Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Kratos]

If you want to be a goody goody two shoes, you must eat fruit because it wants to be eaten. Then take a dump on the ground so the fruit can grow. I think all life has the same right to live. I love meat and tatters.

[jackman]

So the answer is that you know the argument is illogical but don't care and you are going to continue with the unfounded practices anyway?

Sounds like another system of thought I know.

*cough*Christianity*cough*

[/quote]

not saying eating meat is illogical and not referring to it as unfounded practice. i'm just laughing because in a mainly science forum, people's reasons for eating meat are "it's yummy". lmao.

however, you should get that "cough" checked out ... sounds bad.

[frankiej]

Man, I love meat.

This thread makes me hungry.

[mediamogul]

All beings that have sentience are entitled to certain rights and ethical treatment.

No they are not.


There are no such things as innate rights. There are legal and customary rights,which can be (and are) taken away at the whim of the powerful. That makes them privileges.


You may well disagree. In that case please explain the origins of such rights and the universal, external moral authority which decides,imposes and enforces such rights..

---

Oh good. Finally an actual argument based on logic.

I agree that rights are not innate, in the sense that they exist in some absolute sense external to reason, society, and they beings for whom such rights are being considered. Rights are instead both Natural and Legal. Natural rights are derived from logic and human/animal nature (the founding fathers believed they were imbued by a Creator). Legal rights are the ones you are more speaking of which are imposed in accordance with societal values and laws. So the considerations are suffering, which is a self-defining undesirable state, and consciousness. The combination of these two things is termed "sentience". This is also coupled with a converse right that a being has, in so far as it is capable, of self-determination and the pursuit of it's own needs and happiness provided it does not impinge upon the rights of another sentient creature to be free from unnecessary suffering and to pursue its needs and happiness. The really sketchy part is when we begin to speak about a "nervous system that can support consciousness" and where that line is drawn. In order for us to have the expectation that another being to act ethically they too must possess rationality. Animals exist in a kind of amoral state due to their lack of rationality and language and thus we cannot place the reasonable expectation of moral behavior upon them. So that means the "animals kill each other for food and we are animals" is out. We are rational animals and capable of ethical consideration of other beings.

---

So the answer is that you know the argument is illogical but don't care and you are going to continue with the unfounded practices anyway?

Sounds like another system of thought I know.

*cough*Christianity*cough*

How is eating meat an unfounded practice?? The Irony of your statement here is precious to say the least... There was nothing illogical about the answer given. And as said before, you have to end a life to continue to have a life. Welcome to reality! You just feel better killing plants because they can't cry or scream when you kill them, and that is perfectly ok. However, to use it as an argument for the preaching of vegetarianism borders the line of religious radicalism since it often uses bullshit dogma about claiming people eating meat are some how unethical, or engaging in "unfounded practices"... Sorry, but the bullshit trains stops where you kill another living thing just so you can have another breath.

How is this not just a completely ad hominem argument?

Do you have issue with one of the ideas or did you just come by to accuse me of things you have no way of verifying as an attempt to dismiss my argument?

---

So the answer is that you know the argument is illogical but don't care and you are going to continue with the unfounded practices anyway?

Sounds like another system of thought I know.

*cough*Christianity*cough*

not saying eating meat is illogical and not referring to it as unfounded practice. i'm just laughing because in a mainly science forum, people's reasons for eating meat are "it's yummy". lmao.

however, you should get that "cough" checked out ... sounds bad.
[/quote]

Oh, my bad I thought that you were making the "it's yummy" argument and saying you didn't care that it was unscientific.

Comment redacted. I will get the cough checked out, it's been getting nastier and nastier.

[Scabby Joe]

I think that it does not follow that being an atheist means that you should be a vegetarian. Of course not. Atheism is just a lack of belief in something. It maybe atheism attracts those who don't want to live by any ethical or moral code; maybe that's what they didn't like about religion.

However, for those thinkers out there atheism does at least raise some issues to consider.

First, we were not created in the image of God. We are not special, just another animal. We do not necessarily need to hold onto the Christian idea of dominion.

Second, atheists reject God given moral law. Morals or ethics may be subjective or objective but some atheists may want to to ethical/moral even without the threat of eternal hell. So, can we agree on the following:

Causing unnecessary pain and suffering is unethical.

For those that can, and do eat factory farmed meat, how is it ethical.

If we cannot agree that causing unnecessary pain and suffering are wrong then this raises lots of other issues, not least the slightly empty criticisim of religion poisoning everthing. Surely even religious ethics are better than no ethics?

Dawkins, an apparent believer in objective morality, and ardent Darwinian thinker sees the implications for atheists. Seems not many here do.

[downbeatplumb]

I love meat.

I like to think the carcass is gathered from a field once the animal passes away peacefully after a decent life.

I may be wrong.

[Scabby Joe]

I agree that it isn't moral, but nature isn't always fair. I can live with myself if my most heinous act is enjoying chicken.

Broilers are in the main raised in over crowded barns. Thety are so overcrowded that they become stressed and opten resort to cannibalism. To stop this, they are debeaked; their top beak cut off. This is painful at the time and remains painful. They are kept in semi dark conditions to reduce the stress. They only see daylight when they are taken to the slaugher house.

For me this is just too much suffering. I agree it is immoral to put them through that in their millions just to satisfy a liking of the flavour. It's refeshing to find a person who takes responsibility for their actions rather than raise dubious reasons why it's not moral in the first place, e.g. it's natural.

I'd be interested to know why youthink it is immoral?

---

If I didn't eat meat I would literally starve to death. Yes, I used the word 'literally', and I used it accurately.

Why?>

---

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

Nope. I love eating meat. Have it all the time. Also I don't think there is any needless pain and suffering. They're killed almost instantly. In the wild, they'd almost always suffer a brutal and painful death, a hard life from birth to death. In fact it happens to pretty much every wild animal on the planet. Farm animals always have food readily available, no predators and the killing is quick. Besides, with our ever growing population and very much limited resources, you can't be picky.

You mean it's not needless because you enjoy the taste so much?

There is little we can do about the wild, as you say. If you were in the wild you might not be at the top of the food chain and may be eaten by a large predator. Does this mean we can take your life in a less painful way?

Farfm animals do not always have food readily available. The killing may be mostly quick but the suffering in the weeks and moths beforehand is not.

---

If the animal isn't intelligent enough to be consciously aware of its existence then what difference does it make? It doesn't even know its alive.

This is faulty logic. Is a newborn human, a chronically seniule person or a person with severe mental handicap as aware as a pig. No.

[mediamogul]

I think that it does not follow that being an atheist means that you should be a vegetarian. Of course not. Atheism is just a lack of belief in something. It maybe atheism attracts those who don't want to live by any ethical or moral code; maybe that's what they didn't like about religion.

However, for those thinkers out there atheism does at least raise some issues to consider.

First, we were not created in the image of God. We are not special, just another animal. We do not necessarily need to hold onto the Christian idea of dominion.

Second, atheists reject God given moral law. Morals or ethics may be subjective or objective but some atheists may want to to ethical/moral even without the threat of eternal hell. So, can we agree on the following:

Causing unnecessary pain and suffering is unethical.

For those that can, and do eat factory farmed meat, how is it ethical.

If we cannot agree that causing unnecessary pain and suffering are wrong then this raises lots of other issues, not least the slightly empty criticisim of religion poisoning everthing. Surely even religious ethics are better than no ethics?

Dawkins, an apparent believer in objective morality, and ardent Darwinian thinker sees the implications for atheists. Seems not many here do.

I am both an atheist and a vegetarian. My considerations for each are strictly seperate.

I am not atheist because i am a vegetarian nor am i a vegetarian because i am an atheist.

I think Dawkins is saying its a kind of prejudice to elevate the suffering of humans over the suffering and rights of animals due purely to the fact that we are humans. Its like favoring your own race or gender and discriminating against them based on a similar prejudice. People used to, and still do, think that those were very real and rational lines drawn between treatment of others. I think that the line we have drawn between ourselves and other animals is just as spurious.

[Scabby Joe]

I just ate a rare slab of angus. I don't think it's immoral to eat meat. Is a lion considered immoral for eating gazelles? It's just life. I understand some people might find it troubling to kill a living thing just to dine upon it's flesh. I'm not one of those people, personally.

Are you saying we should look to other animals for moral inspiration? Surely the point is that we are rational, we can make ethical decisions. Gerbils sometimes eat their babies, should we follow suit.

---

[/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?

I am a vegetarian an believe that the moral line is drawn at sentience (consciousness and the ability to suffer). All beings that have sentience are entitled to certain rights and ethical treatment. To discriminate purely on the basis of the fact the we are humans and they are not is akin to speciesm or the unfounded favoring of one species over another due to prejudice for the species that we happen to belong to. We understand these concepts well in the cases of our pets and preferred creatures, usually drawn along social lines, but struggle with the animals we classically view as "food". I do not eat any animal that we have reason to believe is sentient.

I also must say that it's funny to hear otherwise rational folks break out the lame arguments for this one. Especially when they would never accept the same type of arguments from a person arguing religion or some other belief based upon tradition, taste, or prejudice.

The classics are 1) Because that is the natural order of things 2) Because that's what people have always done 3) Because morality is relative and I choose to eat meat because there is no right or wrong 4) Because it tastes good and wouldn't taste good if it weren't "meant" to be eaten.

The answers are simple: 1) Is-Ought gap. Just because something is a certain way doesn't mean it ought to be that way. Our biology is based on survival not ethics and thus is amoral and can't be used as a basis for what we are "meant" to eat. 2) Argument from tradition obvious nonsense 3) But you wouldn't eat a human baby why? If it's relative you could never say someone was wrong for doing so? If we couldn't eat a baby why not? Moral relativism is bankrupt and the refuge of many armchair philosophers who can't put forth a compelling moral theory. 4) That one is obviously stupid and needs no response.


Good comments. I agree totally. I think you make a mistake to think that atheists copme to atheism through rational thought. Just looking at some of the inane comments here makes you wonder what the worth is of the atheists movement. It seems to attract a lot of people who just don't like rules and have little to say.

---

The problem is that this thing the 'righteous' like to call "Morality" is an entirely subjective thing. While one person weeps for the poor mistreated cows, another simply shrugs and cracks open the A1 Sauce.

While religious teachings may be one of the societal pressures that inform a person's personal morality, it is not their source...like these... theists...are hoping to prove.

I think this is good evidence for the influence of Christianity over western values. A hang over from God giving man dominion over the animals. Your comments haven't really engaged the topic and the implications of evolution for ethical choices. I think though, this is not really your thing.

---

[/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?

If Dawkins has a problem with hurting things that can feel pain, there is nothing wrong with that morally, ethically, or rationally.. However, morality is rather relative. I for one will eat meat, but I also do not like animals having to suffer.. The problem with the food chain is that much of life must murder itself in-order to survive and reproduce. So no matter what Dawkins says, he's going to have to technically kill something to survive.. That is a natural consequence of life.

And we are animals indeed, but animals capable of higher cognitive thought.. We are amazing animals, but it does come with a price.

I think you have missed the point. Sure, we may kill something. Step on a bug etc. the point is, should we inflict UNNECESSRY pain and suffering when we can decide not to.

[Minimalist]

In that case please explain the origins of such rights and the universal, external moral authority which decides,imposes and enforces such rights..

You can't be serious?