Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Anomalocaris]

[/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?

Absolutely not, at the most fundamental level.

Morality is an heuristic construct justified solely based on its value in enhancing long survival propsects of human communities by minimize unproductive friction in the community. To elevating aspects of heuristic to a fundamental principle governing aspects not really related to survival of human communities is to defeat the purpose of morality.

[Scabby Joe]

[/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?

Absolutely not, at the most fundamental level.

Morality is an heuristic construct justified solely based on its value in enhancing long survival of human propsects of communities by minimize unproductive friction in the community. To elevating aspects of heuristic to a fundamental principle governing aspects not really related to survival of humanity is to defeat the purpose of morality.

So there is no such thing as an immoral act towards any other creature? If what you suggest is true, why do many millions see it as a moral issue?

[The Grand Nudger]

Many millions have seen images of a risen christ as well......many millions have leveraged magic to cure disease, and many millions eat meat.

There's a name for the argument you've just made. It definitely doesn't lend any credibility to the cause.

[Scabby Joe]

Many millions have seen images of a risen christ as well......many millions have leveraged magic to cure disease, and many millions eat meat.

There's a name for the argument you've just made. It definitely doesn't lend any credibility to the cause.

Ok. Prove morality is an heuristic construct justified solely based on its value in enhancing long survival of human propsects of communities by minimize unproductive friction in the community. You can't. I didn't claim it lent credibility to the cause, just highlighted that there are lots of differing opinions on what constitutes morality.

[Anomalocaris]

[/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?

Absolutely not, at the most fundamental level.

Morality is an heuristic construct justified solely based on its value in enhancing long survival of human propsects of communities by minimize unproductive friction in the community. To elevating aspects of heuristic to a fundamental principle governing aspects not really related to survival of humanity is to defeat the purpose of morality.

So there is no such thing as an immoral act towards any other creature? If what you suggest is true, why do many millions see it as a moral issue?

An act towards another creature is immoral if it is accepted to be tangibly harmful to the human society, directly, or indirectly.

For example, fornicating with a different species might be heuristically immoral because it may provide an otherwise non-existing bridge for pathogens hitherto specific to the other species to make the jump to humans, yet it seem to provide little offsetting benefits.

Millions see meat eating as an moral issue because the way morality has been shabbily sold to them in our society. Instead of the clear understanding that morality exist to benefit human community, it was sold to them as some overriding fundamental principle that exist independent of any fundamental purpose it was designed to address, sort of like a law of physics. Basically, morality has been oversold in order to pursuade people to buy it.

So now many of the more impressionable buyers try to apply morality as it has been advertised, not as it actually is.

---

Many millions have seen images of a risen christ as well......many millions have leveraged magic to cure disease, and many millions eat meat.

There's a name for the argument you've just made. It definitely doesn't lend any credibility to the cause.

Ok. Prove morality is an heuristic construct justified solely based on its value in enhancing long survival of human propsects of communities by minimize unproductive friction in the community. You can't. I didn't claim it lent credibility to the cause, just highlighted that there are lots of differing opinions on what constitutes morality.

It is the occum's razor explanation of the widespread presence of various versions of morality in societies that survived, and for high degree of presence of prohibitions against actions that can be shown by later science to be harmful to survival of the community in its environment.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ok. Prove morality is an heuristic construct justified solely based on its value in enhancing long survival of human propsects of communities by minimize unproductive friction in the community. You can't. I didn't claim it lent credibility to the cause, just highlighted that there are lots of differing opinions on what constitutes morality.

(bolding mine)

Which is precisely why I'm skeptical of your argument with regards to livestock production being unethical or immoral in any sense other than your own opinions.......

"Basically, morality has been oversold in order to pursuade people to buy it."
-Quoted for truth.

[Scabby Joe]

[/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?

Absolutely not, at the most fundamental level.

Morality is an heuristic construct justified solely based on its value in enhancing long survival of human propsects of communities by minimize unproductive friction in the community. To elevating aspects of heuristic to a fundamental principle governing aspects not really related to survival of humanity is to defeat the purpose of morality.

So there is no such thing as an immoral act towards any other creature? If what you suggest is true, why do many millions see it as a moral issue?

An act towards another creature is immoral if it is accepted to be tangibly harmful to the human society, directly, or indirectly.

For example, fornicating with a different species might be heuristically immoral because it may provide an otherwise non-existing bridge for pathogens hitherto specific to the other species to make the jump to humans, yet it seem to provide little offsetting benefits.

Millions see meat eating as an moral issue because the way morality has been shabbily sold to them in our society. Instead of the clear understanding that morality exist to benefit human community, it was sold to them as some overriding fundamental principle that exist independent of any fundamental purpose it was designed to address, sort of like a law of physics. Basically, morality has been oversold in order to pursuade people to buy it.

So now many of the more impressionable buyers try to apply morality as it has been advertised, not as it actually is.

---

Many millions have seen images of a risen christ as well......many millions have leveraged magic to cure disease, and many millions eat meat.

There's a name for the argument you've just made. It definitely doesn't lend any credibility to the cause.

Ok. Prove morality is an heuristic construct justified solely based on its value in enhancing long survival of human propsects of communities by minimize unproductive friction in the community. You can't. I didn't claim it lent credibility to the cause, just highlighted that there are lots of differing opinions on what constitutes morality.

It is the occum's razor explanation of the widespread presence of various versions of morality in societies that survived, and for high degree of presence of prohibitions against actions that can be shown by later science to be harmful to survival of the community in its environment.

Occum's razor does not provide a proof.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

[mediamogul]

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.

"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. 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. 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?

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. I cannot sign on with your argument as a moral or ethical absolute until someone can do this. I can't even sign on with it as morally or ethically pragmatic without such a definition of terms. There are things that vegetarians could do to make the world a better place as well, like avoiding organic foods (then we wouldn't need livestock), and not eating (then we wouldn't need to destroy environments to source, or leverage nutrients, or for ag in the first place). Do either of these solutions seem "ideal" to you? Would either of them achieve your stated goal of avoiding "unnecessary suffering"? Perhaps we should go hunter-gatherer sans hunter? Do you imagine that this would prevent or cause "unnecessary suffering"?

First let's define our terms:

I think wiki has a good definition of suffering:

Suffering, or pain in a broad sense,[1] is an experience of unpleasantness and aversion associated with harm or threat of harm in an individual. Suffering is the basic element that makes up the negative valence of affective phenomena.

Suffering may be qualified as physical[2] or mental.[3] It may come in all degrees of intensity, from mild to intolerable. Factors of duration and frequency of occurrence usually compound that of intensity. Attitudes toward suffering may vary widely, in the sufferer or other people, according to how much it is regarded as avoidable or unavoidable, useful or useless, deserved or undeserved.

nec·es·sar·y
   [nes-uh-ser-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural nec·es·sar·ies.
adjective
1.
being essential, indispensable, or requisite: a necessary part of the motor.
2.
happening or existing by necessity: a necessary change in our plans.
3.
acting or proceeding from compulsion or necessity; not free; involuntary: a necessary agent.
4.
Logic .
a.
(of a proposition) such that a denial of it involves a self-contradiction.
b.
(of an inference or argument) such that its conclusion cannot be false if its supporting premises are true.
c.
(of a condition) such that it must exist if a given event is to occur or a given thing is to exist. Compare sufficient ( def. 2 ) .

Unnecessary being essentially the converse of necessary:

un·nec·es·sar·y
   [uhn-nes-uh-ser-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural un·nec·es·sar·ies.
adjective
1.
not necessary or essential; needless; unessential.

In a word "unnecessary suffering" is pain or discomfort that was not essential or required. In the ethical sense it means that a moral agent, or being with sufficient reason to have the capacity for willful action with understanding of it's implications, knowingly and intentionally caused suffering. Simply put a :a person capable of moral action intentionally causing a sentient being to suffer when it was not required. Suffering is not required when there are other viable options that produce the same necessary result as those that would require suffering.

For instance if one were driving, came around a bend and suddenly there was a dog in the road. Let's say for the sake of argument that there was no way to stop the car and the only options were between hitting the dog and swerving off the road into a ditch, causing minor damage to the car and no harm to the person. If one were to choose to hit the dog for the sake of saving the car then they would have caused unnecessary suffering. Other options were available that didn't require hitting the dog with the car and the consideration was purely a material one in that one did not want to damage the car.

Some practical for instances:

Unnecessary suffering caused by moral agent:

A person beats a dog because they are angry it peed on the carpet.

A person breaks into another person's home and physically assaults them in furtherance of theft.

Necessary suffering caused by moral agent:

Parents agreeing to medical procedures on children that involve pain but are in the child's best interest.

Shooting another person in a case of self defense when it's clear that they would have caused you injury.

The arguments about not eating to "make the world a better place" are non sequitor. If an argument could be shown that the only way humans could possibly be sustained were by killing animals and causing their suffering then there would be a point. I do not necessarily think that this is the case. Humans have to eat but they don't have to eat meat. The question at hand is whether it is ethical to kill animals for food? Applied ethics deals with how do we implement ethical theory in a practical applications. This is why the Repubs are always trying to de-regulate business. Those ethics can be a bitch when you are trying rake in in hand over fist and people, animals and the environment keep getting in the way.

Also, from a couple of posts back the "you are just being emotional" is an ad hominem. The emotion in this sense would be compassion and I doubt we would last long as humans without some degree of compassion. That's besides the point, the argument is based on logic and this is an attempt to discredit the source. The converse argument could be made that meat eaters are non-self reflective and the knee jerk emotional reactions when meat eating is challenged demonstrates that they cling to the practice more from tradition and conditioning than rationality.

[The Grand Nudger]

You require an argument to show you that our survival kills animals, no matter how much we may want to avoid it, seriously? Fine, just give me your pet solution, and I'll run a clinic on which animals it kills and why. Then, after that, I'll give you a longer list of animals that suffer, but stubbornly refuse to die nonetheless. Then you can tell me whether or not it's "necessary" and whether or not this price seems to be the "lesser of two evils".

I'm not judging you for your compassion. I'm not attacking you for it. I'm simply saying that "because we have empathy" does not provide some rock solid objective, logical argument. We're awful selective with our empathy aren't we? I'm asking you why I should extend my empathy, not why I should have it. I'm asking you if by following my own sense of empathy it's possible that I may actually be causing yet more "unneccessary suffering" to some other group of "sentient" creatures. How am I to decide which of two separate sentient creatures to side with if a conflict arises?