Philosophy Discussion Forums

wanabe wrote:nameless do you think is is foolish for us to eat so much meat (from farms) given that meat takes so much more energy, effort, labour. to produce, compared to plants as food?

Not at all, we are omnivores suited, by nature, to eat anything that don't run faster than we do! If there are too many humans for the environment to support, some will starve, such as in Africa. Eventually, there will be, again, an equilibrium with the environment. Perhaps that is the 'answer' rather than the 'unnatural' attempt to alter our very biological nature.
On the other hand, I have no problem with whatever diet suits the individual. Some eat no red meat for whatever reason, some no meat at all... I was a vegitarian for two years, no meat, fish, eggs, or any products therefrom. Couldn't even eat a cupcake... 'lard'. Things are different..

from a moral stand point, I don't know. I empathise with living beings, born as food its worse than slaves. but as far as eating animals that were born free and were hunted in a honourable way (a rifle and even modern bows are not to me nor is traping, but traping may be necessary at times of dire circumstance.) I still would on occasion eat meat when there was bad crops or little vegetation, that's when it makes sense, because it prevents animal death from famine (famine causes more death than hunting responsibly/honourably)

Understood, though I, personally, am a-moral (not immoral).
I 'empathise' with all 'life', even while eating it...
*__-

nameless, you're making a public post, so I'm quite entitled to pick up on any of your points and engage them; if you want a sole response from clinicallyinsane, pm him.

Secondly, I've claimed this is by no means the best way to address the issues, it's very indirect. Instead of discussing what's murder and what's not, why don't we discuss why killing animals is wrong. The law and morality are two very different things and I've already said why clinging to legal definitions is fallacious. 18th Century= Not murder to kill a black slave in Western Europe. Does that mean, because legally it wasn't considered murder, it wasn't wrong? Under my interpretation of what you’re saying, you’d say it wasn’t wrong. That which is immoral isn’t necessarily illegal -for example, some wars, or intensive farming!

You can't refer to a manifestation of society to claim you're right, when I'm discussing why society [in general] and such manifestations are wrong! Picture an argument against woman's rights reading: it isn't wrong that woman don't have rights, look the law verifies my very point.

I'm not making any kind of emotional argument whatsoever; to claim that I am is simply wrong. I'm appealing to valid criterion and if you read my first post, you’ll clearly see that.

nameless I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. Is it, killing animals is not wrong because it is not considered legally to be murder? If it is and you disagree or ignore with everything I’ve previously said, then what of torture. Legally torture doesn’t refer solely to human beings. Is it wrong to torture animals? Please coherently write your argument as concisely as possible.

Btw, no need to get personally insulting while discussing things like this, I don’t intend to enrage you although it seems that I have because your reply was ridiculously aggressive.

theSingerNietzsche wrote:nameless, you're making a public post, so I'm quite entitled to pick up on any of your points and engage them; if you want a sole response from clinicallyinsane, pm him.

I remain disinterested in your interpretation of his OP intent. Make your own argument! If I didn't 'get it', he'll tell me.
You are boring me.

Secondly, I've claimed this is by no means the best way to address the issues, it's very indirect. Instead of discussing what's murder and what's not, why don't we discuss why killing animals is wrong.

If you think that it is 'wrong' then you discuss it as 'wrong'. I do not agree that it is (or anything is) 'wrong'. Therefore we cannot duscuss 'why' killing animals is 'wrong'. Get it?

The law and morality are two very different things and I've already said why clinging to legal definitions is fallacious.

Legal terms have specific definitions. Perhaps if you learned the terminology that best expresses your intent? The 'wrong' words do not help your case.
We do not 'murder' animals, despite your emo-argument; we kill them.

18th Century= Not murder to kill a black slave in Western Europe. Does that mean, because legally it wasn't considered murder, it wasn't wrong?

Sorry, i do not do emo-argumentation; nor 'wrong'. It depends on perspective. Few kill/destroy their own property, whether horses or slaves.

Under my interpretation of what you’re saying, you’d say it wasn’t wrong.

Perhaps you're getting it. I do not divvy the world into piles of 'right' and 'wrong' (if you are a religionist, you'd recognize such as a 'sin'!) so I cannot discuss such the world from such a Perspective.

That which is immoral isn’t necessarily illegal, for example, some wars, or intensive farming!

I do not do 'morality', as I said.

You can't refer to a manifestation of society to claim you're right, when I'm discussing why society [in general] and such manifestations are wrong! Picture an argument against woman's rights reading: it isn't wrong that woman don't have rights, look the law verifies my very point.

You so don't understand what I'm saying, that I doubt further discussion would be fruitful.

I'm not making any kind of emotional argument whatsoever; to claim that I am is simply wrong.

Your insistence on the usage of 'murder' belies your assertion. (since you seem to have morphed into some noir sock-puppet of 'clinicallyinsane'!)

I'm appealing to valid criterion and if you read my first post, you’ll clearly see that.

If i read your post I might have responded, but I did not, and responded to 'his'. What you have been saying here leaves me disinterested in going back to read your posts, though I've seen a couple. You respond to my response to another's posts and wonder why I don't read your post for clarification of... what, 'clinicallyinsane's' opinion or your's?

nameless I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. Is it, killing animals is not wrong because it is not considered legally to be murder?

1) the term 'murder' is an emotional and inappropriate term for what you are talking about
2) Killing and eating whatever we do is not 'right' or 'wrong', it is who we are and what we do! Despite your delicate sensitivities. If it is your nature to eat roses, have at it. If it's mine to eat cows and grasshoppers, it's none of your business. No 'right', no 'wrong', just is.

If it is and you disagree or ignore with everything I’ve previously said, then what of torture. Legally torture doesn’t refer solely to human beings. Is it wrong to torture animals?

No. I do not do it as it is not my nature. It is not a 'choice'; 'wrong' and 'right' are non-questions/trivial in 'this' reality.
You might ask if I would do something to stop some pain. I often have, that is a feature of 'this' nature. Again, not a choice. We must be who we are, Period. 'Right' and 'wrong' are meaningless in this context.

Please coherently write your argument as concisely as possible.

I always do. If you have a particular problem understanding anything that I offer, simply ask me for clarification (after re-reading it more carefully with the attempt to understand).

Btw, no need to get personally insulting while discussing things like this, I don’t intend to enrage you although it seems that I have because your reply was ridiculously aggressive.

Enrage me!?!?! Are you serious? The only 'feeling' here, hon, is mild amusement.
Are you a female? A PETA freak? What you might find insulting is your problem. Grow some skin if you want to talk to me; 'honesty' takes priority to 'nicety'.
I hope that i have clarified myself sufficiently. We'll just have to agree to being different Perspectives. I assume that you wear no leather or animal products, eat no meat, fish or eggs or products therefrom?

Why, if you don't believe in morality are you discussing issues of moral content? Instead, you should be discussing topics in metaethics. However, your view is far more commendable than those who adhere to moral principles and deny animal’s moral consideration.

I eat what I eat, and so for example there is nothing inherently wrong with me killing and eating another man or a baby. If you don't think it's wrong to do any of this, or wrong to do anything, we should be discussing the antecedent claim that some form of morality is justifiable, not the content of such a morality. lol, we're not engaging at the same level at all. No, I'm not a female, or a PETA freak, but I believe in etiquette when discussing something polemically. Honesty is fine; I can convey an honest sentiment or opinion unaccompanied by such an attitude.


FINALLY MY ARGUMENT ISN’T NECESSARILY EMOTIONAL. You’re assuming that my foundational morality is based on compassion, or something similar. Perhaps it is, but I haven't properly addressed my views on this. Are you claiming any moral argument to be emotional?

What if I started with the view, that if to kill a human is wrong, then by virtue of consistency I believe it wrong to kill an animal? When discussing moral content, that’s what people do - attribute wrongness to particular actions. To engage in anything like this, should be too you futile, meaningless and nonsensical to you. Why are you posting in this topic?! You can’t engage someone talking on a different level, we’re talking moral content, particular antecedent things- ie there is a justifiable morality- are assumed.

theSingerNietzsche wrote:Why are you posting in this topic?

Because there was something needed to be said and I said it. If my words didn't work for you, perhaps just ignoring them, or asking thoughtful questions before jumping out of the dark and attacking something that you have no clus as to the meaning would have been more fruitful.
I made a logically valid and meaningful (for many) comment; your inability to understand notwithstanding. I cannot limit my input depending on your personal ability to understand or gain from my writing.
I don't see this going anywhere and I have said all I need. Perhaps if you have any honest and specific questions remaining, you are welcome to PM me.
Are we done yet? Please?

If it is your nature to eat roses, have at it. If it's mine to eat cows and grasshoppers, it's none of your business. No 'right', no 'wrong', just is.

But ,nameless, whereas your metaphysic is true(and I don't see how it cannot be true universally), your metaphysic doesn't apply to ethics which are hammered out by individual perspectives which are reasoned , or coercive, or apathetic or whatever they are.

The ethic of eating other animals with all this involves is still being debated. There are good reasons being given for why it is immoral to eat other animals.

Ordinary human sympathy is one good reason among others for not eating other animals because humans are anatomically and physiologically sympathetic. There is no use for anyone to claim that there is no evidence that sympathy(or empathy if you prefer) is not universally true of humans, because in the present state of scientific knowledge it is true of humans.

The fact that many humans are not sympathetic or empathetic is evidence that many humans are alienated from their full human potential.

It is also true of humans in the present state of religious knowledge, although when the talk gets out of date enough to refer the ethic to 'sin' this is not talk within up to date state of religious knowledge, which is not based upon blind faith but upon honest seeking.

Belinda wrote:There are good reasons being given for why it is immoral to eat other animals.

Sure, lets invent some 'consensus morality', and then apply this synthetic judgement to the common behavior of eating animals and judge away...
'Morality', in itself, from a religious Perspective, is a 'sin'.

Ordinary human sympathy is one good reason among others for not eating other animals because humans are anatomically and physiologically sympathetic.

I'm not sure that you can validly say that 'sympathy' (and certainly not the more meaningful 'empathy') is physically, biologically based, unless you call the excrescences of the mind, physical.
Some do not eat animals because it is not in their nature to do so. 'Reasons' are irrelevent and post facto justifications for doing what one must do anyway. We have no 'choices' but to act in accord with our nature. That being true, the notions of 'morality' all fail, as they presuppose 'choice'.

There is no use for anyone to claim that there is no evidence that sympathy(or empathy if you prefer) is not universally true of humans, because in the present state of scientific knowledge it is true of humans.

Nonsense. The 'scientific knowledge' to which you refer is, I think, fabricated.
I don't know of 'sympathy' being anything more than ego and sentimentality. I do know 'empathy', and I do know that not exeryone experiences it. Despite your assertion. It is not experiencd universally.

The fact that many humans are not sympathetic or empathetic is evidence that many humans are alienated from their full human potential.

So you refute your own statement? Okayyyy....

It is also true of humans in the present state of religious knowledge,

What is "religious knowledge"?

although when the talk gets out of date enough to refer the ethic to 'sin' this is not talk within up to date state of religious knowledge, which is not based upon blind faith but upon honest seeking.

So you say...
Cutting edge spiritual understanding, throughout the millennia, knows that 'morality' is a feature of the 'original (and only) sin' of pride. 'Truth' doesn't go out of date. But 'pride' (morality) is certainly rampant in the religions that prohibit it; 'judgement' of that which you did not create, like little gods (or Mengeles)...
We are omnivorous creatures and most live according to our physiognomy and nature. Yet most 'judge' ourselves for being who we are... a game that I do not play.

I asked you to clarify yourself in my first post, and every post thereafter. Why couldn't you simply state I don't believe in morality. In my first post I said:

Firstly to rephrase clinicallyinsane's comment:
Murder, ceterus parabus, is immoral right?

To which you didn't reply accept with some comment about clinicallyinsane being able to speak for himself?!?! A simple no, I believe nothing to be immoral would have sufficed and stopped this ridiculous conversation; instead you digressed to personal and unjustified remarks about my personal character. It wasn't till your second last post to me that you said something that made sense and emphasised your standing:

If you think that it is 'wrong' then you discuss it as 'wrong'. I do not agree that it is (or anything is) 'wrong'. Therefore we cannot duscuss 'why' killing animals is 'wrong'. Get it?

This topic is about that very issue. Here you're simply testifying to your own stubbornness and irrelative comments.. We can't discuss it, so why are you posting in the topic were people who are willing and capable to discuss it are discussing it.

Previously all you did was babble about the legal definition of the word murder, which I adequately refuted. I never even used the word murder, I just questioned your reluctance to see to see the word outside of a legal context and discussed why the legal domain was inadequate and prone to evolution. You refused to listen to any of my remarks concerning the relation between law and morality because you're amoral! It's like talking in Japanese to someone who can only understand English, and yet you criticise me - to continue the metaphor- for talking in Japanese when it's a Japanese topic! It's idiocy.

Anyway, you're right; enough of this stupidity.
I hope we meet again in a metaethical topic [appropriately titled].

i guess ill just have fun watching the "tennis" match then.

Would the ethics of cannibalism help in this discussion?

Eating another being seems to be another individualistic survival argument. Where if I am hungry I should eat what I need to survive. If I am full and continue to kill in excess of what I can eat or if I take an animal make it my property (moral question in its own right) then treat it badly I am acting unethically.

I don't think in the sense of this argument it is wrong to look at the relationship between the hunter and prey as anything but a closely related "oneness" like quality held in the essence of life which must always be respected.

Quote: (Belinda)

There is no use for anyone to claim that there is no evidence that sympathy(or empathy if you prefer) is not universally true of humans, because in the present state of scientific knowledge it is true of humans.

(nameless)Nonsense. The 'scientific knowledge' to which you refer is, I think, fabricated.
I don't know of 'sympathy' being anything more than ego and sentimentality. I do know 'empathy', and I do know that not exeryone experiences it. Despite your assertion. It is not experiencd universally.

Quote: (Belinda)

The fact that many humans are not sympathetic or empathetic is evidence that many humans are alienated from their full human potential.

(nameless)So you refute your own statement? Okayyyy....

Evidence for physiological presence of empathy mechanisms in humans:
Robert Hare Uni British Colunbia , an expert on psychopaths:

Hoffman 'Empathy,Social Cognition and Moral Action'.
New York John Wiley and Sons 1984:

Leslie Brothers 'A Biological Perspective on Empathy'
American Journal of Psychiatry 146, 1 1989:

Mayer, Kirkpatrick, Uni New Hampshire 1994:

Robt. Rosenthwal et al 'The Pons Test:Measuring Sensitivity to NonVerbal Clues' 1977

There are lots more in the bibliography that I have to hand. I know of no respectable refutations.

I don't refute these facts(BTW it's not 'my own argument' I have accepted current scientific knowledge for what it is).
Alienation from one's genetic inheritance can happen within various skills,including for instance language acquisition, life-supporting attitude to eating, and empathy towards others.The sad events of alienation don't refute the possibility of healthy development of genetic givens.For empathy to flourish there have to be sufficient environmental exposures to learning that human facial expressions have specific meanings.For a person to learn her native language she has to be exposed to speakers of it.

We have no 'choices' but to act in accord with our nature. That being true, the notions of 'morality' all fail, as they presuppose 'choice'.

Nameless,I agree to the first claim. But as to the second claim, the notions of morality don't all fail, because morality is often enshrined in law.

As to the first claim, our nature is not fixed although it is limited by our genotype. Part of the human genotype is mechanisms for cerebral learning and cerebral adapting as long as the cerebral cortex works okay.Choices are nearly always available although sometimes if not often they are the unlovable distressing or distressing option, perhaps less often the distressing or pleasing option.

What is not available is the freedom to originate one's choice by some sort of ghostly Originator 'within' each individual.Learning does however increase the scope of individuals' choices as can clearly be seen when comparing and contrasting well educated individuals with less well educated persons.And I am not referring only to the standard school curriculums, but to skills such as empathy unfortunately not standardly taught in schools .

I think it is too simplistic to talk about 'our nature' as if everyone knows what it is.There is ongoing work in biology , psychology , sociology and anthropology to get closer to knowing what our nature is.From these areas of science and social science philosophy is able to get a helping hand.

Belinda wrote:

We have no 'choices' but to act in accord with our nature. That being true, the notions of 'morality' all fail, as they presuppose 'choice'.

Nameless,I agree to the first claim. But as to the second claim, the notions of morality don't all fail, because morality is often enshrined in law.

Even so, doesn't law presuppose 'choice'?

As to the first claim, our nature is not fixed although it is limited by our genotype.

Our 'nature', the complete definition of who we are, at the very moment in question, is as an integral feature of the unchanging/unchangeable universe Now! As such, 'our definition, our 'nature', is absolutely 'fixed' in/as every moment/universe, uniquely, of our existence.

Part of the human genotype is mechanisms for cerebral learning and cerebral adapting as long as the cerebral cortex works okay.Choices are nearly always available although sometimes if not often they are the unlovable distressing or distressing option, perhaps less often the distressing or pleasing option.

As evidenced by Libet's experiment, we have the feeling of making a choice, the feeling of 'free-will' to 'do'. But it's no more than that, a 'feeling', and a 'belief' of that feeling reflecting a 'reality' in general, for everyone. Just a trick of the ego.
Stop me if you've heard this, but perhaps this little thought might offer some clarity. The complete definition of anything would necessarily include the context, of which our 'defined' is a feature, at the moment of perception. As every moment is a different 'context', a different universe, any complete description of anything/one must be unique to the moment. Our 'nature' is uniquely different from momenta moment. Also, we 'do' nothing, as that would, by necessity, alter the entire universe! The ego loves the illusion, it makes us feel like gods! There is no 'motion' other than as a relic of some local Perspective. It is naive realism. No actual 'motion' is possible in existence; no motion, no doing, no actual implementation of imagined 'choices'. An ego dream. It sure does seem real, though, and 'feels' great (little gods stomping around doing this, creating that, in yesterday's paper ego hats...)! Why would we want to give that up? 'Truth'?

What is not available is the freedom to originate one's choice by some sort of ghostly Originator 'within' each individual.

Whisperings of that subtle ego. We 'originate' nothing. The universe is complete in every moment of existence; we can neither aid or detract from that 'completion' of Now! We are a feature of it.

but to skills such as empathy unfortunately not standardly taught in schools .

Empathy is not something that can be taught or bought. The only way 'taught' is to teach meditation, 'self' realization, etc. Perhaps that will be a 'context' where 'empathy' is found more often (though i have no evidence either way). A context of less ego. Can't teach that, can only point toward it, if one has the actual experience. And the seeker finds it, perhaps, always within, hiding behind the ego.

I think it is too simplistic to talk about 'our nature' as if everyone knows what it is.

"Our nature" is unique to every person/Perspective, in every unique moment of all existence!
That is what I mean by 'our nature'; what is, is our 'nature'! As is Now! and Now! and Now!!!
Simplistic? *__-

“nameless do you think is is foolish for us to eat so much meat (from farms) given that meat takes so much more energy, effort, labour. to produce, compared to plants as food?”

“much of the American mid-west is dedicated to growing feed for animals, when it could be going to us, circumventing a step. its like making more mouths to feed. simply because we like too eat meat so much”

You addressed this question from naturalistic state...the majority of the world is not in a naturalistic state. Do you think the above is irrelevant as a reasoning to not eat SO MUCH meat?

Or you are simply saying that we don't need to fix the problem because nature will fix it for us via starvation..the nihilist in me likes this concept. I think not fixing a problem is foolish, but mass starvation would be an effective, but unnecessary lesson.

wanabe wrote:“nameless do you think is is foolish for us to eat so much meat (from farms) given that meat takes so much more energy, effort, labour. to produce, compared to plants as food?”

First, I don't know that your statement that "meat takes so much more energy, effort, labour to produce compared to plants", is true.
How much land and energy and resources must be used to produce the equivalent in veg's, nuts, fruits, legumes.. to equal the complete nutrition provided by meat? I'd have to see lots of stats to evaluate the veracity of your hypothesis.
Foolish? From what Perspective? Economically? Ethically? Ecologically? Logically? Emotionally? Genetically? I can see how it might be seen as foolish. I can also see opposite Perspectives.

“much of the American mid-west is dedicated to growing feed for animals, when it could be going to us, circumventing a step. its like making more mouths to feed. simply because we like too eat meat so much”

I don't think that it is so much about our 'likes' as who we are, Here, Now! Evolution, from that perspective, doesn't make mistakes. If we evolve from meat, so be it. We have not yet done so. We are omnivorous creatures; that is our physiognomy and our nature; who we are Here, Now! Some are vegetarians Here, Now! And, for whatever is needed to 'supply/manifest our nature', no cost is too high.

You addressed this question from naturalistic state...the majority of the world is not in a naturalistic state. Do you think the above is irrelevant as a reasoning to not eat SO MUCH meat?

Amerikkkans, from a nutritional Perspective, consume an exorbitant (at least twice that needed) amount of meat; much more than our day to day activities require. If we have a choice in the matter, we might truncate consumption in the name of personal health, the environment, etc. If we had a choice, fat people wouldn't be fat. Meat addicts would get rehab...
I understand what you're saying, though.

Or you are simply saying that we don't need to fix the problem because nature will fix it for us via starvation..the nihilist in me likes this concept.

There is always a balance. Always.
If no one adopts an African baby, the land will, albeit harshly, depeople until an equilibrium is reached. Too many people, some must die. Usually the weakest. Those that are left will be in a more symbiotic relationship with mother earth. There is a natural balance...
That is one way that the 'problem' works out...

I think not fixing a problem is foolish, but mass starvation would be an effective, but unnecessary lesson.

It works in Africa.
Define the 'problem' again? There are starving people? We eat too much meat? What was the 'problem' again? *__-