Vegetarianism

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeart If the situation is one that where one must make a choice for whatever reason that is forcing us to do so, naturally I would choose to kill the animal I think is less sentient.

So, intelligence matters. It is a part of what we value.

We can go around and construct them and they support nothing in the end except that people sometimes may have to make decisions of choice.

Such thought experiments are useful in figuring out our value system.

As for sentience, if I had to kill a concious person and a non-aware person in a vegetative state for whatever reason we could think of for the "if" game, I would most likely choose the person in the vegetative state to kill. How about you?

Indeed. I also value sentience.


If you had to choose between saving a human with bonobo-level intelligence, and a bonobo, which would you save?

[brien]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I have an idea that Abolitionists would force slave holders to release their slaves if they could do it. I also have an idea that no slave holder would ever force an Abolitionist to own slaves. And that my friends, perhaps is the main difference between the two types of people. One reason I am glad to be a slave holder. The thing I like about "reason" is that: it is timeless and cuts across issues exposing the weaknesses or strengths of arguments on the foundations of reason. Historical backdrops are nice, too, you know... to bring color and crystalize the whole thing.

Animals and human beings are separate species therefore your slave owner comparison is disingenuous at best, and down right insulting at the worst.

Your reasoning is flawed, but obviously you ignore that aspect of your viewpoint. Nice try though.

Try this:

I have an idea that Slave owners would force Abolitionists to own slaves if they could do it. I also have an idea that no Abolitionist would ever force a slave owner to own slaves. And that my friends, perhaps is the main difference between the two types of people. One reason I am glad to be a Abolitionist.

The thing I like about "reason" is that: it is timeless and cuts across issues exposing the weaknesses or strengths of arguments on the foundations of reason. Historical backdrops are nice, too, you know... to bring color and crystalize the whole thing.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: StrongHeart
If the situation is one that where one must make a choice for whatever reason that is forcing us to do so, naturally I would choose to kill the animal I think is less sentient.

Quote by: Captain Chaos So, intelligence matters. It is a part of what we value.

You are confusing sentience/self awareness with "intelligence" or purposely reaching from one to the other assuming they are synonimous.

If you had to choose between saving a human with bonobo-level intelligence, and a bonobo, which would you save?

If I were to apply utilitarin philosophy, I may choose the bonobo. A human with bonobo intelligence may drain society of recourses (which could be used to alleviate suffering or help others who could contribute positively to society) where as a bonobo at the level of the intelligence meant for it would not add to the drain.

If that could be white-washed out, though, I would probably choose the human. But maybe not. What if the bonobo were a companion primate for a highly intelligent human who was handicapped and performed some chores for this person -- let`s say Stephen Hawking. In this case the bonobo would be aiding productively a rich mind and would be better if it were to survive than the human with the mind of a bonobo -- whose cognitive abilities would not match what would be needed for the motor skills necessary to operate the human body.

So, let`s say a unique bonobo has been born and has been tested to have the IQ of an Einstein but just not able to speak. Would it be best to let it live, or one human with a normal bonobo intelligence? Choose.

"If" games can be fun, can`t they?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: brien Animals and human beings are separate species therefore your slave owner comparison is disingenuous at best, and down right insulting at the worst. Your reasoning is flawed, but obviously you ignore that aspect of your viewpoint. Nice try though.

Sorry, brien, but your protestestion and indignance with comparing animals and humans are misplaced, unwarranted and insulting to reason. The values inserted into the construct are just symbols when it comes to reason. Change it to X and Y if you are too emotional to factor out your prejudices.

Even Captain Chaos, a respector of constructs, will tell you they are there to clarify thought patterns.

NIce try though. <smile>

[StrongHeartsWin]

Brien, you may also want to review your construct which I reformed with the "abolitionist" construct. The point of your construct centered around the act of "force" and therefore my construct is merely plug-ins around that -- which makes it parallel in reasoning it out. That is why those who are like you have to learn to insert generic values as symbols in place of those that trigger you to respond emotionally.

Indignance is not a good strategy for debate. It doesn`t even stand on reason.

[Gods_Mercenary]

How many animals can write poetry or debate philosophy, as we're doing?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary How many animals can write poetry or debate philosophy, as we're doing?

How many people can write poetry or debate philosophy? For those that can`t does it mean they are consigned to a status that permits exploitation of them to prevent them from having protected interests? When has ability been the measuring stick as to what is permitted to be done to cause pain and suffering or to deny interests?

Animals do not have an urge to write poetry or debate philosophy. They have other urges. Some of us do have an urge to express ourselves in those formats.

[Gods_Mercenary]

My argument was shaky, but the end of the argument is that if we are equal to animals, we should not be above eating them. Many animals eat others.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary My argument was shaky, but the end of the argument is that if we are equal to animals, we should not be above eating them. Many animals eat others.

We are equal to animals in that no animal wants to be the target of pain. We all avoid it when we can.

The part where we are not equal is that we have the ability to employ high reason, show sympathy, empathize, mercy, and then act on those. We have the ability to be masters of our passions and not be mastered by them.

To be more blunt on not needing to act like animals even though we are equal in not wanting to suffer, your statement above could be met with:

If we are equal to animals, we shouldn`t be above crapping outside in the open and having sex everytime the urge strikes us no matter where we are.

Like animals we share the ability to suffer pain and be miserable, but unlike them we have the ability to exercise self control and mastery of our urges and passions. They all need not be whitewashed to base-line zero just to not harm them or to either permit harming them. Each point can be addressed on their own.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeart If we are equal to animals, we shouldn`t be above crapping outside in the open and having sex everytime the urge strikes us no matter where we are.

Oh dear. You mean I am not supposed to be doing that?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Quote by: StrongHeart If the situation is one that where one must make a choice for whatever reason that is forcing us to do so, naturally I would choose to kill the animal I think is less sentient. You are confusing sentience/self awareness with "intelligence" or purposely reaching from one to the other assuming they are synonimous. If I were to apply utilitarin philosophy, I may choose the bonobo. A human with bonobo intelligence may drain society of recourses (which could be used to alleviate suffering or help others who could contribute positively to society) where as a bonobo at the level of the intelligence meant for it would not add to the drain. If that could be white-washed out, though, I would probably choose the human. But maybe not. What if the bonobo were a companion primate for a highly intelligent human who was handicapped and performed some chores for this person -- let`s say Stephen Hawking. In this case the bonobo would be aiding productively a rich mind and would be better if it were to survive than the human with the mind of a bonobo -- whose cognitive abilities would not match what would be needed for the motor skills necessary to operate the human body. So, let`s say a unique bonobo has been born and has been tested to have the IQ of an Einstein but just not able to speak. Would it be best to let it live, or one human with a normal bonobo intelligence? Choose. "If" games can be fun, can`t they?

Yes, and they are of value.

My point in all this is that we have a variety of things that we place value on. There is a long chain of cause and effect that determines how much value you place on a single thing. That chain of cause and effect is formed by your instincts and how they interact with a wide variety of life experiences.

There is no way to prove that a given value set is superior to another value set, except by comparing them to your own value set.



For example, if I valued suffering, I could say that all animals should be tortured to death.

SpideySpirit would disagree with that opinion, and would possess a different value set.

You would then believe that his value set is superior to mine. The only way you could determine that is because his value set would be closer to your own.

If you believe that there is an objective means of determining which value set is superior, what is that means?

[pahl]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Quote by: StrongHeartsWin As for sentience, if I had to kill a concious person and a non-aware person in a vegetative state for whatever reason we could think of for the "if" game, I would most likely choose the person in the vegetative state to kill. How about you? Indeed. I also value sentience.

So you both agree to that, but isent that the arguement for not eating animals? If you had the ability to choose between killing an animal and a plant, which would you choose? Obviously the plant is less sentient, so by that reasoning you should kill the plant, because either is sufficient for your survival.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Slaughterhouses have one of the highest, if not THE highest worker turnover rate of all industries. It comes close to 90%. The work clearly gets to them. Furthermore, slaughterhouses do not open their doors for the general public to see what is going on at their plants. If they have nothing to hide, why not let at least allow AWists in to monitor how the animals are killed? Again, testimonials are weak support and no proof at all in debate.

So do garbage pickers. What's your point? I'm the general public, and was able to see what goes on. certainly not my cup-o-tea but it's a job that's gotta get done. I'm not sure what AWist is please elaborate. Being a vegetarian comes down to personal choice and personal experience, so testimonials are strong support when supporting or not supporting a cause.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Huh? Where? Point it out.

I just did in my previous post. Not my fault if you can't muster enough intelligence to see it.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Obviously Kubedawg, you are unaware as to what is meant by the "appeal to ignorance" argument or HOW IT IS attributed to the user. It is not or never is meant to be based on the future "if" and "then" construct and made to be hindsight.

The appeal to ignorance is more extreme for those who accept positives because what if science proves to be wrong? What if we find that plants DO suffer? Then all along where you thought you were correct, you had been proven wrong. Therefore, it is you who appeal to ignorance. It is obvious this will continue to go back and forth, so it seems futile to continue on this subject, although "if" and "else" are what scientists often use to find proof. So, it IS meant to be based on the future. I'm sorry we do not agree.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin No, they are not. Yours is. If the "appeal to ignorance" were so loosely defined as you do, then every argument would be an appeal to ignorance because you are applying it to possibilities that may be proven in the future and then look back on an issue with hindsight. That is not an appeal to ignorance.

So I debate on possibility, rather than probability? WTH is wrong with that? What is your point?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: pahl So you both agree to that, but isent that the arguement for not eating animals? If you had the ability to choose between killing an animal and a plant, which would you choose? Obviously the plant is less sentient, so by that reasoning you should kill the plant, because either is sufficient for your survival.

A person's values are complex. Someone who values sentience, and values higher levels of sentience and intelligence over lower levels, may also value the taste of meat.

To that person, the taste of meat may be of greater value than his concern over the suffering of an animal.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin No, because you have not understood my argument. My argument is based on the "principle of equal consideration of interests." Just as we have an interest in living our lives without interference of force, coercion, detention (which lead to pain, misery, suffering and exploitation), etc...and would not like it if someone imposed those things upon us, non-human animals also have an interest in living their lives as such and therefore we should not impose that upon them which we would not like another to impose upon us.

Calm down, fundie.

Anything that you consider pain and misery can be cut out of the breeding equation.

And another point is, animals eat eachother. You keep claiming that we should treat them equally, then you go on about how we have "more reasoning", and should accomodate them.

This is an obvious contradiction. In my book, if an animals willingly eat eachother, we have no obligation to protect them from being eaten.

You disagree on this fundamental point, making your argument entirely subjective. You have no right to impose your subjective opinion onto others.

Yes, I'm aware that cows are herbivores, but only because their digestive track isn't suitable for meat.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin If we are equal to animals, we shouldn`t be above crapping outside in the open and having sex everytime the urge strikes us no matter where we are. .

Then we are somewhat superior to animals, so your argument is null.

[Kamehameha34]

Also, you seem to be pontifficating on our ability to empathize.

How does the fact that we can do it make it, in any way, an expectation?

You haven't given me a reason to care about animals other than for pets, and food. That is the sign of a failed subjective argument.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos If you believe that there is an objective means of determining which value set is superior, what is that means?

Hold on, hold on there CC. Now, I did you the courtesy of taking the time to directly answer your "if" question, why haven`t you mine before firing off another? Surely what is good for the goose is good for the gandor. I am confidant you will go back and answer it. Then I will address the question above and the post it is found in.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: pahl So you both agree to that, but isent that the arguement for not eating animals? If you had the ability to choose between killing an animal and a plant, which would you choose? Obviously the plant is less sentient, so by that reasoning you should kill the plant, because either is sufficient for your survival.

There is no evidence that plants are sentient. But, if they are, then they are surely less so than us, primates, cows, or chickens. And then, your deduction is right.

But, because they are not sentient, it is the more ethical choice to choose them to eat -- a simple argument for vegetarianism.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Calm down, fundie. Why would rather ignore this fact, and attack anyone who disagrees with you by trolling your "equal consideration of interests" speech?

Kamehameha, these points are uncalled for here in a forum set up for debate. You do not need to reword it as a "speech" in a pajorative sense, as is also your use of the term "fundie." I have not attacked anyone personally. I have prosecuted or if you really can`t give up the word "attack," I have only done so to their reason, logic, or argument -- NOT THEM PERSONALLY.

As for "trolling," that is a violation of the rules of the forum. It is a serious charge. Let the admin make that ruling and such charges should not be left to stand when not warranted or else we could all run around here childishly calling everyone a "troll" just because they take an opposite or unpopular view of things that rankles someone.

Your post could have stood quite well without what you wrote above. It added nothing of value to the post other than to insult personally. If you want future engagement from me on this topic, I would suggest you consider the mature act of editing your post by deleting that part of it while you still can.