|
On May 29 2009 06:29 Diomedes wrote:Show nested quote +If you truly follow the Golden Rule and you think it applies to all living things than you should kill yourself, since by existing you cause pain to other creatures, whether you are vegetarian or not. What? You expect others to kill themselves to reduce your suffering? The golden rule dictates so? WTF If you follow the golden rule everyone has to commit suicide?
Easy. By existing, especially our modern lifestyle, you cause great pain to other creatures. Do you agree or not?
And if you do, is it not your duty to minimize that pain according to the Golden rule?
Which option alleviates the most pain?
You could also make an argument for living alone in the forest and self-subsisting, like an Indian sadhu. I'll accept that also.
But in no way can you justify your current existence if you abide by the Golden Rule in all things.
|
On May 29 2009 06:28 Piy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 06:22 FieryBalrog wrote:
For all you people saying we MUST treat animals with so much dignity and respect that we can't raise them for food like this, I just have one question:
why?
According to you and I there is no universal scripture with all Right and Wrong written down on there. So how can you tell me its morally Wrong? Which dogma are you following? I can field this. There is no universal scripture of right and wrong. This is true. But you must have an intrinsic feeling that suffering is worse than being happy. This is true of all forms of life. Most people also feel that trying to alleviate others suffering is important. So if you accept that animals can feel pain it seems logical to try and limit this suffering. And since we can live without eating any animal products at all, why not do that?
But if you want to use this principle use it fully.
Your house is infested with termites, Termites have nerve endings and are presumably able to experience a disruption of those nerve endings which is pain (after all, don't we condemn those who pluck the wings off of insects as cruel?)
Why should you call an exterminator?
|
On May 29 2009 06:11 EarthServant wrote:
First, I might note that when treated badly, animals produce specific hormones that are not good for their body, and probably also not good for ours. It is unknown to what extent these travel into our bodies. Plus, their cramped existence promotes disease and antibiotic use. These actually create stronger bacterial infections and increase the risk to the human population in general.
Bacterial infections that increase in strength due to resistance built up by the bacteria to a dangerous level are not going to happen. You're mistaken here. The risk entails the strength of the antibiotic being transferred into the human body where it will wreak havoc (as all strong antibiotics do). This is countered by inspection of animals to prevent this from happening. Also, the rate of bacterial mutation, while fast, will not be one to pose a threat. You might as well say H5N1 (Avian Flu) is only a single mutation away from H1N1(Spanish/Swine Flu), which it is. But what the problem is here is that more than 99% of mutations (especially point mutations) are either negative or have no effect on the organism. To say that the problem will not only go on to effect animals (and humans) stronger than before is to say that H5N1 will mutate into H1N1 tomorrow. It's probably not going to happen.
The last and a very important reason to reduce meat consumption is the ethical one. I believe that it is important not to cause pain to other creatures - basically the golden rule, I don't want to experience pain, so I would do well to prevent causing pain to other beings. From what I understand of nervous systems, and biology in general, we are far more similar to animals than we are not, and therefore I find it necessary to include them as a subject of my ethical discussion. Of course, animals eat each other, but they do not have our mental capability, and lack the capacity toward logical, ethical discussion. Therefore, they have exemption. We, on the other hand, do not.
Damn you, Peter Singer.
So, what you're saying is that Animals who share Similarities to the human race and therefore share the same cerebral functions (IE: The Cerebellum? [Sorry, i'm not an A&P major and haven't studied the brain much ;/]) are on different levels of reasoning and thinking? The urge is still there, and continues to remain there, you're arguing that humans are above the reasoning level to cause others pain, but other animals who share similar traits and cerebral functions are therefore exempt? What about Monkey's, whose DNA differ less than 5% of humans, who are also Omnivores? Are they exempt from this rule even though their reasoning is closest to the human race? I understand the point you're trying to make here, but moral reasoning does not relate to the bodies natural urges (To quote Freud and other psychologists: Sex, Death, Food, Water, and Shelter).
Note:
I personally avoid meat, and am not in anyway proclaiming one way is better than the other. I do, however, support the advances that have been made in science and simply wish to point out any errors that have been made. I do not wish to be labeled as a troll, either, because I am NOT trying to troll, merely pointing out facts. Thanks.
Also, to those of you who are saying that humans HAVE to have meat, you are wrong. Meat is simply the most effecient way to get the essential nutrients the body needs. There are plenty of plants, plant oils, and other products that can give the body essential proteins without the need of slaughtering animals. They also do not have to be in a multivitaman.
|
FieryBalrog, I agree that my existence causes suffering to others. No one disputes that. But the golden rule explains exactly why this is acceptable. Yet you misunderstand it and think you can only follow the golden rule by killing yourself.
Maybe you expect others to commit suicide for your benefit. So you can only follow it by committing suicide yourself. But generally, people are more sane. And then they don't run into this problem.
And no one has to justify their existence. We all exist. No one was ever asked if one wants to or not. It's not our choice. So how can we be responsible for our own existence?
|
On May 29 2009 06:28 FieryBalrog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 06:25 benjammin wrote:On May 29 2009 06:22 FieryBalrog wrote:
For all you people saying we MUST treat animals with so much dignity and respect that we can't raise them for food like this, I just have one question:
why?
According to you and I there is no universal scripture with all Right and Wrong written down on there. So how can you tell me its morally Wrong? Which dogma are you following? why do you think people are incapable of making a moral decision independent of dogma? Your idea that animals deserve our respect and dignity such that we cannot cultivate them for food in the modern manner is a dogma. It is a belief system that has no rational basis.
i never said we can't cultivate them for food, it's the "modern manner" that is immoral, unhealthy, and destructive
what's wrong with wanting the animals treated better? look how good kobe-style beef is
|
How is logic not an anchor. Stop claiming stuff like you are some sort of supreme being and prove stuff.
Logic is NOT an anchor, logic is only a means to an end. In order to use logic you have to start someplace, with some basic unquestioned principles (assumptions, axioms, common notions etc). That is why we have the meat eaters trolling the vegans and the vegans trolling the meat eaters. They both hold different basic assumptions and cant see how anyone else could disagree (which no one could disagree if they held those same assumed beliefs).
As I said before, it's only 'morally' questionable in the eyes of those who see animals on the same plain as humanity. We are not equals. Show nested quote +Then this is where we fundamentally disagree. Humans behave differently than other animals, but I don't believe that this places us on some different 'level.' There is no arbitrary ladder of life with humans at the top.
These seem to be the two different starting points for the meat eaters and the vegans, both used logic well to prove their individual points but because they started in different places they ended up in different places.
And it doesn't help much to try to resolve the differences between these axioms using logic, thanks to Kurt Gödel (and his incompleteness theorems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel short version=best logician in the past 3000 years) not even the field of mathematics is immune to this.
|
On May 29 2009 06:32 Piy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 06:28 FirstBorn wrote:On May 29 2009 06:26 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
The anti-vegetarian argument really just boils down to THEY'RE JUST SO DAMN TASTY :d Anti-vegerarians don't need arguments. The industry won't just disappear because some people don't eat meat. Well I think it's pretty important to be able to justify everything you do rationally. I'm not a vegan because of any moral calling or desire to change the world or anything, more just because I can't think of any logical reason for doing it thats acceptable to me. So I think meat eaters do need arguments. I think thats something thats very important for them to consider.
In my case, there is no argument. I come from an environement where people eat meat. As simple as that. My family used to grow pigs for their meat. I've witnessed them being castrated and I've helped my had kill and slaugther them when the time came. It was just the cycle of life. Meat is one of the cheapest source of proteins and raising animals for meat is one of the easiest wasy to get it.
Surely, that's not quite of a good argument. But the fact that I won't give up the luxury of eating meat is all the logic I need. I knowingly fall into ignorance to preserve that luxury. I'm more of a practical person than philosopher. I don't see the need to argue about the matter because my luxury will be preserved anyway.
|
On May 29 2009 06:36 Diomedes wrote:
FieryBalrog, I agree that my existence causes suffering to others. No one disputes that. But the golden rule explains exactly why this is acceptable.
Then explain it to me. If by living you create a net increase in suffering, why should you live?
On May 29 2009 06:36 Diomedes wrote:
Yet you misunderstand it and think you can only follow the golden rule by killing yourself.
No, I think there are other balancing factors. Morality is more complicated than "Thou shalt follow the Golden Rule". That is what I'm saying.
In full, my position is that vegetarians and vegans also cause suffering to creatures and are unwilling to give that up for convenience's sake.
The vegan simply says, "not eating meat or any animal related products is a reasonable sacrifice, but asking me to give up my diet which contains frivolous foods, other consumer products, my electricity and my gasoline and so on... that is too much."
I simply say, "giving up eating meat is also too much."
We both agree that there is such a thing as "too much moralizing". We are just disagreeing over where to draw the line. There is no qualitative moral difference on either side even though some might claim it.
|
On May 29 2009 06:34 FieryBalrog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 06:28 Piy wrote:On May 29 2009 06:22 FieryBalrog wrote:
For all you people saying we MUST treat animals with so much dignity and respect that we can't raise them for food like this, I just have one question:
why?
According to you and I there is no universal scripture with all Right and Wrong written down on there. So how can you tell me its morally Wrong? Which dogma are you following? I can field this. There is no universal scripture of right and wrong. This is true. But you must have an intrinsic feeling that suffering is worse than being happy. This is true of all forms of life. Most people also feel that trying to alleviate others suffering is important. So if you accept that animals can feel pain it seems logical to try and limit this suffering. And since we can live without eating any animal products at all, why not do that? But if you want to use this principle use it fully. Your house is infested with termites, Termites have nerve endings and are presumably able to experience a disruption of those nerve endings which is pain (after all, don't we condemn those who pluck the wings off of insects as cruel?) Why should you call an exterminator?
Ok. Well, you should probably not call an exterminator, if you're going to follow this theory through. I'll accept that. I don't really think that that proves anything though. You can still clearly save animals by not eating their products. And saving some animals + killing the termites is probably better than killing alot of animals as well as killing the termites.
I mean, I think the basic system is to try and inflict as little suffering as possible, but you're obviously going to have to be willing to do some things that conflict with the theory unless you're planning on living a vey restricted life.
|
On May 29 2009 06:42 FirstBorn wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2009 06:32 Piy wrote:On May 29 2009 06:28 FirstBorn wrote:On May 29 2009 06:26 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
The anti-vegetarian argument really just boils down to THEY'RE JUST SO DAMN TASTY :d Anti-vegerarians don't need arguments. The industry won't just disappear because some people don't eat meat. Well I think it's pretty important to be able to justify everything you do rationally. I'm not a vegan because of any moral calling or desire to change the world or anything, more just because I can't think of any logical reason for doing it thats acceptable to me. So I think meat eaters do need arguments. I think thats something thats very important for them to consider. In my case, there is no argument. I come from an environement where people eat meat. As simple as that. My family used to grow pigs for their meat. I've witnessed them being castrated and I've helped my had kill and slaugther them when the time came. It was just the cycle of life. Meat is one of the cheapest source of proteins and raising animals for meat is one of the easiest wasy to get it. Surely, that's not quite of a good argument. But the fact that I won't give up the luxury of eating meat is all the logic I need. I knowingly fall into ignorance to preserve that luxury. I'm more of a practical person than philosopher. I don't see the need to argue about the matter because my luxury will be preserved anyway.
You don't need to justify what you eat, when we've eaten the same foods since the dawn of our existence.
|
FieryBalrog , so you would be ok with being treated by humans the same way factory farm animals are treated right now, if you were one, yeah then you can follow the golden rule and still eat meat.
But I can't. So I don't eat meat.
You can do even that but you expect me to commit suicide?
I don't get it.
It's not about too much moralizing. It's about applying the golden rule.
And the golden rule is not the end to morality. It is just about applying what morality you do have consistently, without being a hypocrite.
|
On May 29 2009 04:42 Wotans_Fire wrote:
In that case you should buy organic? I've seen research that links vegetarianism with b12 deficiency. Humans have forever been omnivores it is only today that people have the luxury to be vegetarians and I don't believe its the healthier solution.
You are correct, I imagine a vegetarian would have to shell out a lot more money to feed himself than a person with a normal diet. While I try to eat more vegetables now that I am more health conscious it doesn't mean I should throw meat out of the equation.
Plus, I consider vegetarianism a upper middle class fad, nothing more nothing less. Maybe it's my prejudice, who knows?
|
On May 29 2009 06:37 benjammin wrote:
what's wrong with wanting the animals treated better? look how good kobe-style beef is
I would love to see animals treated better. I don't, however, agree that there is any moral claim in the matter. I have the ability to desire things without giving my desires the weight of moral judgment.
Too many things today, especially small things, become the subject of this. e.g. We need to clean up this river. But no, now we MUST clean up this river or we are morally BANKRUPT. This excess of rhetoric and judgment is a symptom of moralism, the idea that all actions in life have moral weight.
|
On May 29 2009 06:45 Piy wrote:
Ok. Well, you should probably not call an exterminator, if you're going to follow this theory through. I'll accept that. I don't really think that that proves anything though. You can still clearly save animals by not eating their products. And saving some animals + killing the termites is probably better than killing alot of animals as well as killing the termites.
But isn't it even better to "save the animals" + "not kill the termites"?
On May 29 2009 06:45 Piy wrote:
I mean, I think the basic system is to try and inflict as little suffering as possible, but you're obviously going to have to be willing to do some things that conflict with the theory unless you're planning on living a vey restricted life.
Exactly. And restricted lives are inconvenient and unfulfilling. So clearly there are other things that matter and have very real value beyond "inflict as little suffering as possible."
|
On May 29 2009 06:47 FieryBalrog wrote:
I have the ability to desire things without giving my desires the weight of moral judgment.
ah. must be exhausting.
|
On May 29 2009 06:45 Diomedes wrote:
FieryBalrog , so you would be ok with being treated by humans the same way factory farm animals are treated right now, if you were one, yeah then you can follow the golden rule and still eat meat.
You live in a house built on cleared land. By doing so you deprive creatures of their home. Would you be OK with people depriving you of your home?
On May 29 2009 06:45 Diomedes wrote:I don't get it.
It's not about too much moralizing. It's about applying the golden rule.
And the golden rule is not the end to morality. It is just about applying what morality you do have consistently, without being a hypocrite.
I think I addressed this here:
On May 29 2009 06:42 FieryBalrog wrote:
In full, my position is that vegetarians and vegans also cause suffering to creatures and are unwilling to give that up for convenience's sake.
The vegan simply says, "not eating meat or any animal related products is a reasonable sacrifice, but asking me to give up my diet which contains frivolous foods, other consumer products, my electricity and my gasoline and so on... that is too much."
I simply say, "giving up eating meat is also too much."
We both agree that there is such a thing as "too much moralizing". We are just disagreeing over where to draw the line. There is no qualitative moral difference on either side even though some might claim it.
|
that video was sad > poor cows T_T. I think ill watch what i eat from now on, and more veggies. We should be thankful for the animals that give there life for us to feed ourselves D:
|
FieryBalrog, you don't understand the golden rule. You believe fish to be immoral if they don't to jump into the frying pan because if humans have to exert themselves to catch them this causes needless suffering?
If I were a mouse I would not expect humans to not build houses even if that causes the destruction of my territory.
Apparently you would. But at the same time as a human you just see morality as something you think about but is just too much of a hassle to actually put into practice.
|
On May 29 2009 07:03 Diomedes wrote:
FieryBalrog, you don't understand the golden rule. You believe fish to be immoral if they don't to jump into the frying pan because if humans have to exert themselves to catch them this causes needless suffering?
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Do you or do you not live in a house which when built deprived and still deprives creatures of their home?
Would you like someone to deprive you of your home? (golden rule)
Why do you still live in a house?
You still choose to. And I still choose to eat meat.
On May 29 2009 07:03 Diomedes wrote:
Apparently you would. But at the same time as a human you just see morality as something you think about but is just too much of a hassle to actually put into practice.
I'm afraid you do just the same.
|
FieryBalrog, ever heard of the golden rule? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
