Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Meat Eater, Vegetarian or Vegan?

1282931333438

Replies

  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Okay, so "murder" is "unlawful or wrongful killing?" What makes killing wrongful? And, if we legalized the killing of persons who wore blue shirts would killing a person wearing a blue shirt be "murder" and "wrong" in your mind?

    It's an ethical question. As I find it hard to believe that you don't agree with me that killing is in some (many) cases wrongful, and the fact that we don't hold bears morally responsible doesn't change that (although we might destroy them in some circumstances), I don't see the purpose of derailing the thread with a discussion of when/why killing is wrong.

    And no, something being legal is not sufficient for me to say it's not wrongful.

    Why do you conclude that I don't believe that killing in some cases is wrongful? I'm merely attempting to determine the basis for this belief. What makes killing in some (many) cases wrongful? Are there cases where killing is not wrongful? Why would we not hold bears morally responsible if we also grant them certain moral rights? I'm assuming, of course, that you think bears should be given some rights? Correct me if that assumption is wrong.

    Why is asking someone to clarify their assetions derailing the thread?

    Why would I think bears should have rights?

    Re murder, bears can't form mens rea.

    I don't know what your beliefs regarding the rights of bears might be. Do you think it's okay to kill bears for any reason whatsoever? Per earlier statement above, I agree it's an ethical question, and I'm trying to figure out why people in this thread believe that some beings have rights (and moral obligations) and some beings don't.

    You seriously don't understand why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights or moral responsibilities?

    I mentioned above that I am not a vegan or vegetarian, so probably I wouldn't think animals have human or Constitutional rights, yeah. The argument that humans are held to different moral or ethical standards by vegans than the animals themselves still seems to me a silly argument. Even if you think it's wrong to kill any animals (outside of defensive reasons), there's still an obvious difference in mental capacity and we don't even hold children to the same legal standards, or incapacitated people, due to such things as mens rea and age of accountability.

    I asked you whether you thought killing bears for any reason whatsoever is okay.

    This is not a clear question. Are you asking whether there is any reason I would think is sufficient to kill a bear? If so, the answer is yes (but it's not particularly relevant to anything in this discussion).

    If you are asking whether I think it's okay (as in ethically acceptable) to kill bears for any reason at all, no matter what it is, no -- there are reasons I would consider ethically insufficient to justify killing a bear, in my own view. Whether I'd impose them on others is a different question
    I have my own theories regarding why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights and moral responsibilities, but they I often think that these beliefs have less to do with critical reasoning than habit and personal preferences.

    Humans and other animals are different. You can argue about how much it matters, but it's obviously true.
    As to the silly argument position, why would you engage in a silly argument?

    I thought you were trolling a bit and it annoyed me. Specifically, the argument that it's wrong to consider that humans may have moral/ethical responsibilities to refrain from harming animals merely because a cat does not (and we don't consider them criminally liable for eating a mouse). Humans have the ability to reason morally about what they should do in a way that cats do not -- cats act more instinctually (and also are obligate carnivores). Also, I'm weak.
    People once thought giving rights to minorities was silly because it was "obvious" "they" were different. Is that a fair statement? Why or why not?

    In that they are humans, I think comparing this argument with the human/animal one is problematic, for the reasons discussed re the slavery analogy upthread.

    For the record, I didn't say it was silly that we might decide that non human animals have certain limited rights (although I think that's inconsistent with how we normally think about the concept of rights). I said that your assumption that *I* thought bears had rights was silly, in that I had already admitted that I was fine with eating animals (I suppose I could think bears have rights and cows and deer do not, but why would that be the case). That was part of why I didn't think you were trying to engage in a serious discussion (and still do not) -- you were trying to make an argument that it's inconsistent to think non human animals have rights and not hold them morally responsible for their "crimes."

    Okay then. I suppose that's the end of any reasonable discussion.

    Let me simply state that I happen to find ethics to be an incredibly complex and difficult subject, and I concentrated in it prior to graduate school. Some MBA programs have also incorporated it into their programs, and law schools do by necessity (though legal ethics is not really about how we feel unless "we" are the ones writing the rules, though morality aside from legal ethics rules is also often discussed). We also have laws on the treatment of animals. Whether these laws grant animals "rights" depends on the law, but law also isn't static. So, these issues can and do ultimately drive laws and business practices in the real world, and I would hope people spent time thinking through them before claiming the moral high ground.

    I'll add that there is no trolling by me here. If I had a purpose other than curiosity over various stated opinions, it was to suggest that perhaps people should have a degree of humility when it comes to their strong opinions on this subject.

    To be clear, you are drawing arbitrary lines between humans and other animals, and apparently among different animals. What you are doing is common, but the minute someone asks "why" many run away or do as you have done, call it silly and claim trolling. I suppose I'll head back to my bubble. Work to be done and whatnot.

    Nothing arbitrary about the line. If you can pull out a bear that talks and is willing to discuss whether Singer's utilitarianism is speciest or ableist in regards to his existence as an animal, then of course we'll be willing to accept he has an equal responsibility as any rational adult has to not attack other people. So it isn't arbitrary (based on species) it is a sliding scale based on the capacity of the animal. Same as applies to children. Or do you see treating children differently in law and ethics as arbitrary, even when most courts do have procedures for testing if a child has the capacity to be treated as an adult because they do have the understanding?

    Do you speak for everyone when you say "of course we?" I don't think you do. I was attempting to dig into one person's belief system to see why he or she believes what he or she does. I'm happy to engage with you though if you like. I've read your posts in various places and you are thoughtful. My point here is that not everyone would agree with you on the bear though. I'm pretty sure some would still think it's "just a bear" while perhaps many, if not most, in this thread would be taken aback and perhaps introduce ourselves. Thanks for bringing up Singer. I think you may be the first in this thread to do so. Is Singer "right" regarding speciesism? Perhaps. I hinted at a point above regarding the treatment of a whale versus a dog. We do treat various species differently and I'm not at all convinced that our reasons for doing so have anything to do with reasoning ability so much as expedience. Vegans often raise the intelligence of pigs a reason not to eat them, and I think it's an interesting and persuasive point to make. The capuchin monkey is even more of a challenge to common conceptions of our different treatment between humans and non-humans.

    To answer your question on children, I do think children are often treated in an arbitrary manner. That said, exploring the reasons why we do so is not an attack. Nor is calling something arbitrary. We do draw arbitrary lines on this issue. For example, consent, drinking, voting, and draft ages, and juvenile vs. adult court systems all draw somewhat arbitrary lines, and people still debate them. We have made strides over the years in this area. Juvenile laws didn't exist in the US until the 19th century. Also, the sliding scale you mention is a way to avoid the impact of truly arbitrary line drawing, but it's not always used, and even when it is used presumptions are made that may or may not be rebuttable. Can we improve upon it while not unduly burdening the system? I'm not sure and the legal treatment of minors may be too far afield from the discussion.

    So, what do I believe about the subject at hand? I'm not sure. I ask questions of others on subjects like this because my views continue to develop. I know it pains me to see others suffer (an emotional reaction), but I also find it difficult to stop eating meat. I don't hunt anymore. I also don't think that I'm duty bound to give up the ease with which I eat and maintain my health for the sake of something that can't reciprocate or carry my genes to another generation. It could be described as something good to do perhaps, though how much are we to sacrifice for others? I don't know where to put that line, and I have problems finding the utility in sacrificing a substantial amount to such a cause when there are humans who starve and suffer. As an aside, I tend to support charities that help humans rather than animals due to my finite funds and the foregoing. I also stated in the first page that I evolved as a omnivore, and you could say that perhaps I haven't gotten past that. I don't judge people for having different views though, if they've at least pondered the subject a bit, and I definitely wouldn't argue that I think I'm "right."

    Does the next stage of human development involve veganism and will people 100 years from now look back and judge us for eating meat? Perhaps. I suspect artificial meat may solve the debate for them, or at least advance it a bit. I don't know.

    Then you sound rather close to my own views. I would like to think that artificial forms of meat will raise the issue to the point that eating animals comes about intentionally eating animals to eat them - not because taste, nutrition, cost, environmental impact, etc. is any different. At which point, I imagine it begins to sound a bit sadist to claim "I eat meat because I like eating something another living, pain-feeling thing had to die for me to consume" and have no other reason behind it.

    I think is highly unlikely to happen until very far in the future, if ever. Anyone that eats meat today is doing so because they'd rather an animal died so they can eat than to eat alternative foods. They may not think of it like that, but since there are plenty of alternatives it is the reality.
    I've yet to see any vegetarian alternative that is the same nutrition and taste wise as an animal product, particularly not while being cheaper. So it isn't simply a matter of people are choosing animal products purely because they want to see animals die.
    I also don't see it being that far off. While costly now, lab grown meat that is identical to animal already exists. Though I think things like plant protein that is altered to taste and texture like meat will get there first. BeyondMeat has a product that is said to be pretty similar, though they seem to cost more than animal products.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 20,809Member Member Posts: 20,809Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Okay, so "murder" is "unlawful or wrongful killing?" What makes killing wrongful? And, if we legalized the killing of persons who wore blue shirts would killing a person wearing a blue shirt be "murder" and "wrong" in your mind?

    It's an ethical question. As I find it hard to believe that you don't agree with me that killing is in some (many) cases wrongful, and the fact that we don't hold bears morally responsible doesn't change that (although we might destroy them in some circumstances), I don't see the purpose of derailing the thread with a discussion of when/why killing is wrong.

    And no, something being legal is not sufficient for me to say it's not wrongful.

    Why do you conclude that I don't believe that killing in some cases is wrongful? I'm merely attempting to determine the basis for this belief. What makes killing in some (many) cases wrongful? Are there cases where killing is not wrongful? Why would we not hold bears morally responsible if we also grant them certain moral rights? I'm assuming, of course, that you think bears should be given some rights? Correct me if that assumption is wrong.

    Why is asking someone to clarify their assetions derailing the thread?

    Why would I think bears should have rights?

    Re murder, bears can't form mens rea.

    I don't know what your beliefs regarding the rights of bears might be. Do you think it's okay to kill bears for any reason whatsoever? Per earlier statement above, I agree it's an ethical question, and I'm trying to figure out why people in this thread believe that some beings have rights (and moral obligations) and some beings don't.

    You seriously don't understand why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights or moral responsibilities?

    I mentioned above that I am not a vegan or vegetarian, so probably I wouldn't think animals have human or Constitutional rights, yeah. The argument that humans are held to different moral or ethical standards by vegans than the animals themselves still seems to me a silly argument. Even if you think it's wrong to kill any animals (outside of defensive reasons), there's still an obvious difference in mental capacity and we don't even hold children to the same legal standards, or incapacitated people, due to such things as mens rea and age of accountability.

    I asked you whether you thought killing bears for any reason whatsoever is okay.

    This is not a clear question. Are you asking whether there is any reason I would think is sufficient to kill a bear? If so, the answer is yes (but it's not particularly relevant to anything in this discussion).

    If you are asking whether I think it's okay (as in ethically acceptable) to kill bears for any reason at all, no matter what it is, no -- there are reasons I would consider ethically insufficient to justify killing a bear, in my own view. Whether I'd impose them on others is a different question
    I have my own theories regarding why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights and moral responsibilities, but they I often think that these beliefs have less to do with critical reasoning than habit and personal preferences.

    Humans and other animals are different. You can argue about how much it matters, but it's obviously true.
    As to the silly argument position, why would you engage in a silly argument?

    I thought you were trolling a bit and it annoyed me. Specifically, the argument that it's wrong to consider that humans may have moral/ethical responsibilities to refrain from harming animals merely because a cat does not (and we don't consider them criminally liable for eating a mouse). Humans have the ability to reason morally about what they should do in a way that cats do not -- cats act more instinctually (and also are obligate carnivores). Also, I'm weak.
    People once thought giving rights to minorities was silly because it was "obvious" "they" were different. Is that a fair statement? Why or why not?

    In that they are humans, I think comparing this argument with the human/animal one is problematic, for the reasons discussed re the slavery analogy upthread.

    For the record, I didn't say it was silly that we might decide that non human animals have certain limited rights (although I think that's inconsistent with how we normally think about the concept of rights). I said that your assumption that *I* thought bears had rights was silly, in that I had already admitted that I was fine with eating animals (I suppose I could think bears have rights and cows and deer do not, but why would that be the case). That was part of why I didn't think you were trying to engage in a serious discussion (and still do not) -- you were trying to make an argument that it's inconsistent to think non human animals have rights and not hold them morally responsible for their "crimes."

    Okay then. I suppose that's the end of any reasonable discussion.

    Let me simply state that I happen to find ethics to be an incredibly complex and difficult subject, and I concentrated in it prior to graduate school. Some MBA programs have also incorporated it into their programs, and law schools do by necessity (though legal ethics is not really about how we feel unless "we" are the ones writing the rules, though morality aside from legal ethics rules is also often discussed). We also have laws on the treatment of animals. Whether these laws grant animals "rights" depends on the law, but law also isn't static. So, these issues can and do ultimately drive laws and business practices in the real world, and I would hope people spent time thinking through them before claiming the moral high ground.

    I'll add that there is no trolling by me here. If I had a purpose other than curiosity over various stated opinions, it was to suggest that perhaps people should have a degree of humility when it comes to their strong opinions on this subject.

    To be clear, you are drawing arbitrary lines between humans and other animals, and apparently among different animals. What you are doing is common, but the minute someone asks "why" many run away or do as you have done, call it silly and claim trolling. I suppose I'll head back to my bubble. Work to be done and whatnot.

    Nothing arbitrary about the line. If you can pull out a bear that talks and is willing to discuss whether Singer's utilitarianism is speciest or ableist in regards to his existence as an animal, then of course we'll be willing to accept he has an equal responsibility as any rational adult has to not attack other people. So it isn't arbitrary (based on species) it is a sliding scale based on the capacity of the animal. Same as applies to children. Or do you see treating children differently in law and ethics as arbitrary, even when most courts do have procedures for testing if a child has the capacity to be treated as an adult because they do have the understanding?

    Do you speak for everyone when you say "of course we?" I don't think you do. I was attempting to dig into one person's belief system to see why he or she believes what he or she does. I'm happy to engage with you though if you like. I've read your posts in various places and you are thoughtful. My point here is that not everyone would agree with you on the bear though. I'm pretty sure some would still think it's "just a bear" while perhaps many, if not most, in this thread would be taken aback and perhaps introduce ourselves. Thanks for bringing up Singer. I think you may be the first in this thread to do so. Is Singer "right" regarding speciesism? Perhaps. I hinted at a point above regarding the treatment of a whale versus a dog. We do treat various species differently and I'm not at all convinced that our reasons for doing so have anything to do with reasoning ability so much as expedience. Vegans often raise the intelligence of pigs a reason not to eat them, and I think it's an interesting and persuasive point to make. The capuchin monkey is even more of a challenge to common conceptions of our different treatment between humans and non-humans.

    To answer your question on children, I do think children are often treated in an arbitrary manner. That said, exploring the reasons why we do so is not an attack. Nor is calling something arbitrary. We do draw arbitrary lines on this issue. For example, consent, drinking, voting, and draft ages, and juvenile vs. adult court systems all draw somewhat arbitrary lines, and people still debate them. We have made strides over the years in this area. Juvenile laws didn't exist in the US until the 19th century. Also, the sliding scale you mention is a way to avoid the impact of truly arbitrary line drawing, but it's not always used, and even when it is used presumptions are made that may or may not be rebuttable. Can we improve upon it while not unduly burdening the system? I'm not sure and the legal treatment of minors may be too far afield from the discussion.

    So, what do I believe about the subject at hand? I'm not sure. I ask questions of others on subjects like this because my views continue to develop. I know it pains me to see others suffer (an emotional reaction), but I also find it difficult to stop eating meat. I don't hunt anymore. I also don't think that I'm duty bound to give up the ease with which I eat and maintain my health for the sake of something that can't reciprocate or carry my genes to another generation. It could be described as something good to do perhaps, though how much are we to sacrifice for others? I don't know where to put that line, and I have problems finding the utility in sacrificing a substantial amount to such a cause when there are humans who starve and suffer. As an aside, I tend to support charities that help humans rather than animals due to my finite funds and the foregoing. I also stated in the first page that I evolved as a omnivore, and you could say that perhaps I haven't gotten past that. I don't judge people for having different views though, if they've at least pondered the subject a bit, and I definitely wouldn't argue that I think I'm "right."

    Does the next stage of human development involve veganism and will people 100 years from now look back and judge us for eating meat? Perhaps. I suspect artificial meat may solve the debate for them, or at least advance it a bit. I don't know.

    Then you sound rather close to my own views. I would like to think that artificial forms of meat will raise the issue to the point that eating animals comes about intentionally eating animals to eat them - not because taste, nutrition, cost, environmental impact, etc. is any different. At which point, I imagine it begins to sound a bit sadist to claim "I eat meat because I like eating something another living, pain-feeling thing had to die for me to consume" and have no other reason behind it.

    I think is highly unlikely to happen until very far in the future, if ever. Anyone that eats meat today is doing so because they'd rather an animal died so they can eat than to eat alternative foods. They may not think of it like that, but since there are plenty of alternatives it is the reality.
    I've yet to see any vegetarian alternative that is the same nutrition and taste wise as an animal product, particularly not while being cheaper. So it isn't simply a matter of people are choosing animal products purely because they want to see animals die.
    I also don't see it being that far off. While costly now, lab grown meat that is identical to animal already exists. Though I think things like plant protein that is altered to taste and texture like meat will get there first. BeyondMeat has a product that is said to be pretty similar, though they seem to cost more than animal products.

    I agree with you that it's much more complex than that. My husband frequently tries various substitutes, but he's close to being a "super-taster" and they often have a taste or texture that he finds completely objectionable (for example, I like Beyond Meat's chicken, he thinks it tastes like plastic). When substitutes finally get "there," I imagine he will completely switch over.

    For other people, the cost (or availability) is a major factor. I'm at a point in my life when I can afford to buy pretty much whatever food I want. But when I first went vegan, that wasn't the case and I ate a lot of rice and beans. That was something I was willing to do, but for others it isn't an option they're going to consider.
    edited March 2016
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Okay, so "murder" is "unlawful or wrongful killing?" What makes killing wrongful? And, if we legalized the killing of persons who wore blue shirts would killing a person wearing a blue shirt be "murder" and "wrong" in your mind?

    It's an ethical question. As I find it hard to believe that you don't agree with me that killing is in some (many) cases wrongful, and the fact that we don't hold bears morally responsible doesn't change that (although we might destroy them in some circumstances), I don't see the purpose of derailing the thread with a discussion of when/why killing is wrong.

    And no, something being legal is not sufficient for me to say it's not wrongful.

    Why do you conclude that I don't believe that killing in some cases is wrongful? I'm merely attempting to determine the basis for this belief. What makes killing in some (many) cases wrongful? Are there cases where killing is not wrongful? Why would we not hold bears morally responsible if we also grant them certain moral rights? I'm assuming, of course, that you think bears should be given some rights? Correct me if that assumption is wrong.

    Why is asking someone to clarify their assetions derailing the thread?

    Why would I think bears should have rights?

    Re murder, bears can't form mens rea.

    I don't know what your beliefs regarding the rights of bears might be. Do you think it's okay to kill bears for any reason whatsoever? Per earlier statement above, I agree it's an ethical question, and I'm trying to figure out why people in this thread believe that some beings have rights (and moral obligations) and some beings don't.

    You seriously don't understand why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights or moral responsibilities?

    I mentioned above that I am not a vegan or vegetarian, so probably I wouldn't think animals have human or Constitutional rights, yeah. The argument that humans are held to different moral or ethical standards by vegans than the animals themselves still seems to me a silly argument. Even if you think it's wrong to kill any animals (outside of defensive reasons), there's still an obvious difference in mental capacity and we don't even hold children to the same legal standards, or incapacitated people, due to such things as mens rea and age of accountability.

    I asked you whether you thought killing bears for any reason whatsoever is okay.

    This is not a clear question. Are you asking whether there is any reason I would think is sufficient to kill a bear? If so, the answer is yes (but it's not particularly relevant to anything in this discussion).

    If you are asking whether I think it's okay (as in ethically acceptable) to kill bears for any reason at all, no matter what it is, no -- there are reasons I would consider ethically insufficient to justify killing a bear, in my own view. Whether I'd impose them on others is a different question
    I have my own theories regarding why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights and moral responsibilities, but they I often think that these beliefs have less to do with critical reasoning than habit and personal preferences.

    Humans and other animals are different. You can argue about how much it matters, but it's obviously true.
    As to the silly argument position, why would you engage in a silly argument?

    I thought you were trolling a bit and it annoyed me. Specifically, the argument that it's wrong to consider that humans may have moral/ethical responsibilities to refrain from harming animals merely because a cat does not (and we don't consider them criminally liable for eating a mouse). Humans have the ability to reason morally about what they should do in a way that cats do not -- cats act more instinctually (and also are obligate carnivores). Also, I'm weak.
    People once thought giving rights to minorities was silly because it was "obvious" "they" were different. Is that a fair statement? Why or why not?

    In that they are humans, I think comparing this argument with the human/animal one is problematic, for the reasons discussed re the slavery analogy upthread.

    For the record, I didn't say it was silly that we might decide that non human animals have certain limited rights (although I think that's inconsistent with how we normally think about the concept of rights). I said that your assumption that *I* thought bears had rights was silly, in that I had already admitted that I was fine with eating animals (I suppose I could think bears have rights and cows and deer do not, but why would that be the case). That was part of why I didn't think you were trying to engage in a serious discussion (and still do not) -- you were trying to make an argument that it's inconsistent to think non human animals have rights and not hold them morally responsible for their "crimes."

    Okay then. I suppose that's the end of any reasonable discussion.

    Let me simply state that I happen to find ethics to be an incredibly complex and difficult subject, and I concentrated in it prior to graduate school. Some MBA programs have also incorporated it into their programs, and law schools do by necessity (though legal ethics is not really about how we feel unless "we" are the ones writing the rules, though morality aside from legal ethics rules is also often discussed). We also have laws on the treatment of animals. Whether these laws grant animals "rights" depends on the law, but law also isn't static. So, these issues can and do ultimately drive laws and business practices in the real world, and I would hope people spent time thinking through them before claiming the moral high ground.

    I'll add that there is no trolling by me here. If I had a purpose other than curiosity over various stated opinions, it was to suggest that perhaps people should have a degree of humility when it comes to their strong opinions on this subject.

    To be clear, you are drawing arbitrary lines between humans and other animals, and apparently among different animals. What you are doing is common, but the minute someone asks "why" many run away or do as you have done, call it silly and claim trolling. I suppose I'll head back to my bubble. Work to be done and whatnot.

    Nothing arbitrary about the line. If you can pull out a bear that talks and is willing to discuss whether Singer's utilitarianism is speciest or ableist in regards to his existence as an animal, then of course we'll be willing to accept he has an equal responsibility as any rational adult has to not attack other people. So it isn't arbitrary (based on species) it is a sliding scale based on the capacity of the animal. Same as applies to children. Or do you see treating children differently in law and ethics as arbitrary, even when most courts do have procedures for testing if a child has the capacity to be treated as an adult because they do have the understanding?

    Do you speak for everyone when you say "of course we?" I don't think you do. I was attempting to dig into one person's belief system to see why he or she believes what he or she does. I'm happy to engage with you though if you like. I've read your posts in various places and you are thoughtful. My point here is that not everyone would agree with you on the bear though. I'm pretty sure some would still think it's "just a bear" while perhaps many, if not most, in this thread would be taken aback and perhaps introduce ourselves. Thanks for bringing up Singer. I think you may be the first in this thread to do so. Is Singer "right" regarding speciesism? Perhaps. I hinted at a point above regarding the treatment of a whale versus a dog. We do treat various species differently and I'm not at all convinced that our reasons for doing so have anything to do with reasoning ability so much as expedience. Vegans often raise the intelligence of pigs a reason not to eat them, and I think it's an interesting and persuasive point to make. The capuchin monkey is even more of a challenge to common conceptions of our different treatment between humans and non-humans.

    To answer your question on children, I do think children are often treated in an arbitrary manner. That said, exploring the reasons why we do so is not an attack. Nor is calling something arbitrary. We do draw arbitrary lines on this issue. For example, consent, drinking, voting, and draft ages, and juvenile vs. adult court systems all draw somewhat arbitrary lines, and people still debate them. We have made strides over the years in this area. Juvenile laws didn't exist in the US until the 19th century. Also, the sliding scale you mention is a way to avoid the impact of truly arbitrary line drawing, but it's not always used, and even when it is used presumptions are made that may or may not be rebuttable. Can we improve upon it while not unduly burdening the system? I'm not sure and the legal treatment of minors may be too far afield from the discussion.

    So, what do I believe about the subject at hand? I'm not sure. I ask questions of others on subjects like this because my views continue to develop. I know it pains me to see others suffer (an emotional reaction), but I also find it difficult to stop eating meat. I don't hunt anymore. I also don't think that I'm duty bound to give up the ease with which I eat and maintain my health for the sake of something that can't reciprocate or carry my genes to another generation. It could be described as something good to do perhaps, though how much are we to sacrifice for others? I don't know where to put that line, and I have problems finding the utility in sacrificing a substantial amount to such a cause when there are humans who starve and suffer. As an aside, I tend to support charities that help humans rather than animals due to my finite funds and the foregoing. I also stated in the first page that I evolved as a omnivore, and you could say that perhaps I haven't gotten past that. I don't judge people for having different views though, if they've at least pondered the subject a bit, and I definitely wouldn't argue that I think I'm "right."

    Does the next stage of human development involve veganism and will people 100 years from now look back and judge us for eating meat? Perhaps. I suspect artificial meat may solve the debate for them, or at least advance it a bit. I don't know.

    Then you sound rather close to my own views. I would like to think that artificial forms of meat will raise the issue to the point that eating animals comes about intentionally eating animals to eat them - not because taste, nutrition, cost, environmental impact, etc. is any different. At which point, I imagine it begins to sound a bit sadist to claim "I eat meat because I like eating something another living, pain-feeling thing had to die for me to consume" and have no other reason behind it.

    I think is highly unlikely to happen until very far in the future, if ever. Anyone that eats meat today is doing so because they'd rather an animal died so they can eat than to eat alternative foods. They may not think of it like that, but since there are plenty of alternatives it is the reality.
    I've yet to see any vegetarian alternative that is the same nutrition and taste wise as an animal product, particularly not while being cheaper. So it isn't simply a matter of people are choosing animal products purely because they want to see animals die.
    I also don't see it being that far off. While costly now, lab grown meat that is identical to animal already exists. Though I think things like plant protein that is altered to taste and texture like meat will get there first. BeyondMeat has a product that is said to be pretty similar, though they seem to cost more than animal products.

    I didn't necessarily mean that the products were far off, I meant the mindset. If it ever happens, I believe it will be many generations in the future before most people give up meat for artificial meat.
  • stealthqstealthq Posts: 4,307Member Member Posts: 4,307Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Okay, so "murder" is "unlawful or wrongful killing?" What makes killing wrongful? And, if we legalized the killing of persons who wore blue shirts would killing a person wearing a blue shirt be "murder" and "wrong" in your mind?

    It's an ethical question. As I find it hard to believe that you don't agree with me that killing is in some (many) cases wrongful, and the fact that we don't hold bears morally responsible doesn't change that (although we might destroy them in some circumstances), I don't see the purpose of derailing the thread with a discussion of when/why killing is wrong.

    And no, something being legal is not sufficient for me to say it's not wrongful.

    Why do you conclude that I don't believe that killing in some cases is wrongful? I'm merely attempting to determine the basis for this belief. What makes killing in some (many) cases wrongful? Are there cases where killing is not wrongful? Why would we not hold bears morally responsible if we also grant them certain moral rights? I'm assuming, of course, that you think bears should be given some rights? Correct me if that assumption is wrong.

    Why is asking someone to clarify their assetions derailing the thread?

    Why would I think bears should have rights?

    Re murder, bears can't form mens rea.

    I don't know what your beliefs regarding the rights of bears might be. Do you think it's okay to kill bears for any reason whatsoever? Per earlier statement above, I agree it's an ethical question, and I'm trying to figure out why people in this thread believe that some beings have rights (and moral obligations) and some beings don't.

    You seriously don't understand why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights or moral responsibilities?

    I mentioned above that I am not a vegan or vegetarian, so probably I wouldn't think animals have human or Constitutional rights, yeah. The argument that humans are held to different moral or ethical standards by vegans than the animals themselves still seems to me a silly argument. Even if you think it's wrong to kill any animals (outside of defensive reasons), there's still an obvious difference in mental capacity and we don't even hold children to the same legal standards, or incapacitated people, due to such things as mens rea and age of accountability.

    I asked you whether you thought killing bears for any reason whatsoever is okay.

    This is not a clear question. Are you asking whether there is any reason I would think is sufficient to kill a bear? If so, the answer is yes (but it's not particularly relevant to anything in this discussion).

    If you are asking whether I think it's okay (as in ethically acceptable) to kill bears for any reason at all, no matter what it is, no -- there are reasons I would consider ethically insufficient to justify killing a bear, in my own view. Whether I'd impose them on others is a different question
    I have my own theories regarding why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights and moral responsibilities, but they I often think that these beliefs have less to do with critical reasoning than habit and personal preferences.

    Humans and other animals are different. You can argue about how much it matters, but it's obviously true.
    As to the silly argument position, why would you engage in a silly argument?

    I thought you were trolling a bit and it annoyed me. Specifically, the argument that it's wrong to consider that humans may have moral/ethical responsibilities to refrain from harming animals merely because a cat does not (and we don't consider them criminally liable for eating a mouse). Humans have the ability to reason morally about what they should do in a way that cats do not -- cats act more instinctually (and also are obligate carnivores). Also, I'm weak.
    People once thought giving rights to minorities was silly because it was "obvious" "they" were different. Is that a fair statement? Why or why not?

    In that they are humans, I think comparing this argument with the human/animal one is problematic, for the reasons discussed re the slavery analogy upthread.

    For the record, I didn't say it was silly that we might decide that non human animals have certain limited rights (although I think that's inconsistent with how we normally think about the concept of rights). I said that your assumption that *I* thought bears had rights was silly, in that I had already admitted that I was fine with eating animals (I suppose I could think bears have rights and cows and deer do not, but why would that be the case). That was part of why I didn't think you were trying to engage in a serious discussion (and still do not) -- you were trying to make an argument that it's inconsistent to think non human animals have rights and not hold them morally responsible for their "crimes."

    Okay then. I suppose that's the end of any reasonable discussion.

    Let me simply state that I happen to find ethics to be an incredibly complex and difficult subject, and I concentrated in it prior to graduate school. Some MBA programs have also incorporated it into their programs, and law schools do by necessity (though legal ethics is not really about how we feel unless "we" are the ones writing the rules, though morality aside from legal ethics rules is also often discussed). We also have laws on the treatment of animals. Whether these laws grant animals "rights" depends on the law, but law also isn't static. So, these issues can and do ultimately drive laws and business practices in the real world, and I would hope people spent time thinking through them before claiming the moral high ground.

    I'll add that there is no trolling by me here. If I had a purpose other than curiosity over various stated opinions, it was to suggest that perhaps people should have a degree of humility when it comes to their strong opinions on this subject.

    To be clear, you are drawing arbitrary lines between humans and other animals, and apparently among different animals. What you are doing is common, but the minute someone asks "why" many run away or do as you have done, call it silly and claim trolling. I suppose I'll head back to my bubble. Work to be done and whatnot.

    Nothing arbitrary about the line. If you can pull out a bear that talks and is willing to discuss whether Singer's utilitarianism is speciest or ableist in regards to his existence as an animal, then of course we'll be willing to accept he has an equal responsibility as any rational adult has to not attack other people. So it isn't arbitrary (based on species) it is a sliding scale based on the capacity of the animal. Same as applies to children. Or do you see treating children differently in law and ethics as arbitrary, even when most courts do have procedures for testing if a child has the capacity to be treated as an adult because they do have the understanding?

    Do you speak for everyone when you say "of course we?" I don't think you do. I was attempting to dig into one person's belief system to see why he or she believes what he or she does. I'm happy to engage with you though if you like. I've read your posts in various places and you are thoughtful. My point here is that not everyone would agree with you on the bear though. I'm pretty sure some would still think it's "just a bear" while perhaps many, if not most, in this thread would be taken aback and perhaps introduce ourselves. Thanks for bringing up Singer. I think you may be the first in this thread to do so. Is Singer "right" regarding speciesism? Perhaps. I hinted at a point above regarding the treatment of a whale versus a dog. We do treat various species differently and I'm not at all convinced that our reasons for doing so have anything to do with reasoning ability so much as expedience. Vegans often raise the intelligence of pigs a reason not to eat them, and I think it's an interesting and persuasive point to make. The capuchin monkey is even more of a challenge to common conceptions of our different treatment between humans and non-humans.

    To answer your question on children, I do think children are often treated in an arbitrary manner. That said, exploring the reasons why we do so is not an attack. Nor is calling something arbitrary. We do draw arbitrary lines on this issue. For example, consent, drinking, voting, and draft ages, and juvenile vs. adult court systems all draw somewhat arbitrary lines, and people still debate them. We have made strides over the years in this area. Juvenile laws didn't exist in the US until the 19th century. Also, the sliding scale you mention is a way to avoid the impact of truly arbitrary line drawing, but it's not always used, and even when it is used presumptions are made that may or may not be rebuttable. Can we improve upon it while not unduly burdening the system? I'm not sure and the legal treatment of minors may be too far afield from the discussion.

    So, what do I believe about the subject at hand? I'm not sure. I ask questions of others on subjects like this because my views continue to develop. I know it pains me to see others suffer (an emotional reaction), but I also find it difficult to stop eating meat. I don't hunt anymore. I also don't think that I'm duty bound to give up the ease with which I eat and maintain my health for the sake of something that can't reciprocate or carry my genes to another generation. It could be described as something good to do perhaps, though how much are we to sacrifice for others? I don't know where to put that line, and I have problems finding the utility in sacrificing a substantial amount to such a cause when there are humans who starve and suffer. As an aside, I tend to support charities that help humans rather than animals due to my finite funds and the foregoing. I also stated in the first page that I evolved as a omnivore, and you could say that perhaps I haven't gotten past that. I don't judge people for having different views though, if they've at least pondered the subject a bit, and I definitely wouldn't argue that I think I'm "right."

    Does the next stage of human development involve veganism and will people 100 years from now look back and judge us for eating meat? Perhaps. I suspect artificial meat may solve the debate for them, or at least advance it a bit. I don't know.

    Then you sound rather close to my own views. I would like to think that artificial forms of meat will raise the issue to the point that eating animals comes about intentionally eating animals to eat them - not because taste, nutrition, cost, environmental impact, etc. is any different. At which point, I imagine it begins to sound a bit sadist to claim "I eat meat because I like eating something another living, pain-feeling thing had to die for me to consume" and have no other reason behind it.

    I think is highly unlikely to happen until very far in the future, if ever. Anyone that eats meat today is doing so because they'd rather an animal died so they can eat than to eat alternative foods. They may not think of it like that, but since there are plenty of alternatives it is the reality.
    I've yet to see any vegetarian alternative that is the same nutrition and taste wise as an animal product, particularly not while being cheaper. So it isn't simply a matter of people are choosing animal products purely because they want to see animals die.
    I also don't see it being that far off. While costly now, lab grown meat that is identical to animal already exists. Though I think things like plant protein that is altered to taste and texture like meat will get there first. BeyondMeat has a product that is said to be pretty similar, though they seem to cost more than animal products.

    +1

    I eat a fair amount of meat alternative products. The only reason I think they're good is because I don't try to use them to substitute for meat. They're tasty in their own right and in their own way. But as a substitute for meat if meat is what I want? Nope. Not run across anything yet that would be remotely close. And if I'm low on protein, chicken or fish is often the only thing that will fit in my diet, which is quite low calorie, so I eat a good amount of both.

    Another issue is still availability. I have tons of options in the grocery store for meat alternatives. Many places still do not. Even in DFW, one of the restaurant capitals of the U.S., you have to go looking for a place that serves meat alternatives if they're not serving Asian food.
  • silicosilico Posts: 88Member Member Posts: 88Member Member
    Meat!

    latest?cb=20130816225838

    But I do know to moderate my intake and limit red and processed meats. It's more of a need to fulfill protein requirements and ease of access than anything.

    I do have objections against farmed chicken and battery eggs etc... so I vote with my feet on that and only buy free range items.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Okay, so "murder" is "unlawful or wrongful killing?" What makes killing wrongful? And, if we legalized the killing of persons who wore blue shirts would killing a person wearing a blue shirt be "murder" and "wrong" in your mind?

    It's an ethical question. As I find it hard to believe that you don't agree with me that killing is in some (many) cases wrongful, and the fact that we don't hold bears morally responsible doesn't change that (although we might destroy them in some circumstances), I don't see the purpose of derailing the thread with a discussion of when/why killing is wrong.

    And no, something being legal is not sufficient for me to say it's not wrongful.

    Why do you conclude that I don't believe that killing in some cases is wrongful? I'm merely attempting to determine the basis for this belief. What makes killing in some (many) cases wrongful? Are there cases where killing is not wrongful? Why would we not hold bears morally responsible if we also grant them certain moral rights? I'm assuming, of course, that you think bears should be given some rights? Correct me if that assumption is wrong.

    Why is asking someone to clarify their assetions derailing the thread?

    Why would I think bears should have rights?

    Re murder, bears can't form mens rea.

    I don't know what your beliefs regarding the rights of bears might be. Do you think it's okay to kill bears for any reason whatsoever? Per earlier statement above, I agree it's an ethical question, and I'm trying to figure out why people in this thread believe that some beings have rights (and moral obligations) and some beings don't.

    You seriously don't understand why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights or moral responsibilities?

    I mentioned above that I am not a vegan or vegetarian, so probably I wouldn't think animals have human or Constitutional rights, yeah. The argument that humans are held to different moral or ethical standards by vegans than the animals themselves still seems to me a silly argument. Even if you think it's wrong to kill any animals (outside of defensive reasons), there's still an obvious difference in mental capacity and we don't even hold children to the same legal standards, or incapacitated people, due to such things as mens rea and age of accountability.

    I asked you whether you thought killing bears for any reason whatsoever is okay.

    This is not a clear question. Are you asking whether there is any reason I would think is sufficient to kill a bear? If so, the answer is yes (but it's not particularly relevant to anything in this discussion).

    If you are asking whether I think it's okay (as in ethically acceptable) to kill bears for any reason at all, no matter what it is, no -- there are reasons I would consider ethically insufficient to justify killing a bear, in my own view. Whether I'd impose them on others is a different question
    I have my own theories regarding why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights and moral responsibilities, but they I often think that these beliefs have less to do with critical reasoning than habit and personal preferences.

    Humans and other animals are different. You can argue about how much it matters, but it's obviously true.
    As to the silly argument position, why would you engage in a silly argument?

    I thought you were trolling a bit and it annoyed me. Specifically, the argument that it's wrong to consider that humans may have moral/ethical responsibilities to refrain from harming animals merely because a cat does not (and we don't consider them criminally liable for eating a mouse). Humans have the ability to reason morally about what they should do in a way that cats do not -- cats act more instinctually (and also are obligate carnivores). Also, I'm weak.
    People once thought giving rights to minorities was silly because it was "obvious" "they" were different. Is that a fair statement? Why or why not?

    In that they are humans, I think comparing this argument with the human/animal one is problematic, for the reasons discussed re the slavery analogy upthread.

    For the record, I didn't say it was silly that we might decide that non human animals have certain limited rights (although I think that's inconsistent with how we normally think about the concept of rights). I said that your assumption that *I* thought bears had rights was silly, in that I had already admitted that I was fine with eating animals (I suppose I could think bears have rights and cows and deer do not, but why would that be the case). That was part of why I didn't think you were trying to engage in a serious discussion (and still do not) -- you were trying to make an argument that it's inconsistent to think non human animals have rights and not hold them morally responsible for their "crimes."

    Okay then. I suppose that's the end of any reasonable discussion.

    Let me simply state that I happen to find ethics to be an incredibly complex and difficult subject, and I concentrated in it prior to graduate school. Some MBA programs have also incorporated it into their programs, and law schools do by necessity (though legal ethics is not really about how we feel unless "we" are the ones writing the rules, though morality aside from legal ethics rules is also often discussed). We also have laws on the treatment of animals. Whether these laws grant animals "rights" depends on the law, but law also isn't static. So, these issues can and do ultimately drive laws and business practices in the real world, and I would hope people spent time thinking through them before claiming the moral high ground.

    I'll add that there is no trolling by me here. If I had a purpose other than curiosity over various stated opinions, it was to suggest that perhaps people should have a degree of humility when it comes to their strong opinions on this subject.

    To be clear, you are drawing arbitrary lines between humans and other animals, and apparently among different animals. What you are doing is common, but the minute someone asks "why" many run away or do as you have done, call it silly and claim trolling. I suppose I'll head back to my bubble. Work to be done and whatnot.

    Nothing arbitrary about the line. If you can pull out a bear that talks and is willing to discuss whether Singer's utilitarianism is speciest or ableist in regards to his existence as an animal, then of course we'll be willing to accept he has an equal responsibility as any rational adult has to not attack other people. So it isn't arbitrary (based on species) it is a sliding scale based on the capacity of the animal. Same as applies to children. Or do you see treating children differently in law and ethics as arbitrary, even when most courts do have procedures for testing if a child has the capacity to be treated as an adult because they do have the understanding?

    Do you speak for everyone when you say "of course we?" I don't think you do. I was attempting to dig into one person's belief system to see why he or she believes what he or she does. I'm happy to engage with you though if you like. I've read your posts in various places and you are thoughtful. My point here is that not everyone would agree with you on the bear though. I'm pretty sure some would still think it's "just a bear" while perhaps many, if not most, in this thread would be taken aback and perhaps introduce ourselves. Thanks for bringing up Singer. I think you may be the first in this thread to do so. Is Singer "right" regarding speciesism? Perhaps. I hinted at a point above regarding the treatment of a whale versus a dog. We do treat various species differently and I'm not at all convinced that our reasons for doing so have anything to do with reasoning ability so much as expedience. Vegans often raise the intelligence of pigs a reason not to eat them, and I think it's an interesting and persuasive point to make. The capuchin monkey is even more of a challenge to common conceptions of our different treatment between humans and non-humans.

    To answer your question on children, I do think children are often treated in an arbitrary manner. That said, exploring the reasons why we do so is not an attack. Nor is calling something arbitrary. We do draw arbitrary lines on this issue. For example, consent, drinking, voting, and draft ages, and juvenile vs. adult court systems all draw somewhat arbitrary lines, and people still debate them. We have made strides over the years in this area. Juvenile laws didn't exist in the US until the 19th century. Also, the sliding scale you mention is a way to avoid the impact of truly arbitrary line drawing, but it's not always used, and even when it is used presumptions are made that may or may not be rebuttable. Can we improve upon it while not unduly burdening the system? I'm not sure and the legal treatment of minors may be too far afield from the discussion.

    So, what do I believe about the subject at hand? I'm not sure. I ask questions of others on subjects like this because my views continue to develop. I know it pains me to see others suffer (an emotional reaction), but I also find it difficult to stop eating meat. I don't hunt anymore. I also don't think that I'm duty bound to give up the ease with which I eat and maintain my health for the sake of something that can't reciprocate or carry my genes to another generation. It could be described as something good to do perhaps, though how much are we to sacrifice for others? I don't know where to put that line, and I have problems finding the utility in sacrificing a substantial amount to such a cause when there are humans who starve and suffer. As an aside, I tend to support charities that help humans rather than animals due to my finite funds and the foregoing. I also stated in the first page that I evolved as a omnivore, and you could say that perhaps I haven't gotten past that. I don't judge people for having different views though, if they've at least pondered the subject a bit, and I definitely wouldn't argue that I think I'm "right."

    Does the next stage of human development involve veganism and will people 100 years from now look back and judge us for eating meat? Perhaps. I suspect artificial meat may solve the debate for them, or at least advance it a bit. I don't know.

    Then you sound rather close to my own views. I would like to think that artificial forms of meat will raise the issue to the point that eating animals comes about intentionally eating animals to eat them - not because taste, nutrition, cost, environmental impact, etc. is any different. At which point, I imagine it begins to sound a bit sadist to claim "I eat meat because I like eating something another living, pain-feeling thing had to die for me to consume" and have no other reason behind it.

    I think is highly unlikely to happen until very far in the future, if ever. Anyone that eats meat today is doing so because they'd rather an animal died so they can eat than to eat alternative foods. They may not think of it like that, but since there are plenty of alternatives it is the reality.
    I've yet to see any vegetarian alternative that is the same nutrition and taste wise as an animal product, particularly not while being cheaper. So it isn't simply a matter of people are choosing animal products purely because they want to see animals die.
    I also don't see it being that far off. While costly now, lab grown meat that is identical to animal already exists. Though I think things like plant protein that is altered to taste and texture like meat will get there first. BeyondMeat has a product that is said to be pretty similar, though they seem to cost more than animal products.

    I didn't necessarily mean that the products were far off, I meant the mindset. If it ever happens, I believe it will be many generations in the future before most people give up meat for artificial meat.

    Maybe. I'd find it kind of sad to see people intentionally paying more (I think cost will eventually go down as volume and technology improves) to eat something that tastes the exact same and possibly provides worse nutrition (again, I think technology can improve what we can offer), simply because it involved killing an animal.
  • BecomingBaneBecomingBane Posts: 3,648Member Member Posts: 3,648Member Member
    I agree with everyone else who has already made a similar point.

    When I transitioned to Veganism (for ethical reasons) I never really wanted to or felt the need to substitute things. In my mind, that would imply that I was denying myself something that I wanted which was definitely not the case. Instead, I ate things for what they were and enjoyed them in their own right. I feel like this saved me a from a lot of the "this doesn't taste like that" that I hear going on, because in my mind, I didn't want this to taste like that... I was giving up animal products because I wanted to and there was no deprivation or craving (except for sushi that one was the only lingering craving). If I wanted something, I simply used ingredients to make an analogue that, I felt, would satisfy "the spirit" of the dish that I was trying to alter like nutritional yeast sauce for noodles (mac and "cheese")

    I've been highly successful without ever thinking about "substitutes" outside of the baking world. When I bake and I'm forced to use other things for binders in a recipe is pretty much the only time I ever even think "substitute"

    Now, that is not to say that I don't eat meat alternatives or substitutes, because if you look, my diet is often highly processed and often contains large amounts of these products... but I don't eat them because I wanted to eat meat... I eat them because they are usually a higher volume protein source than what I can find unprocessed and for my personal goals, it becomes a matter of convenience to get 21 grams of protein from a Field Roast brand Frankfurter. It helps me to keep overall calories low and protein higher than I would otherwise be able to do were I eating only unprocessed or minimally processed plant based foods.

  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Okay, so "murder" is "unlawful or wrongful killing?" What makes killing wrongful? And, if we legalized the killing of persons who wore blue shirts would killing a person wearing a blue shirt be "murder" and "wrong" in your mind?

    It's an ethical question. As I find it hard to believe that you don't agree with me that killing is in some (many) cases wrongful, and the fact that we don't hold bears morally responsible doesn't change that (although we might destroy them in some circumstances), I don't see the purpose of derailing the thread with a discussion of when/why killing is wrong.

    And no, something being legal is not sufficient for me to say it's not wrongful.

    Why do you conclude that I don't believe that killing in some cases is wrongful? I'm merely attempting to determine the basis for this belief. What makes killing in some (many) cases wrongful? Are there cases where killing is not wrongful? Why would we not hold bears morally responsible if we also grant them certain moral rights? I'm assuming, of course, that you think bears should be given some rights? Correct me if that assumption is wrong.

    Why is asking someone to clarify their assetions derailing the thread?

    Why would I think bears should have rights?

    Re murder, bears can't form mens rea.

    I don't know what your beliefs regarding the rights of bears might be. Do you think it's okay to kill bears for any reason whatsoever? Per earlier statement above, I agree it's an ethical question, and I'm trying to figure out why people in this thread believe that some beings have rights (and moral obligations) and some beings don't.

    You seriously don't understand why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights or moral responsibilities?

    I mentioned above that I am not a vegan or vegetarian, so probably I wouldn't think animals have human or Constitutional rights, yeah. The argument that humans are held to different moral or ethical standards by vegans than the animals themselves still seems to me a silly argument. Even if you think it's wrong to kill any animals (outside of defensive reasons), there's still an obvious difference in mental capacity and we don't even hold children to the same legal standards, or incapacitated people, due to such things as mens rea and age of accountability.

    I asked you whether you thought killing bears for any reason whatsoever is okay.

    This is not a clear question. Are you asking whether there is any reason I would think is sufficient to kill a bear? If so, the answer is yes (but it's not particularly relevant to anything in this discussion).

    If you are asking whether I think it's okay (as in ethically acceptable) to kill bears for any reason at all, no matter what it is, no -- there are reasons I would consider ethically insufficient to justify killing a bear, in my own view. Whether I'd impose them on others is a different question
    I have my own theories regarding why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights and moral responsibilities, but they I often think that these beliefs have less to do with critical reasoning than habit and personal preferences.

    Humans and other animals are different. You can argue about how much it matters, but it's obviously true.
    As to the silly argument position, why would you engage in a silly argument?

    I thought you were trolling a bit and it annoyed me. Specifically, the argument that it's wrong to consider that humans may have moral/ethical responsibilities to refrain from harming animals merely because a cat does not (and we don't consider them criminally liable for eating a mouse). Humans have the ability to reason morally about what they should do in a way that cats do not -- cats act more instinctually (and also are obligate carnivores). Also, I'm weak.
    People once thought giving rights to minorities was silly because it was "obvious" "they" were different. Is that a fair statement? Why or why not?

    In that they are humans, I think comparing this argument with the human/animal one is problematic, for the reasons discussed re the slavery analogy upthread.

    For the record, I didn't say it was silly that we might decide that non human animals have certain limited rights (although I think that's inconsistent with how we normally think about the concept of rights). I said that your assumption that *I* thought bears had rights was silly, in that I had already admitted that I was fine with eating animals (I suppose I could think bears have rights and cows and deer do not, but why would that be the case). That was part of why I didn't think you were trying to engage in a serious discussion (and still do not) -- you were trying to make an argument that it's inconsistent to think non human animals have rights and not hold them morally responsible for their "crimes."

    Okay then. I suppose that's the end of any reasonable discussion.

    Let me simply state that I happen to find ethics to be an incredibly complex and difficult subject, and I concentrated in it prior to graduate school. Some MBA programs have also incorporated it into their programs, and law schools do by necessity (though legal ethics is not really about how we feel unless "we" are the ones writing the rules, though morality aside from legal ethics rules is also often discussed). We also have laws on the treatment of animals. Whether these laws grant animals "rights" depends on the law, but law also isn't static. So, these issues can and do ultimately drive laws and business practices in the real world, and I would hope people spent time thinking through them before claiming the moral high ground.

    I'll add that there is no trolling by me here. If I had a purpose other than curiosity over various stated opinions, it was to suggest that perhaps people should have a degree of humility when it comes to their strong opinions on this subject.

    To be clear, you are drawing arbitrary lines between humans and other animals, and apparently among different animals. What you are doing is common, but the minute someone asks "why" many run away or do as you have done, call it silly and claim trolling. I suppose I'll head back to my bubble. Work to be done and whatnot.

    Nothing arbitrary about the line. If you can pull out a bear that talks and is willing to discuss whether Singer's utilitarianism is speciest or ableist in regards to his existence as an animal, then of course we'll be willing to accept he has an equal responsibility as any rational adult has to not attack other people. So it isn't arbitrary (based on species) it is a sliding scale based on the capacity of the animal. Same as applies to children. Or do you see treating children differently in law and ethics as arbitrary, even when most courts do have procedures for testing if a child has the capacity to be treated as an adult because they do have the understanding?

    Do you speak for everyone when you say "of course we?" I don't think you do. I was attempting to dig into one person's belief system to see why he or she believes what he or she does. I'm happy to engage with you though if you like. I've read your posts in various places and you are thoughtful. My point here is that not everyone would agree with you on the bear though. I'm pretty sure some would still think it's "just a bear" while perhaps many, if not most, in this thread would be taken aback and perhaps introduce ourselves. Thanks for bringing up Singer. I think you may be the first in this thread to do so. Is Singer "right" regarding speciesism? Perhaps. I hinted at a point above regarding the treatment of a whale versus a dog. We do treat various species differently and I'm not at all convinced that our reasons for doing so have anything to do with reasoning ability so much as expedience. Vegans often raise the intelligence of pigs a reason not to eat them, and I think it's an interesting and persuasive point to make. The capuchin monkey is even more of a challenge to common conceptions of our different treatment between humans and non-humans.

    To answer your question on children, I do think children are often treated in an arbitrary manner. That said, exploring the reasons why we do so is not an attack. Nor is calling something arbitrary. We do draw arbitrary lines on this issue. For example, consent, drinking, voting, and draft ages, and juvenile vs. adult court systems all draw somewhat arbitrary lines, and people still debate them. We have made strides over the years in this area. Juvenile laws didn't exist in the US until the 19th century. Also, the sliding scale you mention is a way to avoid the impact of truly arbitrary line drawing, but it's not always used, and even when it is used presumptions are made that may or may not be rebuttable. Can we improve upon it while not unduly burdening the system? I'm not sure and the legal treatment of minors may be too far afield from the discussion.

    So, what do I believe about the subject at hand? I'm not sure. I ask questions of others on subjects like this because my views continue to develop. I know it pains me to see others suffer (an emotional reaction), but I also find it difficult to stop eating meat. I don't hunt anymore. I also don't think that I'm duty bound to give up the ease with which I eat and maintain my health for the sake of something that can't reciprocate or carry my genes to another generation. It could be described as something good to do perhaps, though how much are we to sacrifice for others? I don't know where to put that line, and I have problems finding the utility in sacrificing a substantial amount to such a cause when there are humans who starve and suffer. As an aside, I tend to support charities that help humans rather than animals due to my finite funds and the foregoing. I also stated in the first page that I evolved as a omnivore, and you could say that perhaps I haven't gotten past that. I don't judge people for having different views though, if they've at least pondered the subject a bit, and I definitely wouldn't argue that I think I'm "right."

    Does the next stage of human development involve veganism and will people 100 years from now look back and judge us for eating meat? Perhaps. I suspect artificial meat may solve the debate for them, or at least advance it a bit. I don't know.

    Then you sound rather close to my own views. I would like to think that artificial forms of meat will raise the issue to the point that eating animals comes about intentionally eating animals to eat them - not because taste, nutrition, cost, environmental impact, etc. is any different. At which point, I imagine it begins to sound a bit sadist to claim "I eat meat because I like eating something another living, pain-feeling thing had to die for me to consume" and have no other reason behind it.

    I think is highly unlikely to happen until very far in the future, if ever. Anyone that eats meat today is doing so because they'd rather an animal died so they can eat than to eat alternative foods. They may not think of it like that, but since there are plenty of alternatives it is the reality.
    I've yet to see any vegetarian alternative that is the same nutrition and taste wise as an animal product, particularly not while being cheaper. So it isn't simply a matter of people are choosing animal products purely because they want to see animals die.
    I also don't see it being that far off. While costly now, lab grown meat that is identical to animal already exists. Though I think things like plant protein that is altered to taste and texture like meat will get there first. BeyondMeat has a product that is said to be pretty similar, though they seem to cost more than animal products.

    I didn't necessarily mean that the products were far off, I meant the mindset. If it ever happens, I believe it will be many generations in the future before most people give up meat for artificial meat.

    Maybe. I'd find it kind of sad to see people intentionally paying more (I think cost will eventually go down as volume and technology improves) to eat something that tastes the exact same and possibly provides worse nutrition (again, I think technology can improve what we can offer), simply because it involved killing an animal.

    If you already own a gun it's probably never going to be cheaper to buy than to hunt. But I think there will always be people who would rather pay for the real thing than artificial. Well, maybe not always, but for a very long time after it's introduced. And maybe always.

    To find it sad, one must first think it's wrong to kill animals for food. A necessary wrong perhaps, but still wrong. Because if it's not wrong why would it be sad?
  • plantpoweredlifterplantpoweredlifter Posts: 3Member Member Posts: 3Member Member
    Vegan for the environmental and ethical issues first, but still care about the animals.
  • sunnybeaches105sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,846Member Member Posts: 2,846Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Okay, so "murder" is "unlawful or wrongful killing?" What makes killing wrongful? And, if we legalized the killing of persons who wore blue shirts would killing a person wearing a blue shirt be "murder" and "wrong" in your mind?

    It's an ethical question. As I find it hard to believe that you don't agree with me that killing is in some (many) cases wrongful, and the fact that we don't hold bears morally responsible doesn't change that (although we might destroy them in some circumstances), I don't see the purpose of derailing the thread with a discussion of when/why killing is wrong.

    And no, something being legal is not sufficient for me to say it's not wrongful.

    Why do you conclude that I don't believe that killing in some cases is wrongful? I'm merely attempting to determine the basis for this belief. What makes killing in some (many) cases wrongful? Are there cases where killing is not wrongful? Why would we not hold bears morally responsible if we also grant them certain moral rights? I'm assuming, of course, that you think bears should be given some rights? Correct me if that assumption is wrong.

    Why is asking someone to clarify their assetions derailing the thread?

    Why would I think bears should have rights?

    Re murder, bears can't form mens rea.

    I don't know what your beliefs regarding the rights of bears might be. Do you think it's okay to kill bears for any reason whatsoever? Per earlier statement above, I agree it's an ethical question, and I'm trying to figure out why people in this thread believe that some beings have rights (and moral obligations) and some beings don't.

    You seriously don't understand why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights or moral responsibilities?

    I mentioned above that I am not a vegan or vegetarian, so probably I wouldn't think animals have human or Constitutional rights, yeah. The argument that humans are held to different moral or ethical standards by vegans than the animals themselves still seems to me a silly argument. Even if you think it's wrong to kill any animals (outside of defensive reasons), there's still an obvious difference in mental capacity and we don't even hold children to the same legal standards, or incapacitated people, due to such things as mens rea and age of accountability.

    I asked you whether you thought killing bears for any reason whatsoever is okay.

    This is not a clear question. Are you asking whether there is any reason I would think is sufficient to kill a bear? If so, the answer is yes (but it's not particularly relevant to anything in this discussion).

    If you are asking whether I think it's okay (as in ethically acceptable) to kill bears for any reason at all, no matter what it is, no -- there are reasons I would consider ethically insufficient to justify killing a bear, in my own view. Whether I'd impose them on others is a different question
    I have my own theories regarding why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights and moral responsibilities, but they I often think that these beliefs have less to do with critical reasoning than habit and personal preferences.

    Humans and other animals are different. You can argue about how much it matters, but it's obviously true.
    As to the silly argument position, why would you engage in a silly argument?

    I thought you were trolling a bit and it annoyed me. Specifically, the argument that it's wrong to consider that humans may have moral/ethical responsibilities to refrain from harming animals merely because a cat does not (and we don't consider them criminally liable for eating a mouse). Humans have the ability to reason morally about what they should do in a way that cats do not -- cats act more instinctually (and also are obligate carnivores). Also, I'm weak.
    People once thought giving rights to minorities was silly because it was "obvious" "they" were different. Is that a fair statement? Why or why not?

    In that they are humans, I think comparing this argument with the human/animal one is problematic, for the reasons discussed re the slavery analogy upthread.

    For the record, I didn't say it was silly that we might decide that non human animals have certain limited rights (although I think that's inconsistent with how we normally think about the concept of rights). I said that your assumption that *I* thought bears had rights was silly, in that I had already admitted that I was fine with eating animals (I suppose I could think bears have rights and cows and deer do not, but why would that be the case). That was part of why I didn't think you were trying to engage in a serious discussion (and still do not) -- you were trying to make an argument that it's inconsistent to think non human animals have rights and not hold them morally responsible for their "crimes."

    Okay then. I suppose that's the end of any reasonable discussion.

    Let me simply state that I happen to find ethics to be an incredibly complex and difficult subject, and I concentrated in it prior to graduate school. Some MBA programs have also incorporated it into their programs, and law schools do by necessity (though legal ethics is not really about how we feel unless "we" are the ones writing the rules, though morality aside from legal ethics rules is also often discussed). We also have laws on the treatment of animals. Whether these laws grant animals "rights" depends on the law, but law also isn't static. So, these issues can and do ultimately drive laws and business practices in the real world, and I would hope people spent time thinking through them before claiming the moral high ground.

    I'll add that there is no trolling by me here. If I had a purpose other than curiosity over various stated opinions, it was to suggest that perhaps people should have a degree of humility when it comes to their strong opinions on this subject.

    To be clear, you are drawing arbitrary lines between humans and other animals, and apparently among different animals. What you are doing is common, but the minute someone asks "why" many run away or do as you have done, call it silly and claim trolling. I suppose I'll head back to my bubble. Work to be done and whatnot.

    Nothing arbitrary about the line. If you can pull out a bear that talks and is willing to discuss whether Singer's utilitarianism is speciest or ableist in regards to his existence as an animal, then of course we'll be willing to accept he has an equal responsibility as any rational adult has to not attack other people. So it isn't arbitrary (based on species) it is a sliding scale based on the capacity of the animal. Same as applies to children. Or do you see treating children differently in law and ethics as arbitrary, even when most courts do have procedures for testing if a child has the capacity to be treated as an adult because they do have the understanding?

    Do you speak for everyone when you say "of course we?" I don't think you do. I was attempting to dig into one person's belief system to see why he or she believes what he or she does. I'm happy to engage with you though if you like. I've read your posts in various places and you are thoughtful. My point here is that not everyone would agree with you on the bear though. I'm pretty sure some would still think it's "just a bear" while perhaps many, if not most, in this thread would be taken aback and perhaps introduce ourselves. Thanks for bringing up Singer. I think you may be the first in this thread to do so. Is Singer "right" regarding speciesism? Perhaps. I hinted at a point above regarding the treatment of a whale versus a dog. We do treat various species differently and I'm not at all convinced that our reasons for doing so have anything to do with reasoning ability so much as expedience. Vegans often raise the intelligence of pigs a reason not to eat them, and I think it's an interesting and persuasive point to make. The capuchin monkey is even more of a challenge to common conceptions of our different treatment between humans and non-humans.

    To answer your question on children, I do think children are often treated in an arbitrary manner. That said, exploring the reasons why we do so is not an attack. Nor is calling something arbitrary. We do draw arbitrary lines on this issue. For example, consent, drinking, voting, and draft ages, and juvenile vs. adult court systems all draw somewhat arbitrary lines, and people still debate them. We have made strides over the years in this area. Juvenile laws didn't exist in the US until the 19th century. Also, the sliding scale you mention is a way to avoid the impact of truly arbitrary line drawing, but it's not always used, and even when it is used presumptions are made that may or may not be rebuttable. Can we improve upon it while not unduly burdening the system? I'm not sure and the legal treatment of minors may be too far afield from the discussion.

    So, what do I believe about the subject at hand? I'm not sure. I ask questions of others on subjects like this because my views continue to develop. I know it pains me to see others suffer (an emotional reaction), but I also find it difficult to stop eating meat. I don't hunt anymore. I also don't think that I'm duty bound to give up the ease with which I eat and maintain my health for the sake of something that can't reciprocate or carry my genes to another generation. It could be described as something good to do perhaps, though how much are we to sacrifice for others? I don't know where to put that line, and I have problems finding the utility in sacrificing a substantial amount to such a cause when there are humans who starve and suffer. As an aside, I tend to support charities that help humans rather than animals due to my finite funds and the foregoing. I also stated in the first page that I evolved as a omnivore, and you could say that perhaps I haven't gotten past that. I don't judge people for having different views though, if they've at least pondered the subject a bit, and I definitely wouldn't argue that I think I'm "right."

    Does the next stage of human development involve veganism and will people 100 years from now look back and judge us for eating meat? Perhaps. I suspect artificial meat may solve the debate for them, or at least advance it a bit. I don't know.

    Then you sound rather close to my own views. I would like to think that artificial forms of meat will raise the issue to the point that eating animals comes about intentionally eating animals to eat them - not because taste, nutrition, cost, environmental impact, etc. is any different. At which point, I imagine it begins to sound a bit sadist to claim "I eat meat because I like eating something another living, pain-feeling thing had to die for me to consume" and have no other reason behind it.

    I think is highly unlikely to happen until very far in the future, if ever. Anyone that eats meat today is doing so because they'd rather an animal died so they can eat than to eat alternative foods. They may not think of it like that, but since there are plenty of alternatives it is the reality.
    I've yet to see any vegetarian alternative that is the same nutrition and taste wise as an animal product, particularly not while being cheaper. So it isn't simply a matter of people are choosing animal products purely because they want to see animals die.
    I also don't see it being that far off. While costly now, lab grown meat that is identical to animal already exists. Though I think things like plant protein that is altered to taste and texture like meat will get there first. BeyondMeat has a product that is said to be pretty similar, though they seem to cost more than animal products.

    I didn't necessarily mean that the products were far off, I meant the mindset. If it ever happens, I believe it will be many generations in the future before most people give up meat for artificial meat.

    Maybe. I'd find it kind of sad to see people intentionally paying more (I think cost will eventually go down as volume and technology improves) to eat something that tastes the exact same and possibly provides worse nutrition (again, I think technology can improve what we can offer), simply because it involved killing an animal.

    If you already own a gun it's probably never going to be cheaper to buy than to hunt. But I think there will always be people who would rather pay for the real thing than artificial. Well, maybe not always, but for a very long time after it's introduced. And maybe always.

    To find it sad, one must first think it's wrong to kill animals for food. A necessary wrong perhaps, but still wrong. Because if it's not wrong why would it be sad?

    Maybe I was a lousy hunter or because I don't live in a rural area (probably both), but I don't think I ever came out ahead financially on a hunt. I do know people who do, and know some people would go hungry if they didn't hunt (even here in the US). I'm sensitive to the economic realities and I think they often get lost in these discussions. Take, for example, the lack of focus on protein in emergency famine rations since the 70s, and I'm lead to believe these issues are very much "first world problems" for the time being. I do think that we must prioritize human life.
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Okay, so "murder" is "unlawful or wrongful killing?" What makes killing wrongful? And, if we legalized the killing of persons who wore blue shirts would killing a person wearing a blue shirt be "murder" and "wrong" in your mind?

    It's an ethical question. As I find it hard to believe that you don't agree with me that killing is in some (many) cases wrongful, and the fact that we don't hold bears morally responsible doesn't change that (although we might destroy them in some circumstances), I don't see the purpose of derailing the thread with a discussion of when/why killing is wrong.

    And no, something being legal is not sufficient for me to say it's not wrongful.

    Why do you conclude that I don't believe that killing in some cases is wrongful? I'm merely attempting to determine the basis for this belief. What makes killing in some (many) cases wrongful? Are there cases where killing is not wrongful? Why would we not hold bears morally responsible if we also grant them certain moral rights? I'm assuming, of course, that you think bears should be given some rights? Correct me if that assumption is wrong.

    Why is asking someone to clarify their assetions derailing the thread?

    Why would I think bears should have rights?

    Re murder, bears can't form mens rea.

    I don't know what your beliefs regarding the rights of bears might be. Do you think it's okay to kill bears for any reason whatsoever? Per earlier statement above, I agree it's an ethical question, and I'm trying to figure out why people in this thread believe that some beings have rights (and moral obligations) and some beings don't.

    You seriously don't understand why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights or moral responsibilities?

    I mentioned above that I am not a vegan or vegetarian, so probably I wouldn't think animals have human or Constitutional rights, yeah. The argument that humans are held to different moral or ethical standards by vegans than the animals themselves still seems to me a silly argument. Even if you think it's wrong to kill any animals (outside of defensive reasons), there's still an obvious difference in mental capacity and we don't even hold children to the same legal standards, or incapacitated people, due to such things as mens rea and age of accountability.

    I asked you whether you thought killing bears for any reason whatsoever is okay.

    This is not a clear question. Are you asking whether there is any reason I would think is sufficient to kill a bear? If so, the answer is yes (but it's not particularly relevant to anything in this discussion).

    If you are asking whether I think it's okay (as in ethically acceptable) to kill bears for any reason at all, no matter what it is, no -- there are reasons I would consider ethically insufficient to justify killing a bear, in my own view. Whether I'd impose them on others is a different question
    I have my own theories regarding why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights and moral responsibilities, but they I often think that these beliefs have less to do with critical reasoning than habit and personal preferences.

    Humans and other animals are different. You can argue about how much it matters, but it's obviously true.
    As to the silly argument position, why would you engage in a silly argument?

    I thought you were trolling a bit and it annoyed me. Specifically, the argument that it's wrong to consider that humans may have moral/ethical responsibilities to refrain from harming animals merely because a cat does not (and we don't consider them criminally liable for eating a mouse). Humans have the ability to reason morally about what they should do in a way that cats do not -- cats act more instinctually (and also are obligate carnivores). Also, I'm weak.
    People once thought giving rights to minorities was silly because it was "obvious" "they" were different. Is that a fair statement? Why or why not?

    In that they are humans, I think comparing this argument with the human/animal one is problematic, for the reasons discussed re the slavery analogy upthread.

    For the record, I didn't say it was silly that we might decide that non human animals have certain limited rights (although I think that's inconsistent with how we normally think about the concept of rights). I said that your assumption that *I* thought bears had rights was silly, in that I had already admitted that I was fine with eating animals (I suppose I could think bears have rights and cows and deer do not, but why would that be the case). That was part of why I didn't think you were trying to engage in a serious discussion (and still do not) -- you were trying to make an argument that it's inconsistent to think non human animals have rights and not hold them morally responsible for their "crimes."

    Okay then. I suppose that's the end of any reasonable discussion.

    Let me simply state that I happen to find ethics to be an incredibly complex and difficult subject, and I concentrated in it prior to graduate school. Some MBA programs have also incorporated it into their programs, and law schools do by necessity (though legal ethics is not really about how we feel unless "we" are the ones writing the rules, though morality aside from legal ethics rules is also often discussed). We also have laws on the treatment of animals. Whether these laws grant animals "rights" depends on the law, but law also isn't static. So, these issues can and do ultimately drive laws and business practices in the real world, and I would hope people spent time thinking through them before claiming the moral high ground.

    I'll add that there is no trolling by me here. If I had a purpose other than curiosity over various stated opinions, it was to suggest that perhaps people should have a degree of humility when it comes to their strong opinions on this subject.

    To be clear, you are drawing arbitrary lines between humans and other animals, and apparently among different animals. What you are doing is common, but the minute someone asks "why" many run away or do as you have done, call it silly and claim trolling. I suppose I'll head back to my bubble. Work to be done and whatnot.

    Nothing arbitrary about the line. If you can pull out a bear that talks and is willing to discuss whether Singer's utilitarianism is speciest or ableist in regards to his existence as an animal, then of course we'll be willing to accept he has an equal responsibility as any rational adult has to not attack other people. So it isn't arbitrary (based on species) it is a sliding scale based on the capacity of the animal. Same as applies to children. Or do you see treating children differently in law and ethics as arbitrary, even when most courts do have procedures for testing if a child has the capacity to be treated as an adult because they do have the understanding?

    Do you speak for everyone when you say "of course we?" I don't think you do. I was attempting to dig into one person's belief system to see why he or she believes what he or she does. I'm happy to engage with you though if you like. I've read your posts in various places and you are thoughtful. My point here is that not everyone would agree with you on the bear though. I'm pretty sure some would still think it's "just a bear" while perhaps many, if not most, in this thread would be taken aback and perhaps introduce ourselves. Thanks for bringing up Singer. I think you may be the first in this thread to do so. Is Singer "right" regarding speciesism? Perhaps. I hinted at a point above regarding the treatment of a whale versus a dog. We do treat various species differently and I'm not at all convinced that our reasons for doing so have anything to do with reasoning ability so much as expedience. Vegans often raise the intelligence of pigs a reason not to eat them, and I think it's an interesting and persuasive point to make. The capuchin monkey is even more of a challenge to common conceptions of our different treatment between humans and non-humans.

    To answer your question on children, I do think children are often treated in an arbitrary manner. That said, exploring the reasons why we do so is not an attack. Nor is calling something arbitrary. We do draw arbitrary lines on this issue. For example, consent, drinking, voting, and draft ages, and juvenile vs. adult court systems all draw somewhat arbitrary lines, and people still debate them. We have made strides over the years in this area. Juvenile laws didn't exist in the US until the 19th century. Also, the sliding scale you mention is a way to avoid the impact of truly arbitrary line drawing, but it's not always used, and even when it is used presumptions are made that may or may not be rebuttable. Can we improve upon it while not unduly burdening the system? I'm not sure and the legal treatment of minors may be too far afield from the discussion.

    So, what do I believe about the subject at hand? I'm not sure. I ask questions of others on subjects like this because my views continue to develop. I know it pains me to see others suffer (an emotional reaction), but I also find it difficult to stop eating meat. I don't hunt anymore. I also don't think that I'm duty bound to give up the ease with which I eat and maintain my health for the sake of something that can't reciprocate or carry my genes to another generation. It could be described as something good to do perhaps, though how much are we to sacrifice for others? I don't know where to put that line, and I have problems finding the utility in sacrificing a substantial amount to such a cause when there are humans who starve and suffer. As an aside, I tend to support charities that help humans rather than animals due to my finite funds and the foregoing. I also stated in the first page that I evolved as a omnivore, and you could say that perhaps I haven't gotten past that. I don't judge people for having different views though, if they've at least pondered the subject a bit, and I definitely wouldn't argue that I think I'm "right."

    Does the next stage of human development involve veganism and will people 100 years from now look back and judge us for eating meat? Perhaps. I suspect artificial meat may solve the debate for them, or at least advance it a bit. I don't know.

    Then you sound rather close to my own views. I would like to think that artificial forms of meat will raise the issue to the point that eating animals comes about intentionally eating animals to eat them - not because taste, nutrition, cost, environmental impact, etc. is any different. At which point, I imagine it begins to sound a bit sadist to claim "I eat meat because I like eating something another living, pain-feeling thing had to die for me to consume" and have no other reason behind it.

    I think is highly unlikely to happen until very far in the future, if ever. Anyone that eats meat today is doing so because they'd rather an animal died so they can eat than to eat alternative foods. They may not think of it like that, but since there are plenty of alternatives it is the reality.
    I've yet to see any vegetarian alternative that is the same nutrition and taste wise as an animal product, particularly not while being cheaper. So it isn't simply a matter of people are choosing animal products purely because they want to see animals die.
    I also don't see it being that far off. While costly now, lab grown meat that is identical to animal already exists. Though I think things like plant protein that is altered to taste and texture like meat will get there first. BeyondMeat has a product that is said to be pretty similar, though they seem to cost more than animal products.

    I didn't necessarily mean that the products were far off, I meant the mindset. If it ever happens, I believe it will be many generations in the future before most people give up meat for artificial meat.

    Maybe. I'd find it kind of sad to see people intentionally paying more (I think cost will eventually go down as volume and technology improves) to eat something that tastes the exact same and possibly provides worse nutrition (again, I think technology can improve what we can offer), simply because it involved killing an animal.

    If you already own a gun it's probably never going to be cheaper to buy than to hunt. But I think there will always be people who would rather pay for the real thing than artificial. Well, maybe not always, but for a very long time after it's introduced. And maybe always.

    To find it sad, one must first think it's wrong to kill animals for food. A necessary wrong perhaps, but still wrong. Because if it's not wrong why would it be sad?

    Maybe I was a lousy hunter or because I don't live in a rural area (probably both), but I don't think I ever came out ahead financially on a hunt. I do know people who do, and know some people would go hungry if they didn't hunt (even here in the US). I'm sensitive to the economic realities and I think they often get lost in these discussions. Take, for example, the lack of focus on protein in emergency famine rations since the 70s, and I'm lead to believe these issues are very much "first world problems" for the time being. I do think that we must prioritize human life.

    Yes, good point. How cost efficient hunting is would greatly depend on where you lived, if you have to travel to hunt, pay for lodging, etc. I sometimes forget that not everyone can walk out their front door and hunt.
  • sunnybeaches105sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,846Member Member Posts: 2,846Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Okay, so "murder" is "unlawful or wrongful killing?" What makes killing wrongful? And, if we legalized the killing of persons who wore blue shirts would killing a person wearing a blue shirt be "murder" and "wrong" in your mind?

    It's an ethical question. As I find it hard to believe that you don't agree with me that killing is in some (many) cases wrongful, and the fact that we don't hold bears morally responsible doesn't change that (although we might destroy them in some circumstances), I don't see the purpose of derailing the thread with a discussion of when/why killing is wrong.

    And no, something being legal is not sufficient for me to say it's not wrongful.

    Why do you conclude that I don't believe that killing in some cases is wrongful? I'm merely attempting to determine the basis for this belief. What makes killing in some (many) cases wrongful? Are there cases where killing is not wrongful? Why would we not hold bears morally responsible if we also grant them certain moral rights? I'm assuming, of course, that you think bears should be given some rights? Correct me if that assumption is wrong.

    Why is asking someone to clarify their assetions derailing the thread?

    Why would I think bears should have rights?

    Re murder, bears can't form mens rea.

    I don't know what your beliefs regarding the rights of bears might be. Do you think it's okay to kill bears for any reason whatsoever? Per earlier statement above, I agree it's an ethical question, and I'm trying to figure out why people in this thread believe that some beings have rights (and moral obligations) and some beings don't.

    You seriously don't understand why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights or moral responsibilities?

    I mentioned above that I am not a vegan or vegetarian, so probably I wouldn't think animals have human or Constitutional rights, yeah. The argument that humans are held to different moral or ethical standards by vegans than the animals themselves still seems to me a silly argument. Even if you think it's wrong to kill any animals (outside of defensive reasons), there's still an obvious difference in mental capacity and we don't even hold children to the same legal standards, or incapacitated people, due to such things as mens rea and age of accountability.

    I asked you whether you thought killing bears for any reason whatsoever is okay.

    This is not a clear question. Are you asking whether there is any reason I would think is sufficient to kill a bear? If so, the answer is yes (but it's not particularly relevant to anything in this discussion).

    If you are asking whether I think it's okay (as in ethically acceptable) to kill bears for any reason at all, no matter what it is, no -- there are reasons I would consider ethically insufficient to justify killing a bear, in my own view. Whether I'd impose them on others is a different question
    I have my own theories regarding why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights and moral responsibilities, but they I often think that these beliefs have less to do with critical reasoning than habit and personal preferences.

    Humans and other animals are different. You can argue about how much it matters, but it's obviously true.
    As to the silly argument position, why would you engage in a silly argument?

    I thought you were trolling a bit and it annoyed me. Specifically, the argument that it's wrong to consider that humans may have moral/ethical responsibilities to refrain from harming animals merely because a cat does not (and we don't consider them criminally liable for eating a mouse). Humans have the ability to reason morally about what they should do in a way that cats do not -- cats act more instinctually (and also are obligate carnivores). Also, I'm weak.
    People once thought giving rights to minorities was silly because it was "obvious" "they" were different. Is that a fair statement? Why or why not?

    In that they are humans, I think comparing this argument with the human/animal one is problematic, for the reasons discussed re the slavery analogy upthread.

    For the record, I didn't say it was silly that we might decide that non human animals have certain limited rights (although I think that's inconsistent with how we normally think about the concept of rights). I said that your assumption that *I* thought bears had rights was silly, in that I had already admitted that I was fine with eating animals (I suppose I could think bears have rights and cows and deer do not, but why would that be the case). That was part of why I didn't think you were trying to engage in a serious discussion (and still do not) -- you were trying to make an argument that it's inconsistent to think non human animals have rights and not hold them morally responsible for their "crimes."

    Okay then. I suppose that's the end of any reasonable discussion.

    Let me simply state that I happen to find ethics to be an incredibly complex and difficult subject, and I concentrated in it prior to graduate school. Some MBA programs have also incorporated it into their programs, and law schools do by necessity (though legal ethics is not really about how we feel unless "we" are the ones writing the rules, though morality aside from legal ethics rules is also often discussed). We also have laws on the treatment of animals. Whether these laws grant animals "rights" depends on the law, but law also isn't static. So, these issues can and do ultimately drive laws and business practices in the real world, and I would hope people spent time thinking through them before claiming the moral high ground.

    I'll add that there is no trolling by me here. If I had a purpose other than curiosity over various stated opinions, it was to suggest that perhaps people should have a degree of humility when it comes to their strong opinions on this subject.

    To be clear, you are drawing arbitrary lines between humans and other animals, and apparently among different animals. What you are doing is common, but the minute someone asks "why" many run away or do as you have done, call it silly and claim trolling. I suppose I'll head back to my bubble. Work to be done and whatnot.

    Nothing arbitrary about the line. If you can pull out a bear that talks and is willing to discuss whether Singer's utilitarianism is speciest or ableist in regards to his existence as an animal, then of course we'll be willing to accept he has an equal responsibility as any rational adult has to not attack other people. So it isn't arbitrary (based on species) it is a sliding scale based on the capacity of the animal. Same as applies to children. Or do you see treating children differently in law and ethics as arbitrary, even when most courts do have procedures for testing if a child has the capacity to be treated as an adult because they do have the understanding?

    Do you speak for everyone when you say "of course we?" I don't think you do. I was attempting to dig into one person's belief system to see why he or she believes what he or she does. I'm happy to engage with you though if you like. I've read your posts in various places and you are thoughtful. My point here is that not everyone would agree with you on the bear though. I'm pretty sure some would still think it's "just a bear" while perhaps many, if not most, in this thread would be taken aback and perhaps introduce ourselves. Thanks for bringing up Singer. I think you may be the first in this thread to do so. Is Singer "right" regarding speciesism? Perhaps. I hinted at a point above regarding the treatment of a whale versus a dog. We do treat various species differently and I'm not at all convinced that our reasons for doing so have anything to do with reasoning ability so much as expedience. Vegans often raise the intelligence of pigs a reason not to eat them, and I think it's an interesting and persuasive point to make. The capuchin monkey is even more of a challenge to common conceptions of our different treatment between humans and non-humans.

    To answer your question on children, I do think children are often treated in an arbitrary manner. That said, exploring the reasons why we do so is not an attack. Nor is calling something arbitrary. We do draw arbitrary lines on this issue. For example, consent, drinking, voting, and draft ages, and juvenile vs. adult court systems all draw somewhat arbitrary lines, and people still debate them. We have made strides over the years in this area. Juvenile laws didn't exist in the US until the 19th century. Also, the sliding scale you mention is a way to avoid the impact of truly arbitrary line drawing, but it's not always used, and even when it is used presumptions are made that may or may not be rebuttable. Can we improve upon it while not unduly burdening the system? I'm not sure and the legal treatment of minors may be too far afield from the discussion.

    So, what do I believe about the subject at hand? I'm not sure. I ask questions of others on subjects like this because my views continue to develop. I know it pains me to see others suffer (an emotional reaction), but I also find it difficult to stop eating meat. I don't hunt anymore. I also don't think that I'm duty bound to give up the ease with which I eat and maintain my health for the sake of something that can't reciprocate or carry my genes to another generation. It could be described as something good to do perhaps, though how much are we to sacrifice for others? I don't know where to put that line, and I have problems finding the utility in sacrificing a substantial amount to such a cause when there are humans who starve and suffer. As an aside, I tend to support charities that help humans rather than animals due to my finite funds and the foregoing. I also stated in the first page that I evolved as a omnivore, and you could say that perhaps I haven't gotten past that. I don't judge people for having different views though, if they've at least pondered the subject a bit, and I definitely wouldn't argue that I think I'm "right."

    Does the next stage of human development involve veganism and will people 100 years from now look back and judge us for eating meat? Perhaps. I suspect artificial meat may solve the debate for them, or at least advance it a bit. I don't know.

    Then you sound rather close to my own views. I would like to think that artificial forms of meat will raise the issue to the point that eating animals comes about intentionally eating animals to eat them - not because taste, nutrition, cost, environmental impact, etc. is any different. At which point, I imagine it begins to sound a bit sadist to claim "I eat meat because I like eating something another living, pain-feeling thing had to die for me to consume" and have no other reason behind it.

    I think is highly unlikely to happen until very far in the future, if ever. Anyone that eats meat today is doing so because they'd rather an animal died so they can eat than to eat alternative foods. They may not think of it like that, but since there are plenty of alternatives it is the reality.
    I've yet to see any vegetarian alternative that is the same nutrition and taste wise as an animal product, particularly not while being cheaper. So it isn't simply a matter of people are choosing animal products purely because they want to see animals die.
    I also don't see it being that far off. While costly now, lab grown meat that is identical to animal already exists. Though I think things like plant protein that is altered to taste and texture like meat will get there first. BeyondMeat has a product that is said to be pretty similar, though they seem to cost more than animal products.

    I didn't necessarily mean that the products were far off, I meant the mindset. If it ever happens, I believe it will be many generations in the future before most people give up meat for artificial meat.

    Maybe. I'd find it kind of sad to see people intentionally paying more (I think cost will eventually go down as volume and technology improves) to eat something that tastes the exact same and possibly provides worse nutrition (again, I think technology can improve what we can offer), simply because it involved killing an animal.

    If you already own a gun it's probably never going to be cheaper to buy than to hunt. But I think there will always be people who would rather pay for the real thing than artificial. Well, maybe not always, but for a very long time after it's introduced. And maybe always.

    To find it sad, one must first think it's wrong to kill animals for food. A necessary wrong perhaps, but still wrong. Because if it's not wrong why would it be sad?

    Maybe I was a lousy hunter or because I don't live in a rural area (probably both), but I don't think I ever came out ahead financially on a hunt. I do know people who do, and know some people would go hungry if they didn't hunt (even here in the US). I'm sensitive to the economic realities and I think they often get lost in these discussions. Take, for example, the lack of focus on protein in emergency famine rations since the 70s, and I'm lead to believe these issues are very much "first world problems" for the time being. I do think that we must prioritize human life.

    Yes, good point. How cost efficient hunting is would greatly depend on where you lived, if you have to travel to hunt, pay for lodging, etc. I sometimes forget that not everyone can walk out their front door and hunt.

    If I could walk out my door and hunt that might mean I could walk out my door and backpack. Work would risk never seeing me again. Then I'd have to hunt once more! Hmmmmmm
  • laurenjennifer1987mfplaurenjennifer1987mfp Posts: 55Member Member Posts: 55Member Member
    Omnivore, but I eat a lot of meat-free meals. It just suits me to eat that way.
  • jgnatcajgnatca Posts: 14,495Member Member Posts: 14,495Member Member
  • BecomingBaneBecomingBane Posts: 3,648Member Member Posts: 3,648Member Member
    jgnatca wrote: »

    I have not heard of Mosa meat specifically, but have heard of the work going into lab grown tissue on several occasions and am continually amazed by science every step of the way. Personally, I have not yet formed an opinion on this issue, and will try to hold off and watch the science develop over the next few years before I form one. It's too early, in my opinion, for me to develop any kind of personal outlook on this issue outside of "Wow, science is cool and we live in the future."

    ETA and that just made me remember the scene from Better off Ted, about lab grown tissue, and I cracked up inside a little. (that scene is not indicative of my thoughts on the issue, just funny in a tangential kind of way)
    edited March 2016
  • starryphoenixstarryphoenix Posts: 372Member Member Posts: 372Member Member
    I'm a flexitarian!
    I am about 80% vegetarian. I want to be full someday, but for now I can't do it because I suck at cooking and my family loves meat.
  • VeganRaptorVeganRaptor Posts: 164Member Member Posts: 164Member Member
    I'm pretty much full ethical vegan (except for medication and my Doc Martens- although I will buy vegan ones after they wear out)!
    I just decided that I couldn't ethically justify harming animals in any way when there are so many alternatives.
    I've also personally felt a lot healthier after going vegan. I am iron deficient but I was when I was pescaterian and when I ate meat as well!
    Vegans can be perfectly healthy people- it's just important to watch your nutrients and follow where scientific evidence points within the vegan lifestyle :)

    I've also saved money. YUSS.
  • CasperNaegleCasperNaegle Posts: 936Member, Premium Member Posts: 936Member, Premium Member
    Love meat, meat is the best protein and iron source. It's an integral part of my diet. Grew up eating red meat, everyone I know eats it including my 87 year old dad! He's still banging out 3 miles a day and lifting.
  • foxygirl14foxygirl14 Posts: 158Member Member Posts: 158Member Member
    I've been a vegan for 2 and 1/2 years and I think as long as you are well educated about balanced nutrition it is very healthy. My husband is a meat eater and he's pretty healthy too so I'm not trying to convert him and I think it's all personal preference. :)
  • momof4girls48momof4girls48 Posts: 41Member Member Posts: 41Member Member
    I eat meat,fish,beans,grains, veggies and fruits. Meat one meal a day unless there is a little leftover meat used in another meal that day. I do choose what kinds and portions of meat we eat and teach my children how to do the same. We love all food groups. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.