JamesR said:
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.
I'm familiar with the notion, and will point out that, on the one hand, it is usually mystics of one or another philosophy (e.g. Hindu or Buddhism) that approach a proper manifestation, while to the other it is worth considering that they have achieved far different results than the comparably barbaric Western culture that is so arrogant as to hail itself the leading edge of the human endeavor.
So, are we, as in you and I, being immoral in even having this debate via computers which are products of that immoral, barbaric Western cultural heritage? And it's not just the Western, I know. But familiarity serves well enough.
Should we be more like those rare mystics, then?
(And the cows say, "Moooo!")
No, that's not the end-all. I see there's more:
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.
I've already covered the cows and voting. A couple times I think. When they assert their right to vote, it will be worth considering giving them the vote.
Now consider the right not to be eaten for the pure selfish pleasure of another animal.
When you use phrases like "pure selfish pleasure", you're being irrational and rather quite rude. Nonetheless, is that a right endowed by nature or by convention?
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?
That's a rather odd right, but "compelling reason" is a bit problematic. For instance:
Now, I don't think this foundation is just an "aesthetic standard". Please correct me if I am wrong.
And yet you'll eat plants because you believe they don't suffer. They do. But it's not a suffering you're familiar with; you do not recognize it in part because its manifestations are rather subtle. As Huxley explained: if you could perceive with your naked eye the sufferings of the plant, such a distinction between plant and animal cannot be made. The difference, the reason you don't advocate for the plants, is aesthetic. That it is a response to what you can perceive and construct a projected sympathy with, such as with death and animals, and, of course, the wretched conditions of economic provision, makes this issue rather aesthetic.
What is the compelling reason to destroy billions of bacteria? Might it be a personal or species bias? Is bias a compelling reason to set aside equal consideration?
"The species" is an abstraction.
Does the fact of your species mean nothing to you?
You don't know what is and what is not for the ultimate wellbeing of the (human) species.
At least I'm considering the issue. I can't possibly be the only one on the planet capable of doing so.
And why concentrate on the wellbeing of the human species to the exclusion of the wellbeing of the cow species, for example? Speciesism?
Haven't I already made this point? What, do you say "the species is an abstraction" just so you can ask a question that has already been addressed?
Yes. Certain preferences toward our own species are very important in keeping us, both individually and collectively, alive.
We could always manifest the Principle of Equal Consideration by committing species-wide suicide; at least that way, our unfair toll against nature would be finite.
Be specific. What is unreasonable and irrational about the foundation I have given above? What facets am I "hiding" from?
Until you understand that your moral parameters about this issue are aesthetic expressions, you will continue to be puzzled by the answers to those two questions.
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.
Political: Self-termination ought to be at the discretion of the individual. The moral principle here is that each person has only their own experience, and they owe no part of it to anyone; observable conditions suggest that we are unable to consent to our birth, and while I do not oppose the efforts to change a suicidal's mind, I find it morally unjustifiable that suicide should be against the law.
Existential: Every act of creation requires destruction. Less dramatically, and perhaps a tad more originally, Existence causes changes of state in an environment. The moral principle here is considerably more complex, as manifestations change depending on the classification of existence one makes. Basically, we are supposed to be somewhat aware of the changes we cause, but we cannot devote our entire existence to such examination.
Existential: Nature is not extraneous. The answers to obscure questions of "Why?" are of the utmost. Why did God make the Universe as such? Couldn't a loving God make a universe without these horrible things? Such questions have puzzled Christians and their infidel critics for ages, but what of more natural considerations? The question "Why are we here?" pertains to the essential question of "What role do we play in the order of the Universe?" What are these ten fingers and toes for? What about this brain? What condition of nature demands this form of existence? Some think such life is an impossible rarity. I tend to think it is a statistical necessity. But even that belief doesn't explain to me what constitutes necessity. The black and white moral directive is to use these tools. But for what?
The result of nature is that species advancement and competition is a fundamental aspect of life. That so many humans are so generally blissfully unaware of the process is an absurd luxury of our achievement as a species.
We have a moral obligation to attempt to understand our humanity. Each of us. Individually and together. What is the point of recognizing what we do? What purpose in nature does it serve?
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'm not sure what's cut or plucked off the thing at the time of serving; it may well be in shock. Just because I don't see the lettuce suffer doesn't mean it's not dying. I've already explained that dogs have other uses in my view of the Universe. They're a viable food source in a pinch, but other than that, they contribute to the human endeavor in many ways. And given your rejection of species as an abstraction, I would not dare speculate on why you keep raising arguments that demand moral parity between humans and other animals. Are children really so insignificant in your outlook? Is the fact of your humanity so unimportant to you? Do you not understand that humans are compelled by nature to want to reproduce? People have uses for children that
don't involve eating them alive? Aren't you being a little absurd on that point?
Also, tell me why you think humanity would be "reduced" by becoming vegetarian. I say it would be improved.
Your improvement would be moralistic, aesthetic. The reduction, as I've explained, is the narrowing of our food spectrum.
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".
Do you not understand that its preordained course is whatever course it follows? The idea of influencing that course deliberately for moral assertions in general is discomforting. But you're still arguing an aesthetic standard: just because you believe otherwise does not mean plants don't suffer. That you refuse the reality of that condition is your own choice. I can't force you to believe reality.
So would human beings, I'm sure. So what?
See, this is that rudeness thing again. I don't believe you're actually that stupid.
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?
If cows weren't good food, they'd probably be extinct by now. It has much greater intrinsic value: it is no longer competition for resources.
What double standard? Imagine there's a hurricane and the dike breaks. Am I being immoral if I save a human child and not a young calf? Maybe I should ferry that rat over there to safety?
1. I did not perceive Huxley's comments as an assertion of moral authority.
Okay. If you say so. "
Now, we move to the issue of plant suffering. I disagree with Aldous Huxley on several issues, which I can go into in more detail if you wish. I do not accept him as an authority who can decide this moral issue for us." (url=http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1045231]#1045231[/url])
So were you just dodging the issue, then?
2. My argument is not based on "aethetics", in the sense that I understand that term.
Yes, it is. You're trying so hard to make so much out of your argument that you are limiting your understanding.
quote]
3. You disagree with me AND you act immorally. One of these actions does not cause the other - they are separate.[/quote]
In principle, yes, but not in your argument. Unless you're going to argue that child rape is benign?
4. My argument is perfectly rational. Despite a lot of waffling about this and that, you haven't yet shown any irrationality.
Your perception is in doubt because of your argument.
5. I have not cast rape as "about mere pleasure". That is a straw man.
If you say so:
-
I have limited myself to comparing only one particular aspect of killing and eating an animal to raping a human - i.e. the aspect of the act which has to do with a selfish desire on the part of a human being. (
#1041466)
-
Again, I need to repeat myself. My point is that the desire to rape is no different from the desire to eat meat. Both are desires which require a choice of action: to rape, or not to rape. To eat, or not to eat. The potential rapist can choose not to rape. The potential meat eater can choose not to eat meat. Both decisions have moral implications. (
#1045231)
-
Now consider the right not to be eaten for the pure selfish pleasure of another animal. (
#1047275)
That last one does in fact come from the post I'm responding to, but I don't think you would be so ridiculous as to claim that's the first time you've made meat consumption about pleasure. Or do I really have to go that far back through the topic to prove it to you?
6. I do not feel persecuted or "unfairly treated", as you put it.
Okay. Phrases like, "choose to ignore the points ... and the objections I raise", or "belittle the messenger"? (
#1045231)
Your comment regarding complexity is mere condescension. My argument is no more complex than it needs to be to get my point across.
More complaint? Is nothing any more complex than "pure selfish pleasure"?
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.
Ever think that maybe moralism is about "pure selfish pleasure"? At least, the way you're going about it? Really, has it ever occurred to you? I have tried to explain to you about the "pleasure" of eating; you insist it is something much more simple. I have tried to explain to you about baseless morals, and you still assert yourself from an arbitrary
a priori.
Take your next point about Huxley: is your view of what he discussed really so narrow? Why? Furthermore, your standard of what constitutes viable suffering is demonstrably irrational. Would you really claim that what you see with the naked eye is all that is real? What you hear with your own two ears is the only sound in the Universe? Would you? I don't think you would. But something has your perception under sway. With such questions about the validity of what you're trying to tell me, including factual reality ("I have not ...", "I did not ..."), it's getting difficult to take you seriously.
If you don't think the way you've cast things is naively simple ("pleasure", "greed", &c.) then go ahead and be offended. Do I have to explain to you the complexities of rape? I've tried discussing with you the complexities of human consumption, but you seem to prefer the simplistic juxtapositions.
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.
Yes, yes, I know. It's all about what you believe. For instance, you don't believe plants suffer. At least, not in any way relevant to you.
I guess I left too much out of the Huxley citation. He also discussed briefly Bose's successful transplant of a mature tree. Anesthetize the roots. Who would have thought? I'll look it up later, when I'm close to the book. I don't know if it will make any difference to you.
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?
I wouldn't know. What about you? Or do you just not consider it important, as long as you get to feel better about yourself in having set a moral standard for humanity?
Nuclear war is not for the good of the species. Radiation sickness has shown zero net-gain mutations. Nuclear war has extinctive potential.
Perhaps it would be even better for the species to terminate all detected Down's syndrome
in utero. Perhaps many things would be better for the species. Managed marital and reproductive status for everyone. True eugenics. But there is only so much genetic tinkering we can do. Nature does abhor a vacuum, and other mutations will inevitably occur. Perhaps the world will have to come to that, but we're human beings, and we've decided in the so-called "first world" societies that such common bonds actually mean something. And that something is directly relevant and vital to ourselves as individuals and collectives. We're all in it together, and that means not everyone gets to have their morals made official. What would it matter if we purged an entire ethnicity? Why don't we like that idea anymore?
After all, it's what you're proposing. Well, your version is a little more subtle, I admit. How do
you determine the good of the species in advance, that you would advocate an evolutionary outcome deliberately according to a moral assertion based in aesthetics?
I must respond to this, lest you accuse me of doing this in the current post.
Suffice to say you are generally missing thematic issues in order to make smaller issues. I just think you're on such an attack that you're missing the point. That was clear when you wrote, "
A complete discussion of this would take us far off-topic." (
#1041466) Or, "
This is a separate question, and a distraction once again." If you had followed along more closely and not sought opportunities to be so arrogant and belligerent, you might have been able to make sense. To start at any point other than your assertion is a separate question, a distraction.
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.
It's just the degree of exaggeration and moral caricature about your posts. I'm much more accustomed to you making sense. You're considerably less logical in this issue than I'm used to you being in general.
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
There is no cow heaven. When it's over, it's over.
What? I have no idea how you come to that assertion.
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?[/szie]
Are they capable of moral perception? Perhaps morality would be extinguished among life in the Universe.
Would that be natural selection?
Cows assert themselves as best they can against being killed, just as we would assert ourselves as best we could against vicious aliens.
That's why we should always sneak up on the cows. It can't be shown the cows aren't simply responding to stimuli.
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?)
Depends on the rational anchor of the moral consideration.
At some point, life simply is.
I'll try for the rest of it later. I've things to get to.
are u that bad?