Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Minimalist]

All that evolutionary time equipped females to have babies when they are 10 years old. Does that mean it is ethical to allow them to become pregnant at that age.

In various countries of the muslim world the answer to that question is a resounding "yes."

Screwing and eating are two rather different functions. One can go for quite a while without screwing....it is alleged that some catholic priests have even tried it.... but eating is a somewhat more necessary requirement for life.

[mediamogul]

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".

My point is that I choose not to buy animal products to support the practice of causing animals suffering. Given the structure of our current system of production it is difficult to find "cruelty free" products. I understand that our current lifestyle and agriculture system will result in the death and suffering of animals. I understand that my lone decision to not eat meat will not save the animals but it doesn't mean I have to engage in a practice that I am ethically opposed to. I would certainly advocate for the more humane treatment of animals barring the ability to completely eliminate the practices. This is something I at least agree with my meat eating friends about, that they would like to see animals treated humanely. This would be the realm of applied ethics.

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 "unnecessary 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?

I did not try to base my argument upon it. I merely responded to your comment. Compassion literally means to "suffer with". It is the idea that the suffering of others causes us to suffer emotionally. That we "feel their pain" in some sense. This is a feeling that binds us to humane treatment of others and animals. I think it is a very useful feeling. People who lack compassion are generally folks capable of committing cruelty.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that your avoidance of animal products or meat actually prevents any more suffering than the consumer of meat and animal products causes.

And people who feel that their personal sense of compassion cannot possibly lead to equally or more unfortunate situations are capable of ignoring the cruelty they would inflict as it is hidden to/ignored by them.

[Scabby Joe]

I don't think that your avoidance of animal products or meat actually prevents any more suffering than the consumer of meat and animal products causes.

On what do you base this? I think there are about 10 billion animals slaughtered in the US each year. A majority will be in factory farms.

And people who feel that their personal sense of compassion cannot possibly lead to equally or more unfortunate situations are capable of ignoring the cruelty they would inflict as it is hidden to/ignored by them.

Again, I would like to hear your examples?

---

All that evolutionary time equipped females to have babies when they are 10 years old. Does that mean it is ethical to allow them to become pregnant at that age.

In various countries of the muslim world the answer to that question is a resounding "yes."

Screwing and eating are two rather different functions. One can go for quite a while without screwing....it is alleged that some catholic priests have even tried it.... but eating is a somewhat more necessary requirement for life.

Which muslim countries?

The point is that we do not adopt every practice of our evolutionary forebears. This is no basis for morality.

[The Grand Nudger]

On the basis that many more animals will suffer and die to produce your vegetarian diet (and this diet should also exclude organics, because we'd have to, unless we were willing to keep the factory farms running as is for manure, simply opting out of slaughtering the animals therein, and what kind of empty ethics would that be). It bears note that these animals are also not given any consideration of ethics (as the animals in the slaughterhouse are, even if you don't think it's satisfactory)

Might it be possible that if we were to propose that some ethical principle ought to compel people to act, or pass this into law, that the above animals will suffer even more harshly than they currently do? What should we do with all of our livestock, I promise, these things would suffer "in the wild". Lastly, one animal which hasn't seen a lick of compassion in any of these arguments would starve, that would be human beings. I suppose a few of us starving would be "necessary suffering" but a cow being slaughtered is "unneccessary suffering". 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. You would also have to be willing to accept an even heavier reliance on "inorganic" nutrients and all that this entails. You're simply moving the "unethical" bits out of sight, and out of mind. 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?

Remember, I'm not claiming a moral or ethical principle here, it isn't up to me to demonstrate that your claims are naive, self defeating, etc. I only do this out of interest in the subject. You should explore your own decisions to their fullest. 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). 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?

[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?

[Minimalist]

Which muslim countries?

Yemen

http://barenakedislam.com/2009/01/03/for...-in-islam/


Afghanistan - Pakistan


http://www.americamagazine.org/content/a...le_id=1631


India

http://www.indianmuslimobserver.com/2010...ralas.html

Sudan

http://pulitzercenter.org/blog/untold-st...married-11

I could probably go on but I think the point's been made.

The point is that we do not adopt every practice of our evolutionary forebears. This is no basis for morality.

We did evolve to fuck children...although when the average life span was 28 one could argue that 13-14 was "middle aged."

We have, however, evolved to eat things other than plants. You are confusing evolution - which has no purpose other than to assure survival of an organism, with morality which means whatever the fuck people want it to mean.

[Welsh cake]

What difference does Dawkin's view make?

People and animals are suffering and dying all the time. We have no duty or obligation to end suffering, indeed such a goal is unrealistic because suffering is an inevitable cold hard fact of reality.

When we get things back into perspective we realise we instead have a choice, not a responsibility. We can choose to minimise suffering in this world for our fellow man and animals. We can choose to go to MacDonalds instead.

The animals and us are all going to die with or without our intervention anyway. That's nature for you.

[Anomalocaris]

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 of the pain and suffering of another animal, provided it is the right animal, is even more trivial to what I value than the taste of meat.

---

This is getting silly and away from the point.

It is exactly on the point because the purpose of morality informs what can and can not be deemed immoral.

if the purpose of morality is to smooth transactions within human society and thus improve the fitness of society by eliminating unproductive friction. Morality ought not to have anything to say about killing an animal for its meat if its suffering does not cause unproductive friction in human society.

On the other hand, if the purpose of morality is to impose one's own capriciosu squeamishness upon others, then one may deem anything immoral that isn't doesn't suite one's own taske.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it's amusing that I am being asked to provide sources to "refute" an argument for which no source has been provided in support of. I'm still reading the report that has been linked from the UN, and I still can't find any support for your moral or ethical argument for vegetarianism there (and forgive me if you aren't the person who linked it, but I hope you are, because if not, you're just saying "prove me wrong".......which would be unfortunate). It's actually a trade paper meant to offer potential solutions to the problems livestock production faces/creates in the first place..... I'm not arguing against your statement that "unnecessary suffering" should be avoided. I'm completely giving that to you. We're beyond that. We are now assigning truth values to your assertions and what constitutes "unnecessary suffering" in the world beyond your argument, the real world. Isn't that exciting? Now, I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass, I'm glad I'm not a cow. I don't particularly like the way we currently produce beef (just as one example), but I'm not ready to declare beef production unethical or immoral as a whole when I know full well that there are other, much more humane and much more efficient ways of raising cattle (that would require dietary changes, absolutely) already in existence. The issue of their slaughter is a moot point for me, they are rendered completely unconscious if done properly. It's the production that concerns me, personally.

I don't know if you realize this, but the subject you've taken such a single minded stance on is actually immense, this is why I've asked you to offer a solution so we could weigh the pro's and cons against our current system (I actually do this for a living btw, and enjoy it very much, my impartiality in the decisions people make after all relevant information has been gathered is the bread and butter of why I have a business at all). I don't want to straw man you by arguing against practices that you wouldn't sign on-board with, now do I?

What you need to do here is pick a substitute crop (or a range of substitute crops) that would fulfill the gaping hole left in the wake of cessation of livestock production. If you cannot do this, you are shuffling the suffering onto us (we do get consideration here as sentient creatures that should not have to endure "unnecessary suffering", correct)? I could suggest some, but there are reasons that we haven't adopted them in each and every case. I don't know why you seem to think that no one has considered these things.

If you could narrow this down I could give you a very specific list of environmental concerns which would include within them, in each and every case, the suffering of sentient creatures. I leave it to you to decide whether or not it is "necessary" or "unnecessary" and how we are to determine which sentient creature we side with when conflict arises...and conflict will arise. This is why I can confidently state that you are going to cause suffering either route you choose, and the route you have chosen may actually cause more suffering (albeit suffering that is hidden to you, or ignored by you) depending upon which route you want to go. Without knowing precisely what solution you're offering, how can I give you the source you want?

That would be step 1, wouldn't it? To base an argument on "unnecessary suffering" you're going to have to demonstrate that whatever suffering you're referring to is actually unnecessary. To leap from "unnecessary suffering" to vegetarianism, you would have to demonstrate that no system of livestock production we have available to us would be able to do it's business without causing said "unnecessary suffering". Those are reasonable requests, are they not?

If you say "Let's all be vegetarians" that leaves the door pretty open, doesn't it? I could say, "Yes, yes, absolutely, lets all be vegetarians and grow watermelons and cabbages, rape this land for the nutrients required. Mine out every mountain and scrape the bottom of every ocean boys, we need that fertility! Fuck every living thing in, on, or under any rock we need, watermelons and cabbages for all!" But I doubt that you would be ok with that (and you don't seem to realize that this isn't as terrible an exaggeration as it may seem at first). Now, you seem to have some misconceptions about livestock as it relates to agriculture, and we can delve into that if you like, but I would just be nitpicking you and I'd rather cross that bridge if and when we come to it.