A secular debate about eating meat.

[MiM]

No. You cannot. Not a qualitative superiority anyway. That would be like a duck claiming to be superior to chickens because of their webbed feet. It is arbitrary. The only way to get at the question is to ask yourself what ethics fundamentally are, and then apply a logical structure to it.
...
3) Ethical behavior is a necessary condition for any animal to live in any cooperative social group, and it has evolved multiple times to varying degrees of complexity in every cooperatively social species. Ding ding ding! A brief survey of.. pretty much all of biology shows this one to be true.

I have difficulties reconciling these two statements. Does not the second statement more or less directly imply that, to a duck, the importance of a duck is always superior to that of a chicken, and vice versa. If ethical behaviour is an innate part of a species survival kit, then it follows that ethics is inherently subjective, at least on a species level. Of course, as humans, we are free to disregard this, if we like to, but I would be fairly cautious about completely throwing away a principle that has been an important part of our species survival this far.

Would not taking your following (very interesting) discussion about suffering, to its extremes lead to that humans should docily accept being killed by a developed species (from alpha centauri) with higher capacity of suffering, if they would require our death to alleviate their suffering. I don't think very many people would be happily accepting that.

[Svartalf]

I think atheists can argue that humans are superior to other animals. We certainly have greater cognitive abilities and a degree of sentience not shared by any other animals. An atheist could argue for a nature-given superiority, rather than a god-given superiority.

No. You cannot. Not a qualitative superiority anyway. That would be like a duck claiming to be superior to chickens because of their webbed feet. It is arbitrary. The only way to get at the question is to ask yourself what ethics fundamentally are, and then apply a logical structure to it.

Framed in a different way: it's also completely nonsensical to ever suggest humans are superior to other species (plant or animal) when viewed from the perspective of us being wet bags full of self-replicating genes.

Worse than that, we're less efficient at replicating our own genes than, say, amoeba... even if I sire 10 000 sons, none will ever be my exact genetic match, a single cell organism can make any number of perfect genetic doubles within the span of a life.

[Iratus Ranunculus]

I have difficulties reconciling these two statements. Does not the second statement more or less directly imply that, to a duck, the importance of a duck is always superior to that of a chicken, and vice versa. If ethical behaviour is an innate part of a species survival kit, then it follows that ethics is inherently subjective, at least on a species level. Of course, as humans, we are free to disregard this, if we like to, but I would be fairly cautious about completely throwing away a principle that has been an important part of our species survival this far.

Think of it like this: A duck thinking it is morally superior because it has webbed feet is ridiculous, because the character is arbitrary.

If you consider what ethics, as a philosophical discipline, is about--providing logical guidance to decision making using as a basis principles we alreadyhave floating around in our brain-pans we cannot claim categorical superiority over any other living thing. The whole point of my previous discussion was to show that suffering is undesirable, no matter what experiences it. However, that does not mean that we need to worry about everything. If I am working with frogs, and am doing physiological research on them, I have to justify the pain I may cause them, and that justification must bring about a good that outweighs the bad. My research needs to contribute something that can be applied to end a greater magnitude of suffering than what I cause in the experiment. However, there are some types of suffering I do not need to worry about, such as causing the frogs to feel worried about their future. Any suffering I do cause, I have to mitigate, so I would be obligated to use some sort of analgesia/anesthetic when performing procedures. I have to keep the frogs in acceptable living conditions, etc.

If another species (such as the Centauri) comes along

http://bp3.blogger.com/_F1z3Oa3dJFM/R5A ... o%2BS2.jpg

They have to justify what they propose to do, and doing so is much much harder because they have to worry about the higher level cognitive processes which can lead to suffering, and which are all much harder to mitigate.

Would not taking your following (very interesting) discussion about suffering, to its extremes lead to that humans should docily accept being killed by a developed species (from alpha centauri) with higher capacity of suffering, if they would require our death to alleviate their suffering. I don't think very many people would be happily accepting that.

[sandinista]

I think atheists can argue that humans are superior to other animals. We certainly have greater cognitive abilities and a degree of sentience not shared by any other animals. An atheist could argue for a nature-given superiority, rather than a god-given superiority.

No. You cannot. Not a qualitative superiority anyway. That would be like a duck claiming to be superior to chickens because of their webbed feet. It is arbitrary. The only way to get at the question is to ask yourself what ethics fundamentally are, and then apply a logical structure to it.

Framed in a different way: it's also completely nonsensical to ever suggest humans are superior to other species (plant or animal) when viewed from the perspective of us being wet bags full of self-replicating genes.

Well, if we can't compare qualities among animals, then we lose the ability to make almost any comparison at all - in terms of performance. I think that we can make comparisons as to which is faster, stronger, better at surviving, better at killing, better at talking, better at thinking, better at being conscious, better at abstract thought and planning, better at tool use, better at took making, better at talking, better at listening, better at many other things. There's nothing wrong with such comparisons. We're superior to elephants at playing basketball and making die-cast models, for example.

Of course different animals are better at specific tasks, but that doesn't give rise to general superiority. Exactly the same could be said of machinery. Which is more superior, a crane or a pen?

On the brighter side...roosters are "superior" to humans at knife fighting.

http://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/issues ... 1000401836

A central California man fleeing a broken-up cockfight died last week of a stab wound believed to have been made by one of the fighting birds.

[MiM]

Think of it like this: A duck thinking it is morally superior because it has webbed feet is ridiculous, because the character is arbitrary.

That is completely beside the point. The duck feels its moral superiority not because of its feet, but because it's a duck. Within the "duck ethics" this is inevitable and completely ok, because the "duck ethics" has evolved with exactly one goal: To give ducks a competitive edge. Of course the chicken feels exactly the same way about chickens.

If you consider what ethics, as a philosophical discipline, is about--providing logical guidance to decision making using as a basis principles we alreadyhave floating around in our brain-pans we cannot claim categorical superiority over any other living thing.

Disagree. Exactly because the things we have already floating around in our brain-pans are highly tuned for human competitive survival and cannot (and I would like to say should not) be weaned out, we will inevitably (and, I would like to add, with full right) claim that from a human standpoint, humans go before anything else. At the same time we accept that the duck still thinks its own survival is more important then the human hunters.

The whole point of my previous discussion was to show that suffering is undesirable, no matter what experiences it. However, that does not mean that we need to worry about everything. If I am working with frogs, and am doing physiological research on them, I have to justify the pain I may cause them, and that justification must bring about a good that outweighs the bad. My research needs to contribute something that can be applied to end a greater magnitude of suffering than what I cause in the experiment. However, there are some types of suffering I do not need to worry about, such as causing the frogs to feel worried about their future. Any suffering I do cause, I have to mitigate, so I would be obligated to use some sort of analgesia/anesthetic when performing procedures. I have to keep the frogs in acceptable living conditions, etc.

If another species (such as the Centauri) comes along



They have to justify what they propose to do, and doing so is much much harder because they have to worry about the higher level cognitive processes which can lead to suffering, and which are all much harder to mitigate.

And that discussion is interesting, if you are trying to view everything from the outside. but from the frogs viewpoint, there is nothing that can justify your experiments on it, and it will always try to escape, no matter how important your research is for humans. In the same manner humans will definitely tell the Centaurian to buzz off (and throw some nukes at him, if we think that can help), if he comes here with an intent that is clearly harmful to humans, no matter how good his intent is from some cosmic viewpoint.

[Warren Dew]

I think atheists can argue that humans are superior to other animals. We certainly have greater cognitive abilities and a degree of sentience not shared by any other animals. An atheist could argue for a nature-given superiority, rather than a god-given superiority.

No. You cannot. Not a qualitative superiority anyway. That would be like a duck claiming to be superior to chickens because of their webbed feet. It is arbitrary. The only way to get at the question is to ask yourself what ethics fundamentally are, and then apply a logical structure to it.

Framed in a different way: it's also completely nonsensical to ever suggest humans are superior to other species (plant or animal) when viewed from the perspective of us being wet bags full of self-replicating genes.

True.

Of course, since that applies to plants as well as animals, it makes vegetarians just as evil as meat eaters - which in fact is how I see the issue.

Yes, yes, I know the "but animals can feel pain and plants cannot" argument. What that argument really says is "animals can feel pain like us and plants have different ways of sensing the world" - which boils down to "I don't eat animals because they're more like me than plants are." It then just becomes a line drawing exercise; some people draw the line closely, only prohibiting eating of other humans; some apply it only to mammals; some only to animals; maybe some apply it only to eukaryotes but feel free to eat bacteria. None of these positions is "more ethical" than any of the others; they're all based on the parochial view that things more like oneself have more value.

[sandinista]

I think atheists can argue that humans are superior to other animals. We certainly have greater cognitive abilities and a degree of sentience not shared by any other animals. An atheist could argue for a nature-given superiority, rather than a god-given superiority.

No. You cannot. Not a qualitative superiority anyway. That would be like a duck claiming to be superior to chickens because of their webbed feet. It is arbitrary. The only way to get at the question is to ask yourself what ethics fundamentally are, and then apply a logical structure to it.

Framed in a different way: it's also completely nonsensical to ever suggest humans are superior to other species (plant or animal) when viewed from the perspective of us being wet bags full of self-replicating genes.

True.

Of course, since that applies to plants as well as animals, it makes vegetarians just as evil as meat eaters - which in fact is how I see the issue.

Yes, yes, I know the "but animals can feel pain and plants cannot" argument. What that argument really says is "animals can feel pain like us and plants have different ways of sensing the world" - which boils down to "I don't eat animals because they're more like me than plants are." It then just becomes a line drawing exercise; some people draw the line closely, only prohibiting eating of other humans; some apply it only to mammals; some only to animals; maybe some apply it only to eukaryotes but feel free to eat bacteria. None of these positions is "more ethical" than any of the others; they're all based on the parochial view that things more like oneself have more value.

Saying " animals can feel pain and plants cannot" isn't a "yah yah whatever" kind of statement. If you can't see the difference between killing a dog and eating it and grabbing an apple off a tree and eating it then I would say you really can't discuss "ethics" or "morals".

[Svartalf]

how do you regard cultivating corn in fields only to reap these fields and make the grain into food as any different from raising animals for the slaughter ?

Or, for that matter, raising fruit trees in orchards and tightly controlling reproduction so you can get all the fruit.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think atheists can argue that humans are superior to other animals. We certainly have greater cognitive abilities and a degree of sentience not shared by any other animals. An atheist could argue for a nature-given superiority, rather than a god-given superiority.

No. You cannot. Not a qualitative superiority anyway. That would be like a duck claiming to be superior to chickens because of their webbed feet. It is arbitrary. The only way to get at the question is to ask yourself what ethics fundamentally are, and then apply a logical structure to it.

Framed in a different way: it's also completely nonsensical to ever suggest humans are superior to other species (plant or animal) when viewed from the perspective of us being wet bags full of self-replicating genes.

True.

Of course, since that applies to plants as well as animals, it makes vegetarians just as evil as meat eaters - which in fact is how I see the issue.

Yes, yes, I know the "but animals can feel pain and plants cannot" argument. What that argument really says is "animals can feel pain like us and plants have different ways of sensing the world" - which boils down to "I don't eat animals because they're more like me than plants are." It then just becomes a line drawing exercise; some people draw the line closely, only prohibiting eating of other humans; some apply it only to mammals; some only to animals; maybe some apply it only to eukaryotes but feel free to eat bacteria. None of these positions is "more ethical" than any of the others; they're all based on the parochial view that things more like oneself have more value.

Saying " animals can feel pain and plants cannot" isn't a "yah yah whatever" kind of statement. If you can't see the difference between killing a dog and eating it and grabbing an apple off a tree and eating it then I would say you really can't discuss "ethics" or "morals".

That's a ridiculous statement. He made the point that based on the argument to which he was responding there is no way to claim that humans are "superior" to plants. That doesn't mean he can't discuss "ethics" or "morals." Basically, you just said that if he doesn't see the issue the same way as you, or at least in a way acceptable to you, he can't even discuss the issue.

Sure - plants are quite different than animals. That's why they're called plants and not animals. They some animals - like amoeba and jellyfish are about as different from humans as plants are. Perhaps there are some animals, then, that can be eaten, right? If they are more like plants than humans?

[Coito ergo sum]

how do you regard cultivating corn in fields only to reap these fields and make the grain into food as any different from raising animals for the slaughter ?

Or, for that matter, raising fruit trees in orchards and tightly controlling reproduction so you can get all the fruit.

Why not simply decree that humans in order to be moral must manufacture their nutrients in a lab or factory from non-living material? It's certainly possible to do so.

[JimC]

And perhaps the best response is:

"For those animals capable of feeling pain and suffering, choosing to eat them should involve minimising their pain and suffering during their life, and in the slaughtering process, as much as possible"

[Svartalf]

how do you regard cultivating corn in fields only to reap these fields and make the grain into food as any different from raising animals for the slaughter ?

Or, for that matter, raising fruit trees in orchards and tightly controlling reproduction so you can get all the fruit.

Why not simply decree that humans in order to be moral must manufacture their nutrients in a lab or factory from non-living material? It's certainly possible to do so.

I don't give a demn, I'm an eater of meat and industrial food. But since sandy used plucking an apple from the tree asd an example that a veggie diet is not harmful even to the plants, I was calling him out on that.

[nellikin]

Hmm - food for thought here.

I must agree that drawing a mandatory line between species because of our beliefs surrounding their perception of/interactions with the world seems highly fallible to me (how can vegetarians jusitfy eating yeasts and bacteria, which are clearly non-vegetable!). I was, at one point in my life, vegetarian. Not because of any notion of suffering (I have never seen the world to be a "humane" place and certainly think evolution has brought about a great deal of necessary suffering with species devouring other secpies and being parasitic. Such is life sustained!) but merely because of the environmental impacts of modern-day agriculture, which are truly devastating and short-sighted. Given that we need our environment to survive, we are fools to treat it the way we do, mismanaging our most important resources - soil! and water - with destructive agricultural methods. That said, there are sustainable agricultural methods which need not destroy our primary resources, but can only sustain a limited human population on earth...

[Warren Dew]

Saying " animals can feel pain and plants cannot" isn't a "yah yah whatever" kind of statement.

Indeed it isn't - it's the kind of statement that encapsulates deep seated bigotry with regard to the ideas of feeling and pain. Cut a plant, and it bleeds, just as animals do. That it bleeds a circulating fluid of a different color and consistency does not mean that the plant is not harmed.

If you can't see the difference between killing a dog and eating it and grabbing an apple off a tree and eating it then I would say you really can't discuss "ethics" or "morals".

Oh, I can see a difference, since fruit is intended by the plant to be eaten by animals. That would certainly give fruitarians the moral high ground relative to vegetarians who eat vegetables torn from the earth by the roots, willy nilly - but if the fruit is from an orchard, as Svartalf points out, only as much moral high ground as a slaver might have relative to a murderer.

[Warren Dew]

And perhaps the best response is:

"For those animals capable of feeling pain and suffering, choosing to eat them should involve minimising their pain and suffering during their life, and in the slaughtering process, as much as possible"

I would add that, in addition to minimizing suffering, we might want to take into account the pleasure those animals have in their lives. To the extent that meat eating provides an opportunity for animals to lead pleasurable lives, it can be seen as a moral positive, rather than a negative.