RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
April 18, 2012 at 2:03 pm
(This post was last modified: April 18, 2012 at 2:09 pm by Scabby Joe.)
(April 18, 2012 at 12:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No I have a bias for asserting that laws should be applied equally in each and every case. Halal exemptions are contradictory to this principle of mine. Veal production, on the other hand, is not.
Now, on to your objections regarding veal. The process seems to be unsavory, doesn't it? Let's remove the "newborn calves" bit, because if it isn't ethical to treat an animal in this way it matters very little what stage of life they are in. That's an appeal to emotion (we have a soft spot for newborn anythings), and it makes for a poor argument if we're invoking some sort of logical process complete with moral and ethical absolutes.
Newborn calves bit. The point here is that the animals are desperate to fulfill the natural desire to suckle. They are denied this and this causes stress and unnecessary suffering. Hope you can now see the logic.
Quote:"You would argue that", I don't give a shit, and neither do the people that write these laws. You "must demonstrate that". As it stands, we do not consider any livestock animal on par with ourselves in the areas of sentience, self-awareness, or suffering.
Do sentience, self-awareness, or the ability to suffer reckon in your ethical reasoning? If they do, as you imply, we can discuss.
Quote:If you could establish that they were, you'd still be left with the practical concern that we're going to have to off something, somehow, if we expect to continue living.
Yes, but we can minimise the suffering we inflict. That is the whole point.
Quote:Now, I'm not some vocal supporter of veal production, or battery farming, or grain fed cattle. These things to me seem to be a misuse of our resources. That doesn't mean that they are morally "wrong", it just means that I think we could better use our resources while achieving the same ends that the current system offers us.
Pointing to veal makes livestock production as a whole unethical or immoral how? Veal itself is unethical or immoral how, because you say so, or would argue so?
If you want, I can explain why broiler, pig and beef production also cuase unnecessary suffering. I'm not extrapolating.
Quote:You have again invoked "unnecessary" suffering and I have been begging for you (or anyone) to create even a short list of what lies on either side of this line.
Not entirely sure what you mean. I'm not particularly interested in getting into some academic debate about absolute or relative moral values. I can make a case for either if you want. I'm more interested in what you think. If you think halal is unethical/immoral, what is your logic?
When you ask for a shortlist, what do you mean? Do you want an example of say, torturing children for fun as something that is an example of causing unnecessary suffering. I'm sure I could come up with a lot of similar nonsense but I'm not sure that is what you are after.
Quote:I cannot sign on with your argument as a moral or ethical absolute until someone can do this.
There may or may not be moral absolutes. I don't think it is provable either way. What I've put forward is an ethical conisderation based on logic that you seem determined to dismiss because it is emotional. There can of course be emotions attached with ethical issues, no doubt about it, but just becasue theere are doesn't mean we should ignore the logic.
(April 18, 2012 at 1:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It seems as if the vegetarians are battling evolution.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...154417.htm
Evolutionary History of What Mammals Eat: Some Groups of Mammals Have Changed Their Feeding Strategies Over Time
What on earth is that meant to mean? If you are trying to say that our evolutionary ancesters were onmivores - no arguement. If you are saying that because they were onmivores, we should be, that is nonsense.
We are reasoning beings who have developed ethics to make choices. It is perfectly possible to chose to eat no meat, many millions do.
Our distant ancesters were able to become pregnant at the age of 10 or 11 years old, just as they are today. I'm sure your not saying it is ethical to impregnate girls of this age. We've moved on and can think.