(May 19, 2013 at 2:11 pm)littleendian Wrote:

(May 19, 2013 at 1:33 pm)Sal Wrote: For me, I'll give Bessie an affordable and comfortable life for a couple of years, and then kill Bessie with a boltgun and consume its delicious flesh as a steak.

It all boils down to this: If you do the above then you have no logical, objective way of arguing against someone who does the same thing to a human being, let them live for a few years in relative safety but not free and then kill them quickly to consume their "delicious flesh".

Heh, if someone is gonna eat the remains of my corpse after I'm dead, be my guest. After I'm dead, I won't be, so I won't even be around to experience suffering. Anyways, humans are recycled into the environment, just we're wormfood after the casket has decayed away, or whatever your particular culture does with the corpse.

Now, I don't value humans the same as I value an animal. I just don't. To me, I even value insects below, say, a sparrow. I value dogs over cats (I'm a dog person), I value loads of stuff over other stuff. Why shouldn't I?

Also, I'm doubly aware that these are value judgments. I don't claim objective morality, I can't. I claim an entirely subjective value-system and I'm aware of it.

The difference between me and a sheep getting killed is that our view of reality and pain & suffering aren't the same; how could they be?

(May 19, 2013 at 2:11 pm)littleendian Wrote: There is no objective reason for why the one thing is okay but the other is not. To fall back to the default response of stating that humans are simply more important is a subjective feeling that has no objective basis and ignores the simple biological fact that any animal, human or not, has the same urge to live and be free of suffering. Using this capacity of suffering as a measure of who is eligible to our moral consideration is the only objective basis offered so far. So in order to remove this contradiction from morality, I would argue it is best to extend our sense of who our moral duties apply to.

Why? No, really. Why?

You sound like you have the view that objective morality exists. I don't think so - I think every moral choice is a value judgment at its basis.

(May 19, 2013 at 2:25 pm)Sal Wrote: Heh, if someone is gonna eat the remains of my corpse after I'm dead, be my guest. After I'm dead, I won't be, so I won't even be around to experience suffering.

We're talking about slaughter, which is actively killing an animal, usually in the prime of its life when the flesh tastes best, and I suspect you might object to someone killing you in your twenties, painfully or otherwise.

(May 19, 2013 at 2:25 pm)Sal Wrote: Now, I don't value humans the same as I value an animal. I just don't. To me, I even value insects below, say, a sparrow. I value dogs over cats (I'm a dog person), I value loads of stuff over other stuff. Why shouldn't I?

Because our value systems can, like any other object of science, be scrutinized regarding their integrity. Right now, our value systems have been formed by millenia of Christian or heathen dogma, and I propose we need to re-evaluate quite a few aspects of it.

(May 19, 2013 at 2:25 pm)Sal Wrote: The difference between me and a sheep getting killed is that our view of reality and pain & suffering aren't the same; how could they be?

Quite easily, your will to live and ability to suffer serves the same purpose as that of any animal, namely to keep that animal alive and well, human or otherwise. There is no reason to suppose a difference if the evolutionary function is identical and biology is so strikingly similar.

(May 19, 2013 at 2:44 pm)littleendian Wrote:

(May 19, 2013 at 2:25 pm)Sal Wrote: Heh, if someone is gonna eat the remains of my corpse after I'm dead, be my guest. After I'm dead, I won't be, so I won't even be around to experience suffering.

We're talking about slaughter, which is actively killing an animal, usually in the prime of its life when the flesh tastes best, and I suspect you might object to someone killing you in your twenties, painfully or otherwise.

But according to my value system I deem my worth above that of an animal other than human. I don't claim a paragon of virtue in this, just that my value system is that way.

I also noticed you anthropomorphize unto animals. Am I to think that my evolutionary line is the same as, say, a sheep? Or that my view (or any human) of reality is the same?

(May 19, 2013 at 2:44 pm)littleendian Wrote:

(May 19, 2013 at 2:25 pm)Sal Wrote: Now, I don't value humans the same as I value an animal. I just don't. To me, I even value insects below, say, a sparrow. I value dogs over cats (I'm a dog person), I value loads of stuff over other stuff. Why shouldn't I?

Because our value systems can, like any other object of science, be scrutinized regarding their integrity. Right now, our value systems have been formed by millenia of Christian or heathen dogma, and I propose we need to re-evaluate quite a few aspects of it.

Culturally, that might be true. But quite a lot of people, also through history, have been atheistic, it isn't until after the Enlightenment that they stopped burning atheists at the stake. So they just lay low all throughout history and just lived out their lives without ever mentioning their true views, simply because they were smart enough to not let their views be known and risk burning at the stake.

It's only in the Western comfort zone that vegetarianism, as I can see (although I'm not sure of it), has been tenable. People have lived and feed on livestock for longer than recorded human history. I don't claim an historic antecedence that would justify it today, although I would point out that it's a new invention of culture to calculate in the option of vegetarianism in western culture.

(May 19, 2013 at 2:44 pm)littleendian Wrote:

(May 19, 2013 at 2:25 pm)Sal Wrote: The difference between me and a sheep getting killed is that our view of reality and pain & suffering aren't the same; how could they be?

Quite easily, your will to live and ability to suffer serves the same purpose as that of any animal, namely to keep that animal alive and well, human or otherwise. There is no reason to suppose a difference if the evolutionary function is identical and biology is so strikingly similar.

Probably is, yet there is only one species of animal that has Mind Theory and even a concept of suffering, the rest just suffers without ever knowing or coming to a realization: "I'm suffering" or "He's suffering" because that requires a whole new tier of experience of mind. Not even apes have Mind Theory, and our toddlers don't form a Mind Theory until around the age of 4. There is a very simple test for Mind Theory, yet even apes that we have learned sign language fail it.

Why should I value an animal that doesn't even know it's suffering, and most likely only is responding to environmental stimuli and instincts?

(May 20, 2013 at 1:13 am)Sal Wrote:

(May 19, 2013 at 2:44 pm)littleendian Wrote: We're talking about slaughter, which is actively killing an animal, usually in the prime of its life when the flesh tastes best, and I suspect you might object to someone killing you in your twenties, painfully or otherwise.

But according to my value system I deem my worth above that of an animal other than human. I don't claim a paragon of virtue in this, just that my value system is that way.

You cannot derive an ought from an is. As was mentioned, our value systems are the result of millenia of dogmatism, so it's a good idea to evaluate them closely. Atheism is set out to change how we view the world, and one of the key things here is our morality, which will change dramatically.

(May 20, 2013 at 1:13 am)Sal Wrote: I also noticed you anthropomorphize unto animals. Am I to think that my evolutionary line is the same as, say, a sheep? Or that my view (or any human) of reality is the same?

That's not my argument at all, no.

(May 20, 2013 at 1:13 am)Sal Wrote:

(May 19, 2013 at 2:44 pm)littleendian Wrote: Because our value systems can, like any other object of science, be scrutinized regarding their integrity. Right now, our value systems have been formed by millenia of Christian or heathen dogma, and I propose we need to re-evaluate quite a few aspects of it.

Culturally, that might be true. But quite a lot of people, also through history, have been atheistic, it isn't until after the Enlightenment that they stopped burning atheists at the stake.

Indeed, yet it seems very likely that our value systems are much more defined by the "thinking" of the superstitious masses, not the few outstanding rational individuals. Also, many of the great philosophers and people you would refer to as early pioneer scientists were themselfs in fact devout Christians and derived their value systems from the bible.

(May 20, 2013 at 1:13 am)Sal Wrote: It's only in the Western comfort zone that vegetarianism, as I can see (although I'm not sure of it), has been tenable. People have lived and feed on livestock for longer than recorded human history. I don't claim an historic antecedence that would justify it today, although I would point out that it's a new invention of culture to calculate in the option of vegetarianism in western culture.

Very true, and as was repeatedly pointed out, if someone can't grow crops and has to rely on animals to feed himself, then this is of course not immoral. But today we Westerners live in a world of plenty, we have access to all fruits and vegetables found on this planet, so it is a valid question whether we need to kill innocent and defenseless animals merely to please our taste buds.

(May 20, 2013 at 1:13 am)Sal Wrote: Probably is, yet there is only one species of animal that has Mind Theory and even a concept of suffering, the rest just suffers without ever knowing or coming to a realization: "I'm suffering" or "He's suffering" because that requires a whole new tier of experience of mind.

Theory of mind simply states that humans become aware and take into consideration that other's have a subjective world view and a mind of their own. Totally aside that animals have been shown to know the concept of reciprocity and also to an extend ToM: This has nothing to do with the ability to suffer and the will to live that is present in any evolved being, therefore ToM has nothing to do with the present argument. Don't hide behind complex theoretical constructs, the issue at hand is quite simple.

The only way out of the issue is to adopt a Cartesian world view of all animals being merely robots responding to external stimuli with nothing but mechanical responses. Aside from that only religious dogma can get you out of issue of having to justify why humans supposedly are so special.

(May 20, 2013 at 2:08 am)littleendian Wrote:

(May 20, 2013 at 1:13 am)Sal Wrote: But according to my value system I deem my worth above that of an animal other than human. I don't claim a paragon of virtue in this, just that my value system is that way.

You cannot derive an ought from an is. As was mentioned, our value systems are the result of millenia of dogmatism, so it's a good idea to evaluate them closely. Atheism is set out to change how we view the world, and one of the key things here is our morality, which will change dramatically.

Atheism is just one statement - sure, it enables us in ways not foreseeable by theists, but still.

Also, I don't believe in an objective morality or an intrinsic value system. I believe values are contingent on the system in which they are used, same deal with morality.

Best way to illustrate this point is that throughout history, people have valued stuff we value more/less today or not at all. For instance, slavery was deemed OK because people argued that other people could be viewed as property and they used all manner of justification for that. Today we have more egalitarian values, so people are valued the same despite being different from one another. This change, despite being some objective morality move or even correct, is more just a trend of the culture and values thereof. If you want real objectivity then biology and anthropology would be a better bet than assigning (very) human values unto our environment.

(May 20, 2013 at 2:08 am)littleendian Wrote:

(May 20, 2013 at 1:13 am)Sal Wrote: I also noticed you anthropomorphize unto animals. Am I to think that my evolutionary line is the same as, say, a sheep? Or that my view (or any human) of reality is the same?

That's not my argument at all, no.

Then why attribute human values unto animals?

(May 20, 2013 at 2:08 am)littleendian Wrote:

(May 20, 2013 at 1:13 am)Sal Wrote: Culturally, that might be true. But quite a lot of people, also through history, have been atheistic, it isn't until after the Enlightenment that they stopped burning atheists at the stake.

Indeed, yet it seems very likely that our value systems are much more defined by the "thinking" of the superstitious masses, not the few outstanding rational individuals. Also, many of the great philosophers and people you would refer to as early pioneer scientists were themselfs in fact devout Christians and derived their value systems from the bible.

I don't, and I eat meat. Ecological meat, but still meat.

In that regard, I would have no trouble eating meat that was grown in a lab. Hell, on our way there, we could remove the part of an animals brain that makes them experience suffering, if we were so inclined - or breed our way, inversely, to a masochistic animal that delighted in what we would see as suffering.

(May 20, 2013 at 2:08 am)littleendian Wrote:

(May 20, 2013 at 1:13 am)Sal Wrote: It's only in the Western comfort zone that vegetarianism, as I can see (although I'm not sure of it), has been tenable. People have lived and feed on livestock for longer than recorded human history. I don't claim an historic antecedence that would justify it today, although I would point out that it's a new invention of culture to calculate in the option of vegetarianism in western culture.

Very true, and as was repeatedly pointed out, if someone can't grow crops and has to rely on animals to feed himself, then this is of course not immoral. But today we Westerners live in a world of plenty, we have access to all fruits and vegetables found on this planet, so it is a valid question whether we need to kill innocent and defenseless animals merely to please our taste buds.

And if we change our animals as described in the previous paragraph?

If your sole argument is that of suffering, and experience thereof, then I don't' see why we couldn't accommodate that and alter the animals that we eat.

(May 20, 2013 at 2:08 am)littleendian Wrote:

(May 20, 2013 at 1:13 am)Sal Wrote: Probably is, yet there is only one species of animal that has Mind Theory and even a concept of suffering, the rest just suffers without ever knowing or coming to a realization: "I'm suffering" or "He's suffering" because that requires a whole new tier of experience of mind.

Theory of mind simply states that humans become aware and take into consideration that other's have a subjective world view and a mind of their own. Totally aside that animals have been shown to know the concept of reciprocity and also to an extend ToM: This has nothing to do with the ability to suffer and the will to live that is present in any evolved being, therefore ToM has nothing to do with the present argument. Don't hide behind complex theoretical constructs, the issue at hand is quite simple.

Reciprocity ≠ Theory of Mind.

And I agree that it's simple. It's about lessening suffering in the world. But until such time, I have no problem slaughtering an animal that has lived a modest life, until I can purchase lab-grown meat or meat of animals that do not experience suffering.

Theory of Mind is very important to the question of suffering, because they don't have a concept of suffering without a mind to go with it, now do they? Again, you're anthropomorphizing human values of suffering and life experience unto animals who do not have the same experience as a human or even a concept of values or suffering.

(May 20, 2013 at 2:08 am)littleendian Wrote: The only way out of the issue is to adopt a Cartesian world view of all animals being merely robots responding to external stimuli with nothing but mechanical responses. Aside from that only religious dogma can get you out of issue of having to justify why humans supposedly are so special.

We are special. We're the only animal with a Theory of Mind.

I've been thinking about this, and today I was in Biology talking about the Neaderthals and their tendency to make crude clothing out of the hides of their kills, and their forward thinking regarding their kill; they would save some for people in the group who weren't there at the time (hunting, gathering etc) and give more food to the weak than to the strong. In reality it's eating meat and killing that have made us intrinsically human. We've eaten meat since the beginning of time, and realistically if an organism that was much cleverer than us came along you can be sure we'd be in their belly faster than you can say PETA.

I tried being vegetarian for a year and it was really hard. I ended up eating more carbohydrates and fat than before because I went for things like potato and pasta.
I think perhaps being vegetarian is such a difficult thing to do that we begin to think of vegetarian as stronger than us meat eaters who 'couldn't do it?'
And also, if we're going to start talking about animals having feelings etc, could we possibly take a step back and maybe start treating each other better before we move onto animals?

Sorry if this has been brought up before, I'm new to the forum and not quite sure how this goes down, but yeah these are just a few of my thoughts

(May 20, 2013 at 3:08 am)Sal Wrote: Best way to illustrate this point is that throughout history, people have valued stuff we value more/less today or not at all. For instance, slavery was deemed OK because people argued that other people could be viewed as property and they used all manner of justification for that. Today we have more egalitarian values, so people are valued the same despite being different from one another. This change, despite being some objective morality move or even correct, is more just a trend of the culture and values thereof. If you want real objectivity then biology and anthropology would be a better bet than assigning (very) human values unto our environment.

Suffering and fear of death is not something specific to humans at all, very much the opposite, its the ultimate common denominator of all life.

(May 20, 2013 at 3:08 am)Sal Wrote:

(May 20, 2013 at 2:08 am)littleendian Wrote: That's not my argument at all, no.

Then why attribute human values unto animals?

I do not attribute human values unto animals, I attribute human values unto human actions. The wolf killing a lamb is not acting immorally, neither is the human who needs to rely on animal agriculture to feed himself because not much else but grass will grow in his native land.

(May 20, 2013 at 3:08 am)Sal Wrote:

(May 20, 2013 at 2:08 am)littleendian Wrote: Indeed, yet it seems very likely that our value systems are much more defined by the "thinking" of the superstitious masses, not the few outstanding rational individuals. Also, many of the great philosophers and people you would refer to as early pioneer scientists were themselfs in fact devout Christians and derived their value systems from the bible.

I don't, and I eat meat. Ecological meat, but still meat.

But our values are not just or maybe not at all the product of our rational thought, they are also a product of what we feel is right and what we feel is wrong. Most people feel it is right to eat beef, I would argue because of our cultural inheritance and our upbringing, in which it was never questioned, hence they never bring this question into the conscious, objective realm of reasoning. However, that is exactly what a thinking person must do, question the values we take for granted and re-evaluate them based on reason, and reason alone. That process is exactly what rid us of slavery and is what I propose we apply to our relationship to other animals on the planet.

(May 20, 2013 at 3:08 am)Sal Wrote: And if we change our animals as described in the previous paragraph?

I'd be the first to buy a juicy lab-grown steak! Unfortunately it's still outside of what I would consider affordable (the first one cost 250,000 USD or something like that).

(May 20, 2013 at 3:08 am)Sal Wrote: If your sole argument is that of suffering, and experience thereof, then I don't' see why we couldn't accommodate that and alter the animals that we eat.

I completely agree, but that is unfortunately not how our meat is produced today, hence the discussion.

(May 20, 2013 at 3:08 am)Sal Wrote: Reciprocity ≠ Theory of Mind.

Sure, I didn't mean to claim this, however also Theory of Mind, even if it was a solely human trait, which I still doubt, would still not give a good reason for why man should have no moral responsibilities towards other species.

(May 20, 2013 at 3:08 am)Sal Wrote: Theory of Mind is very important to the question of suffering, because they don't have a concept of suffering without a mind to go with it, now do they?

Not having a theory of mind is not the same as not having a mind, although of course the minds of animals are far less capable to reason than that of man, which is precisely why we humans have a great responsibility towards our dumb little brothers and sisters in the rest of the animal kingdom

(May 20, 2013 at 3:08 am)Sal Wrote: We are special. We're the only animal with a Theory of Mind.

I don't think it is on Theory of Mind necessarily but yes, humans are special in our ability for reason. However, with great power comes great responsibility.

---

(May 20, 2013 at 3:53 am)swata224 Wrote: And also, if we're going to start talking about animals having feelings etc, could we possibly take a step back and maybe start treating each other better before we move onto animals?

Welcome to the discussion I would argue that great compassion to our fellow animal species would lead to greater compassion for our fellow man. Its not uncommon that the aggressor reduces the victim to animals, for example "rats" or "vermin" before committing attrocities, in order to justify the cruelty. Blacks were considered to be non-human animals when caught and taken from Africa to do slave work, Jews were "rats" in the Third Reich. However, if our values would not distinguish so clearly between human and non-human but would focus on the objective realities of suffering and fear of death, these crimes would be much harder to justify.

Quote:Sal...................People have lived and feed on livestock for longer than recorded human history.

That is not really true.
If you would have studied human body seriously you would know that it takes thousand of years for something in the body to change.
Considering that the human body is totally in line with a vegetarian diet (fruit, nuts, grain, vegetable etc) then you would draw that your theory is just a dogma (false true).
Only in time of calamity like the ice age or other disaster humans had no choices but to eat meat, but for ages and ages human were almost completely vegetarian.
You look at the length of the stomach.
Look at the gastric acids.
Look at the teeth.
Look at the alkalinity of the human body compared to the acidity of carnivore.
The stomach of a carnivore animal is about 10-12 times shorter and the reason is that the meat is acidic and tend to putrefy very quickly so has got to go through the stomach fast in order not to cause ulcers or other problems.
For this reason the gastric fluids in carnivore are also much more stronger. (sharks digest bones with no problem)
The teeth are also very different.
While the carnivore have teeth to shred the flesh humans have teeth to crush grains or nuts or to eat fruit.
One day one guy point out to me that also humans got canine so is natural for human to eat meat.
I point out to him that hippos got canine 100 TIMES bigger then humans and yet they are full vegetarian so the reason is not that they eat meat but rather they got canine to scare or to fight possible enemy.
My suggestion to you is ...........DO NOT LOOK AT APPEARANCES BUT STUDY THE SUBJECT IN DETAIL BEFORE YOU MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

Few points of clarification. Livestock isn't slaughtered in the prime of it's life - it's slaughtered at the most profitable point in it's life. I'm personally very fond of the laws and regulations that surround this procedure - though obviously that's a case by case thing. Captive bolts, stunning - we even spend money hiring consultants to make the holding areas less stressful. I'm sure we could find a great documentary on how brutal some slaughterhouse is. That would be a case of casting an entire industry - or even principle- in the worst light by reference to an organization that doesn't even follow it's own regulations. No argument about suffering has any heft whatsoever with regards to raising or eating meat. It -can be- and -is- done in a way that affords the livestock a good life, and a good death. You and I both would rail against anything else.

As far as our relative land of plenty - and the other guys field where only grass grows. You do realize that our land of plenty is precisely why the other guy can't grow anything but grass, I hope. Firstly, our system of ag relies on a cost in human (and other animal) misery that is difficult to fathom. We turn oil into food. Let that roll around in your head a little bit. Secondly, as a very powerful block of consumers we determine the availability or access that less powerful consumers have to fertility and nutrition. Why would you send, say, fertilizer or grain - to nigeria...when that same fertilizer or grain could command a higher price, by orders of magnitude, if you sent it to the states? This ignores, of course, that there are plenty of people hungry, malnourished, and just otherwise not feeling this whole "land of plenty" business in the first place- even here in the 1st world, because at least some of us can afford to make this choice (or even regard it as such).

These things that you feel you've somehow opted out of, you haven't.

(May 21, 2013 at 7:13 am)enrico Wrote:

Quote:Sal...................People have lived and feed on livestock for longer than recorded human history.

That is not really true.
If you would have studied human body seriously you would know that it takes thousand of years for something in the body to change.
Considering that the human body is totally in line with a vegetarian diet (fruit, nuts, grain, vegetable etc) then you would draw that your theory is just a dogma (false true).
Only in time of calamity like the ice age or other disaster humans had no choices but to eat meat, but for ages and ages human were almost completely vegetarian.
You look at the length of the stomach.
Look at the gastric acids.
Look at the teeth.
Look at the alkalinity of the human body compared to the acidity of carnivore.
The stomach of a carnivore animal is about 10-12 times shorter and the reason is that the meat is acidic and tend to putrefy very quickly so has got to go through the stomach fast in order not to cause ulcers or other problems.
For this reason the gastric fluids in carnivore are also much more stronger. (sharks digest bones with no problem)
The teeth are also very different.
While the carnivore have teeth to shred the flesh humans have teeth to crush grains or nuts or to eat fruit.
One day one guy point out to me that also humans got canine so is natural for human to eat meat.
I point out to him that hippos got canine 100 TIMES bigger then humans and yet they are full vegetarian so the reason is not that they eat meat but rather they got canine to scare or to fight possible enemy.
My suggestion to you is ...........DO NOT LOOK AT APPEARANCES BUT STUDY THE SUBJECT IN DETAIL BEFORE YOU MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

You do know that recorded human history, compared to the appearance of the first hominids is like a blink of an eye, right?

Oldest recorded history is probably the ancient Sumerians or proto-Chinese civilizations.

This is besides the point, if you mean when we moved from hunter-gatherer to agriculture, this happened around ~40,000 years ago although that is disputed (might be older, depends on what available data there is, really). People think after we moved to agriculture, we selectively breed animals(chickens, cows, pigs, cats, dogs, etc.) and crops (wheat, malt, pears, apples, etc.) that we found to be beneficial to ourselves, that is something which we know pretty damn well, it's just when it really began that's a bit disputed.

That little conjecture about acids and teeth and whatnot I find laughable, because brown/black bears (to mention two species) eat meat and they don't have such acidic stomachs or remarkably gritting teeth, except for the canine teeth that you also find in humans, because most of them are omnivores, like us. I suspect you found your little story about the acids from some creationist bullshit website, which, ironically enough try to explain away the Eden story that all animals in the Eden parable (which they take literally) all ate grass or some stupid shit.