Food ethics: How do you choose what species are morally wrong to eat?

Farmerman, I think the essential dispute here does indeed involve the logic or philosophy behing your beliefs, more or less as Robert has asserted. In your defense, any of us would have a very hard time on these threads establishing the philosophical basis for almost any belief - an issue I believe Robert has perhaps not fully considered.

You assert that the Innuit have a "cultural right" to harvest whales. What establishes "cultural rights"? Do Irish Americans have a "cultural right" to make moonshine simply because poteens were common in the old country? We have assigned special rights to native Americans to operate gambling casinos - sometimes in defiance of existing state laws. Are these "cultural rights"?

The point here is that, in the absence of a common view of man's existence and place in the world, the very foundation for morality, one has a very hard time establishing objective moral standards for anything. Instead we have only laws and political process.

Innuit have a cultural right to eat whales in my mind becaue their entire diet is pretty much based on this commodity along with pinnepeds. (Innuit have got a special STD gene marker that allows them to process the vitamin C and A from the meat of these animals in a fashion much more efficient than any other cukture. I mean, with genetics on theior side, how can we argue against a cultural link?

Youve stepped into a discussion on the WHiskey (and Conestoga wagon) taxes of 1792. If we remember our whiskey rebellion the small western farmers were taxed at a regressive rate compared to larger distillers .AND since the farmers were converting EXCESS grain into whsikey in order to be able to get it to market in an area where the road infrastructure really sucked. The Fed govt was raising tax money to help pay off the Revolution and, Ha,milton thought that the whiskey and wagon taxes would be just a dandy way for the federal govt to assert its primacy.
I dont think that culture had anything to do with this issue. It was poorly thought out policy that took an activity that, prior to 1791 was just as common as raising chickens. The SCotch Irish made whiskey, the germans distilled cider and one of the bigger booze producers of the time was the President himself (and because of this, he got a preferred tax rate that allowed him to pay a flat tax fee , which amounted to several cents per gallon less than the little guys who got screwed by the Feds (once again).

As far as the Indians and casinos, Sveral settlements in the Claims , involve sovereignty on the settlement lands . Indians , not only have casinos, but landfills and nuclear waste repositories either existing or in the planning bin. Im not able to see the clear distinction of any cultural right for opening nuke repositories on lands turned over due to a series of settlement agreements with the NAtions.
Thats too much of a stretch for me to wrap my mind around
However, I will insist that, any culture that has , in its history, a use for a product that is so engrained that it shows up in their genome,That's a pretty good definition of cultural right.

If we cut pndas off from bamboo, perhaps the pandas will die.

Your genetics argument raises the issue of the extrapolation of "behavior genetics" from fruit flies through to higher species such as humans. Who knows whether genetic markers will be forthcoming aspects of what we call "moral behavior". Dawkins' "altruism gene" may manifest in sub-varieties including what we consider to be "food".

I differ with DAwkins only in that I dont buy that genes are deterministic (antecedent animalcules), they are ,in my mind, consequential to the morph or behavioral trait that came into effect.

Innuits didnt have a "whale meat "gene, their habit of eating whale meat generated changes in their genomes in the presence of"whale meat" Short term repeat alleles (STR's).

Or in other words, Inuit have a right to eat whales because eating whales is what they do. How is that not circular reasoning?

Massive errors in your post .....>

Correlation is enough, no need to prove causal link here: the Inuit can synthesize vitamins from blubber, yes, but so can all arctic animals: I know Siberian huskies (as of course their brothers the wolves) make vitamin C in their livers from the fat in animals they consume. But fat and blubber is found in all kinds of creatures OTHER THAN WHALES. So you have no argument there AT ALL, not to mention you're guilty of circular reasoning as already noted by Thomas.

Bullshit. The STRs in the Innuit is unique to these people , just as THIQ (acetaldehyde/acetone) STR's are present in several populations of alcohol dependent folks.

How is it circular if the Alleles are unique to that population? You are kidding right?

Maybe I was moving too quickly for you when I answered Georgeob's question. He asked What establishes a cultural right? I jumped over the fact that a cultural heritage is usually based upon history (I failed to mention history but I was assuming that the reader would get the point that a genetic marker such as an STR allele takes about 20 generations to establish itself at a minimum) SO, Im implying that the Innuit have such a marker, theyve historically been eating whales and, IN CONTRAST, the JApanese have NONE of these traits or cultural heritage.

When you jump in with something, try to keep the bouncing ball in front of you

PS, youve made my argument, thank you. The genetic marker in wolves and Innuits are similarly expressed. SO we(the non Innuit) arent so dsiposed to extract specific nutrients from whale and seal . We, on the other hand can actually DIE from eating too much arctic animal liver because of the amounts of excess Vitamin A,

ALl in all though, the Japanese, which are trying to justify their own taste for whale sushi have no similar cultural heritage or anywhere near the biological markers that correlate to the Innuits HISTORY with eating whales.(Ive said that numerous times before)

Do I make myself clear on this?

Innuit=eat whale
WHY
1Theyve had a long history eating whales

2They are bilogically equipped to do same

3THey live in an area that whale and seals are principal forms of nutriment to organisms able to process it

4 Their industry has revolved around these animals for probably tens of thousands of years

I think that establishes a pretty good prima facie without going much deeper

CAN THE JAPANESE CLAIM THE SAME? ===NO

Why are you including the American Indians in something called "cultural rights?" I think it's called reparations.

We r not rendering reparations to the Indians.

That wasnt my point, I was merely trying to respond to georgeob's comment on cultural rights. He brought up the issue of the Tribes and their "rights to casinos". I actually agree with you but perhaps I shouldnt (hereafter) even comment on some dumbass question and, by merely commenting, I add some degree of credebility to the jackass who asked it.

Thank you for your keeneyed observation, by being alert, you have once again reminded me that this is not a deposition , and by not answering silly points, Im not leaving the record unfilled.

This post presumably overrides your own previous post of 20 minutes earlier. The Inuit have the same marker as Siberian wolves, as I said, and I believe so do the Chukchi populations of the Russian Arctic, for much the same reasons. Not sure about the indigenous peoples in the northernmost part of Norway and Finland - did you check, by any chance?

An observation;

Convoluted ethical beliefs, while difficult to enunciate and defend, can still be logical and self-consistent. I suggest that the more educated about a subject one is, the less falsely simplistic ones ethical stance becomes. The reverse is probably true also.

(not the first time, I would love to hear what timber would have said. wwts?)

I agree...just because something is hard, doesn't mean that it cannot be discussed ratioally and with benefit.

Whoa!! I had no idea that such "micro-evolution" could occur in relation to eating habits!

No luck. Weve been comparing STR's of humans. The presence of which are statistically present in decreasing amounts wrt the 2 Inuit arrivals . The % of the STr markers are there in most Beringean populations and decrease with migration or intermixing with southern peoples (Tlingits contain <20%) and all the way down to Meso AMerican populations show a few % points of the STR.
The major point is that the STR is a haplotype that has several specific alleles (APOE, etc) The genetic linkages of several phenotypic expressions are also "riding" along with the Vitamin C , they include, body fat indeces unique to Inuit, low incidence of serum LDL , and several other expressions that seem to be unique among the various sub populations. Since the Chukchi are W Beringean, presumably they carry some of ( and probably other) phenotypic expressions that id these populations.

Im not saying anything about the phenotypic expressions as"Caused " by eating whales, Ive only stated that several phenotypic expressions, along with STRs are unique to these peoples and that they have a cultural dependence on the whale for many generations. Of course, we could always argue the "Lamarkian" significance of diet (since neo-Lamarkianism is lately in vogue ever since epigenetics has become the flavor of the week). But Ive not said that at all. We could construct a cladogram of the Inuit and lay out several genetic markers, phenotypic expressions, and cultural fetures. Id wager a pfennig that I could construct it so that youd see the free association of these people with whale eating for several tens of millenia. (

AND the initial argument WAS that I said that Inuit have a cultural right to eat whales since theyve been doing it for millenia. The JApanese, have no such claim, so why try to justify the Japanese claim by denying the cultural structure of the Inuit??

weve been talking about short tandem repeat alleles in the genomes of the Inuit. Ive tried to sort of make that inference, and its just as valid as the STr's and the phenotypic expressions of the Sherpa people and their adaptation to high altitudes.

Im short on calling it micro-evolution in action but, yeh, thats what it really is.

BTW , I forgot to mention. The Str "master lists" are only available as studies for forensic population genetics are done. The AAFS keeps and publishes the STR "Clade lists" and NO, Slovaks, or Scandanavian people dont have the same STR markers as the Inuit.
I dont know where you got the information re: wolves , as I dont ever recall seeing STR data for such stuff from vet sites. They usually limit their forensic studies to "breed origins".