No, I never said all Catholics were murders. I specifically named the people I accused of murder.

Nor did I ever make that claim. Good grief. I've granted you that Catholics have done evil things and encouraged evil things in the past. I'm not sure what more you want me to say. Or why.

The position I presented was that (a) there is an objective grounds for giving to human life the "right to life" (transcendent thought, etc.) and (b) these grounds are not evident in lower animals.

And I replied that animals can feel love, compassion, friendship and can even communicate with words. Since they have everything that makes life worth living, that should be enough to vouchsafe their right to life. I received no response to that.

Your "evidence" for your claims on animals was the link regarding Koko, as I recall. I did reply that the evidence for Koko's linguistic abilities was a matter of significant dispute. Concerning your other claims, there is simply no evidence that lower animals are capable of transcendent actions. Do you have positive evidence that animals other than humans can appreciate the conversation we are having? Further, it appears to me that animals kill one another, often for food. If that is the way of "nature," upon what grounds do you say it is immoral to follow that path? With respect to humans, I have argued that it is our capacity for knowing and loving God, hope for unending life, transcendence above mere survival in our environment, etc., that ground the unique moral nature of human beings. Because animals have some experiences that resemble our own doesn't make those experiences identical nor does it imply that there is no difference between us.

In what do you ground your moral condemnation of others who think it is morally acceptable to use animals for human good?

I should bring out the pinata about now... at least when beating it candy comes out....

I should bring out the pinata about now... at least when beating it candy comes out....

Agreed. We're going in circles. It's about time to call it.

Ok... I'm curious because I just saw this on this page... but how does someone get -4 posts?

edited for clarity.

The position I presented was that (a) there is an objective grounds for giving to human life the "right to life" (transcendent thought, etc.) and (b) these grounds are not evident in lower animals.

And I replied that animals can feel love, compassion, friendship and can even communicate with words. Since they have everything that makes life worth living, that should be enough to vouchsafe their right to life. I received no response to that.

Your "evidence" for your claims on animals was the link regarding Koko, as I recall. I did reply that the evidence for Koko's linguistic abilities was a matter of significant dispute. Concerning your other claims, there is simply no evidence that lower animals are capable of transcendent actions. Do you have positive evidence that animals other than humans can appreciate the conversation we are having? Further, it appears to me that animals kill one another, often for food. If that is the way of "nature," upon what grounds do you say it is immoral to follow that path? With respect to humans, I have argued that it is our capacity for knowing and loving God, hope for unending life, transcendence above mere survival in our environment, etc., that ground the unique moral nature of human beings. Because animals have some experiences that resemble our own doesn't make those experiences identical nor does it imply that there is no difference between us.

In what do you ground your moral condemnation of others who think it is morally acceptable to use animals for human good?

Okay, what IQ does a cow have to have to be allowed to live?

And as for your last question, I do not condemn others morally unless their self proclaimed morality is self contraditory.

what do the past sins of the Catholic Church have to do with the morality of vegetarianism?

I don't know. I wanted to talk about early Christianity, but for her that means talking about Church doctrine.

Ha!

Is this where you come in and attack the Pope again? Or call me dumb and uncompassionate? Or use inflammatory words like "murder" or "butcher"?

If you torture a million people can you be called a murderer or a butcher?

A truly difficult question.

I believe you are leaving the realm of the academic and falling into the emotional. Perhaps you should come back?

Applause.

Have seen this thread go from a good, healthy debate to condescension.

Okay, what IQ does a cow have to have to be allowed to live?
And as for your last question, I do not condemn others morally unless their self proclaimed morality is self contraditory.

Regarding cows, it is not a matter of degree but of kind.  Humans possess a power for transcendence, as I keep emphasizing, not possessed by the other animals.  That, I maintain, is the basis of the unique moral status of human beings.

Concerning your second point, are you saying my morality is self contradictory?  How so?  Do you grant that non-vegetarians can be morally consistent?  If so, do you grant them equal moral status with your position?  If not, why not?

Ha!

Is this where you come in and attack the Pope again? Or call me dumb and uncompassionate? Or use inflammatory words like "murder" or "butcher"?

If you torture a million people can you be called a murderer or a butcher?

A truly difficult question.

I believe you are leaving the realm of the academic and falling into the emotional. Perhaps you should come back?

Yeah, we probably should set some ground rules.

Okay, what IQ does a cow have to have to be allowed to live?
And as for your last question, I do not condemn others morally unless their self proclaimed morality is self contraditory.

Regarding cows, it is not a matter of degree but of kind.  Humans possess a power for transcendence,

Define power for Transencence. Then, when you have done that, tell me why that gives us the right of life and death over other species.

as I keep emphasizing, not possessed by the other animals.  That, I maintain, is the basis of the unique moral status of human beings.

Why? Remember in answering you have to explain why humans who are retarded and don't have that power should not be eaten. Why should an animal like Koko who frankly is more compassionate than many humans, and probably more intelligent than some loses the right to life.

Concerning your second point, are you saying my morality is self contradictory?  

Yes. Based on your anticipated answer to the questions above.

How so?  Do you grant that non-vegetarians can be morally consistent?

Of course. It helps to have your own morality and not buy into a one size fits all moral system that was developed two thousand years ago to keep unscrupulous men in positions of power.

 If so, do you grant them equal moral status with your position?

I do not understand this question. I believe in my position because I believe it makes the most sense. Of course if I thought some other system made more sense, I would believe in that system.

If not, why not?

So I have read through a lot of this debate and I think a lot of good points have been made by both sides, but I think in the end the vegetarians who do not eat meat for moral issues are akin to pro-lifers who think life begins at conception. Once a person decides, in both cases, that something is a conscious life form and has value they consider it's killing murder. Those who do not think it is conscious do not believe it is murder. Once the lines have been drawn, there really isn't much way for either side to back away from their stance.

You are probably right. My moral system evolved over many, many years. As you can probably tell, I love to argue, and I have had thousands of arguments in my life. Maybe tens of thousands. Arguing is a great way to refine what you believe. Right now, for example, MacPatti has thrown down the gauntlet, saying that humans are better than other species because we have the power of transcendence,whatever that is. My question to her, is what about humans who do not have that power, those, I assume who cannot reason. Should we eat them. Let's see what she has to say.

1. The power of "transcendence" is the capacity that humans have to experience and freely direct themselves towards the ultimate reality (God).  This gives inestimable value to each human life since union with God (the ultimate goal of our transcendent longings) is infinitely valuable (deriving its value from the infinite good which is God).  Human life is then valuable because of its capacity for union with God, the infinitely valuable reality.  Our value is derived from and dependent on God as the final goal of our longings/desires.  Other species do not have this power of transcendence and therefore their value is found entirely in the limited horizon of material, sensory, worldly existence.  These limited "goals" or aims of their desires correspond to the finite, limited value of the creatures themselves.  So, my point is that the value of a "life" is measured by the "end" or "goal" towards which it is oriented (by intrinsic orientation and capacity).  

2.  Retarded human persons, comatose and otherwise should not be eaten because they are by nature beings that are oriented to an infinitely valuable destiny.  The fact that there is a defect in their material conditions that prohibits the full exercise of their faculties in the direction of that destiny does not mean they lose the value that belongs to human nature.  As I said before, human nature is not only valuable when our capacities are actualized but are intrinsically valuable because of their potentiality.  Similarly, when you go to sleep at night you don't cease to be a human of value.  If the mentally retarded person were to experience the "healing" or restoration of the physical defects hindering their full actualization, they would be capable of the same activities we are carrying on right now.  A fully healthy rat, however, is incapable of such activities.  As a Christian, my hope is that those who are hindered from their full realization in this life will find healing and restoration by God's power as they pass from this life.

3.  If Koko were to "freak out" and kill someone today we would conclude (like we do when this happens occasionally), "Well, it was just in the gorilla's nature to do that."  As remarkable as Koko is, there is an obvious inferiority in this gorilla's ability to think and reason in moral terms.  If a human kills another in cold blood, we do not just conclude it was in their nature.  We consider them morally culpable for their action.  If Koko kills someone, should we put it on trial before a judge?  Why not?  Most people, I think, would find it intuitively silly to put any other animal on trial before a judge.  This fact reveals the reality that, deep within, we know that lower animals are guided by instinctual forces and that they are not capable of transcending these to true moral and self-determining freedom.

4.  Since you have pre-judged my position, how am I inconsistent or self-contradictory?  

5.  Since morality is elastic enough that you can have your own system and another have an equally valid system, why doesn't mine qualify?  How can you criticize my position from the morally relative position from which you view these things?  Further, how can you judge Innocent III or anyone else?  Perhaps their moral system was fully consistent within their own mind.  Who are you to judge their moral system?  

1. The power of "transcendence" is the capacity that humans have to experience and freely direct themselves towards the ultimate reality (God).  This gives inestimable value to each human life since union with God (the ultimate goal of our transcendent longings) is infinitely valuable (deriving its value from the infinite good which is God).  Human life is then valuable because of its capacity for union with God, the infinitely valuable reality.  Our value is derived from and dependent on God as the final goal of our longings/desires.  Other species do not have this power of transcendence and therefore their value is found entirely in the limited horizon of material, sensory, worldly existence.  These limited "goals" or aims of their desires correspond to the finite, limited value of the creatures themselves.  So, my point is that the value of a "life" is measured by the "end" or "goal" towards which it is oriented (by intrinsic orientation and capacity).  

2.  Retarded human persons, comatose and otherwise should not be eaten because they are by nature beings that are oriented to an infinitely valuable destiny.  The fact that there is a defect in their material conditions that prohibits the full exercise of their faculties in the direction of that destiny does not mean they lose the value that belongs to human nature.  As I said before, human nature is not only valuable when our capacities are actualized but are intrinsically valuable because of their potentiality.  Similarly, when you go to sleep at night you don't cease to be a human of value.  If the mentally retarded person were to experience the "healing" or restoration of the physical defects hindering their full actualization, they would be capable of the same activities we are carrying on right now.  A fully healthy rat, however, is incapable of such activities.  As a Christian, my hope is that those who are hindered from their full realization in this life will find healing and restoration by God's power as they pass from this life.

3.  If Koko were to "freak out" and kill someone today we would conclude (like we do when this happens occasionally), "Well, it was just in the gorilla's nature to do that."  As remarkable as Koko is, there is an obvious inferiority in this gorilla's ability to think and reason in moral terms.  If a human kills another in cold blood, we do not just conclude it was in their nature.  We consider them morally culpable for their action.  If Koko kills someone, should we put it on trial before a judge?  Why not?  Most people, I think, would find it intuitively silly to put any other animal on trial before a judge.  This fact reveals the reality that, deep within, we know that lower animals are guided by instinctual forces and that they are not capable of transcending these to true moral and self-determining freedom.

4.  Since you have pre-judged my position, how am I inconsistent or self-contradictory?  

5.  Since morality is elastic enough that you can have your own system and another have an equally valid system, why doesn't mine qualify?  How can you criticize my position from the morally relative position from which you view these things?  Further, how can you judge Innocent III or anyone else?  Perhaps their moral system was fully consistent within their own mind.  Who are you to judge their moral system?  

So by your definition in # 1, the only thing people who participate in dog fighting are guilty of is destruction of property? Because with that position I can not see how animal cruelty would be a big deal. As far as this whole transendence argument, it sounds great and fantastical and all, but I don't buy into it.

To be clear, I in no way think you are ok with dog fighting.

Honestly, I just don't see the big moral dilemma either way. But then if it really came down to it and I found myself in a situation like the Donner party, I would eat a human as well... And if my doctor told me I needed to cut out all meat products, then I would do that too.... I find this all as much of a moral dilemma as I do killing yet another mosquito.

Good point.