[Elminister]

Quote by: inri Clearly one's preference is of a higher level if it is due to a need to fulfill a feeling of empathy and compassion over an animalistic urge or craving for a food choice.... A food choice which involves taking the life of a sentient being that 'clearly' suffers and has a demonstrably similar interest in living as we do. I think it's rather silly that we're even arguing over whether a human who operates at the animalistic level of reflexive urges is more/less or equally developed than the one who operates at a level where behaviors are selected based on their congruence with empathic/compassionate urgings. Those on the end of the spectrum who are completely devoid of empathic ability are considered by behavioral scientists to be psycholgically/emotionally lacking....abnormal or mentally ill, in fact. Mental illnesses/disorders that include those lacking in empathic ability include; Asphergers Syndrome, Autism, Psychopathy, Schizophrenia...just to name a few. those who are perhaps not completely devoid of this ability, yet on the lower end of the scale, are therefore at a 'lower level of human psychological development' than those who exhibit higher levels.

It is more than a mere choice, like that of deciding which movie to see at the theater, that is being made. I'm explaining a behaviour that is guided by a very strong, deep rooted reflexive desire to eat and enjoy meat. In fact it has been a driving force within man for far longer than you can provide support for the longevity of the qualities you bring to this debate table. In how you are applying them.

I could suppress it, perhaps. I quit smoking after 16 years using the 'cold turky' method. I know all too well the lengths of which people would have to go to,to beat back extreme cravings. But why should I? Because I can identify with another sentient things dealings with pain? Because I can assume it has the same vested interest to live as I do?

These things ,as they are supported here, are not equal in means to mine own. Related or simular perhaps but not on par with the superior exhibits of man in these areas. Therefore to me these actions need not be weighed with equal consideration to mine own, or the desires that drive them.

I'm saying humans possess a deep rooted relfexive desire. Your saying that people can trump this desire through empathetical outreaching. Your also saying that people need not eat meat and can live on plant material alone and that in hopes of moraly evolving the urge to eat meat should be supressed.

Allow me to expand apon your own posistion here, if you would. As I see it, the end product would reveal scenarios that are in complete contrast to what your saying now.

Lets begin with your assesment that humans ,as a whole, would not moraly/empathetically evolve to a point of no longer consuming meat or animal products over night.

To give your perspective its full merit lets say that over time society has evovled empathetically to the point in which meat and animal products are no longer utilized. With the vast numbers of commodity animals gone through a gradual decreasing in the numbers due to the decreasing demand by the evolving society what would you propose be done with the final remaining bloodlines of these domesticated animals?

What of the populations of wild animals? With people no longer willing to hunt and eat them or havrest them for other reasons their population growths would be totally unfettered and would most assuredly pose a myriad of negative impacts to man as the populations increase.As is currently indicated now with the number of those who hunt to eat or otherwise harvest them decreases.

What would you propose be done to keep these circumstances in check? A continuous sterilization program? A continuous relocating program, so as long as there is land to do it with? Those domesticated bloodlines; would you just hold them intill they died out or would you introduce them into the wild and hope for the best?

Can you not see that at its fullest potential your point of veiw here is doomed to failure and hypocritical actions?

Being that veganism is growing, as you stated, the trend points to what I said above as a probability. It is your posistion that life not be taken wantonly so your posistion itself seeks this very end of its means.

Now here is where you say,again, that your not implying that everybody become a vegan, but the fundamental points in your posistion say exactly that. I suggest you stop running in circles and face the fact that your argument is doomed to fail to stay within its own creed.

A predator is more than just a "mere" cog in the natural scheme of things. It is a necessity.

That's a fact that cannot be undone.
.

Quote by: inri Have higher skin conductance and heart rate to emotional stimuli be emotional, as evidenced by their tendency to weep, Have had parent's who spent more time with them, displayed more affection, and were more explicit verbally about their feelings be tolerant of infant crying and less abusive toward children be altruistic in their behavior toward others and volunteer to help others be affiliative be non-aggressive rate positive social traits as important score higher on measures of moral judgment."

I could use every one of these points to describe personal traits I have displayed throughout my own life. How could that be if I choose to eat meat too?

Quote by: inri Again, I'm not saying ALL humans have this ability. Quite the contrary...it's clearly only those with very highly developed abilities for empathy coupled with high ability for integral action who will be capable of this. Therefore, all of your arguments re: past behavior of humans, etc, are kind of a mute point in relation to my stance.

But you are implying that in following with advancing moral/ethical evolution your promoting all people should seek this mantra should they wish to be considered at least morally/ethically equivalent to those that already do so.

Ok. Your saying not all humans currently have this ability. What an astute observation, really. So the point your making is that some people choose not to consume animals or animal products due to moral reasons. Just where was I arguing that point? I said humans possess a deep rooted reflexive urge, much like empathy, to consume meat. My urge is just as subjective as the empathy you bring up. I have never said it wasent subjective. It does, however, as a reflexive urge combat the empathy you bring up. You have agreed to that fact. So my stance in showing the longevity of the basis for my reflexive urge is entirely relative.

Quote by: inri Working in tandem, because that's simply the way we are designed. We have certain urges and 'most' of us also possess some level of empathic ability.

I'm sorry. I cannot see "working in tandem by design" at all. That smacks of some sort of supernatural force and not circumstance that actually is what places scientific and moral evolution on congruent lines.

I assert that EVERYBODY possess a level of empathy. It's just alloted in different ways. Even a psychopath is driven by an urge or desire to fufill a need. It's the extened values that a person doles out that are given to anything which after this, these values are drawn opon to constitute/create feelings that motivate them. Somebody could have empathy for something that doesn't even physically exist.

Quote by: inri I agree with this....Scientific advancement is not dependent upon moral advancement...is this what you're saying?

More or less, yes.

Quote by: inri Sorry..once again, your wording here does not make sense to me.

Ehh, I seem to get that sometimes. I'm actually thinking a few sentences ahead of what I'm typing. Sometimes that does not work quite as well as desired.

Quote by: inri Ultimately, morals are subjective. However, as humans, most of us share a general agreement that kindness is valued over cruelty.

I am not advocating cruelty* to animals.

Quote by: inri This would not change the fact that you'd be depriving them of life.

I elaborated on this point above.I quote it here now to show your use of this concept, again.

Quote by: inri In your world, humans appear to be mere puppets to their animalistic urges and cravings. Yes, my opinion of human beings is more expansive. Empathic ability and integrity to choose congruent action is imo, (and that of most behavioral scientists as well) a VERY important and integral part of being human.

In my world humans a driven by instinctualy and emotionaly driven relfexive thoughts, coupled with logic. Just like your world.

Quote by: inri These abilities (empathy and integral choice of action) are in actuality qualities that ALLOW man to rise above these animalistic urges to become much, much more than a mere 'alpha predator.'

You cannot disassociate man with what it is that he is.