Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[JPD]

but you can associate with them and never, ever have the slightest fear of being eaten!

in fiendship,
prad

I shall do my utmost to return the compliment.

 

[OneEye]

so are you asking me or telling me? please clarify.

in friendship,
prad

I am asking you: On what grounds do you enforce your moral vegetarianism on your dog - a moral perspective which the dog evidently does not share?

This may seem like a casual objection, but it is actually a key demonstration of my ongoing thesis.

 

[physicsisphirst]

I shall do my utmost to return the compliment.

now that's evolution in action!

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

I am asking you: On what grounds do you enforce your moral vegetarianism on your dog - a moral perspective which the dog evidently does not share?

This may seem like a casual objection, but it is actually a key demonstration of my ongoing thesis.

well i thought i had a reasonable idea what your thesis appears to be, but i don't understand what you are up to here.
you were the one campaigning for animal-lack-of-awareness and now, suddenly, you show concern for my dog's moral perspective?

additionally, why would you assume that my vegetarianism is on grounds of 'morality'? why would you assume that i don't give my dog meat because i want him to be a 'moral' dog in this life - and possibly acquire better karma so in his next life he could be a pig? an elephant? an eagle? or whatever you'd like to conjure up, oneeye!

(i have to admit though that hitsquad's 'dog eating poo' revelations have been a real eyeopener! i am starting to feel as if i have been negligent in some way since my dogs can wander our rather large yard and goodness knows what they might find succulent - away from my astute observation. i should really have a father to dog talk with them just so they know that certain activities are not in their best interests in our natural world!)

if you really do want to know why i don't feed meat to my dog (there are 2 doggies, btw), reread my earlier posts or just ask me (and i'll tell you to reread my earlier posts) and you'll get a pretty good idea.

in friendship,
prad

 

[russ_watters]

...additionally, why would you assume that my vegetarianism is on grounds of 'morality'?

Um, because we've been discussing the morality of eating meat for about two weeks now...

 

[shrumeo]

This is a little OT, but its my fault for alluding to it: I'm not sure I buy the argument that we should avoid making other species extinct (though, for now, I accept it and follow it). I'm just not sure what its based on. Is it ecology? Is it simply a matter of keeping pretty/interesting/tasty animals alive so our kids can see them at the zoo and eat them?

Maybe that's a topic for another thread...

I think the point is that we don't know the impact of causing the extinction of a species so we'd better play it safe and not do it. And then, if we stop ourselves from causing the extinction of one species, we might head off any unconscious attempts to wipe out whole lots of species.

 

[shrumeo]

LOL - you don't have to go to all that trouble and you don't do the bread thing with nutritional yeast (check it out at your local healthfood store). don't be so sure that eating meat saves you either:
Almost 40% of the U.S. population is deficient in vitamin B12 according to a recent study from Tufts University in Boston and a vast majority of them are completely unaware.
http://www.mercola.com/2000/aug/27/vitamin_b12_deficiency.htm
now surely 40% of the population isn't strict vegetarian LOL
(and of course there is the usual stuff at the bottom about strict veggies going blind and suffering brain damage as a result this b12 thing - that's sort of mandatory)
(i thought we were talking about dogs anyway!)

We were talking about humans and dogs. But if we are talking about dogs then I know my dog wouldn't eat yeast, or shellfish, or (can you believe it) blue green algea.

So what if 40% of the US is B12 deficient. That means they aren't eating enough meat!

Dogs chase smaller animals without being taught, whether they see their parents doing it or not. Whether they eat the thing depends on seeing their parents do it, but the instinct to chase and catch is there for a reason.
does your dog chase, catch and eat the dogfood you provide?
i agree though that most dogs do like to chase and that, at least in the wild, they are 'taught' how to kill and then eat what they catch (by the parents).

Huh? Just because I feed my dog an artificial dog food doesn't mean that his instincts have been taken away. He still chases squirrels and chipmunks in the backyard all the time. I don't think his mom showed him what to do with them, so he just chases them. He never catches them anyway.

I never see my dog chasing oats and carrots though.

there is little point in 'admitting' something that isn't even remotely correct (besides, you need to qualify just what you mean by 'natural'). as i have shown you in earlier posts, humans do not handle animal proteins in any form particularly well. if you look at their physiology you see why. dogs are true omnivores, but that also means that they don't need meat (as you keep insisting) and this has been shown for quite some time.

I need to qualify natural? I need to define it for you?
Where do you get this crap about humans not handling animal proteins well?
The only non-animal source that even remotely gives you the proper balance of amino acids is soy, and most of the time it comes with estrogen analogs that might not be so good for you.
Look, I could be cruel to my dog and feed him oats and hay and tell him that he doesn't "need" meat, but isn't that going against his rights? Doesn't he have the right to life and liberty? Doesn't he have the right to eat meat if he prefers that and it's better for him?

When I say something is natural, I mean the dictionary definition of biologically natural:
"Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned"
and just to clear up artificial:
"Made by humans; produced rather than natural."
From http://www.dictionary.com/

agreed! the veg diet is good for dogs because they don't have to deal with the usual problems encountered when consuming meat (some dogs don't handle it well at all) which is why mainstream companies such as nature's recipe and natural life make a veg line - they don't make it to keep the ethical veggies happy you know LOL

NEWS FLASH! Meat bad for dogs! Vegetable good for dogs!
Total horsecrap.

Ah! Here is a good page:
http://www.goodpet.com/library/recipes.html

Dogs and cats evolved eating a raw meat diet. That is a fact. Through marketing, the pet food companies have convinced us that the only way our pets can stay healthy is by feeding them the “balanced diet” that they themselves manufacture - mostly from cheap filler grains and very questionable protein sources.

Along with the following recipe ideas, both cats and dogs can (and should) be given raw bones (chicken or turkey necks, wings and backs). Bones must be given raw, cooked bones should NEVER be fed, since when cooked they become brittle and can splinter.

You'll be pleased to know that they even recommend that 25% of the diet be vegetable. Even though, in the wild, the only veggies cats and dogs ever eat is grass to help them poo.

Heres more:

What other clues do we have that grains are not necessary for carnivores?
1) Dogs and cats do not have dietary requirements for complex carbohydrates.
2) Grains must be cooked or sprouted and thoroughly chewed to be digested Carnivores do not chew much at all.
3) The other nutrients in grains are readily available from other dietary ingredients. For example, B-vitamins are found in organ meats and trace minerals come from bones and vegetables. (Unfortunately, modern farming has striped many trace minerals from produce and supplementation is usually best.)

What are the negative effects? I believe that carnivores cannot maintain long-term production of the quantity of amylase enzyme necessary to properly digest and utilize the carbohydrates. In addition, the proteins in grains are less digestive than animal proteins. As a result, the immune system becomes irritated and weakened by the invasion of foreign, non-nutritive protein and carbohydrate particles. Allergies and other chronic immune problems may develop.

This is the problem my dog developed before I realized that he shouldn't eat these things, for some reason rice is ok. And this is what I mean when I say that a vegan diet IS NOT NATURAL for dogs (or cats).

 

[shrumeo]

The myths of vegetarianism.

Just a couple of links:

http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm

Upon questioning Tanya about her diet, I quickly saw the cause of her infections, as well as her miscarriage: she had virtually no fat in her diet and was also mostly a vegetarian.

MYTH #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.

Of all the myths, this is perhaps the most dangerous. While lacto and lacto-ovo vegetarians have sources of vitamin B12 in their diets (from dairy products and eggs), vegans (total vegetarians) do not.

Brewer's and nutritional yeasts do not contain B12 naturally; they are always fortified from an outside source.

There is not real B12 in plant sources but B12 analogues--they are similar to true B12, but not exactly the same and because of this they are not bioavailable (13). It should be noted here that these B12 analogues can impair absorption of true vitamin B12 in the body due to competitive absorption, placing vegans and vegetarians who consume lots of soy, algae, and yeast at a greater risk for a deficiency (14).

http://www.reallyhealthy.com/articles/ap-stephenbyrnes.html

A Response to Stephen Byrnes’ article: "The Myths of Vegetarianism"

I know vegetarians who seem distinctly unhealthy: pale faced, weak and unable to concentrate. I also know meat-eaters that are equally unhealthy: red-faced, gasping for air and with high cholesterol. Stereotypes for sure! There are also both vegetarians and meat-eaters who are very healthy—like Byrnes himself who looks the picture of health! That said, statistically, vegetarians are healthier than meat-eaters and there is, contrary to what Byrnes tells us, much supporting evidence for this.

There are way more people that are "meat eaters" than are vegetarians.
People who become vegetarians are statistically much more likely to care about exactly what they are eating
(that's how they became vegetarians).
Therefore, because these people took the time out of their day to think about what they eat, statistically, they will be healthier.
But, where is the study comparing diet-mindful vegetarians with diet-mindful "meat-eaters" (who are vegetarians that also eat some meat)?

Byrnes’ article is very useful to the vegetarian community because it reiterates the fact that just because a diet is vegetarian doesn’t automatically mean it healthy—an assumption that has seen many a healthy omnivore turn into an unhealthy vegetarian.

While this author keeps referring to the other's bias, aren't they both biased and doesn't it look like too many people have something to gain (financially) from winning or appearing to win this argument?

Myth #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.

I agree with Byrnes on this one: it is essential for all vegans to include a B12 food supplement in their diets (these supplements are made from bacterial cultures and so can be taken by vegans). There is some evidence that certain foods like Klamath Blue Green Algae contain available (non-analogue) B12, and that this vitamin can be manufactured by intestinal flora and that it might be in the soil residues, but it is dangerous to rely on these sources for such an essential vitamin (although many people have and with fair results). The risks are too great not to supplement. Byrnes last statement that vegans a few decades ago would have died as they did not have supplements or fortified foods is not true as veganism is not a modern invention!

Anyway, this whole thread was about the morality of eating meat. We keep talking about the nutritional aspects of meat vs. non-meat. But, the nutritional benefits that meats provide is a clue that we are naturally inclined to eat it, so it is not immoral to merely eat meat. What I consider immoral (what I stated in my first post on this thread) is the way that we treat food animals in the name of maximizing profit (and keeping the cost down for us, the consumers). This is a question of our luxury vs. the animals right to a pleasant existence. IMO, I don't think that animals should be treated inhumanely just so we can support a huge population of fat slobs.

 

[OneEye]

I think the point is that we don't know the impact of causing the extinction of a species so we'd better play it safe and not do it. And then, if we stop ourselves from causing the extinction of one species, we might head off any unconscious attempts to wipe out whole lots of species.

But... If any number of species have already been extincted - and if most species were extincted because of competition pressures - and if Earth is currently experiencing an extraordinary surfeit of species - then is it really wrong if one species (man) out-competes any number of other species?

It certainly would be natural.

 

[OneEye]

Anyway, this whole thread was about the morality of eating meat. We keep talking about the nutritional aspects of meat vs. non-meat. But, the nutritional benefits that meats provide is a clue that we are naturally inclined to eat it, so it is not immoral to merely eat meat. What I consider immoral (what I stated in my first post on this thread) is the way that we treat food animals in the name of maximizing profit (and keeping the cost down for us, the consumers). This is a question of our luxury vs. the animals right to a pleasant existence. IMO, I don't think that animals should be treated inhumanely just so we can support a huge population of fat slobs.

Two thoughts: First, as I have said before, the "healthy vegetarianism" apologetic is usually just a Trojan horse for the "ethical vegetarian" view. I don't mind people taking the ethical vegetarian view, but I deplore those who disguise their ethical vegetarian views with the "vegetarianism is healthier" smokescreen.

Second, I live in a ranching area, and I have helped some of the cattlemen and hog farmers out here do some of their work (though I am not a rancher or farmer myself). Honestly, I am not seeing the sort of maltreatment which is alleged by vegans. When I lived in the city, I had no facts at hand to answer the animal rights people. But now, I have access to a great deal more information. Mind you, I am not saying that any of the ranchers out here give much thought to treating these animals in a humanitarian fashion. But this is because they see the animals as being creatures whose purpose is to serve as a food supply - and not as fellow humans!

I agree that animals ought not to be subjected to cruelty. But one of the problems with this sort of discussion is that, while you and I may say, "Food animals must be killed as humanely as possible," an animal rights activist will usually say, "Killing an animal is inherently inhumane." When PETA complains about "cruel treatment" at a kosher slaughterhouse (when kosher slaughtering is one of the quickest and most painless means), they are actually complaining that animals are being killed for food - not what you and I might think when they charge that the animals are being treated cruelly.

To my mind, this sort of deception on the part of animal rights activists does great damage to their cause.

 

[OneEye]

well i thought i had a reasonable idea what your thesis appears to be, but i don't understand what you are up to here.
you were the one campaigning for animal-lack-of-awareness and now, suddenly, you show concern for my dog's moral perspective?

Yes, you see exactly where I am going. However, this is not a problem for my view. It is a problem for yours. If you believe that dogs are aware, then you must allow them the right to live by their own lights as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences. If you believe that animals (specifically, your dogs) should have the same rights as you, then surely this right includes their being allowed to eat as they please - n'cest pas? You are coercing your dog into a lifestyle which it would not choose for itself.

additionally, why would you assume that my vegetarianism is on grounds of 'morality'? why would you assume that i don't give my dog meat because i want him to be a 'moral' dog in this life...

I don't think this is just an "assumption" on my part. It would be quite easy to distill your previous posts and show that you, yourself, are an ethical vegetarian - and that you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat. You make your case for vegetarian dogs on health grounds, and you justify overriding your dogs' preferences based on their inability (or unwillingness) to make "right" choices for themselves. Yet with just a few interview questions, it would be easy to show that you would not allow your dogs to eat any meat whatsoever no matter what the health effects or noneffects were.

So, let me state myself plainly: I believe that the reason which leads you to feed your dogs a vegetarian diet is that you feel that it would be morally wrong for your dogs to eat meat. Health concerns are secondary issues (actually, probably nonissues) for you. To be fair, I do see this as a step of moral integrity for you - in the sense that moral integrity means thoroughly living one's moral convictions. But I don't believe that it's about health at all.

If I am wrong, I will gladly hear you say it. But be prepared for a little cross-examination if you do.

 

[JPD]

I concur OneEye.
There are exceptions all the time: we have a vegan lady in our office who goes on about the ethics of various components of everyone's diets, yet drinks and smokes (and swears at the head of our department when she is drunk (down the pub that is)).

I'm not quite sure where this fits in (in fact, it may belong to another thread - apologies if this is the case) but has anyone pulled those killer whales to one side and told them to stop throwing those seals up in the air - it quite upsets the viewers.

 

[JPD]

My feeling is that if you have to resort to filling your neck with vitamin supplements then there is something seriously wrong with your diet.

 

[learningphysics]

Yes, you see exactly where I am going. However, this is not a problem for my view. It is a problem for yours. If you believe that dogs are aware, then you must allow them the right to live by their own lights as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences. If you believe that animals (specifically, your dogs) should have the same rights as you, then surely this right includes their being allowed to eat as they please - n'cest pas? You are coercing your dog into a lifestyle which it would not choose for itself.

Humans aren't allowed to eat as they please... for example cannibalism is illegal. Hunting endagered species is illegal. Some humans may want these choices, and may find them morally acceptable, but they are not allowed to do these things.

Humans aren't allowed to live as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences... We have the law to prevent a serial killer from committing crimes, which he may find morally acceptable according to his conscience...

 

[russ_watters]

But humans, by virtue of taking part in government, get to shape how morality is applied by government. A dog is not afforded that right. If we were to let the animals vote...well, like someone else said, they outnumber us.

 

[learningphysics]

But humans, by virtue of taking part in government, get to shape how morality is applied by government. A dog is not afforded that right. If we were to let the animals vote...well, like someone else said, they outnumber us.

If you're below 18 in the USA, you're not allowed to vote. Criminals aren't allowed to vote.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Um, because we've been discussing the morality of eating meat for about two weeks now...

so? how is that sufficient grounds for my veggieness to be a morality thing?

Therefore, the moral thing to do based on the utilitarian principle would be for me to wipe-out the bald eagle population to prevent the deaths of those hundreds of fish..

this is from your post #814.
you have merely taken a subset here at your convenience. if you were to follow utilitarianism principles fully, then you would have to wipe out the human species which from what i understands causes the greatest amount of suffering - that course of action would necessitate your own suicide and the eagles would be safe forever.

i believe, sangeeta's post was to show you that there is a philosophical foundation for much of what she said something you didn't seem to think there was in post #782.

utilitarianism does have its drawbacks (which is probably why all philosophers aren't utilitarians), however, the idea of reducing suffering is probably not a bad one and can often be implemented with pragmatism and common sense.

2. I can eat a balanced meal without thinking about how to make it a balanced meal.

from post #831
some people are still under the assumption that veggie meals have to be carefully thought out in order to contain all the right stuff. while there might have been some justification for this attitude in the early 70s (when i became veg) due to lack of information, enough work has been done to show that a veg diet isn't lacking in anything. (now, some people think that being veg mean living on tofu and pasta - and obviously that isn't the idea.) you do not have to go to any extra effort (eg food combining for proteins) in order to benefit from a healthy veg diet. (oh yes, and if the b12 thing really worries you there is always fortified soya stuff to provide you with peace of mind.)

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

So what if 40% of the US is B12 deficient. That means they aren't eating enough meat!

LOL! a curious thing to say when you consider the prevalence of diseases (heart, cancer, osteoporosis, impotence etc) linked to animal protein consumption in the US.

I never see my dog chasing oats and carrots though.

a carrot doesn't run. throw one and your dog just might chase it.

I need to qualify natural? I need to define it for you?
Where do you get this crap about humans not handling animal proteins well?

see post #647 p44 and earlier
or see http://www.pcrm.org/
or see http://www.vegsource.com/
or see http://Earth'save.org/
or ... the list goes on and on! there really has been a lot of stuff done on this.

Look, I could be cruel to my dog and feed him oats and hay and tell him that he doesn't "need" meat, but isn't that going against his rights? Doesn't he have the right to life and liberty? Doesn't he have the right to eat meat if he prefers that and it's better for him?

if you want to feed your dog meat, that's up to you. but i don't think you can use the dictionary definition of biologically natural (see "dogs eating poo" bit) to justify it and come to the conclusion that dog's fed veg diets are unhappy or malnourished.

When I say something is natural, I mean the dictionary definition of biologically natural:
"Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned"
and just to clear up artificial:
"Made by humans; produced rather than natural."

i'm ok with that definition and i would also consider eating meat to be natural for humans when you use your 0.5 cm long canines to rip open a steer's throat (after pouncing and imbedding your 0.75 cm claws into it) and then tearing out its ... well let's not get too gruesome. i think that the vast majority of meat-eaters, though, imbed their 0.75 cm claws into the cellophane that wraps the meat which has been artificially grown in factory farms, artificially processed in slaughterhouses, artificially dressed in butcher shops and finally artificially prepared for consumption (ie cooked) - without even giving those 0.5 cm canines a workout. dogs however, being omnivores do better at eating meat more naturally, but the domesticated ones rarely get the chance to.

NEWS FLASH! Meat bad for dogs! Vegetable good for dogs!
Total horsecrap.

come now! i know it is a different idea from what most people consider 'normal', but that doesn't make it bad. anyway, I'm glad that you are at least reading some of the links and considering them - you don't have to agree with any of it.

You'll be pleased to know that they even recommend that 25% of the diet be vegetable. Even though, in the wild, the only veggies cats and dogs ever eat is grass to help them poo.

actually, carnivores often go after the stomachs of their kill to get at the vegetable matter contained there in.

This is the problem my dog developed before I realized that he shouldn't eat these things, for some reason rice is ok. And this is what I mean when I say that a vegan diet IS NOT NATURAL for dogs (or cats).

that doesn't mean it is unhealthy. rice is hardly a 'natural' food (especially for dogs), but yours seems to do ok with it which is great!

shrumeo, I'm sure you are very close to your dog and are a responsible owner and friend. otherwise, you would not be so up in arms with the veg dog concept. i would be the first to acknowledge your sincerity in this matter. however, some of us have also been quite diligent in our investigation of 'the otherside' and have seen the benefits of going there.

in friendship,
prad

 

[physicsisphirst]

If you believe that dogs are aware, then you must allow them the right to live by their own lights as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences.

dogs are very and wonderfully aware - how does that relate to their being moral agents (the former is almost passive in nature, whereas the latter is active)?
while you can argue that being a moral agent requires awareness of a certain degree, it doesn't follow that just because you are aware, you are a moral agent. to put it more physically, a tree needs the ground in order to grow, but just because the ground exists, doesn't mean the tree does.

in any case, a 5 year old can be highly aware, but we don't let munchkins run amuck and do (and munch) whatever they please.

If you believe that animals (specifically, your dogs) should have the same rights as you, then surely this right includes their being allowed to eat as they please - n'cest pas?

non, mon ami!
every being is entitled (deontological view, at any rate) to certain basic rights (eg right to be free from inflicted suffering), however, that doesn't mean that they can 'eat as they please'. good god man! what are you trying to do? bring back cannibalism?

I don't think this is just an "assumption" on my part. It would be quite easy to distill your previous posts and show that you, yourself, are an ethical vegetarian - and that you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat.

i'd like to see you do that.

So, let me state myself plainly: I believe that the reason which leads you to feed your dogs a vegetarian diet is that you feel that it would be morally wrong for your dogs to eat meat.
...
If I am wrong, I will gladly hear you say it. But be prepared for a little cross-examination if you do.

i shall not comment one way or another since i'd like to see you 'distill' my posts first - then we can do the cross-examination! i await your distillation!

in friendship,
prad

 

[Ivan Seeking]

2. Andy Rooney on Vegetarians.
Vegetarian - that's an old Indian word meaning "lousy hunter."

 

[OneEye]

Humans aren't allowed to live as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences... We have the law to prevent a serial killer from committing crimes, which he may find morally acceptable according to his conscience...

"Free moral agent" usually refers to a condition of the individual, not of the environment. A free moral agent is able to evaluate situations according to moral criteria, and is able to choose their response based on their own moral evaluation of that situation. We are not sure that animals are free moral agents - and physicsisphirst seems bent on proving that they are not!

 

[OneEye]

...you would have to wipe out the human species which from what i understands causes the greatest amount of suffering...

An animal in the wild dies either from predation, disease, or old age. All of these deaths take hours to months, and are terrifying and painful to the animal in the process. Humans dispatch their food animals in a process which takes less than an hour and which ends in a death which takes only a few seconds. Seems to me that meat-eating humans are a lot kinder to animals than nature is!

 

[OneEye]

i shall not comment one way or another since i'd like to see you 'distill' my posts first - then we can do the cross-examination! i await your distillation!

If you insist on my doing this, I will.

But I would rather not.

Frankly, my time could be put to better use than to prove to you what you already know (and everyone else does, too).

I made the claim, and if you insist, I will make good on it. But you are certainly imposing on me to require such a thing, when you can make the issue quite clear without requiring any such work from me. And, frankly, it will be hard for me not to resent it. The whole thing smells very cat-and-mouse to me.

 

[learningphysics]

"Free moral agent" usually refers to a condition of the individual, not of the environment. A free moral agent is able to evaluate situations according to moral criteria, and is able to choose their response based on their own moral evaluation of that situation. We are not sure that animals are free moral agents - and physicsisphirst seems bent on proving that they are not!

Then why did you say that physicsphirst must "allow" the dog to act as a free moral agent following his conscience etc... According to the above you can't prevent a being from acting as a moral agent.

What is the difference between preventing a human from performing certain actions he finds acceptable and preventing a dog from performing certain actions?

You were the one who stated that if someone believes a dog is aware, he must allow the dog the freedom to do whatever... But this is obviously a false statement... physicsphirst is not obligated to allow the dog to perform whatever action it wishes even if it is an aware moral agent... any more than he is obligated to allow a serial killer(an aware moral agent) to kill... or a child (an aware moral agent) to play with fire...

What is the contradiction between believing a being is aware, and restricting its actions? We restrict the actions of morally aware beings all the time...

 

[cogito]

Given my clarification, I restate:

It is moral for any member of Animalia to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).
Humans are members of Animalia.
-------------------------------------------------------
It is moral for humans to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).

How do you reply to this?

This thread is so long, I'm not sure anybody has pointed out extremely obvious and equally absurd consequence of this argument, so apologies if this is redundant. This argument implies that it is permissible for humans to kill and eat other humans if they desire to. So, Oneeye, how do you reply to that?

 

[OneEye]

This thread is so long, I'm not sure anybody has pointed out extremely obvious and equally absurd consequence of this argument, so apologies if this is redundant. This argument implies that it is permissible for humans to kill and eat other humans if they desire to. So, Oneeye, how do you reply to that?

You have, indeed, remarked on one of the difficulties in this entire thought system. To bring you up to speed: I was not promoting my own thought system, but one which derives naturally from the concept that humans are merely animals.

Someone who holds this view (that humans are merely animals) might break this chain of logic by saying, "It is universally rejected in nature that a creature might eat its own kind." This argument would be wrong, of course, since many animals (including members of class Mammalia) eat their own young.

I break this logic chain by rejecting premiss 2, that humans are merely animals. I say that humans are fundamentally different from other animals, and that it may well therefore be moral for humans to eat other animals.

Those who conclude man as a moral equal with all other animals have a harder time with this - and much of the logic-chopping which is currently going on in this thread consists of a variety of attempts to affirm the premisses of my argument while denying the conclusion.

At present, we have all agreed that man is fundamentally different from all other animals, especially insofar as man has moral responsibilities which other animals do not have, but this is as far as we have gotten. And, given certain political maneuvers which have recently been initiated, I think it unlikely that we will ever get much further.

I hope that this helps.

 

[shrumeo]

But... If any number of species have already been extincted - and if most species were extincted because of competition pressures - and if Earth is currently experiencing an extraordinary surfeit of species - then is it really wrong if one species (man) out-competes any number of other species?

It certainly would be natural.

To me it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of right or wrong, but of aesthetics.
Most of us seem to have this innate sense of loss when something irreplaceable is gone forever. It would just be a shame to lose a large chunk of the diversity of life on the planet. If the Earth turned out to be one big domed supercity, with only humans on it, what they consume, and what they throw away that would just seem like a disaster. I'm not sure if this has been proven or anything but I would assume that the more diverse the biosphere is, the more robust it is. But, there have been bottlenecks in the past. The only problem with a future bottleneck is that the cause of it (if it were man) might not be able to stop itself. Climates change, come and go, asteroids strike and the Earth recovers. But, if the cause were humans, I'm not sure how there could be a recovery without a serious reduction in human population or some change in human activity that would stop the extinctions.

 

[OneEye]

Then why did you say that physicsphirst must "allow" the dog to act as a free moral agent following his conscience etc... According to the above you can't prevent a being from acting as a moral agent.

Sorry... I'm still not making it clear. What cannot be prevented is a person's being a moral agent. Whether they can act as a moral agent has no bearing on this question. A moral agent is able to perceive moral value and make decisions which are informed by moral considerations and which have moral weight (i.e., culpability). We only hold moral agents guilty for their actions; if it cannot be convicted of a crime, then it is presumed not to be a moral agent. Justice can only be served on moral agents.

You were the one who stated that if someone believes a dog is aware, he must allow the dog the freedom to do whatever... But this is obviously a false statement... physicsphirst is not obligated to allow the dog to perform whatever action it wishes even if it is an aware moral agent... any more than he is obligated to allow a serial killer(an aware moral agent) to kill... or a child (an aware moral agent) to play with fire...

Your consideration is missing an implied or "hidden" premiss: that a moral agent may not ethically restrain a peer's liberty. Words for this sort of thing are kidnapping, slavery, false imprisonment, extortion, etc.

Only a superior authority may ethically restrain a free moral agent. For most human societies, the superior moral authority is the law, enacted by government officials. So, in order for physicsisphirst to control his dogs in this fashion (and, it must be admitted, against their known preferences), physicsisphirst must be asserting himself as the proper moral authority over the dog.

Not the sort of thing one would do if one believed that all animals had equal rights.

 

[estoydemoda]

First of all, the natural "justification" is that animals themselves eat meat. Whether you are religious and believe that God (or whatever else you worship) ordained certain animals to be eaten or if you are a believer in unaided evolution, where early humans began to work together hunting and gathering to live, meat eating has been a part of humans for a long time. Our body is developed to handle it and to function properly with it no matter what standpoint you look from.

I would like to reiterate the "least harm principle" mentioned on the second page with the thread at the bottom, and how the reapers that cut the grain actually kill more animals than eating a cow would.

Furthermore,
it is my belief that to an animal, pain is not a developed sense, because they have no choice but to give into their instincts. They cannot outgrow their "Id". Why would a sense be developed in an animal that would have no effect in their survival rates? (Keep in mind that I have no data to back this up, it is just a conjecture or my own)

As for me, I will keep eating meat. The second a wild cheetah let's its pray loose in favor of low-fat corn nuts I will drop the meat from my diet.

 

[OneEye]

To me it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of right or wrong, but of aesthetics.

I think that you're right - it is a matter of sadness when a permanent loss occurs. And I don't mean to dispute your altogether human sensibilities - especially since I share these same sensibilities. But three questions might be asked:

1) Given that sad losses occur all the time, they seem to be the way of nature. So, while we might find (say) the complete extinction of all life on Earth sad, it does nevertheless seem the altogether natural conclusion.

2) Let's be aware that we are projecting our human sensibilities on nature. This may not be appropriate. (But I think it is, because I think that these sensibilities are more than mere sentiment). However, by projecting human values on nature, and contrary to natural mores, are we acting morally? (This is my chief question at this phase of the discussion, in case you hadn't noticed.)

3) Is it moral to ask someone to impair their quest for survival or personal gratification in order to satisfy what is admittedly only an aesthetic preference?

Sorry if this seems too invasive. But some of these questions (especially #2) have a great deal to do with the theme which I am currently aiming to develop.

 

[learningphysics]

Sorry... I'm still not making it clear. What cannot be prevented is a person's being a moral agent. Whether they can act as a moral agent has no bearing on this question. A moral agent is able to perceive moral value and make decisions which are informed by moral considerations and which have moral weight (i.e., culpability). We only hold moral agents guilty for their actions; if it cannot be convicted of a crime, then it is presumed not to be a moral agent. Justice can only be served on moral agents.



Your consideration is missing an implied or "hidden" premiss: that a moral agent may not ethically restrain a peer's liberty. Words for this sort of thing are kidnapping, slavery, false imprisonment, extortion, etc.

Only a superior authority may ethically restrain a free moral agent. For most human societies, the superior moral authority is the law, enacted by government officials. So, in order for physicsisphirst to control his dogs in this fashion (and, it must be admitted, against their known preferences), physicsisphirst must be asserting himself as the proper moral authority over the dog.

Not the sort of thing one would do if one believed that all animals had equal rights.

There are rights and there are rights... From what you've described above, children are not moral agents (at least in some states they aren't considered moral agents) and don't have the same rights as adult humans... Adult humans hold themselves as a moral authority over children... something you imply cannot happen if adults and children have equal rights...

It is agreed that these type of rights... are different in adults than in children... and different in humans than in animals...

But there are another set of rights... right to be free of pain... right to be treated ethically etc... Children are given the same rights here as adults... and what the AR folks are saying is that animals should be given these same rights also...

 

[OneEye]

There are rights and there are rights... From what you've described above, children are not moral agents (at least in some states they aren't considered moral agents) and don't have the same rights as adult humans...

This is not what I am saying. It is because children are moral agents that adults hold them guilty for wrongdoing.

Adult humans hold themselves as a moral authority over children... something you imply cannot happen if adults and children have equal rights...

Not necessarily true. A policeman and I have equal rights, but he has moral authority over me. In the same way, parents are naturally vested with authority over their children, even though the children have the same rights as the parents.

But there are another set of rights... right to be free of pain... right to be treated ethically etc... Children are given the same rights here as adults... and what the AR folks are saying is that animals should be given these same rights also...

...which at least produces something like a coherent construct - until you try to implement it. But I find it troublesome that you are willing to dice rights up into such small and isolated pieces. In so doing, you reduce animals to the status of prisoners, who have the right to life and freedom from cruel or unsual punishment, but no right to liberty or a free pursuit of happiness. Who made you a judge and arbiter over them?

Or do I take you wrongly? Are you willing to say that dogs have the right to pursue happiness by chomping a butcher's bone now and again, or that cats have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness by chasing, torturing, and eating a mouse?

In addition, you have skirted an important question: If a cat is a moral agent which has its own view of the morality of eating meat, then who are you to stop it? And if a cat is not a moral agent, then can it at all be called a person, or the equal of a person?

 

[shrumeo]

LOL! a curious thing to say when you consider the prevalence of diseases (heart, cancer, osteoporosis, impotence etc) linked to animal protein consumption in the US.

You can LOL all you want, but you don't know what you are talking about.
Please show me some evidence of disease linked to a healthy diet that includes a proper amount of animal protein.

a carrot doesn't run. throw one and your dog just might chase it.

you're right a carrot doesn't run. It is only moving when moved. If the human weren't there the carrot would sit still and a dog would ignore it.
Little woodland creatures move on their own and that's why a dog's instinct is to chase after it. The dog's instinct is to ignore the carrot (unless said carrot is made much more interesting and fun by moving around as if it were an animal).

see post #647 p44 and earlier
or see http://www.pcrm.org/

Ok, this site has a lot of jumbled crap on it but I picked out what I could find quickly.
http://www.pcrm.org/health/reports/highprotein_registry.html
The title:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Health Problems Associated with High-Protein, High-Fat, Carbohydrate-Restricted Diets Reported via an Online Registry

Then they say:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Studies of general populations consuming diets high in fat, particularly saturated fat (low-carbohydrate diets have not been studied specifically) have shown increased risk of cancer,4-6 diabetes,7 and heart disease.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is all careful wording. They are saying that people with bad diets have more health problems. It's because they went to McD's and they weren't "doing south beach" or the "mediterranean diet."

I love this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methods

In the fall of 2002, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) began a pilot program to test the feasibility of an online registry to identify people who may have suffered health complications related to high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets. A modest Internet advertising campaign was used to notify consumers about the availability of this registry. In November of 2003, PCRM held a news conference to highlight the health problems suffered by some individuals using these diets and to draw attention to the registry.

To report problems with high-protein, high-fat, carbohydrate-restricted diets, individuals voluntarily visited www.AtkinsDietAlert.org and filled out a form available on the site. The registry specifically inquires about the following problems: heart attack, other heart problems, high cholesterol, diabetes, gout, gallbladder, colorectal cancer, other cancers, osteoporosis, reduced kidney function, kidney stones, constipation, difficulty concentrating, bad breath, and loss of energy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they advertised on the web to find people that would answer specific questions about their diet and that it caused them specific health problems. They made a registry of these people, and from that they get their data that they then project onto the rest of the world.

And then finally:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings

As of December 15, 2003, 429 individuals reported experiencing problems with high-protein, high-fat, carbohydrate-restricted diets via the online registry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total crap.

Anyway, then at the end they start talking about all the problems with doing the Atkins Diet as if they discovered it themselves. If you read an Atkins book, he tells you all the nutrients you aren't getting and that you have to take supplements. The Atkins diet is not meant to be permanent. At least not the really hardcore part of it. It's designed for people who have eaten themselves into a bad sugar/insulin cycle that causes a bunch of health problems if it's not cut off. The Atkins diet cuts this out and returns the body to a more normal type of metabolism. Eventually, the dieter goes back to eating carbs, but shouldn't go back to Big Macs and fries and then heading down to Ben and Jerry's afterwards. But if you do Atkins Induction your whole life it would be bad.

See, when you go for a diet that restricts a certain type of nutrient too much it causes problems. Like when you cut out certain vitamins by eating totally vegan.

or see http://www.vegsource.com/

This one is pretty funny.
I like the before and after guy.
Did he use a Bowflex and some Cortislim too?

or see http://Earth'save.org/

This is just lame propaganda. It's pretty funny though.
http://www.Earth'save.org/news/03summer/cowboy_myth.htm
Look at the pic on the left.
It has no grass because the cows ate it.
It's damaged now, like a raped child.
The other side has grass that was protected from those evil vegan cows that wanted to rip their green flesh from the root and chew them until the chlorophyll runs like a river. Oh, the horror.

or ... the list goes on and on! there really has been a lot of stuff done on this.

and you've bought it all.

if you want to feed your dog meat, that's up to you. but i don't think you can use the dictionary definition of biologically natural (see "dogs eating poo" bit) to justify it and come to the conclusion that dog's fed veg diets are unhappy or malnourished.

It was the dog's choice to eat poo. That's why it was natural. If it were it's choice to lick up some antifreeze, then that's natural, and the dog will die, naturally.

But seriously, the whole natural vs. artificial thing falls through anyway because domesticated dogs are a human product anyway. What's natural for them is to eat what we feed them. If we truly care for them, we should feed them what is most healthy for them.

If the dog honestly likes and prefers the veggie life and it causes him no harm, then great for him. But, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of dogs wouldn't be able to nor would they want to get by on nothing but vegetables.

i'm ok with that definition and i would also consider eating meat to be natural for humans when you use your 0.5 cm long canines to rip open a steer's throat (after pouncing and imbedding your 0.75 cm claws into it) and then tearing out its ... well let's not get too gruesome. i think that the vast majority of meat-eaters, though, imbed their 0.75 cm claws into the cellophane that wraps the meat which has been artificially grown in factory farms, artificially processed in slaughterhouses, artificially dressed in butcher shops and finally artificially prepared for consumption (ie cooked) - without even giving those 0.5 cm canines a workout. dogs however, being omnivores do better at eating meat more naturally, but the domesticated ones rarely get the chance to.

Um, ok. So we've gotten more efficient with the way we injest vital nutrients.

actually, carnivores often go after the stomachs of their kill to get at the vegetable matter contained there in.

Ah! Nice to know.

that doesn't mean it is unhealthy. rice is hardly a 'natural' food (especially for dogs), but yours seems to do ok with it which is great!

Great for me, because now I can save money by feeding him relatively cheap dog food that has fillers like rice and things like rendered animals. If he couldn't have rice I'd probably have to feed him raw chickens and steaks and that would get expensive.

shrumeo, I'm sure you are very close to your dog and are a responsible owner and friend. otherwise, you would not be so up in arms with the veg dog concept. i would be the first to acknowledge your sincerity in this matter. however, some of us have also been quite diligent in our investigation of 'the otherside' and have seen the benefits of going there.

I just feel sorry for any dog forced to eat nothing but vegetables.

 

[shrumeo]

But humans, by virtue of taking part in government, get to shape how morality is applied by government. A dog is not afforded that right. If we were to let the animals vote...well, like someone else said, they outnumber us.

I doubt they outnumber us.
There are roughly 60 million pet dogs in the US (I'm sure there are fewer strays).
There are about 70 millions pet cats (probably fewer strays but more than dogs, lots of ferrel cats).

 

[learningphysics]

Only a superior authority may ethically restrain a free moral agent. For most human societies, the superior moral authority is the law, enacted by government officials. So, in order for physicsisphirst to control his dogs in this fashion (and, it must be admitted, against their known preferences), physicsisphirst must be asserting himself as the proper moral authority over the dog.

Not the sort of thing one would do if one believed that all animals had equal rights.

I admit I'm getting confused...

Can you explain this last sentence you posted above? You just said that one being can exert moral authority over another when they both have equal rights (policeman etc...). So why do you write: Not the sort of thing one would do if one believed that all animals had equal rights.

physicsphirst can assert himself as moral authority over the dog, and hold the belief he has the same rights as the dog right?

Remember that this entire line of discussion began with your claim that if physicsphirst accepts a dog as a moral agent, then he must allow it to live by its own sensibilities! You said this, as if to illustrate that there was a contradiction between, "believing the dog is a moral agent", "controlling the dog's diet"... Is there a contradiction here or not?

You admit there's no contradiction here:
1. Policeman and civilian have equal rights.
2. Policeman exerts moral authority over civilian.

It appeared to me you were saying there is a contradiction here:
1. physicsphirst and dog have equal rights.
2. physicsphirst exerts moral authority over the dog.

Now it seems you're saying there's no contradiction??

Another set of statements for comparison:

You admit there's no contradiction here:
1. Parent and child have equal rights.
2. Parent controls child's diet.

It appeared to me you were saying there is a contradiction here:
1. physicsphirst and dog have equal rights.
2. physicsphirst controls dog's diet.

Why is the set of statements with the parent and child non-contradictory whereas with physicsphirst and the dog it is contradictory?

In addition, you have skirted an important question: If a cat is a moral agent which has its own view of the morality of eating meat, then who are you to stop it?

The reason I'd stop it is the same reason a policeman stops a criminal from stealing... The criminal has his own view of morality (or he may be a sociopath with no view of morality whatsoever)...Would you ask the policeman: If a criminal is a moral agent which has its own view of stealing, then who are you to stop him?

And if a cat is not a moral agent, then can it at all be called a person, or the equal of a person?

Until you qualify what exactly is meant by "equal" this is difficult to answer. But I don't think anyone is interested in whether or not cats and humans are equals except in a single very specific regard... with regard to the right to be treated ethically... to be free of pain/suffering etc... In this regard, I don't see why being a moral agent gives you greater rights... In other words I don't see why being a moral agent would/should give you the privilege of being treated better than those that are not moral agents.