Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[mediamogul]

Ah, you mean like synthesizing a steak, star trek style (or maybe lower tech but similar effect) that would be choice, wouldn't it? Provided that the process was more efficient than the current process, which has billions of years of trial and error for a head-start. A worthy goal. I don't think that it's likely that you'll ever eat such a steak, and we still have to eat (and survive) for whatever amount of time it takes to figure that out, don't we?

The kinds that we all ponder over, agree on (sometimes grudgingly), and then actualize, yep. Not "innate" kinds, not murkily justified kinds. Definitely not unworkable kinds. I don't know if "believe in" is really the right word, but we'll run with it.

Not the best particular way to put it. Let me try again: Are you rationally convinced that any ethical system of thought could be logically binding to the point that it could compel human behavior? In the sense of normative ethics prescribe ways in which people ought to act?

---

Well if it is not a point about magic plant suffering what are you saying? Killing a living thing is not wrong in itself. Violating the rights of and causing unnecessary suffering to another sentient creature is.

This right here tells me you have not bothered to read anything I've stated...at all! The plane has clearly flown over your head without much of a notice.. :/ ..

And I don't recall food having very many rights in the natural world. In China, they eat cats and dogs.. Hell, I'm a bartender at a high end seafood restaurant (restaurant name protected since I still work there), and we toss lobsters in the steamer everyday. I shuck 100's of oysters each day for my guests at the bar. Right in front of them no less while they laugh and giggle about their trip to Vegas. Humans have evolved to be omnivores whether you like it or not, or if you think it's moral or not to eat animals. If you want something to blame, cry and scream at mother nature, I'm sure she will listen and change everything so you can sleep better at night :/

However, if you want to do something about limiting animal suffering, perhaps you can work on finding ways to make it quick, and to improve their conditions... However, it's not going to stop me from fishing and eating my catch. I am no more morally wrong than a Bear catching Salomon out of a river..

Also, do you believe in any kind of ethics or morality?

So people that eat meat no lack ethics and morality?

Did I say that? No. Nor did I mean that. I was interested to hear what his particular thoughts on the matter are. We spent a lot of time talking about my views I was interested to hear how his views support something different.

I was a student of philosophy and was not particularly convinced of moral relativism. I have heard it a lot since joining this forum but haven't really ever heard a compelling argument for it. It is a very mushy, wishy washy, grey way to look at things. It seems to be the other extreme from the rigid dogmatism of absolutism. I think the answer lies somewhere in between.