(February 1, 2012 at 4:58 pm)Chuck Wrote: Whether sentient creature should be killed an eaten for meat has nothing to do with any intrinsic right, just as whether fetus should be allowed to be aborted has nothing to do with any intrinsic right. There is no such thing as intrinsic right. What is determined to be appropriate for a particular purpose determines what is said to have any right, not the other way around.

I agree. There are no such things intrinsic rights, the same way things don't have an intrinsic meaning.

You are right, it is the purpose that determines the right. But whose purpose? I can choose the purpose of my life and if I kill an animal to eat it I'm choosing the purpose of its life as well. My rights are granted in recognition of my capacity of that choice. To not grant the animal the same rights is to claim that it is not able to make that choice. That claim needs evidence and I believe it lies in the level of the animal's consciousness.

---

(February 1, 2012 at 5:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Interesting, and only slightly off topic....there has long been a tendency towards taboo with regards to what were considered "animals of a higher order" (as well as a market that caters to breaking those taboos). One of those quirks we seem to have with regards to food.

How many of you would eat a monkey?

How many a cow?

A dog?

Monkey - probably not.
Cow - will and have.
dog - probably.

(February 1, 2012 at 5:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Do you imagine the answers would be the same if I asked a Hindu? What if I asked someone from Korea?

I'm a Hindu - culturally, that is. And I have no problem eating cows.

(February 1, 2012 at 5:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Great Apes are currently the terminus of their line, but this is true of most species of plant we currently include in our diets. If "higher order" is going to be used as a smoke screen for "like us" that's fine, but lets be open about that. Then we can use much simpler language to describe our argument. "I do not feel comfortable eating things that remind me of some part or characteristic of myself". That's perfectly understandable, keep in mind that many pet lizard owners see something familiar in their lizards, or spiders, or fish, or any other animal one cares to imagine (and inanimate objects such as mountains, or tiny pebbles..really, everything). We have cultures who elevated certain animals to the "higher order" without any sort of scientific classification whatsoever, creating totems and taboos. Point is, the metrics you've used sound perfectly fine if one wishes to make a personal decision about what one's conscience can handle with regards to their food (and where it comes from/what it is). There's nothing in any of this that turns it into a question of morality that applies to us all.

The level of sentience or consciousness an animal has in not a matter personal preference. I know that we do not have enough knowledge about how consciousness works to correctly determine where to draw the line.

To be clear, I do not use "reminding me of myself" to judge whether the animal should be eaten or not. For example, if we compare relative immorality of killing and eating a 1 day old baby versus eating a gorilla, I would say that the latter is more immoral, even if I am more similar to the former.

The criteria, in its simplest form, is as follows: if the animal is capable of making rational decisions, if it is capable of acting inspite of its biological directives and if it gives indication of independent thought that is not simply a part of conditioned behaviour, then we should not eat it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBoLA_BQ4...re=related

Anything with a certain number neuron can passably be said to be capable of choice. But purpose is only meaningful to the mind that can plan. A mind that can plan can incorporate anything it wants into its plans and therefore assign any purpose it deems fit to anything. A mind that can not plan can not give purpose to anything. Outside the plan one intends to carry out nothing has any purpose in any meaningful sense of the word.

So the fact that a cow may be able to make the choice of not killing itself does not mean it has any purpose other than that which I assign it. I assign its purpose in light of my plan to satiate my taste for beef.

I just had a medium rare new york strip

Quote:The thing one has to consider while deciding if being vegetarian or non-vegetarian is "good" or not, is deciding whether you actually have the right to the life of the organism you are eating.

It is sort of what being on the top of the food chain is all about. I assure you that if you are out in the Arctic and run out of bullets some polar bear will soon demonstrate that HE is on the top of the chain.

Quote: agree. There are no such things intrinsic rights, the same way things don't have an intrinsic meaning.

Indeed, and that includes intrinsic value,of people or objects.

---

(February 1, 2012 at 6:45 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: I just had a medium rare new york strip

I have no idea what that is,not a term we use here. I buy my meat in bulk,and eat mainly two cuts: rump and sirloin(porterhouse). I never pay more than $8.50kg (about $4.00 a pound)

As far as I'm aware,the only American term we still use in our cuts of meat is 'Texas T-bone steak"


I love my steak.

Wait a minute, some objects have intrinsic value. For a simple example, eggs can be used as food. That says nothing about meaning, it is just a value that is wholely contained within the egg.

(January 31, 2012 at 7:38 am)Zen Badger Wrote: No matter what you eat, something has died to provide your meal.

Just remember that everything dies, and everything gets eaten by something else.

For that is Natures way.

If you still think otherwise....

Am I the only one who thinks that lioness is sexy? They're so hot when they're hunting...

(February 1, 2012 at 5:49 pm)Chuck Wrote: Anything with a certain number neuron can passably be said to be capable of choice.

But is it really capable of choice?

(February 1, 2012 at 5:49 pm)Chuck Wrote: But purpose is only meaningful to the mind that can plan. A mind that can plan can incorporate anything it wants into its plans and therefore assign any purpose it deems fit to anything. A mind that can not plan can not give purpose to anything. Outside the plan one intends to carry out nothing has any purpose in any meaningful sense of the word.

I agree that only a mind capable of making a plan can assign purpose. To be clear, I do not consider a choice to have been made if the mind is incapable of planning according or towards it. But I disagree that such a mind can assign purpose to "anything".

For example, I have a mind capable of planning but that does not mean I can assign purpose to your life. There are limits to what we can assign purpose to.

(February 1, 2012 at 5:49 pm)Chuck Wrote: So the fact that a cow may be able to make the choice of not killing itself does not mean it has any purpose other than that which I assign it. I assign its purpose in light of my plan to satiate my taste for beef.

IF the cow is making a choice, then it is capable of having a purpose for its own life. In that case, you cannot assign a contrary purpose to its life. Thankfully for your taste buds, I don't think cows have that capacity.

---

(February 1, 2012 at 7:59 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It is sort of what being on the top of the food chain is all about. I assure you that if you are out in the Arctic and run out of bullets some polar bear will soon demonstrate that HE is on the top of the chain.

That is argument from the "natural law". It is invalid because just because we can eat meat, does not mean we should.

Once again, what would be your argument against cannibalism?

---

(February 1, 2012 at 8:18 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Wait a minute, some objects have intrinsic value. For a simple example, eggs can be used as food. That says nothing about meaning, it is just a value that is wholely contained within the egg.

No, the value is assigned externally. Eggs can be used as food, but unless there is a need for food, there will be no value attached to the egg.

If something is said to have value, it means it is valuable to someone. How valuable eggs would be if no one needed to eat?

AthiestAtheist Wrote:Am I the only one who thinks that lioness is sexy? They're so hot when they're hunting...

Now my secret is out!!