The thing about that natural behaviour is that it perpetuated for so long that it actually changed our genetic makeup. Now that we're civilised doesn't change the fact that our bodies are geared up towards eating meat. Canine Teeth Forward Facing eyes Short Small Intestine Low pH, single-chambered stomach Enhanced fat and cholesterol processsing Dopamine rewards for eating tasty meat Low Bitterness Threshold of 0.000030 moles (Carnivores are 0.000021M, Omnivores are 0.000300M, Herbivores are 0.000670 - 0.003000M) All things considered our anatomies are much closer to pure carnivores than pure herbivores. That means a shift towards vegetarianism is not just a matter of "let's change our behavior!" but instead of "lets stop being what we are!" All of the pro-vegetarian arguments are based on the presupposition that it's wrong to kill...but it's not always wrong to kill e.g. self defence. Morality isn't absolute, it's based on context and circumstance...So the question becomes "why is it wrong to kill animals for food?" Throw whatever argument you want in but two I've recognised so far are: 1. Right to life - Every animal has as much right to life as a human. Counterpoint: So why not every plant? Why not every bacterium in your body? Should we outlaw white blood cells? Where do you draw the line? Which leads me on to the second argument... 2. Relative intelligence or consciousness - If it has a sense of suffering we shouldn't make it suffer Counterpoint: Again, where do you draw the line? Is it a recognisable sense of suffering? How do you know a plant doesn't suffer in a way unrecognisable to you? What about insects or crustaceans? Now, my argument has always been that everything is fair game unless it's part of our own species in which case a new set of moral rules come in to play. My reasoning for that has been reproduction - the selfish agenda of the gene to perpetuate itself, an agenda that is a common denominator of all life. Of course, I've been told that this common denominator doesnt matter; That it isn't about "survival, nutritional needs, evolution, natural selection, food chains and sentience" - Which I find ridiculous. So I propose a framework to arguments on why we should deviate from our genetic legacy and nutritional requirements: 1. State the argument 2. State "OK/Not OK" to eat the following groups of plants or animals Mosses Conifers Ferns Flowering Plants Invertabrates Fish Amphibians Reptiles Mammals Birds 3. Defend the argument against the aforementioned common denominator of all life & state why the decision to eat one form of life, but not another, is not arbitrary.
I'm curious, spec. If you feel such a moral tug, why do you continue to eat meat? I know you've repeatedly asked the Bit-tech community to come up with a compelling moral argument for eating meat, but considering that you still enjoy your bacon sandwich, how do you justify it?
I argue that it does. Denial of life through one mechanism over another is still denial of life. To say otherwise would be tantamount to me denying food to somebody whom is starving by way of eating it (even with a full belly), therefore arguably killing them. You cannot have it both ways: either you're against denial of furthering of life, or you're for it. Killing an animal (any animal) is only one step above eating a dead animal. I do not see this as being morally different, despite my not seeing morals within this whatsoever (provided we are talking about out-species foodstuffs acquisition). Name me a single species that has been observed to kill within their group for foodstuffs directly? Not in the sake of competition, but so as to eat them. Selfish gene theory explains all this rather eloquently without any sort of faltering. We don't kill those that share our genes as this would depreciate our own genes. This is programmed into every single organism (with almost no exceptions). So I put to you: if we are programmed not to kill in-group for the porcurment of foodstuffs, while at the same time being programmed and designed (without inducing any godcentric viewpoint) to eat both of the Animalia and Plantae Kingdoms, then how can we dictate a basic moral pattern through our highly biased, narrow, ignorant viewpoints? I personally don't see Homo Sapiens as being anywhere near to the point where we can dictate appropriate treatment of other species - we're still tied down by these rather basic, clumsy, flimsy husks of carbon, and can only therefore think within the very limited confines therein. To think otherwise I feel would be catastrophically ignorant, and bigoted. You feel it ok to evoke slavery? All right: at one point in time Europeans thought that what they were doing was perfectly acceptable from the viewpoint of the Africans they were using. With little exception, this was an accepted viewpoint from the Africans perspective due to their limited experience within European culture. It only came later that people realised their mistake, and viewpoints where changed. Irrespective of what you may think, you've no idea of what it may be like to be that cow on your plate, that pig on the spit, or the chicken in the oven. None of us do. Their central nervous systems are similar to that of our own, but in no way should we even pretend to understand what they are thinking or feeling (if those human constructs can even be applied to the way in which a chickens central nervous system operates). Although the nature vs nurture argument still rages on, one can nevertheless draw some rather strong parallels between our culture, human personality quirks, and those of rather a lot of species. Nor can one deny how easily most of behaviour and thought can be explained with ease through the scope of evolution and selfish gene theory. If you want to remove genetics, evolution, and history from morality, then neither you nor I should be able to discuss morality on any standpoint, as we are both effected by all three in rather a larger way than you seem to be able to admit. Yes, there are good parts of human culture that are uniquely nurtured into us, but then again it wouldn't be too hard to say that these constructs we've built are not on fresh ground; they're simply an overlay on top of existing structure within our programmed thought-process. This isn't to say we don't have a certain amount of freedom from our genes - no creature is ever confined entirely by their genes! An ape whom can talk through sign-language is displaying exemplary gene-avoidance techniques. Same with a dog shaking hands. We are not special or above average in the way we seemingly circumvent our default genetic programming - we've simply developed more of a facility of deluding ourselves into thinking that what we're doing is so advanced above what we are. I postulate this: it is "moral" to deny further life to and eat another living thing provided two distinct factors are taken into account. First, if doing so is congruent with your current dietary systems. Second, if doing so will prolong your life. This is true of Eukaraya, Archaea, and Bacteria. Though I do enjoy the thought of proponents for the preservation of the slaughter of various Bacteria by the billions on an hourly basis... As an aside, despite the fact that I am doing a read-through of The Selfish Gene right now, I also happen to be rather well versed within the scope of Biology and Religious Philosophy, as my well over-packed book-case would testify. This is all in a lead-up to getting my bachelors in comparative religious philosophy. Biology has always just been a rather interesting subject for me. So shush with your accusations of my over-affections of man-love for Dawkins! Par for the course really. No, it is not. In no such way is this beyond the scope of morality. If you feel that it is "wrong" to injure another living creature, then you'd best be prepared with information detailing specifically how to actually injure the living creature you're dealing with. Animalia get injured in a rather similar way to us (or so the thought goes given their basic similarity to our own central nervous system), but plants may or may not experience pain in a way we can perceive. Plantae do not share the same nervous system we have, but they do show the capacity to react to "painful" stimulus. How this relates to our limited perception we've no idea, but nevertheless it does still exist. Plants bleed just as we do, they recycle energy in much the same way we do, some of them even are predators! Therefore, given our limited understanding of the Plantae pain reflex, should we concentrate on a "simulated plant substitute" as well as one for meat? Anthropomorphising != morals. Simple as.
The slaves obviously weren't asked. Their opinion did not matter any more than a pig or cow's feelings do to us. In a debating club/society, it is a common practice to pick a topic and randomly assign the diametrically opposed positions on that topic to the two debaters. It doesn't matter what their actual opinion on the matter is; they are supposed to be able to argue both positions as eloquently. As a consequence a vegetarian might end up arguing for eating meat while the bacon lover might end up arguing against it. It is the debate that matters; the skill of being able to look at a topic from all angles and argue them rationally and clearly. This allows a topic to be thoroughly examined from an unbiassed point of view. So it doesn't matter what Spec really eats. It does not matter what you eat. No personal accusations are being made. We are exploring the subject through debate, that's all. I for one have already learned a few new things that are fine-tuning my thinking on this --coming from both sides.
The slaves were still able to form an opinion on the matter, and there were many ex slaves who were involved in the anti-slave movement. So again, this line of thinking has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic at hand. Carry on with the pig-headedness if you like, but you will still be wrong. FFS nexxo, stop talking to me like an idiot who doesn't know how debating is conducted. Let's get that out of the way first and foremost. You really do seem to think I am struggling with the concept, and I am getting very irritated by it. Debating is one thing, casting labels on a wide swathe of the human population is another. That wasn't debate, that was using one's own personal preferences to try and force an opinion. Neither was that. I could go on, but what's the point? You are always right after all eh? And seeing as specofdust was putting his own personal opinions and beliefs into the discussion, then it doesn't sound anything like the definition you gave of a debate does it?
We are also the ones breeding and looking after them. Cows cannot make it in the wild (true). Without our efforts, livestock would go extinct. As for deer, periodical cycles happen in nature all the time without our intervention. Spec has been "banned" for years. Doesn't stop him stirring **** with his posts though. 1. The right to life is based on the similarity to humans. Spec argues that by any metric (e.g. awareness, genes, behaviour) it cannot be conclusively argued that all animals are not equal to humans. The line between us and certain other animals is indeed thin. Some animals show problem solving ability, social awareness/theory of mind and altruism ('inclusive fitness'). So certain animals, it could be argued, have as much right to life as us. 2. How do we know that an animal doesn't suffer the way we do? They all certainly seem keen to avoid death and pain. Many animals show the ability to go beyond their natural behavioural repertoire if put in a human-engineered context (even some shrimp do, which is annoying because I like my seafood), showing that they have more potential than meets the eye. Insects on the other hand are very mechanistic and show no reasoning or learning ability as such. They are like wind-up toys --pain is just an avoidance stimulus. Plants most likely don't feel pain at all because there is nothing they could do about it. A plant can't avoid, so the experience of pain would not have any function. Spec raised slavery as an example of how just because a majority thought slavery was OK, that didn't make it right. We could also have talked about, say, female circumcision --and in case you are wondering, many girls who are cut are being held down by their circumcised mothers and it is a circumcised woman doing the cutting. The practice is supported by many of its previous victims. Spec's original point remains. Just because the majority is doing it, doesn't make it right. Don't take it personally (which I think you are, because you are interpreting a rational position as an ad hominem attack). It is just a debate. If you think that Spec is overgeneralising and labelling, then explain the faults in his reasoning. Spec is not "forcing" an opinion. He is stating his opinion, and his reasoning behind it. Agree, disagree, it's all good. The point of the debate is to explore the reasoning behind it.
All this only depends on how it will affect you within the social group. right and wrong are defined by society and are not 'true' or 'false'.... there are occasions where wrong and true may both describe the same issue. 'slavery is good' was right at the time 'slavery is efficient' was false at the same time.
Ok, some. Which? Where is the line drawn? And why does that argument override the "morality" of the selfish gene, which all other animals conform to? Yes, death from other animals who think they're tasty. Potential for what exactly? Perhaps we should only not eat animals that have the capacity not to eat other animals out of moral sensibility, but then, that would as arbitrary and poorly supported as all the arguments for drawing the line somewhere. Come on...the pro-veg lobby have had 11 pages of chances to state unequivocally why, given our genetic predisposition, it is immoral now to conform to the standards of the animal kingdom. Conjecture
Actually I would argue that Right and Wrong (morally speaking) exist independently of any social or environmental constructs. Our social view of what is right and wrong changes over time, but that does not mean right and wrong changes. "Slavery is good" was socially normal and acceptable, but it was never right, morally speaking. The idea that all morality is relative and up to the individual or society is a fabrication designed to excuse us from asking difficult and uncomfortable questions. Genital mutilation is not right (morally) in spite of the fact that it is socially acceptable in those societies and it has been taking place for a very long time. Neither the passage of time, nor popular opinion can render a wrong thing right, or a right thing wrong. Wrong things may be justifiable in certain situations, but that does not make them right. Right things might be impossible, but that does not make them wrong. @VipersGratitude: I get the impression that you don't actually understand the concept of morality very well.
I would argue the opposite, and say that it forces us to ask difficult and uncomfortable questions. On the topic of moral viewpoints, there is very often little agreement on what is moral and what is not, so it is then up to the individual to do his homework, and decide for himself. Trying to impose moralistic views on others will never work, and never has worked. Give the man the tools and knowledge to allow him to make an informed choice yes, dictate to him no.
The whole concept of right and wrong is a socially imposed restriction and only applicable within your own social circles. Wind back a century or two. In certain parts of the world, it's now entirely right and appropriate to sell your child into slavery. It's seen as an honest attempt to get something better for your child. At that time no-one would question your choices as being right or wrong. Wind back time a little further and the concept of pederasty is in vogue.. It would be entirely "normal" and socially correct (even desired) for an older respcetive gentleman to take a young boy as their lover and to act as their mentor etc. If the attitudes globally change to child-slavery and cross-generation man-boy love can change completely over time, you can be sure the attitude to eating meat will also change. 300 years from now, future civilisations reading back your words will find it funny that you denied yourself a bacon sandwich because certain minorites decided it offended their morals. Unless the world then is all run by Jews, then I'll be mocked for enjoying bacon at the cost of my soul.
The things you mentioned were never morally right, they were simply socially acceptable. Morally right != morally justifiable != socially acceptable.
I think that's just because you see a moral issue where I don't. If you disagree please be aware that you may recieve a court summons to appear as my character witness should I decide to embrace my sociopathic tendencies.
They were morally right at their point in time. I think you must be operating to a very specific definition of morally right, and I'd love to hear your definition of morally right that demonstrates how it's unconnected to the social norms of the society under study. Also why you think that today's moral standard is the only moral standard.
from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ " The term “morality” can be used either 1 descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior 2 normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons" " the first case clearly is a social construct - the second is a rational decision and can be utilised to justify almost anything given the appropriate choice of specified conditions.... for instance - in the latter case any given rational decision must be based upon a desirability of process and outcome that is likely to be dependant on the self or society. the essential difference is not one of 'right and wrong' but one of looking backward or forward. genital mutilation can be governed right in both senses past - society dictates progressive - positive outcome. see jewish circumcision and for girls - less likely to 'stray' in the case of harming animals the only real argument is dont poke dogs to much and dont jump on an ant hill and certainly dont eat a burger in a vegan convention.
Even your second definition is arguably dependant on the social norms of the time; "given specified conditions" is such a massive caveat as to render the rest of the sentance meaningless.. I don't get how or why you equate right and wrong with looking backwards or looking forwards, could you elaborate for me?
Ok, so take someone who has no upper brain activity. Basically, people in a persistant vegitative state whose brains have been destroyed to the extent that there is no brain left to react to stimuli. By any measure of humanity you want to take except for soul (which is an argument from religion obviously) a high functioning ape is more of a person than the vegetable in the bed. Hell, a low functioning dog is more of a peron than the body in the bed. Pay attention SuicideNeil, this is step 1 of my argument Firstly: aww, thankyou. Secondly, this seems a little like an argument based on potentiality. I would argue against you though, if we are to judge personhood based on ability (that is, ability to reason, feel, calculate, communicate etc.) then it is an inevitability that we must conclude many animals are more deserved of the title of personhood than some humans are. I'm not talking about little johnny autism here, I'm talking about human beings born with a third of their brain missing. SuicideNeil take note, this is point number 2: some humans are less deserving of the status of personhood than some animals It's not about being a life, it's about having the required traits to get into the personhood club, and some animals have them, or if those animals don't have them then no baby or seriously mentally damaged person does, and if that's the case I can rape, kill, and eat babies without committing any offence more serious than animal cruelty. In a direct moral sense I see what you mean, although as I'm sure you know, doing one's moral minimum in this world doesn't leave us in a particularly nice place. Morality may be a human concept, but that doesn't mean we can only apply it to ourselves. We say it is wrong to murder a person who does not consent, and yet we do this to pigs every single day. If we want to kill one brain-dead vegetable in a bed who hasn't said yay or nae prior to being brain-killed then we have to have a bloody national debate about it. The only justification we have for this is that humans are different, but in these exact cases when asked why humans are different our answers are shown to be speciesist and therefore morally inconsistent and hypocritical. It's hypocritical. Until we either start seriously looking at babies as food, or stop eating pigs, so are we. edit: suicideNeil, I'll finish the next few points when I return from lectures.
@Tentacled "Even your second definition is arguably dependant on the social norms of the time" I quite agree - there is no way to identify positive negative outcomes without some form of classification - if these are not in the specification then they are judgements of the former type. re:forward and backward looking I equate the first form as a backward looking society - morality could never change if based on historically formed social norms. the second is a re-examination of morality based on theoretical constructs and situations (though often as you said evaluated relative to existing and separate norms) which could enable morality to change. for instance abortion = bad recognise that this shifts women to unregulated market damaging their health etc... abortion = good @specofdust not sure if you are serious..... "It's hypocritical. Until we either start seriously looking at babies as food, or stop eating pigs, so are we." eating babies (and monkeys) is wrong because there is a far higher risk of the transfer of disease - see foot and mouth etc... http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15821350.900-warning-cannibalism-is-bad-for-your-health.html
You're actually the one being speciesist - Plants are divided in to species too. In your example the person in a vegatitive state doesn't respond to stimuli. Plants will respond to stimuli, for example sunflowers will turn towards the sun, or venus fly traps will snap close if stimulated. According to your logic plants are deserving of personhood too - That leaves you speciesist and hypocritical, and everyone else very hungry... We actually have given a measure of humanity to differentiate food from non-food - Sexual reproductive potential. We eat species outside our own species so that we can reproduce inside our own species. Certainly, we have the capacity to kill and eat members of our own species just as all carnivores and omnivores do, but no species exclusively feeds on its own species for the very reason that it would limit reproductive potential. Is it speciesist? Yes, but atleast it's consistent across the animal kingdom. Some animals are more equal than others
