(February 25, 2014 at 12:18 am)là bạn điên Wrote: Shown this the omnivores switch the goalposts and then claim that It's all about 'self awareness' but then there are self aware animals too http://listnation.blogspot.com/2012/03/9...aware.html

We don't eat any of those animals

(February 24, 2014 at 3:24 pm)jg2014 Wrote:

(February 24, 2014 at 6:09 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: We thus return to the ethical side of things, and the question of how far we extend our empathy and to what degree we legislate personal morality.

I would argue we should extend empathy to animals on the basis of logical consistency. All ethics start with an assumption that something is of value, as there is always an impenetrable barrier between is and ought. However if one applies ethics without being logically consistent, one must have made an error somewhere.

When we extend empathy to humans, and not animals, most will do so on the basis of our ability to reason, use language have culture etc. But there are also some humans that do not have the ability to do this, and yet we would certainly extend our empathy to them. To be consistent one must either then extend empathy to animals or conversely not have empathy for disabled humans.

3 good replies in similar vein here. I hope you guys will understand if I don't reply to them individually.

So the question then becomes, why extend empathy to humans and not animals? Bennyboy explored this in more detail by trying to explore what properties of humans give them the right to stay off the menu.

My first instinct is to say simply "because they are human". It's not really any specific property or quality of humanity which makes me think we're special, it's just the species to which I happen to belong. I think one has to draw the line somewhere or one would grieve as much for the cockroach one steps on as for the lamb one slaughters, as for the person in hospital. Just that side of people like me seems about right.

To extend this, let's say we base it on the ability to reason and suffer. Let's say I find a way to vat grow humans with no cognitive brain function, just enough of a CNS to run the autonomic systems. Meat without cruelty to be sure but doubt people would form queues!

Là ban dien s list introduces an interesting element as well. I'd not want to eat any of those animals either, (well, I'd be OK with the magpie). So perhaps self awareness is the criteria.

Is it a quality of humanity which puts Us off the menu or simple perceived "likeness", a Darwinian hangover from not wanting to eat our own genetic material?

Good discussion now Btw!

(February 25, 2014 at 2:22 am)Minimalist Wrote: The paleo diet seems to forget that life expectancy in the Upper Palaeolithic was around 30. Nothing to write home about.

lol that's right. Give me the Future Man diet, and we're talking. Except I'm pretty sure I'm eating it already.

(February 25, 2014 at 4:15 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: My first instinct is to say simply "because they are human". It's not really any specific property or quality of humanity which makes me think we're special, it's just the species to which I happen to belong. I think one has to draw the line somewhere or one would grieve as much for the cockroach one steps on as for the lamb one slaughters, as for the person in hospital. Just that side of people like me seems about right.

I would argue firstly again on the basis of logical consistency. A petri dish of human cells, such as those that experiments are performed on, are human, but we would not accord them the same rights as a person. So to be consistent one either not base ethics on species, or believe that human cells are worthy of ethical consideration.

Secondly, I would argue against species as criteria relevant to ethics because it is a category without any real boundaries, but is merely useful to describe evolution. When in evolution did humans become humans? Lets say we define species as animals that can breed together to produce fertile offspring. Now you would not be able to breed with some early hominid, and we could therefore say you are of different species. But if we go back in evolutionary time to the transition between early hominids and humans one will find intermediate hominids that can breed both with humans and early hominids. This is how evolution progresses, through small steps and not abrupt changes. Because of that one could argue that those intermediate hominids were just another "race" of humans, and if that is so the early hominids that can breed with the intermediate hominids are also just another "race" of humans. One can do this same process all the way back for to the common ancestors of all sexually reproducing animals. So are therefore all sexually reproducing animals "human", and if so do not all animals deserve ethical consideration? It sounds nonsensical, but is really just a problem with the ambiguity of the word "species".

(February 25, 2014 at 3:33 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Secondly, I would argue against species as criteria relevant to ethics because it is a category without any real boundaries, but is merely useful to describe evolution. When in evolution did humans become humans? Lets say we define species as animals that can breed together to produce fertile offspring. Now you would not be able to breed with some early hominid, and we could therefore say you are of different species. But if we go back in evolutionary time to the transition between early hominids and humans one will find intermediate hominids that can breed both with humans and early hominids. This is how evolution progresses, through small steps and not abrupt changes. Because of that one could argue that those intermediate hominids were just another "race" of humans, and if that is so the early hominids that can breed with the intermediate hominids are also just another "race" of humans. One can do this same process all the way back for to the common ancestors of all sexually reproducing animals. So are therefore all sexually reproducing animals "human", and if so do not all animals deserve ethical consideration? It sounds nonsensical, but is really just a problem with the ambiguity of the word "species".

I think this is an example of the fallacy of the beard. Just because it can be difficult to define the boundary does not mean there is no boundary.

(February 25, 2014 at 2:22 am)Minimalist Wrote: The paleo diet seems to forget that life expectancy in the Upper Palaeolithic was around 30. Nothing to write home about.

Yeah but that was due to sin, not diet. Silly atheist.

The fuckers have the same answer for everything, don't they?

(February 25, 2014 at 4:38 pm)rasetsu Wrote: I think this is an example of the fallacy of the beard. Just because it can be difficult to define the boundary does not mean there is no boundary.

The problem is the boundaries overlap. A pig, for example, is a quite aware, social, and emotion-displaying animal. Some elderly people are much less aware, much less social, and feel (so far as anyone can tell) much less emotion, due to the brain impairment of senility.

The overlapping condition, if level-of-sentience or level-of-feeling is an adequate argument, must receive a single treatment: either all members killed without regard, or all members protected equally. If it does not, then we have a case of special pleading: "THOSE organisms are insufficiently aware for us to care whether they suffer. THESE organisms, which are just as unaware, must still be cared about because they are human." Don't believe it's special pleading? Fine-- slit Grammy's neck with a kitchen knife and punch a bolt-gun through her brain; send her ground-up body off to a dog-food factory. Rover won't care-- Grammy tastes like tough chicken, I'm sure.

Now, if qualitative states don't allow the arbitrary killing of humans, then there are only two other things to consider: 1) DNA; 2) a. . . soul? Discounting a soul, then it is not that a FEELING BEING must be saved, but its DNA. In which case every time someone leaks a drop of sperm, a billion murders have occurred. Neither of these seems like a good criterion on which to establish a right to kill or a lack of it.

So it's neither a soul, nor DNA, nor an aware being, which is being protected. It must be something else. It is nothing but the sensitivities of the non-Grammy-killers that is being preserved. And there's no drawing borders between or around world views.

It is not fallacy of the beard because the definition of species is qualitative and there are no extremities. The fallacy of the beard is that quantitative changes cannot result in changes in quality. So one starts with a clean shaven individual, no hairs therefore no beard. One adds a hair at a time and one can never find the point at which beards start. Species unlike a beard is defined qualitatively, either they can produce fertile offspring or not.

(February 26, 2014 at 4:27 am)jg2014 Wrote: It is not fallacy of the beard because the definition of species is qualitative and there are no extremities. The fallacy of the beard is that quantitative changes cannot result in changes in quality. So one starts with a clean shaven individual, no hairs therefore no beard. One adds a hair at a time and one can never find the point at which beards start. Species unlike a beard is defined qualitatively, either they can produce fertile offspring or not.

Except that is not right. There are species of birds (ll try and find out what they are) that can mate with another species from the same familia which exist geographically near them but not those from further away however those that they can mate with can mate with those further away.

Imagine species A-B-C-D-E-F which circle the globe A can mate with B and F produces infertile offspring with C and E and cannot produce any offspring with D. B can mate with A and C and produce infertile hybrids with D and F but cannot produce anything with an E and so on.