Angeldust wrote:

thecite wrote:

Yes, of course I believe veganism is the moral choice, otherwise I wouldn't be a vegan.

I'm curious, what makes it a "moral choice" exactly? Is it just because of animal cruelty or are there other reasons?

If choosing a lifestyle that attempts to reduce killing and suffering isn't moral, then there is no such thing as moral.   What higher form of morality is there?

The problem with the way vegetarianism/veganism is generally advocated (i had to find this word using a 和英 dictionary, my English is going down the tubes...) is that it's somewhat fascist and ignores free market principals. If we strive to live in a free world, people should be able to make their own choices about resource consumption. Rather than telling people what they 'should' do, lead by example and show them how it's in their best interest. If it became profitable for the meat industry to switch to vegetable production, they would do so. Meat requires more resources than vegetables to produce, but it also costs more. If switching to a healthy vegetarian diet results in a better lifestyle (factoring in cost/benefit) then people will make the switch eventually.
One more thing...If 'ethical' meat from free-range or organic farms costs more doesn't that suggest it uses more resources and is therefore worse for the environment?
If the meat (or an other) industry is destroying the environment, can't we fix that problem by introducing a polluter pays system? Ultimately this cost would trickle down to consumers and they could then make decisions based on the true cost of production.

nadiatims,
I think slavery and child prostitution should be allowed and let the free market decide if it is morally correct as well. 

No one is trying to legislate that eating meat be illegal.  You are just being given arguments why it is a more ethical diet.

Nope, sorry, try again. All that sarcasm and still wrong.

Hint: Start with reading the quote you pasted.

Last edited by nest0r (2011 March 23, 1:24 am)

You were getting kind of warm but now you're way off. I didn't expect that you'd actually end up going this astray, I thought you were just misusing the phrase at first.

Also, terms like ‘boo boos’ are unscientific. If you want to be taken seriously you should work on your writing voice.

nest0r wrote:

You were getting kind of warm but now you're way off. I didn't expect that you'd actually end up going this astray, I thought you were just misusing the phrase at first.

Also, terms like ‘boo boos’ are unscientific. If you want to be taken seriously you should work on your writing voice.

Sorry uncle N, next time I'll try harder to please you.

Last edited by zachandhobbes (2011 March 23, 4:56 am)

thecite wrote:

Plants have no feelings, no emotions, no capacity to feel pain, no interests. They have no interests to consider, they're insentient beings. Animals, just like humans, do have interests to consider. Any rational person acknowledges this, no one would consider chopping a head of lettuce, and say chopping off your pet dog's head, to be equal actions in the real world. Comparing plants to animals is just an abstract idea, a last ditch effort brought up in these types of debates.

So you're saying if we genetically engineered cows or other animals to have no emotions, pain or other similar functions then it'd be okay to eat animals.

Tzadeck wrote:

I'm not going to see Thomas Kuhn or Bas Van Fraassen--it's too hard to get a hold of stuff like that in Japan.  So if you want me to understand then explain it.

May I just email you relevant texts?

Tzadeck wrote:

I guess the thing is that any ethical system that requires people to be rational is supererogatory.   People just don't make ethical decisions in a rational way, and it's probably impossible to get a large number of people to think rationally about the ethical problems they face in their lives.  So if you say "It's immoral to eat meat because the arguments against eating meat are more rational" it's just not a type of immorality that has a lot of meaning.  You can't call people immoral for failing to go against their culture in favor of rational thought, because it's just not going to happen.

Is this paragraph a criticism of ethics or is it really just pointing to the difficulty of living ethically? Claiming that ethics in general is supererogatory because people don't usually make ethical decisions in a rational way looks like an appeal to majority. Do you see a way to avoid this objection?

Tzadeck wrote:

But at a deeper level, I think there's very often just no real answer.  That's a big problem with anything that can't be determined empirically (you can tell that to a certain extent I still relate to the logical positivists).  Or even if we all choose consequentialist ethics, and agree on the end point we're trying to achieve, it's just not possible to know the right path thanks to limited knowledge.

Answers are arrived via certain assumptions, which includes empirical observations as well. When it comes to ethics, I think the problem is finding a set of assumptions we can all agree on. Agreeing on assumptions is much easier for empirical inquiries. If we all agreed on certain ethical assumptions, then what follows would be as obvious as what follows from our empirical assumptions. The issue isn't a lack of answers; ethical systems offer plenty of answers that are logically valid and sound within their own moral frameworks. The real issue is agreeing on a set of assumptions or a similar set of assumptions, so that we all arrive at the same or similar answers.

As for our lack of knowledge of how to best optimize consequentialist ethics, let's concede that such knowledge is impossible. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to argue that we lack any knowledge of optimization. Even though it's incredibly unlikely we'll ever attain 100% optimization every time, consequentialist ethics still gives us the tools to perform better than baseline. And even if our ethical goal is unlikely to be perfectly attained, that doesn't necessarily imply that our goal is not worth pursuing.

Tzadeck wrote:

Changes in ethical norms usually are by way of slow changing cultural memes, some people go along with them earlier than others and some of them never catch on.

While interesting, this is a sociological claim, not a philosophical one. Again, I don't see how pointing to common practices is a criticsm against ethics. If anything, such identifying rather shows that ethics has been largely ignored.

Tzadeck wrote:

I realize that this makes it sound like I would be okay with slavery or sexism in the context of the past, but actually not really.  I can explain constructivist ethics to some degree if people want me to, which would kind of explain my thoughts on that.

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to see what you have to say.

Tzadeck wrote:

Also, metaphysics always was and always wil be stupid, and don't let any contemporary philosophers tell you otherwise.)

This morning, I read this transcript of a talk given in honor of Quine's 100th birthday. It talks about Quine's contributions to philosophy with reference to the historical context of logical positivism. The transcript emphasizes Quine's role in the recent revival of metaphysics (Note: this revival started in the early 1950s. Due to over two thousand years of history, the word "recent" implies a greater length of time in philosophy than in everyday conversation). Here's one particularly interesting passage:

Jason Stanley, Professor of Philosophy, Rutgers University (2008) wrote:

One of the chief lessons of the history of philosophy is that anti-metaphysical arguments invariably appeal to controversial metaphysical assumptions. In the case of logical positivism, the metaphysical assumption concerns linguistic meaning – in particular, that there is a sharp distinction to be drawn between empirical statements, on the one hand, and definitions, on the other.

I just don't see how we can avoid metaphysics altogether. Even assuming a strict scientific naturalism, behind the curtains metaphysical assumptions are at work, and they're pulling ropes and levers that we wouldn't be aware of without reference to metaphysics.

Last edited by vileru (2011 March 23, 2:16 pm)

thecite wrote:

Anyway, if we're going to talk about animal rights, I suggest you watch the video that I posted earlier (which you obviously ignored):
http://www.vimeo.com/4808525

oh, puhleeeeease don't start with Francoine again. He is an idiot, and if he's supposed to be an academic, he's a poor one. We've had this conversation before (here: http://forum.koohii.com/viewtopic.php?p … 35#p109735). It seemed like you didn't understand my rambly writing before, so i'll try to write it more clearly again.

1. In the video you posted, (i'm going from the text you wrote in the whale wars thread, can't be bothered to actually try to watch it again) Francoine starts from the supposition, "We all agree it is morally wrong to inflict "unnecessary" suffering on nonhuman animals."
Let's assume for the moment that that supposition is true (though of course, it will be denied by many people). He then goes on to argue that eating meat is unnecessary. Let's also assume for now that he isn't deliberately using the ambiguity of the word "unnecessary" to argue his position. (which he is).

1. This does not lead immediately to the position he supports, which is that of "animal rights", and does not lead to the standpoint that it's not ok to use animals for our own benefit either. It simply states that we shouldn't use animals unless it's necessary (i.e. not for our own pleasure or amusement).

2. Supposing that animals were given the right not to be enslaved, in the same way as the law has afforded humans that legal right, it follows that there is no "necessary" or "unnecessary" distinction to be made. We don't make laws stating that we can't enslave humans for our own amusement, but if it's really necessary for our own survival then that's ok. we can't enslave them -ever-!

BUT he argues that using medicines tested on animals is ok.

His arguments clearly state that "we are not obligated to forego any benefits animal exploitation provides".

Your interpretation of this is that we can use medicines tested on animals, but only where it's necessary. (since otherwise, clearly, we should not be obligated to forego meat, only sit back and say that something should be done about such exploitation.)

Obviously, this goes against the rights approach. Again, if something has a right to not be enslaved, that doesn't mean it only has that right as long as YOUR life isn't on the line. Rights are universally applied, and can only be opted out of by the individual themselves.

Francoine also tries to argue that the enjoying the benefits of animal enslavement in the past is ok, but clearly, though testing for that one medicine may now have finished, the industry as a whole is very much alive and well. Again, all the meat we consume is (by nature of being already dead), a product of animal enslavement that is in the past, though the industry still continues. So there should be no difference between eating an already dead animal, and using medicine that has completed it's trials.

Remember that many many people were prepared to die for humans to have equal legal rights. But even the strongest proponents of the animal rights theory aren't prepared to forego something if it means being in pain themselves. This is again another of the problems with having such a strong "all or nothing" approach.

***************************************************************
Let's move onto the "why vegan?" question, again. Again, i'll try to be more clear this time.

1. It's unclear how keeping free range chickens is inducing suffering in them. They will lay eggs regardless, it's just a matter of whether they are fertilised or not as to whether we eat them.

2. Cows will continue to produce milk even after their calf is full grown. You may want to argue animal welfare here, and say that their calves are taken away too early, etc. I'm fine with that, i beleive in humane farming as much as possible. But Francoine, unfortunately, rejects the animal welfare approach, so he can't argue that.

3. It's unclear how the animals are "suffering" from their enslavement in the production of eggs and milk at all if it isn't on an animal welfare basis. Of course, Francoine starts talking about animal enslavement here.
-> I'm not sure what exactly the objection to animal enslavement is in this context. Clearly, with humane farming methods, an animal isn't being put in pain to produce eggs or milk products, and it's life isn't being taken away. On what basis exactly does he argue that an animal has an interest in not having it's unused products used by humans? I couldn't find it.
-> To make an (extremely hypothetical ) analogy with humans, supposing there was a home for mentally handicapped people who have no family or relatives, and therefore the people were totally under their care. The owner of the home decides to collect all the people's poo and sell it to some local guys who find human poo especially good as manure for their favourite roses. Is the owner of that home morally reprehensible? If you ask me, um, no. I really couldn't care less, it's a trivial issue.

4. In another context, (that of eating crops that have been produced with inevitable animal deaths), Francoine argues that there is a difference between direct and indirect killing of animals. Directly killing an animal is slaughtering it. Indirectly killing an animal is something like crop farming.
-> Collecting the products of animals like eggs and milk, is in no way directly killing an animal, EVEN THOUGH it's part of the same industry at the moment. It in no way contributes to the animal's death itself, even though they are connected industries.
-> In fact, it's easy to argue that collecting the products of animals is even less directly causing suffering to animals than eating crops, since there is no real physical connection between collecting the products, and the animal's eventual death. We can imagine a world in which we collect the products of animals and then leave them to die of old age, but it's very difficult to imagine a world where we can effectively grow crops without harming any animals.

ok, i'm bored of writing now, hope that's a little clearer than it was last time... there are multiple other problems with the things he writes, these are just a few. If you read through what he writes a little more critically, i'm sure you'll see lots of them...

Last edited by IceCream (2011 March 24, 6:53 am)

nadiatims wrote:

IceCream wrote:

bodhisamaya wrote:
nadiatims,
I think slavery and child prostitution should be allowed and let the free market decide if it is morally correct as well.

hahah perfect!

Well, I'm certainly not condoning slavery or child prostitution, but...I actually do think that the most effective way to eliminate both of these problems would be in lifting the exploited populations out of poverty. Wealthy and educated people are much less likely to be tricked or otherwise forced into these situations. And I think the best way to ease poverty is to actually allow the free market to operate.

that may be so, but i don't think the free market dictates the morality of resource consumption either... or education, it seems either, given that vast amounts of those keeping the child sex trade in business actually come from rich, and supposedly well educated populations.

A polluter pays system is a decent idea though. (isn't this a not-entirely-free market though?). I think one of the problems with this might be that farming is an incredibly highly subsided industry in many well off countries to begin with though.

Actually, i don't think that the reason free range meat is more expensive is because it's more damaging to the environment, it's mainly because the same amount of land in each farm is divided between much less animals in free range farms, and therefore the supply is lower. I could be wrong though...

i do think that telling people what they should and shouldn't do is a bad way of getting people to do anything, but i don't think the cost of something is the only basis for every decision either...

Last edited by IceCream (2011 March 24, 8:48 am)

IceCream wrote:

that may be so, but i don't think the free market dictates the morality of resource consumption either... or education, it seems either, given that vast amounts of those keeping the child sex trade in business actually come from rich, and supposedly well educated populations.

That's the problem though...How do you govern morality exactly? Should we? The idea of morality is blatantly abused solely for the purpose of telling other people to do something against their own will. The rich may be the consumers in the slave/prostitution trade but it's the poor desperate to get a slice of the wealth that perpetuates the supply, which is why you so often read of cases such as people selling their own children into slavery. Wars, unfair trade agreements, tariffs/taxes imposed by non-transparent and parasitic governments and centralised command economies cause much more imbalances than the free-market ever could. Under a free-market people are accountable for their own actions and it's actually in your own interest to ultimately provide benefit to society.

IceCream wrote:

A polluter pays system is a decent idea though. (isn't this a not-entirely-free market though?). I think one of the problems with this might be that farming is an incredibly highly subsided industry in many well off countries to begin with though.

It's not entirely free-market now because governments own much of the land. If every square centimetre of land was privately owned by people with a vested interested in keeping that land profitable such a system would be entirely free-market.

IceCream wrote:

Actually, i don't think that the reason free range meat is more expensive is because it's more damaging to the environment, it's mainly because the same amount of land in each farm is divided between much less animals in free range farms, and therefore the supply is lower. I could be wrong though...

You may be right. The thing is though, free-range and organic farms are businesses too and are also driven by profit. If free-range farms require more land to provide the same quantity of food for a hungry population wouldn't that ultimately lead to more land being used?
Anyways I believe capitalism will eventually solve this debate once it becomes cheaper to grow a steak in a lab than on a cow as will inevitably happen.

@nadiatims: The problem with a totally free market is that it's in the businesses interests not to provide benefit to society but to make as much profit as possible. Where these two ideas tend to collide is where people individually want things that aren't good for other people, or society as a whole, and where longer term interests are involved.

For example, it may be the most profitable thing to do right now to clear rainforests to produce palm oil, or to look for new sites to dig up oil rather than investing in other ways to produce energy. From a long term view, this is bad for the world's population as a whole. But in the immediate short term it's of great benefit to local trade, the company's profit margins, and our own pockets.

Because of this, if we just rely on the market, the overall damage to future populations and the world's environment is ignored. And, i think that's a good reason for governments to step in and impose regulations... (as opposed to when people want something that will only harm themselves like cigarettes or alcohol)

As for morality as a whole, probably some morals have to be imposed in order for society to function as well as possible. But it's best if those laws are just those that the vast majority of people support (with some obvious exceptions like slavery at the time it was abolished, etc.).

edit: but yeah, that test tube meat thing looks wicked! Hope they get it sorted soon! i'd definately buy it instead if it tasted like real meat...

Last edited by IceCream (2011 March 24, 10:34 am)