Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[NoMoreFaith]

As just another animal, we are not special as theists believe; not created in the image of God. So this is no basis for out treatment of other animals. So, if you believe that it is wrong to cause unnecessary pain and suffering, on what basis would you restrict that consideration to just humans? Our consideration around inflicting pain and suffering must surely consider all those beings capable of feeling pain and suffering.

Well, I haven't contributed to this thread, but I can say with my hand on my heart, that the basis for restricting that consideration to humans is because, at heart, I am fundamentally a complete bastard.

[The Grand Nudger]

On what basis would one restrict that consideration to any group of creatures over another? You go with sentience, an effect of biology. You go with empty categorizations like "unnecessary", a failure to elaborate upon what you wish to assert. You say that we must consider all of these creatures, and yet consistently avoid considering them when conflict arises between themselves and what you, personally, prefer to eat. You seem unwilling to provide even a short list of "necessary" suffering.

So, lets just cut to the chase. Whatever suffering that would be effected by your dietary choices is "necessary", isn't it? Whatever suffering effected by the dietary decisions of others is "unnecessary". That, as far as I can tell, is all that these terms mean, and as far as you are willing to take them. They have very little to do with the creatures invoked, or any amount of suffering, and everything to do with what you, personally, prefer to eat (or not eat).

[Scabby Joe]

Well, I haven't contributed to this thread, but I can say with my hand on my heart, that the basis for restricting that consideration to humans is because, at heart, I am fundamentally a complete bastard.

Hey, we would be foolish to ignore self interest. Refreshingly frank. Wish it weren't so but I guess you are very clear where you stand. Nothing more to discuss there.

[GreatArye]

I eat meat, I never claimed to be moral.

^ This I used for as long as I can remember.

I never could rationalize a meat-eaters claim for being a morally good person and yet is oblivious to the mass consumption of meat produced by slaughterhouses and the existential pain an animal must feel having never seen the light of day, only to be taken to places where the animal does not want to go and have the life taken out if it.

I would love a bacon double cheeseburger right now, but I never considered myself moral in the first place.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your own arguments escape self interest precisely how? From where I stand that's all I see.

[Scabby Joe]

Your own arguments escape self interest precisely how? From where I stand that's all I see.

I used to love eating meat. On moral grounds I chose to abstain. I you are saying that my feeling better about my food choices is a manifestation of self interest fine. That means that all moral acts are just self interest.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, it would simply mean that your own morality is simply an issue of self interest, if your feeling better about your dietary choices is self interest.

Your morality is not my own, your motivations are not my own, nor can either of us confidently claim that if our personal sense of morality were nothing more than self interest then other's morality must also be the same. People who fail to make compelling or consistent arguments are often in the habit of scorching the earth around them as a last ditch effort, in my experience.

[Scabby Joe]

Your morality is not my own, your motivations are not my own, nor can either of us confidently claim that if our personal sense of morality were nothing more than self interest then other's morality must also be the same. People who fail to make compelling or consistent arguments are often in the habit of scorching the earth around them as a last ditch effort, in my experience.

I will claim that my morality is not borne out of self interest. It's based on not causing unnecessary harm, pain and suffering and promoting well being.

How often I have asked others what their moral guiding principle is and very rarely does anyone have one. They say it's what feels right at the time blah blah. That sounds much more like leaving the door open to self interest than the moral principle I try to live by and certainly aspire to. I would also suggest that having some sort of guiding principle as I do, does help on the consistency issue.

Do you have a guiding moral principle or do you do just what feels good?

---

I never could rationalize a meat-eaters claim for being a morally good person and yet is oblivious to the mass consumption of meat produced by slaughterhouses and the existential pain an animal must feel having never seen the light of day, only to be taken to places where the animal does not want to go and have the life taken out if it.

If you try asking them if they have a guiding moral principle to which they try to live by and aspire to then you will find very few willing to venture one. Keeping your moral outlook vague seems to be the order of the day to avoid having to answer for your actions.

[The Grand Nudger]

How many times will you use the word "uneccessary" as your justification, in fact as your entire assertion, without elaborating upon what it is, what it contains, what it does not, and what it applies to?

My "moral" or guiding principle, with regards to food, is to feed people, mostly because people must eat, not everyone is eating very well, and I am. I want to extend this bit of good fortune to others because I would have it for myself. If my guiding principle were "to get tasty food for myself" it wouldn't be of much use as a guide, or a principle. Nevertheless, I don't wish or hope to establish that anyone else should or must follow my own personal guiding principles. I have a very competent understanding of this subject, and this understanding precludes absolutist positions. People have to eat, I would use whatever tool is most appropriate and most efficient to accomplish this based on whatever scenario those people find themselves in. Livestock is one of those tools.

[Scabby Joe]

On what basis would one restrict that consideration to any group of creatures over another? You go with sentience, an effect of biology.

As I've explained, if an animals has the capacity to feel pain and suffer then it has interests. Without that capacity, it has no interests. This seems an entirely sensible approach.

You go with empty categorizations like "unnecessary", a failure to elaborate upon what you wish to assert. You say that we must consider all of these creatures, and yet consistently avoid considering them when conflict arises between themselves and what you, personally, prefer to eat. You seem unwilling to provide even a short list of "necessary" suffering.

Necessary harm & suffering could be a immunization injection. Unnecessary suffering would be in the main the eating of 10 billion animals in the US each year.

So, lets just cut to the chase. Whatever suffering that would be effected by your dietary choices is "necessary", isn't it?

No. I will go with the evidence. If you could demonstrate that the suffering attached to the harvest of a vegetable crops is greater than that caused by meat production then I would listen. Of course, we both realise that many crops are grown just to feed animals that will themselves be eaten. Come up with a convincing argument and I will listen.

Whatever suffering effected by the dietary decisions of others is "unnecessary".

Not everyone, no. For a start there are a of other vegans & vegetarians out there. I am not aware of any human medical condition that would require them to eat meat. There might be and if eating a sentient animal was the only option then as long as all practical steps were taken to minimise the suffering of the food source, then this minimal suffering could also be necessary.

So, of the 10 billiion animals slaughtered in the US each year, do you think 100% of their suffering is necessary?

---

Are we any closer to seeing that list of the damned?

What do you mean?