights. So, think. Any good reasons for differences here?
Unless you believe morals are God-given...
I don't know what point you are trying to make by the evolution comment. Humans evolved to have morals, obviously. At some point they were "invented", sure, but so were all other human ideas.
I can only repeat a point I have made several times: some morals are more defensible than others.
For example: "Anything I enjoy doing is right, and damn the consequences" is one possible basis for a moral system, but not a defensible one.
tiassa:
Try telling that to the Aztecs...
Actually any being has the right to do anything it wants unless it infringes on the rights of other beings. There is no universal right to life. We cannot appeal our death due to disease, accident, or mishap. A bear is not violating your rights if he kills you and eats you. You are not violating his rights if he kills you. Now in the absence of laws and order there is not a right to life.
Now a scoiety changes this a little. In a society of Laws Human beings have the right not to be killed or harmed by other humans. There is no provisio that protects your life from a bear and none that protects a cow from you. So let us just ignore this "right to live" bullshit now.
Now a scoiety changes this a little. In a society of Laws Human beings have the right not to be killed or harmed by other humans. There is no provisio that protects your life from a bear and none that protects a cow from you. So let us just ignore this "right to live" bullshit now.
JamesR never admits his own fault in anything, its like he is GOD himself...what ignorance of other ideas. Almost anything anyone says and this guy disagrees. Gees. Yes MEAT tastes great. MEAT is moral to eat. ANIMALS shall be slaughtered to take their meat and eat it. HUMANS intellect and power over animals makes it moral for humans to eat any meat they desire, except practice cannibalism of course.
TW Scott:
Are weak ad hominems the best you can do? Have you sunk so low?
A right is a recognition that an interest exists which is considered worthy of protection. You are correct that there is no universal right to life, which applies to all living things in all circumstances. But that isn't saying anything significant to the present topic.
Why do we have such laws, do you think? What is the basis of the laws?
Ignore your double standards? Why?
Are weak ad hominems the best you can do? Have you sunk so low?
A right is a recognition that an interest exists which is considered worthy of protection. You are correct that there is no universal right to life, which applies to all living things in all circumstances. But that isn't saying anything significant to the present topic.
Why do we have such laws, do you think? What is the basis of the laws?
Ignore your double standards? Why?
Ah great - another disgruntled poster who doesn't like having his/her views contradicted...
dragon:
You haven't read many of my posts, have you?
I may be like God, but only in that I try to act ethically.
The fact that I disagree with you about a single issue does not mean I disagree with "almost anything anyone says".
Get some perspective, dragon.
Does that making eating meat right?
Yes, until people like you start acting morally.
Why the double standard? Why is cannibalism wrong? If somebody has the "intellect and power" over you, why can't they kill you and eat you? After all, intellect and power means eating you would be moral - right?
dragon:
You haven't read many of my posts, have you?
I may be like God, but only in that I try to act ethically.
The fact that I disagree with you about a single issue does not mean I disagree with "almost anything anyone says".
Get some perspective, dragon.
Does that making eating meat right?
Yes, until people like you start acting morally.
Why the double standard? Why is cannibalism wrong? If somebody has the "intellect and power" over you, why can't they kill you and eat you? After all, intellect and power means eating you would be moral - right?
James R said:
Oh so...you admit yourself to be GOD? (who in the world made u a moderator?...a great mistake)
At this point the only moral cannibalistic act that is justifiable...would be to eat you.
dude and yes you disagree with everything single issue people say here...and when you do agree to something you still tend to add your own perspective to the issue...making sure that only ur idea is the right one. I KNOW U ARE A VEGETARIAN! (dont hide ur true self) stop protecting animals. I Shall eat meat and enjoy it and it is moraly right to eat meat because this world was made for humans because only humans have realized their existence in this world and have been able to share the knowledge of their existencd with others like them. And cannibalism is intolerable because human society defines it intolerable and my soul and that of others sees it as an evil act and most disgraceful. AND YES EVEN THOU you deserve to be eaten alive, doint that is an intolerable act, and thus should never be prcticed.
dragon:
Settle down. You're frothing at the mouth.
Did I say that? Come on, this is silly.
The God of sciforums (aka Porfiry).
This in incoherent. I'm not hiding. My beliefs are displayed for all to see in this thread. And stop protecting animals ... why?
I'm sure you will. But, in the back of your supposedly-religious mind, you'll know you're doing the wrong thing, won't you?
So, God, who presumably was the one you think made the world for humans, doesn't want humans to act ethically? I think the bible says something quite different - if you want a religious perspective.
Now, if we can just get to the point that human society defines eating animals as intolerable too, then I guess you'll tag along...
You think I deserve to be eaten alive - for what? Because I disagree with you? Isn't that a bit harsh and un-Christian of you?
Settle down. You're frothing at the mouth.
Did I say that? Come on, this is silly.
The God of sciforums (aka Porfiry).
This in incoherent. I'm not hiding. My beliefs are displayed for all to see in this thread. And stop protecting animals ... why?
I'm sure you will. But, in the back of your supposedly-religious mind, you'll know you're doing the wrong thing, won't you?
So, God, who presumably was the one you think made the world for humans, doesn't want humans to act ethically? I think the bible says something quite different - if you want a religious perspective.
Now, if we can just get to the point that human society defines eating animals as intolerable too, then I guess you'll tag along...
You think I deserve to be eaten alive - for what? Because I disagree with you? Isn't that a bit harsh and un-Christian of you?
I am not a christian. I do not believe in any specific religion. My beliefs are following: there is no GOD nor there was...not in the sense that humans define it in bible or koran. I see GOD as a law of universe, conservation of energy. The reason I exist is to evolve my soul, the reason i biologically exist is to evolve biologically and prove that my biological self benefits overal success in this world. I believe that souls like me and you and others leave many lives but do not recognize it, because all memories are erased.