Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[TheJackel]

I was a student of philosophy and was not particularly convinced of moral relativism.

This might help:

http://matt-mattjwest.newsvine.com/_news...adaptation

Morality is entirely relative in nature, and is very innate.. Just ask a cat lady what she thinks about the Chinese eating cats. Chinese find it morally just, and the cat lady finds it repulsive and morally unjust.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I was a student of philosophy and was not particularly convinced of moral relativism

Formally? So what? [appeal to irrelevant authority] So was I, and was convinced ,and have remained convinced.

Morality is entirely relative in nature, and is very innate

Not sure I understand what you mean by 'innate' :The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines 'innate' as: "inborn,natural--originating in the mind". I agree that morality originates in the mind,but reject the notion that is inborn or natural.In my opinion, morality is entirely subjective and based on pragmatism.If this was not the case there would be universally recognised, absolute moral imperatives, but there are none that I have been able to discover.

[TheJackel]

Not sure I understand what you mean by 'innate' :The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines 'innate' as: "inborn,natural--originating in the mind". I agree that morality originates in the mind,but reject the notion that is inborn or natural.In my opinion, morality is entirely subjective and based on pragmatism.If this was not the case there would be universally recognised, absolute moral imperatives, but there are none that I have been able to discover.

in·nate
   [ih-neyt, in-eyt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
existing in one from birth; inborn; native: innate musical talent.
2.
inherent in the essential characte

I guess a more proper word would be inherent:

in·her·ent
   [in-heer-uhnt, -her-] Show IPA
adjective
1.
existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute:

It's inherent in nature, and is a relative property in nature..

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

It's inherent in nature, and is a relative property in nature

.

Ah, that's what I thought you mean. We disagree, and that's fine with me.

[mediamogul]

I was a student of philosophy and was not particularly convinced of moral relativism

Formally? So what? [appeal to irrelevant authority] So was I, and was convinced ,and have remained convinced.

Morality is entirely relative in nature, and is very innate

Not sure I understand what you mean by 'innate' :The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines 'innate' as: "inborn,natural--originating in the mind". I agree that morality originates in the mind,but reject the notion that is inborn or natural.In my opinion, morality is entirely subjective and based on pragmatism.If this was not the case there would be universally recognised, absolute moral imperatives, but there are none that I have been able to discover.

Damn. Sometimes i think people are so used to dealing with the apologists they forget how actual philosophy works. It was not an appeal to authority. Simply a statement that i was not convinced by the argumentation presented during my studies as a student of philosophy. I don't consider myself an overwhelming authority on the subject but did want to imply that i had some knowledge and am not simply shooting off the cuff.

---

[quote='padraic' pid='274319' dateline='1334744661']

I was a student of philosophy and was not particularly convinced of moral relativism

Formally? So what? [appeal to irrelevant authority] So was I, and was convinced ,and have remained convinced.

Morality is entirely relative in nature, and is very innate

Not sure I understand what you mean by 'innate' :The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines 'innate' as: "inborn,natural--originating in the mind". I agree that morality originates in the mind,but reject the notion that is inborn or natural.In my opinion, morality is entirely subjective and based on pragmatism.If this was not the case there would be universally recognised, absolute moral imperatives, but there are none that I have been able to discover.

Damn. Sometimes i think people are so used to dealing with the apologists they forget how actual philosophy works. It was not an appeal to authority. Simply a statement that i was not convinced by the argumentation presented during my studies as a student of philosophy. I don't consider myself an overwhelming authority on the subject but did want to imply that i had some knowledge and am not simply shooting off the cuff.

I would be interested to hear a more sophisticated argument for moral relativism based in logic presented by someone trained in philosophy.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Damn. Sometimes i think people are so used to dealing with the apologists they forget how actual philosophy works. It was not an appeal to authority.

The hell it wasn't. The inference was having studied philosophy gives your opinion more credibility;it does not.

Oh, I'd appreciate it if you would try not to patronise me with fatuous ad hominems, there' a good chap.

[mediamogul]

Damn. Sometimes i think people are so used to dealing with the apologists they forget how actual philosophy works. It was not an appeal to authority.

The hell it wasn't. The inference was having studied philosophy gives your opinion more credibility;it does not.

Oh, I'd appreciate it if you would try not to patronise me with fatuous ad hominems, there' a good chap.

I'd appreciate the same consideration with patronizing comments regarding the fact that even though I've studied philosophy doesn't mean that I know less about it than someone who has not. I don't pretend to be an absolute authority on the matter but I certainly have thought the issue of ethics through philosophically and logically. This is different than, once again, someone shooting off the cuff.

Like I said it was an attempt to demonstrate that I was trained in philosophy and had been presented arguments for moral relativism in that context.

[The Grand Nudger]

Compelling human behavior seems to be very much like herding cats. Even more so if you hope that logic is the thing that's going to accomplish this.

If we focus on food production and ethics specifically we see this writ large. There are standards written into law that prescribe ways which people "ought" to treat their livestock. They have been formed in order to prevent that "unnecessary suffering" which you've pinned your claims on (this being a phrase with a hell of alot of leeway btw, that's putting it nicely), and yet they are not always followed. This is due largely to the cost involved. Now, I would personally say that if a producer is incapable of meeting the requirements set forth by law then they have no business in the business, leave it to those who are capable.

On the other hand, when a producer does meet these requirements then how can they be said to be acting unethically, or in a morally questionable fashion? How can the consumer of their products be said to be acting unethically, or in a morally questionable fashion? This is the crux of what I've been questioning you about, is "unnecessary suffering" actually some sort of absolute you've based your argument on or is it a weasel phrase that allows you include or exclude a behavior based on a rationalized emotional response? Producing food would seem to be very neccessary, and lengths are gone to in this act to avoid what has been defined as "unneccessary suffering", but, apparently, those lengths are not good enough. Is it actually "unnecessary suffering" that you have an issue with, or just suffering?

That we have to eat is a demonstrable absolute. That livestock production (or exploiting animals in some way even in the absence of livestock) provides an important and (at present) irreplaceable cog in this machine of survival (and not just when it comes to food) is a demonstrable absolute. What does or does not constitute "uneccessary suffering" is no such thing, and you don't seem to be very clear on what is included or excluded yourself, or the lengths we've gone to provide a pragmatic solution to an idealistic concern with regards to animal welfare. You made the comment "if we could grow a steak" which would seem to imply to me that no livestock production system could possibly meet you're requirements, well, that blows the "uneccessary suffering" bit right out of the water. You've taken an absolute stance on an issue while arguing for something else entirely (and I suspect that you choose to argue for this other thing because it seems more pragmatic to argue for in the first place). "Unnecessary suffering" allows you to appear to leave the door open in argument when in reality you've bolted the thing closed, and then walled up the threshold, choosing to call it reason or logic after the fact, and after arguing for something else entirely. Positions like this are the reason I make statements like the one I opened this post with.

Something is going to "suffer" if we are going to eat. The "unnecessary suffering" rationalization (and that's what it is) accepts this. You can define away the "suffering" of plants or ecosystems when it comes to agriculture along the lines of self awareness, and that's fine. You are still left with "necessary suffering" among "sentient species" who are exploited by ag as readily as by livestock production, but consideration for these species is already written into law here. You can take issue to the suffering of animals in dedicated livestock production insomuch as it is not "necessary" but this is also already written into law here. Either dietary/lifestyle decision involves the suffering of sentient creatures, either route already has a hefty set of laws aligned to our sense of ethics and morality. Neither one can be said to be more exploitative, or to cause "more unnecessary suffering" than the other, as they are two sides of the very same coin. So, where's the beef?
(I know I know, a pun is the lowest form of humor)

(All this discussion about suffering or exploitation by the way and not once have we touched on the creature that suffers and is exploited the most when it comes to food production. That would be ourselves. Why is that?)

[Scabby Joe]

If we focus on food production and ethics specifically we see this writ large. There are standards written into law that prescribe ways which people "ought" to treat their livestock.

There are some laws covering some aspects. Theer are huge gaps where there is simply noregulation.

They have been formed in order to prevent that "unnecessary suffering" which you've pinned your claims on (this being a phrase with a hell of alot of leeway btw, that's putting it nicely), and yet they are not always followed. This is due largely to the cost involved. Now, I would personally say that if a producer is incapable of meeting the requirements set forth by law then they have no business in the business, leave it to those who are capable.

Veal prodcution is lawful. Do you think it ethical? I don't think you can avoid ethical responsibility just because there are some laws covering some aspects of animal treatment.

On the other hand, when a producer does meet these requirements then how can they be said to be acting unethically, or in a morally questionable fashion?

As I have said, laws do not cover every aspect. They are compromises between animal welfare and the leverage the livestock industry is able to use. Again, I believe it is an abdication od responsibility to rely on 'laws' without understanding what they allow and those areas where they are absent.

How can the consumer of their products be said to be acting unethically, or in a morally questionable fashion?



This is the crux of what I've been questioning you about, is "unnecessary suffering" actually some sort of absolute you've based your argument on or is it a weasel phrase that allows you include or exclude a behavior based on a rationalized emotional response?

It does not matter whether I think ethics are absolute or relative, it is your individual view I am after. What is the moral justification for halal meat production or veal production for instance?

Is it actually "unnecessary suffering" that you have an issue with, or just suffering?

Unnecessary suffering. Getting an innoculation involves suffering but is ethical for obvious reasons.

What does or does not constitute "uneccessary suffering" is no such thing, and you don't seem to be very clear on what is included or excluded yourself, or the lengths we've gone to provide a pragmatic solution to an idealistic concern with regards to animal welfare.

There is no such thing as unnecessary suffering? Please explain!



Something is going to "suffer" if we are going to eat.

But why not minimise it?

---

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

I would like to have a list of quotes first, sir. I know Richard Dawkins, however, I'm not very well versed with his writings, so I'd like a direct quotation to make up my mind.

Watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that halal is such a good idea, they are allowed to circumvent what laws we do have based on a religious belief. I've commented upon that here on this site. I'm no friend of religious traditions as they apply to food production, not even a little bit.

What makes veal production more or less ethical than any other type of livestock operation? Because they're babies? That sounds like an emotional issue, not a issue of logic. I don't eat veal, mostly because it just doesn't jump out to me as "tasty". But I don't call veal operations unethical because I don't have any argument against them, and they seem to operate within the scope of the laws we have created to address ethics.

So, you feel the laws are lacking, that's fine, let's discuss how we could better those laws from your point of view. I don't disagree with you here in the least bit. On the other hand I don't think that we're going to reach the conclusion you seem to hope for.

You have either misunderstood me or I did not clearly communicate my thoughts on the matter. "Unnecessary suffering" is no such thing -as an absolute-. It's just a description of things which you or I have assigned a negative value judgement to, and our lists are likely to be different.

Why not minimize it? We do............that's why we have animal welfare laws that apply to livestock production.

The question I've been repeating for many posts now, is whether or not there might be a livestock production system that meets the criteria of avoiding "unnecessary suffering", because if there isn't, then we may as well just drop the pretense of basing our arguments on this principle, right? Just call a spade a spade "Livestock production is morally/ethically wrong in all cases". If you you create a separation between "necessary" and "unnecessary" suffering, but then put all suffering on the side of "unnecessary" then what is the point of creating the distinction in the first place? If there is such a system, if livestock can be produced without "unnecessary" suffering then vegetarianism is not some moral or ethical absolute, is it?