Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[mediamogul]

There are alot of different dietary choices floating around, Jains would seem to have an even more ethical diet than the vegetarians here, but perhaps only by their own standards. Ours haven't expressed such a finicky taste for what plants they would or would not eat and why.

Of course I don't think the Jain dietary decisions are any more or less ethical than our vegetarians, or my own, in actuality, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in order to keep the ball rolling.

Jains believe that one is doing violence to a living spiritual organism by killing any living plant. I have outlined that my thoughts are based on sentience and the rights derived therefrom. Disagree with my beliefs but do not lump me into the same category as a person who believes a piece of broccoli has a soul. I think that is a big distinction. Criticize me on the basis of my rational consideration being flawed but my viewpoint is not based upon the religious leap of faith. I have also given ways in which my arguments could be falsifiable and think that I have acted in good faith when I spoke of the trinity of complications of vegetarian logic. Also, if vegetarianism could be shown as unsustainable then pragmatism would take precedent. If vegetarianism cannot work in the practical sense then it fails the test of both ethics in the philosophical sense and ethics when applied to real world situations. Jainism is akin to religious belief based upon unsubstantiated faith. It does not even attempt to make an argument but instead relies upon the same dualist fallacies as other religions.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

OK. I will give you an example of what I see as unnecessary suffering.

Is it possible that your are conflating 'unecessary' and 'gratuitous'?

My perception is both are a moral values. The implication is that those who disagree are immoral. EG that everyone 'should care" about what others consider 'unnecessary' animal suffering


Do I care? By the standards of some vegan, obviously not, or I would not eat animals. Will I stop eating animals or boycott chicken farms? No.

[simplexity]

I like meat and am an omnivore so so I will still eat meat. Humans have eaten meat for thousands of years and there is nothing inherently wrong with this base case. There may be something ethically wrong in some methods of obtaining meat, but the question was is there something wrong with eating of the meat substance in the first place. No, there is not.

Now there are certain animals I would never eat: Humans, Dogs, Cats, Monkeys, Dolphins, Apes, Close Ancestors, unless it was absolutely necessary because of the fact that most of these animals display more social skills and intelligence than average and therefore I consider them kin and also have a certain attachment.

Btw, BAAAACOOONN!!

[Scabby Joe]

I like meat and am an omnivore so so I will still eat meat. Humans have eaten meat for thousands of years and there is nothing inherently wrong with this base case. There may be something ethically wrong in some methods of obtaining meat, but the question was is there something wrong with eating of the meat substance in the first place. No, there is not.

Now there are certain animals I would never eat: Humans, Dogs, Cats, Monkeys, Dolphins, Apes, Close Ancestors, unless it was absolutely necessary because of the fact that most of these animals display more social skills and intelligence than average and therefore I consider them kin and also have a certain attachment.

Yes. I understand you like bacon. I did once. Perhaps this is an indication that self interest overrides a proper consideration of the ethics of whatyou do?

So you do draw the line at an animal's intelligence and social skills. This is arbitrary. Just how unintelligent does an animal have to be to fall foul of your positions, how lacking in social skills. By your reasoning, you would be quite justified in causing pain and unnecessary suffering on a chronically senile person, someone with a severe mental disorder, maybe even a new born baby. This arbitrary view of the world in times past enabled people to treat other people differently because of other trivial and artificial differences like colour of skin or sex. I argue that what really gives an animal (us included) the 'right' to have our interests considered, is our capacity to feel pain and to suffer. This is not to say the outcomes of those considerations will not vary, but the ethics of equal consideration are as Ricahrd Dawkins agrees, very logical.

---

[quote='Scabby Joe' pid='273363' dateline='1334606399']

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.

If youlook into the practices of factory farming, some ocvered in the discussions here, you will see that there isa wealth of evidence that there is indeed a huge amount of pain and suffering involved. The question is then how do you justify it with your ethical/moral worldview?

---

I always say that if animals don't want to be eaten, they should stop tasting so good.

Sounds like your shiftinng moral responsibility threre

---

I just like meat. I'll stop eating it when everyone else does.

People used to like keeping slaves too. Your sentiment about what everyone else does is exactly what Richard Dawkins identifies as the reason why the logically consistent ethical stance is not more widely held. We need to build a critical mass, just like that which overcame slavery and sexism

---

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.

Because it can feel and can suffer. SOme humans are not aware of their own existence, can we treat them as we choose?

---

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.

We feel pain and suffer. We don't like it but sometimes it is necessary. Animals feel pain and suffer and so their interests should be taken into account just like ours. Just like it is unethical to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on other humans, so to on animals. That is what I take to be the (ethically) unfounded practice.

The paralells with Christian dogma are clear to me. Fist, look at the posts. You will see many completely avoid the argument on the basis that meat tastes good. The arguement going that if the meat tastes good it must be right. Christain version - if god tells you to do something (murder little children) do it becuase it must be right. In each case there is no consideration of the ethics or morality involved.

As we animals have a shared capacity to feel pain and suffering we should have equal considertion of our interests. It is as arbitrary to discriminate on the grounds of species as on the basis of skin colour. Where can such a notion come from that we are special, ahh- Christain theology. We are the Adams and Eves and we can do what we want to the animals, they were created for us after all.

We of course do live in the real world and do understand that we cannot exist without a degree of suffering. The whole point of this post is whether we should avoid UNNECESSARY pain and suffering. Just because there is some suffering does not mean we have no further ethical responsibility to minimise it.

[simplexity]

Wow, someone took what I said and completely stretched it out of proportion. Yes social skills and intelligence are part of why I think I don't have an ethical right to treat other animals as lower forms of "life". There is also the fact that even if a person has lost mental capabilities they are still part of a species which is intelligent and social and still have the potential. Really it all comes down to the potential to be intelligent, social, and self aware(this being the key phrase) of their own suffering. Even if an animal "feels" pain how can it really feel anything without being self aware. Without self awareness it is only a simple reaction to stimuli. That is all and therefore there is no pain, at least not the kind you are talking about. Sentience. I have to say sentience is probably the most important factor in everything, although breaking this down into simple rules is a very complicated thing to do, not to mention the fact it is very difficult to tell if an animal is self aware. It could still be disputed whether a cat has sentience, but I am sure they do.

Just because I left something out of my previous statement does not mean I automatically believe everything else is correct and ethical. What logical fallacy is this?

And yes I do like bacon. Thanks for repeating. This was not part of my argument. It was just a simple statement since well, I really like bacon...

[Scabby Joe]

Yes social skills and intelligence are part of why I think I don't have an ethical right to treat other animals as lower forms of "life". There is also the fact that even if a person has lost mental capabilities they are still part of a species which is intelligent and social and still have the potential.

Really it all comes down to the potential to be intelligent, social, and self aware(this being the key phrase) of their own suffering.


No. Some humans with chronic mental incapacity or senility do not have any potential. Likewise, they will not be as capable as say a pig or a dog of forming social groups and certainly not any more self aware. So on this basis, these unfortunate humans deserve no consideration of their interests even though their central nervous systems operate and they give reactions to pain?


Even if an animal "feels" pain how can it really feel anything without being self aware. Without self awareness it is only a simple reaction to stimuli. That is all and therefore there is no pain, at least not the kind you are talking about. Sentience. I have to say sentience is probably the most important factor in everything, although breaking this down into simple rules is a very complicated thing to do, not to mention the fact it is very difficult to tell if an animal is self aware. It could still be disputed whether a cat has sentience, but I am sure they do.

The most basic way of experiencing the world is through feeling or sensation. 'Sentience' is defined as the ability to have perceptions and sensations. A 'sentient animal' is an animal that is aware of his/her surroundings and of what happens to him/her and is capable of feeling pain and pleasure, at the least. The current scientific consensus is that all vertebrate animals, at least, are capable of feeling pain and experiencing distress. Why would you think otherwise. We have evolved central nervous systems together, we react to pain in a similar way and we all benefited from the pain response in the evoltionary process. I agree that sentience is important, so we agree here. Perhaps you are disputing the evidence, if so I'd like to see some reputable cources.


And yes I do like bacon. Thanks for repeating. This was not part of my argument. It was just a simple statement since well, I really like bacon...

Again, perhaps it is becuse you really like bacon that you are not willing to look at the facts up until now?

[simplexity]

A very important factor here is also the fact that a lot of people really like bacon, me being close to the least of them. In fact I would say most people really like bacon. When it comes down to it until we develop better methods of growing artificial meat, natural meat is still a very important factor in anyone's diet. One may not need it to survive, but to live as healthy a life as you can one needs an intake of protein. I know I do, and you may not think you do, but it still makes a healthier diet.

I have always agreed that we need to decrease the amount of suffering as much as possible in any species which has any self awareness and my ideas have not changed in this. But, even if this is true I would still argue that we still have the right to kill an animal as long as we are trying to decrease the amount of suffering. This is difficult to do though, since the demand for meat is high, apparently we need industrial factories which do not seem to care about the suffering as they do about the output of product. Yes, it is terrible.

In the end all I am trying to say here are there are different levels of intelligence and social interaction, some of them being very clear. This brings me to my next point. Even though a species is self aware another defining aspect of sentience for me is when the animal actually shows self awareness of another creatures suffering and the other creatures awareness. This is described as empathy and I think this is a very important factor in deciding the sentience of another species. Both dolphins and species of apes show this through group dynamics and caring about the welfare of the rest of the group. Many species show self awareness of their own suffering, but even fewer show empathy. This also plays a part in which animals are morally okay to kill to eat only.

It is a very simple fact that as of now we still need to take life in order to eat whether it is the life of a plant or an animal. As of now we still need to draw this line and I do not think just because an animal can suffer it is morally wrong to kill it in order to eat it. There are more factors involved than only self awareness. It is again for me Sentience.

And to give a slight answer to your other question, even if an old man no longer possesses the faculties they once did, they may once have had those faculties, and even if they did not are still a part of the species and deserve the same rights.

The current scientific consensus is that all vertebrate animals, at least, are capable of feeling pain and experiencing distress. Why would you think otherwise.

I do not think otherwise, but it is still up for debate which animals are intelligent enough to have an understanding of their own ego. Most animals for example are not intelligent enough when they look at themselves in the mirror to know that what they are seeing is themselves. When they experience "pain" they may not feel the pain happening to themselves(ego), but the sensation will just be and cause certain effects.

[mediamogul]

Yes social skills and intelligence are part of why I think I don't have an ethical right to treat other animals as lower forms of "life". There is also the fact that even if a person has lost mental capabilities they are still part of a species which is intelligent and social and still have the potential.

Really it all comes down to the potential to be intelligent, social, and self aware(this being the key phrase) of their own suffering.


No. Some humans with chronic mental incapacity or senility do not have any potential. Likewise, they will not be as capable as say a pig or a dog of forming social groups and certainly not any more self aware. So on this basis, these unfortunate humans deserve no consideration of their interests even though their central nervous systems operate and they give reactions to pain?


Even if an animal "feels" pain how can it really feel anything without being self aware. Without self awareness it is only a simple reaction to stimuli. That is all and therefore there is no pain, at least not the kind you are talking about. Sentience. I have to say sentience is probably the most important factor in everything, although breaking this down into simple rules is a very complicated thing to do, not to mention the fact it is very difficult to tell if an animal is self aware. It could still be disputed whether a cat has sentience, but I am sure they do.

The most basic way of experiencing the world is through feeling or sensation. 'Sentience' is defined as the ability to have perceptions and sensations. A 'sentient animal' is an animal that is aware of his/her surroundings and of what happens to him/her and is capable of feeling pain and pleasure, at the least. The current scientific consensus is that all vertebrate animals, at least, are capable of feeling pain and experiencing distress. Why would you think otherwise. We have evolved central nervous systems together, we react to pain in a similar way and we all benefited from the pain response in the evoltionary process. I agree that sentience is important, so we agree here. Perhaps you are disputing the evidence, if so I'd like to see some reputable cources.


And yes I do like bacon. Thanks for repeating. This was not part of my argument. It was just a simple statement since well, I really like bacon...

Again, perhaps it is becuse you really like bacon that you are not willing to look at the facts up until now?

In terms of the argument that some humans are no longer sentient and therefore are not within the realm of ethical consideration, I think that one needs to understand that this is few and far between. Diminished senses or mental capacity do not mean that they lack sentience. Lacking sentience would be something to the effect of being in a coma with no chance of recovery. At that point many families do choose to pull the plug if they are on life support but if not people are essentially allowed to remain in a persistive vegetative state indefinitely. Many times the families will try to act upon what they know or perceive to have been the will of the person regarding being in such a state. The treatment of the body is not strictly governed by ethics at this point but instead more directed by social custom, the feelings that the people who were close to the person had and pragmatic considerations of costs/resources/etc... This is where a bit of relativism comes in. Certain societies demonstrate respect for the dead or comatose in certain ways but it is no longer a moral issue. Also, the idea that abortion is an acceptable practice is due to the fact that the fetus has not yet developed into a sentient being and therefore no moral harm is done by aborting it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Mogul, no worries bro, I wouldn't lump you in with them as far as religious beliefs go, only insomuch as deitary considerations go (and only so far as that goes). Their ethical reasons and their spiritual explanations are intertwined. You are obviously in no such position. Clearly though you've reached similar conclusions by different means.

The issue here, is not whether vegetarianism would be sustainable. To make a case for ethical vergetarianism over any other dietary choice wouldn't you have to show that no other dietary option is ethical (or even sustainable, since we're on the subject). I can tell you right now that vegetable production without livestock production is unsustainable in the long run. It's an issue of fertility. At some point oil will be too expensive a commodity to turn into food (and for the huddled starving masses it already is and always has been), and we'll have to go back to the way we used to do it, with massive piles a steaming shit (unless we're willing to invoke some as yet undiscovered solution to this problem, and then I would ask you -what are we to do until then?-). Is the suffering caused by oil-as-food (both in environmental and human terms) necessary? Would you prefer that we go this route over the route of livestock? Have you assigned a value to all of those sentient creatures that are harmed by this? How have you determined that this suffering is lesser, or more "necessary" than that of the pig, cow, or chicken?

Personally, I'm a fan of sustainable integrated ag. A mixture of oil-as-food and livestock-for-fertility as appropriate, along the lines of efficiency and resource conservation. That's what I used to explore as a member of the Florida West Coast RC & D (resource conservation and development council). I'm not trying to argue against a more ethical or humane (or sustainable) system of food production. I'm just trying as hard as I can here to explain that there are often unconsidered effects of whatever dietary choice we make. That these sorts of arguments are often made with blinders on. That makes shaky ground for statements of moral or ethical justifications don't you think? Moral or ethical relativism is one thing, and even though your argument could be approached from this angle I don't think it's necessary to do so. I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist when it comes to our food.

Food production isn't a thought experiment.

[Scabby Joe]

A very important factor here is also the fact that a lot of people really like bacon, me being close to the least of them.


[b]Couldn't agree more. Self interest does overcome ethics in a great many people. I am always surprised that those atheists who espouse free thinking really don't care to extend that beyond releasing themselves from the moral bind of religion.


In fact I would say most people really like bacon. When it comes down to it until we develop better methods of growing artificial meat, natural meat is still a very important factor in anyone's diet. One may not need it to survive, but to live as healthy a life as you can one needs an intake of protein. I know I do, and you may not think you do, but it still makes a healthier diet.

Of course I recognise the need for protein in my diet. A vegetarian diet is at least as healthy as one containing meat, I could give multiple sources. You will also be aware of the health risks of consumption of red meat.



I have always agreed that we need to decrease the amount of suffering as much as possible in any species which has any self awareness and my ideas have not changed in this.

You mean as much as possible but not so much that it means we can't eat them.

This is difficult to do though, since the demand for meat is high, apparently we need industrial factories which do not seem to care about the suffering as they do about the output of product. Yes, it is terrible.

I agree it is terrible and unnecessary.


In the end all I am trying to say here are there are different levels of intelligence and social interaction, some of them being very clear.

You have not explained how intelligence and social interaction are relevant to the question of causing unnecessary suffering. To me they seem arbitrary just like skin colour and perhaps chosen by a member of a species that is trying to justify treatment of another species. Again, some animals are more intelligent and more social than some humans (the senile, severely mentally handicapped, new born)

Even though a species is self aware another defining aspect of sentience for me is when the animal actually shows self awareness of another creatures suffering and the other creatures awareness. This is described as empathy and I think this is a very important factor in deciding the sentience of another species. Both dolphins and species of apes show this through group dynamics and caring about the welfare of the rest of the group.

Again, you are being arbitrary. It seems you are trying to pick out what you perceive to be human atributes and only offering sanctuary to other animals exhibiting the behaviours you have chosen.

Having said all this, I think you have overlooked the attributes of some of the animals you dine upon. "Pigs have the cognitive ability to be quite sophisticated. Even more so than dogs and certainly three-year-olds.."
Professor Donald Broom of Cambridge University Veterinary School.
You should take a look at this, particularly as it talks about mirrors in which you have expressed an interest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html


Many species show self awareness of their own suffering, but even fewer show empathy. This also plays a part in which animals are morally okay to kill to eat only.

Arbitrary again. Why do you chose empathy? What if it could be shown that other animals had empathy? What about humans with no empathy?


It is a very simple fact that as of now we still need to take life in order to eat whether it is the life of a plant or an animal. As of now we still need to draw this line and I do not think just because an animal can suffer it is morally wrong to kill it in order to eat it. There are more factors involved than only self awareness. It is again for me Sentience.

You seem to be contradicting yourself - you have accepted that lots of animals are sentient including cows, pigs, chickens.



And to give a slight answer to your other question, even if an old man no longer possesses the faculties they once did, they may once have had those faculties, and even if they did not are still a part of the species and deserve the same rights.

OK. So now your argument is switching to just looking after your own species regardless of all the other attributes you raised like empathy, social interaction, intelligence. It seems you will switch between whatever argument you want just to preserve your ability to eat meat no matter what even though you concede it is indeed terrible.

The current scientific consensus is that all vertebrate animals, at least, are capable of feeling pain and experiencing distress. Why would you think otherwise.

I do not think otherwise, but it is still up for debate which animals are intelligent enough to have an understanding of their own ego. Most animals for example are not intelligent enough when they look at themselves in the mirror to know that what they are seeing is themselves.

Again, this seems arbitrary. Surely in a debate about inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering the focus must be on which animals are capable of feeling pain and can suffer and whether it is necessary. What has ego got to do with it.

When they experience "pain" they may not feel the pain happening to themselves(ego), but the sensation will just be and cause certain effects.

A cow or a pig feels pain like we do, perhaps more, perhaps less. But they have central nervous systems very much like ours, they react to pain like we do - screams, withdrawal, fear, and like us it was useful to their evolutionary past. You seem to have accepted this earlier when you said it was 'terrible.'

---

I can tell you right now that vegetable production without livestock production is unsustainable in the long run. It's an issue of fertility. [quote]


Could we get some sources for this statement please?

---

Richard Dawkins understanding of philosophy, especially ethics is much left to be desired.

Richard Carrier (an Atheist who understands ethics quite well) makes an excellent case that eating meat is ethical.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/87

The Carrier piece is full of unsupported opinion particualry around the level of suffering that is implicit in factory farming.