Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[ForEverAfter]

 

[RichardMooner]

That doesn't deserve an answer.



I don' think anybody on this thread said suffering is bad.
Inflicting suffering unnecessarily on others is bad.
I've already explained why.



We're going in circles, so we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.



I already have, and you haven't countered it (at all).



Whether or not you apply the value system that you're proposing (in which there is no right or wrong) to your life, is certainly relevant to whether or not you actually believe it.



If pedophilia isn't wrong, and it's just a matter of perspective, why do we punish pedophiles?
I mean who is to say that a pedophile's value system isn't just as valid as our own?
Perhaps we should allow pedophiles to molest children?



I'm not sure I actually ever said that, by the way.

You keep repeating "Because we wouldn't want it done to us." There is nothing to back that claim. You wouldn't like something so it must be wrong?

It is not relevant to this discussion. We're not talking about our personal lives.

No one but a God is to say that a pedophile's value system isn't just as valid as ours.

Your very existence inflicts unnecessary suffering onto others.

 

[Ninae]

People who studied philosophy are simply on average more informed about logic and reason.

Maybe on average, but learning philosophy is a life's work and one of those things that can't be mastered from a few years of lectures, like anything else creative.

I am not offended so easily though.

No, but you easily offend.

 

[turkalurk]

It's anthropomorphism. You missed an entire syllable (the same syllable) both times you typed it.
You don't need to define it for me. I know what it means. The initial statement that you made...



...indicates otherwise. It cannot be more appropriate to project, anthropomorphically, "into the shoes of a fellow man". You used the wrong word... It's not a big deal.



You can't completely separate them, though, because they overlap.
I feel like I'm clarifying something that was quite clear when I initially wrote it...
But, oh well... Sometimes even the simplest things don't register when I read them.

...

Examples.

1. If we're attacked by a dog when we're young we might be afraid of dogs.
This is a feeling (fear) that has developed (at least in part) logically.

2. The same thing can be said for vegetarianism.
Vegetarians feel bad for eating meat, because there is no way to rationalize it logically.

3. If we feel good when we have sex, that doesn't mean there is no logic involved.
We understand the origins of these feelings; we understand why we feel good.

...

Vegetarianism cannot be reduced to feelings and feelings alone.
There is a logic to it. That's all I'm saying.

the po isn't necessary and any of then anthropo words can be shortened to anthro for efficiency without changing the meaning of the word. This is a good example of how you lose credibility from me. You know damn well what I meant. You need to think about why you say some of the things you say and what purpose it serves. Attacking a "misspelled" word supports my criticism about superficial and short-sighted morality.

Most people apply logic, but that doesn't mean their logic is valid and consistent. Number 2 is why I argue, you said there is no logical reason to eat meat. This is what I have been arguing against. I have illustrated this is wrong using the logic vegetarians have claimed. If it is about what is best for the world and the environment, then eating lab grown meat as suggested in the article would be less harmful than clearing ecosystems so we can farm vegetables.

 

[murphythecat]

we can explain in many ways why its bad to hurt another person. its very logic.

I dont even see why you say all those things. is that a way to say that we cannot know if when we raise chicken in the worst condition, let some dies of disease and suffer for weeks, we couldnt really know if they suffer?

feelings can be explained and we can reproduce the same feeling if we apply the same factors that created that feeling.

why is suffering bad? suffering is inevitable, but if you can reduce the suffering, and you dont, then it becomes bad. therefore, creating suffering in others is bad.

Why is being bitten by a dog something to be afraid of?
Why is suffering bad?
If we did not exist we could not suffer, it is not necessary to exist, there is no logical reason to exist, if suffering is wrong, logically, we should not exist.

Feelings and logic are both very distinct things, and can be separated absolutely. They can be applied to one another, but they do not have to have anything to do with each other.

We cannot explain why hurting another person is wrong. Please do so, if you can. I do not live my life that way because I believe in an objective right and wrong, but I can't define it using reason.

See above for the answer to that question.

Whether someone lives their life a certain way is irrelevant. If you cannot define an objective right and wrong, you can't sit here and tell people it's objectively wrong to eat meat.

 

[turkalurk]

Maybe on average, but learning philosophy is a life's work and one of those things that can't be mastered from a few years of lectures, like anything else creative.



No, but you easily offend.

its not my intention to offend, but most of what I implied about the vegetarians were first less directly implied by you and others about meat eaters. So that makes you and everyone else claiming to be offended, all hypocrites.

 

[ebola?]

If it is about what is best for the world and the environment, then eating lab grown meat as suggested in the article would be less harmful than clearing ecosystems so we can farm vegetables.

This doesn't really follow. We would still need agriculture to produce the calories consumed by the cultured cells. Due to the laws of thermodynamics, this will be less efficient than eating plants directly, but likely a great deal more efficient than current animal husbandry.

ebola

 

[turkalurk]

This doesn't really follow. We would still need agriculture to produce the calories consumed by the cultured cells. Due to the laws of thermodynamics, this will be less efficient than eating plants directly, but likely a great deal more efficient than current animal husbandry.


ebola

you do make a good point, but cultured cells could be fed algae and umbilical cords, we can come up with a different process.

Still, doesn't solve the problem of what we do with all the livestock?

Personally, I would like to see something done to revolutionize the way we farm as well. I hope that someday we will develop the technology to solve the world's current food and population problems. Maybe we can start growing vegetables on space stations I don't know what the answer is. I am just a human who likes to eat meat and who believes in Nature. I don't want to live a contrived lifestyle.

 

[turkalurk]

animals experience emotion, but we don't know how comparable their "feelings" are to humans. You can project your characteristics into the shoes of a chicken, but you are still a human wearing chicken shoes, you can never understand what it actually means to be an actual chicken. They might like their life because its all they know.

 

[Ninae]

its not my intention to offend, but most of what I implied about the vegetarians were first less directly implied by you and others about meat eaters. So that makes you and everyone else claiming to be offended, all hypocrites.

So two wrongs make a right (following your logic). But you know what, this is starting to become good entertainment by now. Being that it's no longer possible to take what you say seriously or be upset by it. And your debating technique is quite entertaining (if annoying) for many reasons in itself when you get used to it.

Maybe what stands out the most is the way you seem to argue solely to project yourself as an ego in opposition with others (ever heard of projection?) and have no real interest in what you're actually talking about. The way you argue is also kind of the opposite of mine as I tend to get lost in the topic and forget about myself and who I'm arguing with at the time. This can also cause some problems, like lack of sensitivity towards the one I'm arguing with, but at least I'm sincere and genuinly interested in the topic and enjoy "losing myself" like that.

It's like you have no passion for anything but putting people in their place and being right. Don't you ever get bored (with all these ego-games - that's what I would call this)? The mind boggles. And not just to be patronising, but if you really wanted to be taken seriously you would surely approach it differently.

 

[ebola?]

animals experience emotion, but we don't know how comparable their "feelings" are to humans. You can project your characteristics into the shoes of a chicken, but you are still a human wearing chicken shoes, you can never understand what it actually means to be an actual chicken.

I don't know what it's like to be you (or any other human) though. I think that this problem (of other minds) can be partially overcome if we look at its neurological implementation. Cells called "mirror neurons" implement empathy in humans. Namely, these cells fire both when one completes an action (the motor sequences of specific tool-use are prototypical, but so are unlearned responses), coordinating the neurology of disparate brains, implementing intersubjectivity. Now, animals (well, more social mammals) also have mirror neurons (even if they're unresponsive to learned behaviors). Thus, we have the basis for a sort of shared ethical space. However, we must take care in noting that it doesn't make sense to apply ideas of ethical maxims, responsibility, etc. to them or this space (ie, nonhumans cannot act as agents). Therefore, it makes sense for humans to use empathy in this space to exercise an ethic of care, without entailing reciprocity.

ebola

 

[Ninae]

I just don't understand the point of saying things like it's more natural to emphatise with other humans so it's only reasonable to put humans first. Of course it is, that's a given, and the whole point of an alternative outlook on these things is to try to see it differently than what is most natural or common. I don't see how intellectualising the most natural, self-explanatory human impulses, like many try to, gives any validation to your argument either way.

 

[turkalurk]

I don't know what it's like to be you (or any other human) though. I think that this problem (of other minds) can be partially overcome if we look at its neurological implementation. Cells called "mirror neurons" implement empathy in humans. Namely, these cells fire both when one completes an action (the motor sequences of specific tool-use are prototypical, but so are unlearned responses), coordinating the neurology of disparate brains, implementing intersubjectivity. Now, animals (well, more social mammals) also have mirror neurons (even if they're unresponsive to learned behaviors). Thus, we have the basis for a sort of shared ethical space. However, we must take care in noting that it doesn't make sense to apply ideas of ethical maxims, responsibility, etc. to them or this space (ie, nonhumans cannot act as agents). Therefore, it makes sense for humans to use empathy in this space to exercise an ethic of care, without entailing reciprocity.

ebola

partially overcome is not overcome, lets bring it back to the context. Do you know whether a domestic chicken would rather exist as our food source, or not exist at all.

 

[turkalurk]

I just don't understand the point of saying things like it's more natural to emphatise with other humans so it's only reasonable to put humans first. Of course it is, that's a given, and the whole point of an alternative outlook on these things is to try to see it differently than what is most natural or common. I don't see how intellectualising the most natural, self-explanatory human impulses, like many try to, gives any validation to your argument either way.

its not a support of my argument, its a criticism of yours. I use logic and reason, but also apply empathy to gain a more objective perspective. relying too heavily on one or the other can be problematic.

 

[murphythecat]

partially overcome is not overcome, lets bring it back to the context. Do you know whether a domestic chicken would rather exist as our food source, or not exist at all.

but this is assuming that he wouldnt exist if we wouldnt have created him.
this assume that maybe, someone prefer to suffer then to not exist. interesting thought, but its only a thought, we cannot know.
what its clear though, its once alive, the chicken doesnt want to die.
what is clear is that I prefer that someone doesn't hurt me and up to a point, I would prefer to die then to live in terrible and suffering conditions.
what is clear is that when you treat someone badly or you could reduce suffering of another being, but dont, you hurt not only the being you could protect, but your also hurt yourself.

 

[ebola?]

partially overcome is not overcome

In this case, it then follows that we lack a basis for empathy (and intersubjectivity in general) in humans too.

Do you know whether a domestic chicken would rather exist as our food source, or not exist at all.

I'd imagine that it lacks the cognitive basis to assess its existence in general. However, it's rather clear that factory farmed chickens have a life of pain. On the basis of empathy coupled with reasoning but also a good bit of guesswork, one could conclude that this suffering should not be wrought. In this case, I consider it valuable to act on guesswork in part (is there anything we're really certain of?).

I'm also okay with elective abortion meant to spare the child a life of pain (I'll note that many mentally and physically handicapped people have very happy lives).

ebola

 

[turkalurk]

So two wrongs make a right (following your logic). But you know what, this is starting to become good entertainment by now. Being that it's no longer possible to take what you say seriously or be upset by it. And your debating technique is quite entertaining (if annoying) for many reasons in itself when you get used to it.

Maybe what stands out the most is the way you seem to argue solely to project yourself as an ego in opposition with others (ever heard of projection?) and have no real interest in what you're actually talking about. The way you argue is also kind of the opposite of mine as I tend to get lost in the topic and forget about myself and who I'm arguing with at the time. This can also cause some problems, like lack of sensitivity towards the one I'm arguing with, but at least I'm sincere and genuinly interested in the topic and enjoy "losing myself" like that.

It's like you have no passion for anything but putting people in their place and being right. Don't you ever get bored (with all these ego-games - that's what I would call this)? The mind boggles. And not just to be patronising, but if you really wanted to be taken seriously you would surely approach it differently.

wow, I had to start over twice. this mobile format is stupid. erases your information upon any refresh.

did you think perhaps you are projecting? You make all these offensive assumptions about me, yet accuse me of being so offensive? Why do you like to prove my point? If I didn't care about the topic, I would not waste my time arguing about it. I am an advocate (ENFP) personality type. I welcome scrutiny as long as it is relevant, logical, and constructive. I recognize my limitations as an individual which is why I argue with others to form what I believe live through the fires of constructive criticism. To be honest, I was a little scared to enter a debate about this. I expected to be convinced enough to feel obligated to try a vegetarian lifestyle. I did not expect to reinforce my preexisting belief tyat the world will solve its own problems with or without me. I did not expect for the vegetarian argument to be so weak. At least, Ebola made some good points, and I am still processing these points, and intend to research the numbers a bit. Maybe look into theories of alternative agricultural practices.

I am the type that desires to change the world. I want to write a book, because I think I have a great pespective on things. However, I don't believe I am that special. I imagine a personality like mine has already written books more coherently and easily understood as I could write them. The truth will prevail with or without me in the long run. So, I won't attempt to change the world or anyone's mind. But, I still choose to express myself so that others might get a glimpse of who I am and see that we aren't all that different. We are all equally Human.

 

[turkalurk]

but this is assuming that he wouldnt exist if we wouldnt have created him.
this assume that maybe, someone prefer to suffer then to not exist. interesting thought, but its only a thought, we cannot know.
what its clear though, its once alive, the chicken doesnt want to die.
what is clear is that I prefer that someone doesn't hurt me and up to a point, I would prefer to die then to live in terrible and suffering conditions.
what is clear is that when you treat someone badly or you could reduce suffering of another being, but dont, you hurt not only the being you could protect, but your also hurt yourself.

then why do people commit suicide?

 

[turkalurk]

In this case, it then follows that we lack a basis for empathy (and intersubjectivity in general) in humans too.



I'd imagine that it lacks the cognitive basis to assess its existence in general. However, it's rather clear that factory farmed chickens have a life of pain. On the basis of empathy coupled with reasoning but also a good bit of guesswork, one could conclude that this suffering should not be wrought. In this case, I consider it valuable to act on guesswork in part (is there anything we're really certain of?).

I'm also okay with elective abortion meant to spare the child a life of pain (I'll note that many mentally and physically handicapped people have very happy lives).

ebola

you keep taking my arguments out of context. my arguments do not apply to the treatment of animals, just to eating them. Its a false analogy equivalent to the slavery thing as it is obviously something we agree is unethical.

 

[ebola?]

my arguments do not apply to the treatment of animals, just to eating them.

I am thinking of the conditions required to produce animals for food. In this sense, you are taking the argument out of context. But illustratively, I also think that hunting (for food!) is more ethical than buying food at the supermarket (on average).

ebola