Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Rev. Rye]

Would that you could live on the fragrance of the earth, and like an air plant be sustained by the light.

But since you must kill to eat, and rob the young of its mother's milk to quench your thirst, let it then be an act of worship, And let your board stand an altar on which the pure and the innocent of forest and plain are sacrificed for that which is purer and still more innocent in many.

When you kill a beast say to him in your heart, "By the same power that slays you, I too am slain; and I too shall be consumed. For the law that delivered you into my hand shall deliver me into a mightier hand. Your blood and my blood is naught but the sap that feeds the tree of heaven."

And when you crush an apple with your teeth, say to it in your heart, "Your seeds shall live in my body, And the buds of your tomorrow shall blossom in my heart, And your fragrance shall be my breath, And together we shall rejoice through all the seasons."

And in the autumn, when you gather the grapes of your vineyard for the winepress, say in your heart, "I too am a vineyard, and my fruit shall be gathered for the winepress, And like new wine I shall be kept in eternal vessels."

And in winter, when you draw the wine, let there be in your heart a song for each cup; And let there be in the song a remembrance for the autumn days, and for the vineyard, and for the winepress.

Kahlil Gibran.

[mediamogul]

That last piece is an is-ought gap fallacy.

Nitpick: It's not a fallacy, it's just a gap.

Nitpick of the nitpick: Technically it is a fallacious statement to imply a necessary connection between things that do not have a necessary connection. (thank you David Hume)

---

Most livestock are not dependent on "agricultural sources". This is a forced situation. Cattle, just as one example, are ill equipped to eat corn. They eat grass. We cannot eat grass. Unfortunately grass fed cattle take up space that 1st world countries cannot spare (because we can afford nutrients, irrigation, and equipment). Pasture land and farm land are not the same thing, not even close. Which is why so much beef gets imported (and also why imported beef is cheaper, many times they're grazers or mixed grazing feedlot).

Livestock are more reliable because they a orders of magnitude less susceptible to loss by disease or drought or pests. They can survive and provide food for the entire year, and often subsist on marginal soils or from food sources that are not fit for our consumption that can themselves be grown on those marginal soils. The range of byproducts from livestock is also immense (and this includes the nutrients for agriculture). You have the order of dependence in reverse. American? You're probably thinking of the corn industry. Great example of an industry that has taken a marginal crop that can thrive on marginal soils with minimal labor on large tracts of land owned by a very small number of individuals. Concentrate the wealth.

As far as meat goes I'm a big fan of integrated aquaculture. Best use of space, still get the meat. I don't think we should give up on pigs and chickens and cattle, but we should probably focus more on fish. I'm not trying to blow smoke up anyone's ass here, food production (not just livestock) has huge issues. Having production issues does not provide justification for moral or ethical vegetarianism.

(The trouble btw Mogul, is that I'm not telling you what you "ought" to be, you're the only one making such a case. Was I unclear? It is a neutral issue for me.)

Do you mean it's an amoral issue? In the sense that you believe it's neither moral nor immoral to eat meat?

Also, once again, it's not the eating meat part that I think is the ethically objectionable act. It's the killing of the animals part. If meat could be grown I'd be the 1st one to chow down on a piece of bacon or prime rib.

[genkaus]

Nitpick of the nitpick: Technically it is a fallacious statement to imply a necessary connection between things that do not have a necessary connection. (thank you David Hume)

That seems like something new. Not to distract you or anything, but can you elaborate on that?

[mediamogul]

Nitpick of the nitpick: Technically it is a fallacious statement to imply a necessary connection between things that do not have a necessary connection. (thank you David Hume)

That seems like something new. Not to distract you or anything, but can you elaborate on that?

Wiki:

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning often resulting in a misconception or presumption. Literally, a fallacy is "an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid".

Using the is-ought gap in an argument is a fallacy given this definition. It is an error in reasoning which assumes a connection between the way things are and the way they ought to be. Basing an argument on the premise is a fallacy. It's certainly not as blatant or as egregious as many other fallacies.

[The Grand Nudger]

I assign no moral value to it whatsoever, correct. It is neither moral, nor immoral, to me.

Meat is "grown", consideration is given to ethical slaughter (a whole shitload actually). If this is your moral or ethical objection, I'm not sure what you're objecting to. I think you may be suffering from a misconception of our standards.

[mediamogul]

I meant like growing a steak directly.

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

[genkaus]

Wiki:

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning often resulting in a misconception or presumption. Literally, a fallacy is "an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid".

Using the is-ought gap in an argument is a fallacy given this definition. It is an error in reasoning which assumes a connection between the way things are and the way they ought to be. Basing an argument on the premise is a fallacy. It's certainly not as blatant or as egregious as many other fallacies.

I think I misunderstood you there. I thought you were calling Hume's law a fallacy rather than a fallacy-catcher.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[TheJackel]

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?

[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.