Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[hitssquad]

Continuity of intelligence construct throughout animal kingdom

We come from a common background at some point. The fact that humans weren't just dropped down from the sky by god, separate from other animals, indicates that other animals have mental capacities similar to my own.

According to Arthur Jensen, intelligence among all animals is essentially the same thing:

The main indices of intelligence in animals are the speed of learning 
and the complexity of what can be learned, the integration of sensory 
information to achieve a goal, flexibility of behavior in the face of 
obstacles, insightful rather than trial-and-error problem-solving 
behavior, transfer of learning from one problem situation to somewhat 
different situations, and capacity to acquire abstract or relational 
concepts. There is a definite relationship between high and low 
ratings of animals' performances along these dimensions (all of which 
involve a common fact of differences in complexity) and the animals' 
phylogenetic status. Numerous ingenious behavioral tests have been 
devised to investigate this relationship, tests that permit 
comparisons of behavioral capacities of quite differing animals 
despite their often vast differences in sensory and motor capacities. 
It is possible to give such diverse species as fish, birds, rats, 
cats, and monkeys essentially equivalent forms of the same test 
problems. In terms of measured learning and problem-solving 
capacities, the single-cell protozoan (e.g., the ameba) rank at the 
bottom of the scale, followed in order by the invertebrates, the 
lower mammals, the primates, and man. The vertebrates have been 
studied most intensively and show fishes at the bottom of the 
capacity scale, followed by amphibians, reptiles, and birds. Then 
comes the mammals, with rodents at the bottom followed by the 
ungulates (cow, horse, pig, and elephant, in ascending order), then 
the carnivores (cats and dogs), and finally the primates, in order: 
new world monkeys, old world monkeys, the apes (gibbon, orangutan, 
gorilla, chimpanzee), and, at the pinnacle, humans. Because of 
individual differences within species, there is considerable overlap 
between adjacent species and even adjacent phyla in the phylogenetic 
hierarchy.

from the section "Animal Intelligence" (pp 175-182) from Jensen's book
Bias in Mental Testing.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Passing thoughts ...


Why does it matter whether the animals feel pain or not? Isn't it enough that you end their life?...I'm hoping were all agreed that they are living beings...

Would killing a guy painlessly make it any better?...ok...cow's not a human...but can't we consider life as sacred?...

I think the same might apply to vegetables...they are also living beings...how can it be justified killing them then?

Maybe...just maybe...it can't be justified both ways therefore out of the necessety to eat -its ok to eat meat or just vege's.

I'm confused about this 'directiveness' of the morality behind killing animals and vegetables. Whatever you make of use in life - one of you're possible opportunity cost is that you could have let someone/something else make use of it.

Same for veges - you could have let it gro and no doubt some animal would have eaten it and extended its life. So what i meant by 'directiveness' (if you'll please excuse term and possibly let me in on the word I am looking for...) is that to kill a cow - is horrible for some because the next step is to eat it. But killing a plant isn't so nasty cos you don't see the poor little rat (again sorry ... ) dying earlier than it should. I don't know how many people who campaign for animal food (im just saying this...i don't know any campaigners at all..but I am assuming there is no campaign to save the coakroach) to be banned do the same for the fly, mouse, rats, lice, slugs, fleas, and other harmless insects/animals that aren't very appealing (this is an assumption - i might be wrong and I'm using hypotheitcal examples).

Meat-eaters shoudn't moral superiority as much as non-meat eaters (sorry...can't remember whose 'carnivourous' and not...done biology long time ago...)

As much as non-meat-eaters try and raise the status of animals - they lower the status of humans and vegetables.

Humans: because it is said that such a big part of our being human is to do with us having a nervous system that animals should have a share in some of our most basic rights. Sure - we do - but we're more than that otherwise you would have to agree with making lawful a lot of nasty things.

Vegetables: because they are reduced in weight of importance compared to animals because it is then ok to eat vegetables as a substitutrw to animals. - lesser evil

If people believe in the sanctity of animal life- Why not eat pills and go on a drip etc... etc... and stay alive? If you're body's health will be affetced - that's no excuse. I don't think peoiple's health issues should come into it. We know we can live as non meat eaters and meat-eaters. All because you'll become a little unhealthier does it give you the right to kill living things like plants? Or is it because its impractical to live like that we're going to assume its the lesser evil (somehow)?

[I asked a lot of question that might sound rude-I apologise if they cause offence. I am not directing them at any particular person simply because I couldn't read through all the posts]

 

[cragwolf]

Why does it matter whether the animals feel pain or not? Isn't it enough that you end their life?...I'm hoping were all agreed that they are living beings...

Would killing a guy painlessly make it any better?...ok...cow's not a human...but can't we consider life as sacred?...

Personally, I don't consider life to be sacred. That's why, for example, I support abortion in most cases, infanticide in very restricted circumstances, and euthanasia in some situations. What I consider sacred is quality of life. It is quite reasonable and rational to talk about the quality of life of a cow, pig, chicken, turkey or sheep. Not so for vegetables (and fruits). Because of this difference, when I face the following two choices,

a) Eat animals and plants
b) Eat plants

both of which can sustain my quality of life, I should choose b). Even if one considered all life to be sacred but that animals are more sacred than plants, one should choose b).

 

[quddusaliquddus]

I would have thought the state of being alive/dead had an effect on the quality of life :D

I see where you're coming from though. You're consistent in that you even support infanticide. But infanticide is a very murky topic.

The sacredness of life isn't essential to what I am arguing (I think)...its more the consistancy of the attitude towards animals and vegetables

How is an animal 'more sacred' than a plant? ... I understand that this is not your position but I'm asking to those who consider it so ... Surely there's no clear line between an animal's sacredness and a plant's.
IMHO I don't think this thing can be argued either way.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Why does it matter whether the animals feel pain or not? Isn't it enough that you end their life?...I'm hoping were all agreed that they are living beings...

Would killing a guy painlessly make it any better?...ok...cow's not a human...but can't we consider life as sacred?...

The ability to experience pleasure and pain gives value to a life. Being "alive" is not a good criterion. A plant is merely the equivalent of a growing rock.
Killing a creature takes away its ability for future pleasure (and suffering, too), and that is why there are unethical aspects to it. Would there be any ethical difference between killing a person (terminating biological processes like metabolism) and merely making him/her "braindead"? If someone is already braindead, would it matter if you killed the organism? What was once a person is now merely a lump of metabolizing flesh.

Same for veges - you could have let it gro and no doubt some animal would have eaten it and extended its life. So what i meant by 'directiveness' (if you'll please excuse term and possibly let me in on the word I am looking for...) is that to kill a cow - is horrible for some because the next step is to eat it. But killing a plant isn't so nasty cos you don't see the poor little rat (again sorry ... ) dying earlier than it should.

Realistically, people aren't going to just starve themselves. The rat may very well find something else to eat. The best situation would be where there would not be the competition between a rat and a human in the first place. It is important to realize that problems resulting from plant agriculture are multiplied by animal agriculture, because we grow crops to feed to factory-farmed animals. About 70% of grain consumed in the USA is fed to farmed animals. Eating only plants is therefore better than eating animals.

As much as non-meat-eaters try and raise the status of animals - they lower the status of humans and vegetables.

That argument is an indicator of the desire to feel superior to someone else--the very desire that leads to racism, sexism, and childhood bullydom. Did it low the status of white people to accept blacks and Asians as their equals?

Humans: because it is said that such a big part of our being human is to do with us having a nervous system that animals should have a share in some of our most basic rights. Sure - we do - but we're more than that otherwise you would have to agree with making lawful a lot of nasty things.

I'm not sure of what you are trying to say here.

BTW, much of what you have said has already been addressed in previous posts of mine.

 

[cragwolf]

The sacredness of life isn't essential to what I am arguing (I think)...its more the consistancy of the attitude towards animals and vegetables

I've already addressed that, but to further elaborate, animals are significantly different to plants. These differences, which have been described by others in this thread, are what I appreciate and value in animals. I suspect this is true for just about everyone, including yourself. Why should there be a consistency of attitude towards animals and plants? Should there be a consistency of attitude towards animals and people? Should there be a consistency of attitude towards inanimate matter and life? We discriminate all the time in our attitudes towards objects or classes of objects. You can't simply demand a consistency of attitude towards two particular subsets of objects; you must provide a justification for it. Without that justification, you can't use it to argue against vegetarianism.

 

[Les Sleeth]

How is an animal 'more sacred' than a plant? ... I understand that this is not your position but I'm asking to those who consider it so ... Surely there's no clear line between an animal's sacredness and a plant's.
IMHO I don't think this thing can be argued either way.

I don't know about "sacred" (since I don't know what that means), but as far as I can see the major difference between animals and plants is that animal life has a nervous system. If we follow the path of development of the nervous system it leads to humanity and consciousness. If I were to label anything "sacred," I'd have to say it's consciousness.

In any case, putting that in terms of compassion, a living thing with a nervous system is more capable of feeling and being aware than that which has no nervous system. I really don't think plants mind much if you eat them; they just aren't aware enough to notice.

 

[KingNothing]

To answer some of the inquiries about vegetarianism and weightlidfting as well as overall health, see this link:


http://www.bullz-eye.com/furci/2004/021901.htm

It is responses by professional powerlifter Michael Furci, to vegetarianism and powerlifting. He cited sources, as well.

 

[Les Sleeth]

To answer some of the inquiries about vegetarianism and weightlidfting as well as overall health, see this link:


http://www.bullz-eye.com/furci/2004/021901.htm

It is responses by professional powerlifter Michael Furci, to vegetarianism and powerlifting. He cited sources, as well.

Well, your link wasn't all that encouraging that meat eaters are the sharpest knives in the drawer. His responses indicated to me at least he might need a little less testoserone, not more ("pie hole"?).

Essential amino acids -- all, every one -- are found in plant foods. One can eat the right combination of plant foods with just a little cerebral application and get what one needs. If someone wants to eat meat to get that, I say go for it. But don't act like it's science to say we all must do the same to get our protein, because that's nonsense.

I would love to challenge Mr. Furci to a of test his assertion that meat eating is healthiest. He would eat meat to get his eight essentials, I would eat non-dead-rotting-flesh to get mine. I say mine is cleaner, easier to digest, results in less risk of cancer, heart disease, etc., and gives me more net energy than meat. Of course, if all he wants to do is beef up like a piece of meat, or pound somebody's head like a Neanderthal, then he might have the correct diet.

 

[turin]

... all the vegetarians around the world
are still perfectly fine and healthy.

This is not true. Some vegetarians are now dead, even.

- Should we continue eating meat as the world's
population continues to expand rapidly??

No, we should eat the population.

 

[KingNothing]

Well, not quite. Just because someone bodybuilds and powerlifts does not make them barbaric, and I am a little offended by that notion.

A professional bodybuilder's testimony is enough to convince me, seeing as he did cite all his references. Maybe you should write to him?

 

[quddusaliquddus]

It is a confusing topic...for me anyway. I think it's made more confusing because there is a lot of disagreement about the nature of life.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

That argument is an indicator of the desire to feel superior to someone else--the very desire that leads to racism, sexism, and childhood bullydom. Did it low the status of white people to accept blacks and Asians as their equals?

Obviusly, I don't in anyway condone racism, sexism, etc... I didn't mean that by raising the status of plants - you lower that of animals. That's why I split my argument in the next lines and gave separate reasons for the raising and lowering of status's. I meant both of these are done - but seperately.

Theoretical question: would a person who becomes a 'rodentarian' so to speak (no offence meant to vegetarians) or eats only very 'simple' animals, would they be more 'right' in what they do than a person who eats larger animals albeit with a larger/complex nervous system?

 

[russ_watters]

Level of intelligence is irrelevant. If it can be shown that a creature feels, then it is wrong to harm the creature. I have stated (briefly, at least) at least 3 different ways of coming to the conclusion that non-human animals are sentient (have the ability to experience):

This was my point in my last post. You've stated your opinion a number of times (the biological part anyway - you still have yet to explore the larger moral implications). I understand it. It seems reasonable (though I disagree) - but you still need to support it.

Obviusly, I don't in anyway condone racism, sexism, etc...

Q, don't worry about racism implications: there aren't any. Its a smokescreen because in order to connect this to racism, you have to accept that blacks aren't human or that animals are human.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, not quite. Just because someone bodybuilds and powerlifts does not make them barbaric, and I am a little offended by that notion.

A professional bodybuilder's testimony is enough to convince me, seeing as he did cite all his references. Maybe you should write to him?

I apologize for my sarcasm. I came here this morning to delete it. It was mostly directed at Mr. Furci's brutish attitude, not you (now, that's logical isn't it! ).

However, I don't think a bodybuilder's testimony is enough. He is likely going to find information which supports his approach. I would bet you can find those who bodybuild, don't eat meat, and who recommend that diet.

It comes down to tradeoffs. I traded off the intensity of the taste of flesh for feeling better, a stronger immune system (I believe anyway), ease of digestion, and lowered risks of certain diseases. Now my taste is completely dominated by a new set of foods. I am an amatuer chef, and love to cook flavorful foods for my pterodactyl friends to hear them say "gee, I don't miss the meat at all."

I don't see Dan's point about the morality of it. Neither can I see how it is the smartest approach to convincing people not to eat meat; people don't want another guilt trip laid on them. I think it would be better to emphasize the health benefits first, and for more compassionate treatment of slaughter animals in the meantime . . . but that's just my opinion.

 

[maximus]

in my opinion, these arguements are stupid. obvoiusly we as species were designed by the rigours of evolution to eat meat as well as plants. (you don't believe me? feel those two sharp teeth poking out of your gums) therefore, it must provide certain critical advantages, otherwise nature would have chucked it out. given, we are not designed to be a predominantly meat-eating species like the lion is but it would seem it serves some purpose.
and as to the arguements that we have moral obligations not to hurt the pretty little critters, i submit that it is utter crap. whether or not the cow dies painlessly or with a torturing pain that we can't imagine is irrelevant so long as its meat is still good.

 

[Les Sleeth]

in my opinion, these arguements are stupid.

Very logical, well thought out Maximus. I applaud your dedication to contemplation.

. . . and as to the arguements that we have moral obligations not to hurt the pretty little critters . . . i submit that it is utter crap.

I've always wondered about the relationship between compassion and crap.

whether or not the cow dies painless or with a torturing pain that we can't imagine is irrelevant so long as its meat is still good.

You are the guy I want as my doctor, no doubt.

 

[Dissident Dan]

LWSleeth,

As far as approach, it's hard to say what will be the best approach. There are advantages and disadvantages to either approach.

Advantages to talking health/wellness first:
-Gives people a personal benefit
-It's easier to make the argument, since it relies on medical knowledge and not ethics
-Others which I'm not taking the time to think of

Advantages to ethical argument first and foremost:
-Adherence to ethics can be stronger than adherence to a diet, especially when some other diet comes along that can also achieve the desired effects
-Health arguments can lead to people eating more poultry, thereby increasing the number of animals suffering and changing to a type of animal that probably suffers the greatest (although the treatment of pigs gives them a run for their money, so to speak)
-For me, ethics is the main reason, and I don't want to appear disingenuous or make it seem like ethics are less important than personal wellness

Russ,

I should start another thread dealing with the basis of ethics, since it is definitely worthy of its own thread and giving it a separate thread will give these discussions some organizational clarity. Here is my basic argument:

Why can we say that something is good or bad? On what basis? For pretty much everything you say, one can always ask, "Why?" with no end in sight. For example

-"Because they're human"-> "Why does that matter? (So?)"
-"It's not honorable"-> "Why not?"
-"Because it's your own kind"->"Why does that matter?"
-"Because we can reason"->"Why is that relevenat? (So?)"
-"Because god said so"->"Why does that matter?" or "Why did god?" (this is also based on pure faith)

However, there is one stopping point: Experience (pain and pleasure). We all know the goodness of the experience of pleasure and the badness of the experience of pain through experiencing them. This goodness and badness cannot be explained in words, because of the limits on language. Experience cannot be explained; we can only accept or assume a common experience and assign a label to it.

This is not to say that one can know that an event or action is good or bad because an experience "told me so." The experience cannot directly tell you external facts. What you can learn from the experience is the quality of the experience itself. The goodness of pleasure and the badness of pain are qualities of experience. Thus, you can know their goodness and badness.

This is not to say, "Seek out your own pleasure, and worry about nothing else". There is no reason to say that there is necessarily any more value in myself having an experience than some other being having the experience. Therefore, we must, if we are to be ethical (seeking to maximize goodness and minimize badness), consider the interests of all (sentient) beings. This only lays the basis of ethics, and leaves wide open the question of how to consider, protect, or optimize the interests of all, other than the fact that it must be consequentialist (which you could form a deontology with the understanding that the establishment of these deontological rules has positive consequences [how's that for a kick in the pants?]).

 

[KingNothing]

However, I don't think a bodybuilder's testimony is enough. He is likely going to find information which supports his approach. I would bet you can find those who bodybuild, don't eat meat, and who recommend that diet.

Well, yes. There are vegetarian (heretofore vgt.) bodybuilders...but (assuming statistics are not made up by furci) none of them have won a major event.

I found another article about iodine deficiency among vgt's. http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/south43.htm

But anyway, as you can see there are plenty of information sources saying that vgt-ism is bad for bodybuilding. I have seen (while researching) a lot of sites that are centered upon an idea like "if you are a vegetarian and trying to bodybuild, try this", or in other words, helping you attain the best results if you already are a vegetarian and won't change. I have yet to see an article with conclusive evidence saying that it is actually better to be vegetarian than not.

 

[cangus]

Anyone hear of the Atkins Diet? People are not fat because they eat a lot of meat, they're fat because of their sedentary lifestyle and they eat a lot of carbohydrates! This is also why we have such a high rate of diabetes in our society!

did u see how fat dr atkins was??

 

[russ_watters]

Russ,

I should start another thread dealing with the basis of ethics, since it is definitely worthy of its own thread and giving it a separate thread will give these discussions some organizational clarity.

Maybe. There really are two separate issues here: the biological and philosophical.

In any case, I really think the pleasure vs pain way of looking at morality/rights/etc. is far too simplistic. And I think you see there is a complexity there:

This is not to say that one can know that an event or action is good or bad because an experience "told me so." The experience cannot directly tell you external facts. What you can learn from the experience is the quality of the experience itself. The goodness of pleasure and the badness of pain are qualities of experience. Thus, you can know their goodness and badness.

My parents' cat used to hate getting in the car because he connected that with going to the vet, which he didn't like. But he didn't understand what was going on at the vet - didn't understand that getting a shot, while painful, would benefit him.

I know you don't want to accept it (but I know you do see it), but our ability to know that an immunization, while painful, is a good thing is a big part of what makes us different from the animals.

 

[hitssquad]

Consequentialism vs simplistic hedonism

the pleasure vs pain way of looking at morality/rights/etc. is far too simplistic... didn't understand that getting a shot, while painful, would benefit him.

Dan may have covered that aspect with the word consequentialist:

• This only lays the basis of ethics, and leaves wide open the question of how to consider, protect, or optimize the interests of all, other than the fact that it must be consequentialist

 

[Dissident Dan]

In any case, I really think the pleasure vs pain way of looking at morality/rights/etc. is far too simplistic.

Well, you know scientists always go with the simplest explanation that works. :) (half-joking)

Let me say that I define pleasure broadly as "positive experience" and pain/suffering/displeasure/whatever-you-want-to-call-it as "negative experience". They can be what we refer to as "physical" or "psychological" (although it's really all psychological), intellectual or simple-minded in nature. Any aspects of an experience that you enjoy are pleasurable. Any aspects that you don't enjoy are negative aspects. This may seem overly simple, but adding any other components seems arbitrary.

My parents' cat used to hate getting in the car because he connected that with going to the vet, which he didn't like. But he didn't understand what was going on at the vet - didn't understand that getting a shot, while painful, would benefit him.

This is the case that there are positive and negative aspects of an occurence. You need to consider more than just the immediate. In this case, getting the shot reduced future pain and/or extended lifespan, allowing for more future pleasure.

I know you don't want to accept it (but I know you do see it), but our ability to know that an immunization, while painful, is a good thing is a big part of what makes us different from the animals.

I fully accept that there is a rather striking contrast between our species and others due to our combination of high intellect (in comparison to other known Earth creatures), throats, mouths, and hands. Of course, those fish at the bottom of the ocean that have lights hanging from their heads present a pretty striking contrast of their own.

I don't think that we are the only reasoning creatures or that there is some grand dividing line.

Our enhanced intellectual abilities are why I hope for more from us.

 

[turin]

My parents' cat used to hate getting in the car ...

How can you presume to know this. The cat might show signs that indicate a resistance to be placed in the car, but the experiment may have a limited scope. For instance, I've seen my own cat decidedly enter my car without any coaxing or suggestion on my part. This has occurred when I have left the windows down, when I have left the door open as I was loading the car for whatever reason, and when I was sitting in the car with the door open.

But this isn't my point, anyway. I do not have a hate meter that I can connect to, or point at, the cat that will beep whenever the cat hates something. All I can do is extrapolate external behavior into a region of mentality that I can only presume to be possessed by the cat in the first place, much less should I declare knowledge of exactly to where in this region of mentality the projection should lead.

... he connected that with going to the vet, ...

This is interesting. I wonder if cats can make such complicated connections. I do find it reasonable to assume, if (almost) everytime you put your cat in the car, then you took it to the vet, that the cat would make some (at least) subconscious connection between the two events, perhaps even a causal connection. I was once told by my vet that "cats mave a selective memory. They remember what they think they need to know." This was in response to an inquiry of how to prevent the cat from destroying my furniture with its claws.

(Declawing will never be an option for me. I do not believe that I have the right to alter the cats inherent and essential bodily mechanisms.)

... he didn't understand what was going on at the vet - didn't understand that getting a shot, while painful, would benefit him.

Perhaps he understood the event manyfold better than you, the vet, and every other person in the room put together. And, while you and the vet believed to be doing the cat a service (which I admit I also believe), you were actually presenting to the cat an unnatural doom.

I know you don't want to accept it (but I know you do see it), but our ability to know that an immunization, while painful, is a good thing is a big part of what makes us different from the animals.

Perhaps this is not the point you were after, but I am curious: how do you know that the immunization is a good thing? I'll go ahead and concede that the doctors/veterinarians have performed tests that adequately and accurately demonstrate the results for the immunization in question, so that there is no doubt of the external results (i.e. the cat lives longer, does not contract certain diseases, etc.). But, what if the cat experiences a side effect that makes it miserable? Furthermore, what if, to be a ("healthy") cat means constant suffering in the first place, and the only reason that they persist in life is that they have some realization that they must pay their due on this Earth in order to have a pleasant existence beyond? I doubt that this is the case, but I cannot say with certainty that it is not. I may think that I put the cat in the car and take it to the vet by my own volition, but is my volition my own? One might say, "of course, by definition," but "definition" is just another man-made device in itself.

 

[russ_watters]

How can you presume to know this.

You're quite right: I may even be making the same type of mistake I would have accused Dan of.

This is interesting. I wonder if cats can make such complicated connections.

I don't really know. It may have been a bad example. Too complex.

 

[russ_watters]

How can you presume to know this.

You're quite right: I may even be making the same type of mistake I would have accused Dan of.

This is interesting. I wonder if cats can make such complicated connections.

I don't really know. It may have been a bad example. Too complex.

 

[THANOS]

did our evoloution intend us to eat meat? yes. But that is not the question, the question is should we eat meat?

 

[Les Sleeth]

did our evoloution intend us to eat meat? yes. But that is not the question, the question is should we eat meat?

I don't you think you can assume evolution intended us to eat meat. If we trace evolution backward for most primates, both on the Prosimian and Anthropoid sides, you find very little meat eating even among the hominoids. Chimps, who share 98% of our protein and DNA identity, only eat flesh occasionally.

We might expect that members of the homo genus started eating more meat during extreme climate changes and migration on prehistoric Earth, and kept at it (advanced species anyway) because of the secondary value skins, bones, etc. provided for nomadic and tribal living.

I still think the best test of what our body primarily evolved to eat is to judge by how our body functions on various diets. What diet helps us live the longest, stay healthy, strengthens the immune system, and so on. There is plenty of evidence which indicates that as a balanced diet includes more whole grains, legumes, vegetables and fruits and less flesh, the healthier the person eating it gets.

Now that I think about it, even if the body did evolve to eat meat, but now does better without it, that's still a sound reason to reduce or elimiminate meat from the diet. In fact, maybe plant eating is an evolutionary step UP for humanity. OMG, that means we vegetarians are evolutionary harbingers heralding a new age! (sing along, "it's the dawning of the age of asparagus, age of asparagus " )

 

[Dissident Dan]

did our evoloution intend us to eat meat? yes. But that is not the question, the question is should we eat meat?

The second part is true. The first part is not. Evolution is not an entity. It doesn't intend anything. Evolution is just what happens.

I don't know why people accuse me of anthropomorphizing when believing that animals have feelings, yet talk as thoug evolution is some sort of consciousness when defending eating meat.

As for the "we don't know if the cat thinks (or thinks X)" argument: If you apply the same reasoning to other human beings, then you are being consistent (although I think that that's sticking your head in the sand). I don't see any relevant reason to think that other humans are conscious and nonhuman animals are not. If you are going to use the argument that we can't know the if and what of the internal psychology of nonhumans animals, you should also realize that we can't directly know the same for humans. We use the same main criterion of behavior, as well as structure and history (evolution) to ascribe consciousness to other humans. There is no valid, relevant difference between humans and many species of nonhuman animals to suggest that other humans have consciousness and other animals don't.

So, if you are going to say that you can't know that the cat hates going to the vet, in order to be consider, you must say that you can't know that other humans hate anything.

Also, turin, the example with your own cat merely indicates that cats have different personalities. Call me daft, but I don't see what the point was.

 

[THANOS]

"our evolution" i said that because our evolution as humans have the teeth needed to chew meat. but of course our main diet is of plants, grains and fruits. Not all our teeth are sharp and big like other meat eating animals.

I did not state that to defend eating meat but to state my opinion. I myself eat little or no meat through out my day and totally avoid red meats.

 

[Vance]

I like Sushi, sasimi, all sea food, I eat them daily and BEEF I eat about twice a week.
We should eat meat...:)

 

[Vance]

I also like pork

 

[Dissident Dan]

"our evolution" i said that because our evolution as humans have the teeth needed to chew meat. but of course our main diet is of plants, grains and fruits. Not all our teeth are sharp and big like other meat eating animals.

I did not state that to defend eating meat but to state my opinion. I myself eat little or no meat through out my day and totally avoid red meats.

I hope that you did not feel as though I was attacking you. My point was NOT regarding whether it is "natural" for humans to eat meat. My point was just to say that evolution is a blind process with no intent or purpose.

 

[mooberrymarz]

yes. its yummy. nothing beats the taset of good meat.

 

[turin]

Dissident Dan,
I will assume that the following quotes were in response to my post.

If you are going to use the argument that we can't know the if and what of the internal psychology of nonhumans animals, you should also realize that we can't directly know the same for humans.

Did I say somewhere in my post that I knew what you were (or anyone else was) thinking? If I did, or if I said something that seemed like I did, then that was an accident.

However, there is a relevant epistemic distinction between human and non-human. Though I do agree with you that I have no direct knowledge of the internal psychology of humans, I personally feel a much more intimate connection to other humans, especially when it comes to the issue of communication. From where or why I feel this connection, I have no idea. Could I be talking to a bunch of robots, zombies, split personalities in my own mind, etc.? Of course. I have no way of ruling that out. That was not my point, though. And, if you will refer to my first post in this thread, you will see that, being in favor of eating meat, I am also in favor of eating human meat. Call me disgusting, immoral, satanic, or even inhuman, if you will, and you shall hear no disagreement from me. But PLEASE don't call me inconsistent!

We use the same main criterion of behavior, as well as structure and history (evolution) to ascribe consciousness to other humans.

Speak for yourself. I'm actually quite paranoid (on a deep level) of the other possibilities that I mentioned above (I'm probably clinically insane ). I don't see how I could logically conclude that consciousness exists outside of myself.

There is no valid, relevant difference between humans and many species of nonhuman animals to suggest that other humans have consciousness and other animals don't.

Yes, I agree. I hope that you don't think I was trying to argue against that.

So, if you are going to say that you can't know that the cat hates going to the vet, in order to be consider, you must say that you can't know that other humans hate anything.

There is a distinction.

As a fellow human, I now that the feeling of hate exists for myself. When someone says the word "hate," I believe I know what they mean. This meaning is further supported by auxiliary context which leaves me with little doubt that other humans are also capable of the same feeling that I call "hate." Every other language that I have studied has a word for this meaning, that I have understood at first by direct translation, and in some cases later by context. This diminishes my doubt that other humans experience hate.

I have never been able to decode a complicated enough vocabulary for cats to conduct a similar analysis. While this does not prove anything, it certainly distinguishes. There is a piece of evidence with which I can make determinations regarding (most) other human psychologies that I cannot apply to the cat.

But again, this was not my point. The only point I was trying to make was that we can only assume the cat hates going to the vet, and then to extend the point further, that we can only assume that the cat is capable of hate.