"I believe that a combined approach to morality is the way forward ( as I have previously stated). You need to account for consequences, but positive consequences do no render an action morally right (at the very most they render it justifiable)" it is innevitable that we will use a shorthand for decision making... should I hold the door open for the lady in the big coat or first frisk her for a bomb... but such a decision is again related to society and circumstance - if you are a guard on an Israeli nighclub your moral action will be different than if you are passing a door in an office. the decision is same, the moral action the same the question of if it is morally right is defined by social concerns. to say "thou shalt not kill" is a moral law is valid in one sense but not another and all are similarly true. To say that "you should eat meat" or "you should not eat meat" is a decision equally based on social conditions - I would suggest ordering a steak at a Hindu funeral is different from ordering a steak at the local Argentinean steakhouse. Fundamentally there is nothing that is absolutely Moral as there are no sets of rules that can define completeness... a deontological position must lead to a static set of rules that will inevitably become more damaging than a set of rules that can be redefined. If the rules can be redefined over time then this process will be driven by society. therefore any set of deontological rules even if (like the 10 commandments ;-) were once defined as absolute by God ;-) then the rules believed in, abided to and felt will change and move with the 'whims' of society until they bare little or no relation. "That is a bit of a non-statement, really. Humans and snakes will have come from the same root if you go back far enough, but that doesn't make us identical or even equivalent." in so many ways it does... evolution not creationism.
End of the day, We're omnivores, there's a lot of us, we can't just wait for the animals to die before we eat them. P.S I love meatz.
I'll try, I also promise to give careful consideration to all the little cows running around in their fields, blissfully unaware that they could be meeting my griddle pan very soon, as I am eating my next steak
Its not a theory its a fact. As a scientist you know fine well we are driven by hunger, fear and the desire to mate. The same instincts that drive animals. We react to things like pheromones at a base level we are not consciously aware of. My argument is that morals are related to genetics as its our highly developed brains that allows us to develop these morals in the first place.
Spec, I asked this several pages back, but since this thread advances pretty quickly I understand if you missed it. 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 argument to explain why it is not morally wrong to kill an animal for food, but considering that you still enjoy your bacon sandwich, how do you justify it?
There's a lot more I need to get back to which has been said in the thread so far, but this one is quick and easy to answer. I don't justify my consumption of meat, it is immoral. It makes me a bad, or at least worse, person. Don't be so shocked at this answer, most people do things they know to be wrong at least sometimes, and often on a regular basis. Still, it is better to have a world of people who do things they know to be wrong than a world where people do bad things but do not know it is wrong. At least then the challenge is reduced to changing behaviour, as opposed to changing opinion and behaviour.
Only thing is Specofdust, I would have more respect for someone who doesn't know they are doing wrong, but changed when they did realise, than someone who knows he's doing wrong but does nothing about it. I'm sure most people would feel the same?
I'm not shocked at all. I understand that we all do things considered wrong - legal, moral, or otherwise - but we reason with ourselves to overcome the cognitive dissonance with the act (I hope I got that part right). Some people exceed the speed limit, but it's only a few miles over, and they're just keeping up with the flow of traffic. Is some amount of justification necessary? You believe what you are doing is wrong, but you continue the behavior anyway. I think you would have to provide some reason to continue the immoral behavior. Or, perhaps the cognitive dissonance reduction is in your construction of the argument that since you are aware of your moral inconsistency, but knowingly engage in the behavior anyway, you are superior to other people who engage in the behavior believing that it is morally OK. To use the slavery analogy: I participate in the slave trade, but I only do so because if I don't it might cause the economic downfall of the South. It's not like I enjoy it, like my neighbor down the way. How much remorse do you feel when you eat meat? Is it enough that you are considering changing your ways, or is it just the fact that you believe what you're doing is morally inconsistent, but it's not really harming anybody so it's filed away with other victimless crimes? Another bacon sandwich, please.
There is no such thing as right or wrong, only consequences. There are no moral right or wrong it all depends on the eyes that see. in the western world killing due to religion is morally wrong, ask al-qaeda and you might get a different answer. I see NO problem killing animals, fish, dogs, chickens or whatever to get meat, and I would gladly eat any of these. Morals are just a list of things we have grown up to feel bad or good about, it all depends on in what society you were born and raised. I do not by the "Personhood" argument as I do not see the connection, Personhood does not make one a person. All personhood does is say that there is something that defines the individual, nothing else.
As a person of scientific background i can say this for sure... humans need meat. more specifically the proteins, iron and vitamins that meats provides. Granted some of these can be gained from vegetable sources... however the hybridization of the plants that we have to do to get them to the level of nutritious that we deem acceptable has resulted in a more mutated vegetable than ever. If anyone finds it morally difficult to eat meat then they need to inherently find it bad to eat fruits and vegetables. This point can also be idealised as the following. When we eat meat we kill an animal so it therefore no longer needs that which we are taking. when we eat fruit we are killing the unborn offspring of the plant (you would be a bit pissed if someone came up to your pregnant wife/you and ripped out her/your baby and ate it). likewise vegetable don't like being eaten either. Potatoes for instance are poisonous to stop us eating them, so are tomato species(fruit i know). This shows that while animals may be "sentient" they don't try and kill us where as plants do.
Asking other people to justify your own feelings in a negative or positive way is the problem here. If 2 people have polar opposite views on the same issue, and there is no over-riding correct answer ( legality for example ), then dont be suprised when no-one can justify eating meat as being a good thing to someone who cant make up their own mind. If you feel bad about it, and you could easily stop doing it, but you continue anyway, then that is nothing more than simple hypocracy. Using the ' I dont know what to think so i'll keep on doing it' excuse is an easy cop out- your own morals say its wrong so you should simply stop. You arent a drug addicted burglar who steals to feed his habbit, nor are you a serial killer who murders people for thrills- neither of those people can really help their actions as their brains are fooked up; rehabilitation only works on so many cases. Eating meat isnt an addiction, its done because our brains know its good for us- either deal with the simple genetic pre-disposition humans have towards eating meat and be happy with doing it, or force yourself to eat tofu & quorn burgers and ignore your natural urges, pretending that you are somehow more morally superior and genetically enlightened than you really are.
Is the lion having a moral dilemma whilst tearing out the throat of a gazelle in order to eat? I just plan ignore the ability to eat purely plant life and lead a health life, a balanced diet to feed the body essential oils and fats, plus proteins. Almost proof there is no god due to this, as if god truly loved all life, why would he create life that needs to feed upon other life. I am not god bashing here, I am merely raising a point. Come to think about it in the last few weeks i have been becoming slightly religious in the views of karma..
you just have to live life to know karma is real =] now time for some chicken.. or beef, steaks.. hmm the choices
Actually, personhood is the name for the set of qualities/attributions that define, or make, a person. Identity is the name for the set of qualities/attributions that define a specific individual. All those points have already been addressed: The question of morality does not include biological imperative or nutritional need. The question of morality concerns the quality of 'personhood' of the animal being eaten. Fruit and vegetables do not qualify. Oh, and animals do try to kill us as much as plants do. The puffer fish does not make a good snack. Neither does a polar bear's liver (in fact, stay away from the liver of all Arctic animals). Other animals (lions, and tigers, and bears, oh my!) take a more proactive approach.
Helloooo, we talk about beef cattle & meat here, not Hunting. What do you want? Release a Cows in the forest ? The poor things will die in a week, Are you that cruel ? PS: Hopefully if you hunt me down, Dexter Morgan will cut you.
Had to look this one up and seems like I was wrong (I'm a Dane so it is not the first time), however. "personhood - In person: in ones bodily presence" Merriam Webster's Dictionary on top of that Person is defined as a Human Individual so even if personhood does make a person then talking about animals as having personhood is irrelevant as a requirement for being a person Pr definition requires someone to be a member of the homo sapient species.
