12
   

Animals, Eating Meat and Moral Standing

 
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2011 05:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Our desire reflects our nature.

I'll concede to a "maybe" on this one. If it does in some cases, we should not assume it is universal.

We have a need for shelter from the elements. We do this in many ways, one of which is clothing. You can't say that desiring a particular pattern on a necktie is reflective of our need for shelter. It may be reflective of social practices on communicated "taste" in apparel, but hardly an extension of our animal nature. If so, it wouldn't be the need to shelter, but perhaps the desire to breed. Fashion is the peacock's feathers... sort of... well literally depending on the city I suppose. Laughing

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't care what anyone decides to eat - spin yer wheels, yaknow - but I don't understand why others have to care what I eat.

I think you do understand it though. If you believe that someone else's actions can have an effect on you or the environment (another way it can effect you), you certainly care. You believe so about the use of automobiles, do you not? You adapted your own lifestyle into a pedestrian one, and I can't imagine that you don't care at all about people who demonstrate waste.

So if you believe others are concerned about the same things but for your actions, all you need to understand it is to accept that they believe it. That I believe it. If I'm wrong about animals, or if you're wrong about cars, we certainly and sincerely believe it and justifiably care, do we not?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As if my decisions are morally wrong. I'm not specifically accusing you of this at all, but surely you are aware that typically there is an amount of judgment that goes hand-in-hand with asceticism in any form - such as vegetarianism or veganism.

I certainly understand this sentiment. I have seen it and felt it before. That said, I feel it important that I express my views. Otherwise, my views get summarized in some caricature of vegetarianism. Look at fm, I'm "militant." Have I earned such a title for simply not eating meat? It goes both ways. There is a fervency amongst omnivores to get very defensive about this topic. Certainly it too could be called "militant" and no less rude. Is it fair that vegetarians are labeled weirdos and treated that way? It's important to have discussions like these. I don't need anyone to adopt any decisions on my behalf. I'm accountable for myself and myself alone. There are far more people who make it their business to critique what I eat (or rather don't).

A
R
T
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2011 06:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

failures art wrote:

Then now take this further. The man kills but does not eat. Did anything change? If so, what?

A
R
T


Well, what was the purpose behind his killing?

Cycloptichorn

Sport or personal gain, not out of defense or neccesity.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2011 06:05 pm
@failures art,
Quote:

I'll concede to a "maybe" on this one. If it does in some cases, we should not assume it is universal.

We have a need for shelter from the elements. We do this in many ways, one of which is clothing. You can't say that desiring a particular pattern on a necktie is reflective of our need for shelter. It may be reflective of social practices on communicated "taste" in apparel, but hardly an extension of our animal nature. If so, it wouldn't be the need to shelter, but perhaps the desire to breed. Fashion is the peacock's feathers... sort of... well literally depending on the city I suppose. Laughing


Agree with all this. But eating is more fundamental than choice of clothing.

Obviously not everyone eats meat. But most do, and my position is that - aside from questions of treatment of meat - it's not a big deal.

Quote:

I think you do understand it though. If you believe that someone else's actions can have an effect on you or the environment (another way it can effect you), you certainly care. You believe so about the use of automobiles, do you not? You adapted your own lifestyle into a pedestrian one, and I can't imagine that you don't care at all about people who demonstrate waste.


Well, I'd say the difference is that while I choose a certain lifestyle - I understand those who choose a different one. It's not practical for me to want to force everyone to my way of thinking, even though I could make MANY persuasive arguments as to the benefits of it. It's been my experience that it's better to just live your life as an example and let others make their decisions, then to turn into Captain Judge-o.

I will say this: when I tell people I walk everywhere and don't own a car, 95% percent respond by saying 'I wish I could do that' or 'that sounds nice' or 'man, that's lucky!' I doubt when you say 'I don't eat meat, and live great on just vegetables!' that anywhere near the same level of people respond positively. Because most people just don't see eating meat as a negative thing, at all. So it's always going to be an uphill climb for your crew.

Cycloptichorn
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2011 06:10 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
In spite of not forcing it on someone, you do care though. Am I right? If you agree, then you can see why others, may care about what you eat, but equally appreciate and respect your self-agency.

Also, yes the majority of the world eats meat. Argumentum ad populum. There's lots of things that the majority do. I know you don't require examples. Challenging the status quo on this or any other matter should not be stonewalled by a everyone-does-it argument.

A
R
T
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2011 06:16 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

In spite of not forcing it on someone, you do care though. Am I right? If you agree, then you can see why others, may care about what you eat, but equally appreciate and respect your self-agency.


I do care, but I also don't see my solution as being a workable one for everyone. Rather, there are ways to improve the current situation around the edges.

In your case, instead of arguing against eating meat, let's find ways to make animals as happy as possible up until the end. And humane ways to slaughter and package them, respectful ways. Or research ways to make cloned or synthetic meat, to give people what they want without the moral problems. Lots of ways to attack the issue without saying 'what you do is morally wrong!' Not that you're doing that, but that's how it comes off to a lot of people.

Quote:
Also, yes the majority of the world eats meat. Argumentum ad populum. There's lots of things that the majority do. I know you don't require examples. Challenging the status quo on this or any other matter should not be stonewalled by a everyone-does-it argument.

A
R
T


Agreed, but it's one of the reasons that you face an uphill climb - the vast majority of public opinion is against or at least not for your position. It's a hard location to start from.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2011 06:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I will say this: when I tell people I walk everywhere and don't own a car, 95% percent respond by saying 'I wish I could do that' or 'that sounds nice' or 'man, that's lucky!' I doubt when you say 'I don't eat meat, and live great on just vegetables!' that anywhere near the same level of people respond positively. Because most people just don't see eating meat as a negative thing, at all. So it's always going to be an uphill climb for your crew.

Heh. I had thought about posting my most common response but I thought it too anecdotal. But what the hell, it alone doesn't have to mean anything unto itself. The same goes for your experience.

The number one response I get: "I could never do that, I love _____ too much." Which thematically fits with my thesis: People eat meat out of desire. That same statement can be delivered in both positive (admiration) and negative (condemnation). The balance of which I can't really say. I definitely get plenty of comments from people who say they've like to. I don't see how it is so different than you own statements of admiration.

A
R
T
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2011 06:18 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
I don't see how it is so different than you own statements of admiration.


Lol, I guess the main difference is that my main response is 'I wish I could live like that,' not 'I could never do that.' Sort of a big difference there.

Cycloptichorn
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2011 06:24 pm
This thread is a train wreck . . . it's also very entertaining.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2011 06:26 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I do get the "I wish I could do that" statements though. I don't see it as that different to say that they "could never" because they very well could. I think people assume it's really difficult. People assume the same thing about pedestrian life too you know. Certainly many people who tell you that they wish they could probably could, but don't out of desire.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2011 07:42 pm
@failures art,
Your argument was that the production of Vit B12 was "ex situ" of an animal . Its important that you understand that bacteria and microorganisms are incorporated into the physiology of many animals and many others are deficient in these facultative flora. Your attempts at oversimplification (as if to make an excuse for avoiding meat and perhaps it s better to eat bacteria). Im not gonna argue any further if you dont get how an organism works as an ecosystem, Youd probably be freaked out by the bugs that live inside you


Quote:
If this alone is what you consider an attack, your a bit thin-skinned. How could the author have titled the thread in a manner you'd approve of?
My point was that its only the baggage of the veggiephagiacs who bring this entire subject up. Im not thin skinned Im just annoyed at the bullshit you attempt to spread in several vignettes of "evidence" you try to present. FOR EXAMPLE You mentioned that, during the "PAleolithic age" , deer would eat mice. Im not saying bullshit yet, but where the hell did this come from? Its such a left handed piece of "data" that , even if you post a link, Im gonna have to question it. I know that cervids will chew on antler drops and bleached bones recognizing a need of calcium or phosphate. Ive even heard of an elk eating a duck but mostly eating bone and not the meat(I guess hed spit out the non bone stuff)
Or were you just joking in a previous, heretofore unread by me, post. I have trouble imagining a deer, starving, suddenly develop a taste for Mouse. Id say "Lets test this hypothesis by looking for ancient deer **** and see what the turds contain" I can finsd you some recent deer turds and Ill be happy to mail em to you i=f you promise to closely inspect them to find mousie bones and hair. That would be worth a paper in Nature. You may be thinking of the Taiga deer with the bottom jaw tusks. Maybe the deer would spike a mouse or two and save em for later.
Like I said, Id sure like to see the evidence on this assertion. Its gotta be entertaining , Ill bet.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 12:00 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Thats because you, ROBERT, like to stand on the hill of morality with this clown and preach to the unwashed meataraians when you have no ideas about the economics and the methods of stock raising , either "factory" or " boutique".


Huh? I eat meat. I don't even feel bad about it like Thomas. Just because I started a thread to discuss food ethics (which you are consistently unable to do) does not mean I am preaching to you (at least not about food, maybe about being loquacious on these threads with nothing much to say). I simply like to discuss ethics, I don't give a rat's ass what you eat as long as it doesn't belong to me (don't eat my dogs). I simply wanted to have a discussion about ethics with intelligent people and you, well I have no idea what your aim is on food ethics threads (it certainly isn't to discuss ethics).

Quote:
Ive never been surprised by the "go for the throat" tactics of you militant veggiephagiacs. Why not start a group with the rules that no meatatrians need apply.


I'm pretty sure I'll always eat meat, what are you on about?

Quote:
Ive argued with R Gentel whose own arguments are pretty vapid and fairly fact -free yet he wants to be respected with his opinions on this.


You clearly have no clue what my position is and no problem whatsoever speaking from a position of utter ignorance.

Quote:
WHen you can speak from 30 years of experience inall aspects of livestock raising,care, and marketing, then we can talk. You have no idea abut what you speak.


I think you are senile if you think I'm a vegetarian after this much discussion of the subject with me (including multiple threads where I defend whaling). That would also explain the disjointed rambling.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 06:54 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
(including multiple threads where I defend whaling). That would also explain the disjointed rambling.
To which I had posted several times for you to provide any reasonable scientific data that present day "research whaling" is sustainable. You just seemed to make several statements , entered your positions and then too off to someplace else. I may be senile but Im not boring. Wait I cant be too senile if I recall your circular posts .
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 09:02 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
What is it about their capacity to suffer that is morally significant?

You're an animal yourself. So, if I make you suffer, why should the fact of your suffering be morally significant to me as I choose my actions towards you? Whatever your answer is, the same reasons are morally significant constraints on how I ought to treat other animals, such as chicken, pigs, and circus elephants.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 09:11 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
I agree that all of those things are important, but why are they morally significant? After all, it may be important to me that I put on my left shoe before I put on my right shoe, but that doesn't mean it's morally significant that I put on my left shoe first.

I disagree. If it's important to you to put on your left shoe first, then it's morally significant that other people respect your preference---because disrespecting it would make you suffer. For example, if you had an accident and needed a nurse to put your shoes on, it would be unethical for her to put your right shoe on first. (I'm assuming that the nurse knows how you feel about your shoes and the order in which you put them on.) Do you disagree?
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 09:16 am
@farmerman,
True or False: I can get B12 from non-animal sources.

I don't know why you keep at this point. I am plenty aware of the bugs in my body. I believe some 2lbs of my body mass is foreign lifeforms. The truth of matter is that I don't need animal products to get B12, and you know it. All of your facultative fauna info is great, but it doesn't make meat necessary.

A
R
T
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 09:18 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
True or False: I can get B12 from non-animal sources.

True.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 09:34 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
What is it about their capacity to suffer that is morally significant?

You're an animal yourself. So, if I make you suffer, why should the fact of your suffering be morally significant to me as I choose my actions towards you? Whatever your answer is, the same reasons are morally significant constraints on how I ought to treat other animals, such as chicken, pigs, and circus elephants.

Or, as Jeremy Bentham put it:

In his Principles of Morals and Legislation, Jeremy Bentham wrote:
The day has been, I grieve to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the [human] species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated by the law exactly upon the same footing as, in England for example, the inferior races of animals are still. The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? [Bracketed additions mine---T.]

Source
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 10:12 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
What is it about their capacity to suffer that is morally significant?

You're an animal yourself. So, if I make you suffer, why should the fact of your suffering be morally significant to me as I choose my actions towards you?

You're asking me?
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 10:18 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
I agree that all of those things are important, but why are they morally significant? After all, it may be important to me that I put on my left shoe before I put on my right shoe, but that doesn't mean it's morally significant that I put on my left shoe first.

I disagree. If it's important to you to put on your left shoe first, then it's morally significant that other people respect your preference---because disrespecting it would make you suffer.

Two different things. My putting on my left shoe first, qua act, is not morally significant under ordinary circumstances. Your interference in my putting on my left shoe first, however, may be morally significant, but only because you're interfering with me, not because of my choice of which shoe to put on first.

Thomas wrote:
For example, if you had an accident and needed a nurse to put your shoes on, it would be unethical for her to put your right shoe on first. (I'm assuming that the nurse knows how you feel about your shoes and the order in which you put them on.) Do you disagree?

Again, two different things. If the nurse has an ethical obligation to obey my wishes, and I have expressed to her that I wish to have my left shoe put on first, then her disobedience is morally significant. My initial preference for the left shoe over the right, on the other hand, remains morally neutral.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 10:26 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
You're asking me?

I am.
 

Related Topics

is there a fundamental value that we all share? - Discussion by existential potential
The ethics of killing the dead - Discussion by joefromchicago
Theoretical Question About Extra Terrestrials - Discussion by failures art
The Watchmen Dilemma - Discussion by Sentience
What is your fundamental moral compass? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
The Trolley Problem - Discussion by joefromchicago
Keep a $900 Computer I Didn't Buy? - Question by NathanCooperJones
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 03:24:38