Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Scabby Joe]

1. Occum's razor provides the pragmatic, effective, and statistically convincing means for selecting from multiple plausible hypothesis. Disparage it to the disgrace of your own intellectual credibility.

2. Morality is a practical tangible behavioral reality. There is not proof of any aspect of practical, tangible reality without implicit or explicit application of occum's razor. Bandish occum's razor, and all proof in the real world drowns beneath a tidal wave of an infinite number of more elabrate, contrived, possible, but much less probable assertions to the contrary.

This is getting silly and away from the point. I am trying to discuss Dawkins' view that causing unnecessary suffering to another animal is not ethical or moral through simple reasoning. Underpinning that reasoning is that we are all animals and humans, like higher orders of animals, have a shared capacity to feel pain and to suffer.

Does Occam's razor really help? I could argue that Occam's Razor means empiricism must be correct as to go further, and introduce 'innateness' as a part of morality, makes the theory less simple and so not to be preferred.

I don't know where morals come from. I don't think anyone can claim they know for sure.

The question is, on what basis would you think it moral to inflcit unnecessary pain and suffering on another animal for the trivial reason of liking the taste of meat?

---

On the basis that many more animals will suffer and die to produce your vegetarian diet.

Is there a source for this? Explain the claim please.




What should we do with all of our livestock, I promise, these things would suffer "in the wild".

This is a bit of a non arguement. In reality, and move away from meat eating would (is) gradual and people reduce the breeding rather than releasing cows into the wild. Even if they did, it would be a one off.

Lastly, one animal which hasn't seen a lick of compassion in any of these arguments would starve, that would be human beings.

Human beings would starve? Why. I don't. Millions don't.


At least the list I asked for is starting to take shape, even if it is doing so indirectly. If grass fed cattle, free range chicken, and all livestock not factory farmed get a pass, then you aren't actually arguing for some sort of "ethical vegetarianism" are you. You're arguing for "ethical omnivorism" which I would also argue for.

This is not what I am arguing for at all. I just said it was the lesser of two evils.


Shuffling the suffering around to some other group of creatures that you don't seem to be so heavily invested in. Surely you can see why I would criticize such a thing?

No I can't. Please explain what this other group of creatures are?

If you're going to make this argument I shouldn't have to explain to you how destructive/dependent all of our agricultural systems are on animals (livestock or otherwise).

Well, you will have to explain and provide sources for this claim if you are using it as an argument to rebut unnecessary suffering Livestock production is in many respects reliant on agricultural systems, it does not replace them. See the earlier post from someone talking about soy beans unaware that most are produced to feed livestock.


I shouldn't have to point out that people will starve. This should have already been considered before you rendered your verdict on the issue in such a confident manner, don't you think?


This is a bit patronising and not worthy of you. Why would people starve?