Vegetarianism, atheism and morality.

[Tero]

I blame Darwin.

I blame Malthus. It did not work. There are to many now, for all to eat critters on a daily basis. But dairy was a good idea, you just keep milking the cow and eating her babies. Bull needed occasionally.

[Rum]

Vegetarian 'morality' is self serving bullshit as far as I'm concerned. As is all 'morality'. Advances in neurology show that we are rationalising, not rational creatures. We see something, we don't like it, then we justify it with a lot of wordy bollox. Take 'specieism' for instance, I've never heard such an emotionally manipulative word in all my life. We are and always will be 'specieist'. I don't remember the vegetarians whining when we wiped out all those poor widdle small pox

Our morals and laws are based around social cohesion. It's all about getting along with each other and not fucking each other over to our detriment. Whether Babe lives or dies does not affect that.

'Self serving bullshit'? And yet one of the things that higher apes seem to have developed is empathy, the ability to put ourselves in the circumstances of others and to feel pity. You seem to be dismissing this. I have empathy for a pig which is reared in a crate, can't turn around, is inseminated, has ten piglets which will suffer the same fate, eventually to be slaughtered along with hundreds of its fellows in an assembly line of death. It isn't bullshit to view this process as immoral.

Yes. It is. Morality in general is bullshit. There are things I'll do and things I'm not prepared to do. That's it. Shooting a deer I'll do absolutely no problem. I'll even enjoy it and the subsequent dinners. Shooting a child - not so much. I don't see where morals come into it. This may disgust you but please don't turn, "I find those actions objectional" into, "Those actions are immoral."

Why on earth not? Here's Wiki's definition, by which I would conclude that some forms of animal husbandry, rearing and slaughter are indeed 'wrong' and therefore immoral.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The adjective moral is synonymous with "good" or "right." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.

[Robert_S]

Vegetarianism is like pacifism. Nice when you can "afford" it. But quickly broken in times of crisis.

But we are not in a crisis, so we can afford it.

It isn't necessary to eat animals at all in many parts of the world, so eating meat is weighing our desire for tasty meat against the animals desire to not be eaten and our convenience of access lots of cheap meat balanced against the suffering the animals go through in the mass production factory process.

When I do eat meat, it's usually because it's totally delicious. No other reason really.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'll put a veggie pizza in the oven for you.

Next to the triple meat pizza!

[Audley Strange]

Sorry Audley, I still do not get what you mean.

Apologies, Let me try and rephrase it then. If the moral position is that it is cruel and therefore wrong to torture and slaughter animals as an industrial process then it doesn't become less immoral by percentile points, it only stops becoming wrong when it stops. It would be inconsistent and in fact immoral to say that it can continue in any shape or form. If it's not consistent, what is the point of claiming it as a moral rather than an emotional or aesthetic position?

[Rum]

Vegetarianism is like pacifism. Nice when you can "afford" it. But quickly broken in times of crisis.

But we are not in a crisis, so we can afford it.

It isn't necessary to eat animals at all in many parts of the world, so eating meat is weighing our desire for tasty meat against the animals desire to not be eaten and our convenience of access lots of cheap meat balanced against the suffering the animals go through in the mass production factory process.

When I do eat meat, it's usually because it's totally delicious. No other reason really.

This adds additional weight to the idea of the wrongness of eating meat. It is a seperate issue really but it overlaps with the morality of the issue in so far as one agrees that squandering our resources is immoral. Here are a couple of links r.e. the environmental consequences:

This on the extra carbon produced:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... matechange

This on the growing consumption of meet and the overall environmental effects (rather good!)
http://www.vegetarismus.ch/info/eoeko.htm

[Animavore]

Vegetarian 'morality' is self serving bullshit as far as I'm concerned. As is all 'morality'. Advances in neurology show that we are rationalising, not rational creatures. We see something, we don't like it, then we justify it with a lot of wordy bollox. Take 'specieism' for instance, I've never heard such an emotionally manipulative word in all my life. We are and always will be 'specieist'. I don't remember the vegetarians whining when we wiped out all those poor widdle small pox

Our morals and laws are based around social cohesion. It's all about getting along with each other and not fucking each other over to our detriment. Whether Babe lives or dies does not affect that.

'Self serving bullshit'? And yet one of the things that higher apes seem to have developed is empathy, the ability to put ourselves in the circumstances of others and to feel pity. You seem to be dismissing this. I have empathy for a pig which is reared in a crate, can't turn around, is inseminated, has ten piglets which will suffer the same fate, eventually to be slaughtered along with hundreds of its fellows in an assembly line of death. It isn't bullshit to view this process as immoral.

Yes. It is. Morality in general is bullshit. There are things I'll do and things I'm not prepared to do. That's it. Shooting a deer I'll do absolutely no problem. I'll even enjoy it and the subsequent dinners. Shooting a child - not so much. I don't see where morals come into it. This may disgust you but please don't turn, "I find those actions objectional" into, "Those actions are immoral."

Why on earth not? Here's Wiki's definition, by which I would conclude that some forms of animal husbandry, rearing and slaughter are indeed 'wrong' and therefore immoral.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The adjective moral is synonymous with "good" or "right." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.

See there's the problem right there. This idea of right and wrong. They're subjective. Some people's moral code includes homosexuality is a sin. Others like me don't see what all the fuss is about. Who's right? I don't feel I'm more right than a Christian over something I'm frankly meh about. I may think homophobia is pretty asshole-ish but I'd never say I was morally superior. I just think some people need to lighten up and worry less.

I'm not fond of certain forms of farming myself because I hate cruelty. I wouldn't hunt without honing my gun skills first because I want my prey to be instantly dead. It would bother me to mis-hit and the creature to suffer. But this is just my natural inclination because I'm a soft-ass. I avoid fights at all costs because I don't like hurting or being hurt. I don't call my soft-ass-ish-ness a morality though I could after the fact and turn my soft-ass-ish-ness into the virtue of pacifism but that's just trumpet blowing to me and a form of empowerment, like Anne Widdecoombe parading the fact she can't get a man because she's hideous into the virtue of 'chastity'.

Morality, I believe, is bullshit.

[Rum]

I agree that morality is on the whole subjective, or at least contingent on the circumstances. The circumstances I am describing are the mass factory production of meat for human consumption, including cruel or inhumane methods of slaughtering when they aren't necessary. I would be quite happy to shoot a deer myself as it happens. I am not however happy to eat mass produced pork, beef or chickens and don't any longer.

Unnecessary cruelty is pretty well as close to absolute in terms of a moral stance surely?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Is it immoral for wolves to eat meat?

[Animavore]

I agree that morality is on the whole subjective, or at least contingent on the circumstances. The circumstances I am describing are the mass factory production of meat for human consumption, including cruel or inhumane methods of slaughtering when they aren't necessary. I would be quite happy to shoot a deer myself as it happens. I am not however happy to eat mass produced pork, beef or chickens and don't any longer.

Unnecessary cruelty is pretty well as close to absolute in terms of a moral stance surely?

I'm more in favour of humane treatment of animals because it's actually less hassle and just simply a better idea than because of the cruelty in and of itself to be honest (see Temple Gradin).

Modern science is showing we think of morality after the fact. We find something unpleasant and we begin to explain why and of course we come out more right or moral at the end. I'm just going where the evidence seems to lead here, it's something that shakes me up a bit because it seems our morals of what is wrong are all simply based around our disgust reflex. There is no inherent right or wrong. Read Jonothan Haidt for more on this.

[FBM]

The African Wild Cat begins to eat its prey before it's dead. They can't choke it like a lion, so they have chew it to death. A farmed cow gets a quick and clean compared to that.

But we are 'better' (I use the word with some care!) than African Wild cats - or people with Seth's sort of utilitarian outlook surely?

I'm not sure on how we are "better" than any other animal, even taking your use of the words "with some care" into account. I don't envision other animals as being purely vicious, without regard for the welfare of others. I think that's a vestige of the "nasty, brutish and short" philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, which, I think, anthropology has dismissed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The African Wild Cat begins to eat its prey before it's dead. They can't choke it like a lion, so they have chew it to death. A farmed cow gets a quick and clean compared to that.

But we are 'better' (I use the word with some care!) than African Wild cats - or people with Seth's sort of utilitarian outlook surely?

I'm not sure on how we are "better" than any other animal, even taking your use of the words "with some care" into account. I don't envision other animals as being purely vicious, without regard for the welfare of others. I think that's a vestige of the "nasty, brutish and short" philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, which, I think, anthropology has dismissed.

We are of the conceit that we're "better" than animals, but I think we're actually worse.

[FBM]

The African Wild Cat begins to eat its prey before it's dead. They can't choke it like a lion, so they have chew it to death. A farmed cow gets a quick and clean compared to that.

But we are 'better' (I use the word with some care!) than African Wild cats - or people with Seth's sort of utilitarian outlook surely?

I'm not sure on how we are "better" than any other animal, even taking your use of the words "with some care" into account. I don't envision other animals as being purely vicious, without regard for the welfare of others. I think that's a vestige of the "nasty, brutish and short" philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, which, I think, anthropology has dismissed.

We are of the conceit that we're "better" than animals, but I think we're actually worse.

My best guess is that we're pretty similar, all things said and done...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think we're the least well behaved of all the members of the animal kingdom because we are aware of the consequences of our actions but disregard them. :picard:

[Animavore]

This is good.