Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Jinkies]

I picked this up from a pal on another board:

Vegetarian – person who believes it is your moral responsibility to provide him with a nut roast when he comes to dinner but won’t give you a steak when you go to his.

Fun! Let's see how that works with other ethical views!

Ethical non-pedophile – person who believes it is your moral responsibility to provide him with an adult to have sex with when he comes to your fuck party, but won’t give you a child to rape when you go to his.

Hmmmm. That joke definition doesn't seem to hold up at all once you substitute in anything else. Weird.

[Minimalist]

but won’t give you a child to rape when you go to his.

Maybe you should visit more monasteries. According to the court records they always had kids to pass around.

[Jinkies]

but won’t give you a child to rape when you go to his.

Maybe you should visit more monasteries. According to the court records they always had kids to pass around.

Yeah, but those guys and catholic priests aren't ethical non-pedophiles. Raping kids is their bag.

[NoahsFarce]

Did anyone ever mention that Richard Dawkins isn't a vegetarian or vegan yet?

Jinkies, more and more you remind me of NotSoVacuous on the TTA forums. You guys should hook up for a chat. He pretty much shares your exact views.

[Zen Badger]

Hmmm bacon...



Sorry.. Did you vegans have something to say?

[NoahsFarce]

Dear Zen...



That is all.

[The Heff]

<Sexy Picture>

I just made a mess.

[jain.rahul]

[/b]Richard Dawkins can see no good moral reason for eating meat. He sees it as being akin to sexism or racism.

It seems that evolution tells us that we are nothing more than another animal so it's easy to see where Dawkins is coming from.

I suppose that you need to have a moral position that causing unnecessary pain and suffering is wrong.

Do you agree with Dawkins that on moral grounds, eating meat cannot be justified?

Firstly, I believe in jainism <somewhat>, so eating meat cannot be justified according to my moral grounds.

An Atheist doesn't have any moral basis by which he can define what is good and what is bad objectively as far as I know.
Someone who believes in God, goes on the word of God as to what is Good and what is bad. In Abrahamic religions, I think anything that results in their destination to hell is 'evil' and anything that results in their destination to heaven is 'good'.
Whatever is defined in the religious scriptures as good is good and what is defined as evil is evil.

I think it was Sam Harris, who proposed that the basis of morality for humans should be "worst possible suffering for all conscious beings is bad".
I am no great philosopher <yet>, but if we go by this basis, eating meat is not justified. Because, we know, that an animal has a better developed nervous system than plants. It would suffer more than plants.
Also, much of the meat we eat, does not come from the wilds, they are from animal farm, where plants are first fed to animals and then animals are fed to humans. So the suffering is experienced by both plants and animals.

[The Grand Nudger]

Neither do you, you simply believe that you do..lol. All of these intricate manouverings around the morality of food plainly show that those engaged in the discussion don't worry too much about food. Those who do don't worry about the moral implications of what they put in their mouths. Seriously, it's food, not a moral litmus test. Our varying notions of morality have no effect on the productivity or suitability of land for any given commodity. Our sense of empathy does not bend the landscape to our whims and remove the need for livestock production and all that it entails. What you find "moral" or "immoral" about food is most likely a product of your culture and access to nutrition and nothing more. You can define any given thing however you like, the only thing that will be affected is the definition, the morality of whatever you are invoking remains completely open to interpretation and disagreement, as always.

[genkaus]

Firstly, I believe in jainism <somewhat>, so eating meat cannot be justified according to my moral grounds.

An Atheist doesn't have any moral basis by which he can define what is good and what is bad objectively as far as I know.

Exactly - "as far as you know".

Someone who believes in God, goes on the word of God as to what is Good and what is bad. In Abrahamic religions, I think anything that results in their destination to hell is 'evil' and anything that results in their destination to heaven is 'good'.
Whatever is defined in the religious scriptures as good is good and what is defined as evil is evil.

And yet, that is not objective either. It is subjective for two reasons:
1. It was conceived by a person
2. It frequently requires interpretation.

I think it was Sam Harris, who proposed that the basis of morality for humans should be "worst possible suffering for all conscious beings is bad".

Unless Sam Harris can justify why we should use that as the basis, his answer is not more valid than "worst possible suffering for all humans is bad".

I am no great philosopher <yet>, but if we go by this basis, eating meat is not justified. Because, we know, that an animal has a better developed nervous system than plants. It would suffer more than plants.

If you go by this basis, "eating" is not justified and all carnivorous animals should be out to death. Wait, actually, going on that basis, the most moral thing to do would be to painlessly kill all conscious beings. I think you'll understand what I mean when I say "na rahega baas na bajegi bansuri".

Also, much of the meat we eat, does not come from the wilds, they are from animal farm, where plants are first fed to animals and then animals are fed to humans. So the suffering is experienced by both plants and animals.

Are you under the impression that animals in the wild "don't" eat plants?