Vegetarianism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nikhar

Sorry for butting in. But I do have very strong opinions (incomplete, may be, but strong)when it comes to this topic.

What I often wonder is why should you give different names to a non vegetarian and a cannibal? Please do not take this as an insult or something but I am genuinely asking this question. Whenever I posed this question to my friends, they'd ridicule that they wouldn't mind eating human meat if need arises. Obviously, they only do it coz they dont have an answer to it and they dont want to think about it.

I mean, why is eating animals right and eating humans the most heinous of crimes? Animals don't have senses? They don't feel the pain when someone chops their limbs off? Or is each animal like the cow in 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'?

Is it not indirectly supporting the fact that humans are the most intelligent of the species and they have the right to eat the 'lesser' of the animals? I mean, I cant imagine the brawl if an Einstein or a Newton wanted to eat his servant.

Imagine a world like the one in 'Soylent Green'! Urgh!

---

No one on this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Evolutionary pressures, dodo, are more complicated than you seem to think. Nazi Germany did OK, for a few years -- which is the blink of an eye. Surely their ethics were selected against, not for, by evolutionary pressures. Even Communism (which outlasted Naziism in part by winning WW2), another system that worshiped the State, appears to be short-lived.

---

You're misusing the term evolution here because clearly this isn't about genes. Maybe in a broader sense you could call it 'cultural evolution', but your position still doesn't make any sense, because basically you're saying that 'whatever happens is good in the long run'. Great, so why even bother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

First, since happiness and preference fulfillment are diological (in other words, since they are often based on the fulfillment of culturally constituted goals, and occur, for humans, only within the context of an ongoing cultural discourse) there does not HAVE to be one way to behave which produces the most happiness. Different ways to behave produce the most happiness for different cultures, different people, etc. Second, I don't think that "preference fulfillment" is (or should be) the goal of humankind. That's why Singer doesn't interest me all that much (although, perhaps, at your urging I'll look into him if I can drag myself away from my Russian Literature critiques, which I’m reading because I just started dating a Russian Literature Professor-- my only excuse for boring everyone by overusing the word “diologic”). If religion is the opiate of the masses, perhaps religion produces the most happiness? Are delusions that add to happiness or preference fulfillment preferable to the truth that does not? (I don't doubt that Singer addresses these questions, since they're obvious, but I don't know how he answers them.)

---

The most fundamental preferences are 'not wanting to die' (for non suicidal self-aware beings that is) and 'not wanting to suffer' (for all sentient beings). These aren't directly dependent on culture. You're right about one thing though, different cultures can provide different reasons/structures/motives for being happy/unhappy, and just like there's not one single way to eat 'healthiest', there might not be one single culture to live 'happiest' in. But, and here comes the crucial point, this doesn't affact the fundamental ethical theory I'm talking about, suffering is still suffering and happiness is still happiness. It only affects the conclusions we would draw from the theory.

All things being equal, having one's beliefs represent reality is better than a delusion. However, if the happiness gained outweighs one's desire for truth, then delusions are better. Also, some people (I can't identify with them, but I accept there are such people) don't really care about truth, they might even on some unconscious level know they're deluding themselves. So being deluded is only intrinsically bad if one has a desire for truth (yet most people have it, and, more importantly, no one has a desire 'against truth'). What makes the matter easy is that delusions almost always increase the likelihood of bad stuff (religious people tend to make stupid decisions regarding ethical, sociological or technical issues, examples being euthanasia, abortion, gay rights, genetic engineering, stem cell research, education policies, HIV prevention, vaccination, sex-related issues, charity organizations etc), which results in unnecessary deaths and suffering. So it's a bad thing unless it provides a HUGE boost to happiness (which it doesn't). Atheists can be just as happy as the happiest religious people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nikhar

No one on this?

---

Well, technically 'eating' isn't really the problem (I mean, if the stuff is dead anyway it can't care anymore). There's nothing intrinsically wrong with cannibalism (yet there are slippery slope arguments against it, as well as the fact that most people are revulsed by it). However, if instead of just eating dead human flesh, someone would actually farm babies and eat them, people would be outraged (understatement). So you're totally right, it's pure hypocricy! Intelligence can't be a justification, because a) babies aren't more intelligent than cows, and b) as you rightly said, even Einstein would't be justified to torture/kill stupid people or babies.

I’m not misusing the work evolution. Obviously, I’m talking about cultural evolution, or the evolution of ethics. Nor do I think that all ethics that have lasted a long time are acceptable – however, I do think that they have some advantages over ethics that are a mere current fad or invention (I thought all this was clear, but apparently not). Just as the quality of a modern novel may be reconsidered over the course of time, so might the quality of a modern ethos. Those novels (or ethics) that have stood the test of time are, at least, slightly more worthy of our trust.

I disagree about the “virtue” of happiness, which is why I’ve never been intrigued by Singer. I’ll grant (maybe) that atheists can be just as happy as religious people, but that was not always the case. I’d guess that in the era of the Spanish Inquisition, for example, religious people were happier than atheists. In addition, what about Saints? Francis of Asissi seemed pretty darned happy. Mightn’t there be a JOY to religion that we atheists can’t experience, or even comprehend? Happiness does not involve bread alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I disagree about the “virtue” of happiness, which is why I’ve never been intrigued by Singer. I’ll grant (maybe) that atheists can be just as happy as religious people, but that was not always the case. I’d guess that in the era of the Spanish Inquisition, for example, religious people were happier than atheists. In addition, what about Saints? Francis of Asissi seemed pretty darned happy. Mightn’t there be a JOY to religion that we atheists can’t experience, or even comprehend? Happiness does not involve bread alone.

---

Forget happiness, focus on suffering and the non-fulfillment of preferences. Basically it's just the other side of the coin, but the argument becomes much more self-evident and powerful. What else could possibly the goal of ethics than to reduce suffering? If you name something else, then there will be cases of conflicts between whatever you propose and suffering. So are you prepared to accept that people should be torture in order to attain whatever goal of ethics you think is better? It really isn't arbitrary, suffering is the essence of badness in consciousness, and consciousness is the only thing that 'makes things matter' in the first place.

(You're an atheist, you shouldn't believe in saints. There most likely hasn't ever been a perfect human.) It's true that things like 'meditation', or 'deprivation of worldly goods for living for a higher purpose' can be fulfilling. But don't make the mistake of automatically granting religion the monopoly over these experiences. One doesn't have to believe Buddhist scripture in order to have meditation experiences. Similarly, the 'higher purpose' can also be 'living for others'. There are atheist doctors who gave up comfortable lives in order to cure illnesses resulting from miserable conditions in third world countries. There was a mathematician who locked himself into a room for several years in order to proof some theorem. I'm pretty sure he was happy, and he had a 'higher purpose'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

Forget happiness, focus on suffering and the non-fulfillment of preferences. Basically it's just the other side of the coin, but the argument becomes much more self-evident and powerful. What else could possibly the goal of ethics than to reduce suffering? If you name something else, then there will be cases of conflicts between whatever you propose and suffering. So are you prepared to accept that people should be torture in order to attain whatever goal of ethics you think is better? It really isn't arbitrary, suffering is the essence of badness in consciousness, and consciousness is the only thing that 'makes things matter' in the first place.

(You're an atheist, you shouldn't believe in saints. There most likely hasn't ever been a perfect human.) It's true that things like 'meditation', or 'deprivation of worldly goods for living for a higher purpose' can be fulfilling. But don't make the mistake of automatically granting religion the monopoly over these experiences. One doesn't have to believe Buddhist scripture in order to have meditation experiences. Similarly, the 'higher purpose' can also be 'living for others'. There are atheist doctors who gave up comfortable lives in order to cure illnesses resulting from miserable conditions in third world countries. There was a mathematician who locked himself into a room for several years in order to proof some theorem. I'm pretty sure he was happy, and he had a 'higher purpose'.

---

One doesn't have to believe Buddhist scripture in order to have meditation experiences.

One does not. It's nice to give credit where it's due though - be that Buddhist, Hindu or Christian mystic to name but a few. :D

Similarly, the 'higher purpose' can also be 'living for others'

There is an idea in Mahayana Buddhism called Bodhicitta which is precisely this living to alleviate others' suffering. It is linked to the highest form of Enlightenment too.

I'll grant that I don't believe in saints in the same way a Catholic does. Nonetheless, I think it's possible that people attain some sort of enlightenment (or, at least, some sort of special kind of knowledge) through meditation, faith, etc. Although I don't think enlightenment through an inward journey need be exclusive to religion, neither do I think that religion is irrelevant to it. After all, religions have been developing techniques for this kind of thing for millenia, and for an atheist to think he can be just as successful by winging it smacks of hubris. It’s a bit like my “test of time” argument for an ethos – to think we can develop atheist meditation techniques that work just as well as Christian or Buddhist monastic practices that have been developed over the centuries through the dedication, hard work and faith of millions seems iffy. Perhaps “faith” is necessary for such an inward journey. A great many Christians and Buddhists have worked on developing these techniques; a great many have reported success; etc., etc.

Let’s face it, the voluntary discipline and deprivation of an Assisi is difficult. Nobody would do it unless he felt “called” to do it. In fact, it involves suffering (Assisi had stigmata, for example, other monks practiced self-flagellation). I’ll grant that such suffering could be called a “preference” – but it still serves to show some of the difficulties in an ethos focused on limiting suffering.

I’m not sure what the goal of ethics should be – but the goal of limiting suffering, while admirable in a limited sense, appears questionable as an ultimate goal. After all, if all suffering were to be eliminated, so would all courage, fortitude, justice, charity, and patience. Perhaps that would be a good thing but perhaps not. Have you ever read the great pre-Tolkien fantasy novel "The Worm Orouboros"? The basic notion is that the heroes win out over their evil enemies, and then regret their inabilty to practice the above virtues without said enemies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I’m not sure what the goal of ethics should be – but the goal of limiting suffering, while admirable in a limited sense, appears questionable as an ultimate goal. After all, if all suffering were to be eliminated, so would all courage, fortitude, justice, charity, and patience. Perhaps that would be a good thing but perhaps not. Have you ever read the great pre-Tolkien fantasy novel "The Worm Orouboros"? The basic notion is that the heroes win out over their evil enemies, and then regret their inabilty to practice the above virtues without said enemies.

---

Interesting point, I agree, eliminating ALL suffering might be unwise. If it is, utilitarianism would recognize it, because it's all about OUR preferences, and our preferences are definitely not 'doing unwise things'. So whether it's feasible is an empirical question we should be able to answer in the future.

What we can and should certainly do however, is to increase the 'starting point' in the 'happiness treadmill' of human existence. Imagine a scale from -10 to +10, representing the genetically determined starting point. Some forms of depression work that way (a lack of receptors in the brain or something), so the starting point for these people may be -2. Obviously we should cure that if we can. There have also been a rare amount of interesting cases with people that 'just feel happy almost all the time'. They were doing good in all other aspects of life, and simply had the huge advantage of being happy at it. Their starting point was above zero. +2 is definitely better than -2, and I'm pretty sure it's better than 0. Should we go all the way to +10? Maybe not, but saying 'zero it is' simply because that's what evolution (which doesn't care about ethics or suffering) has equipped us with it would be stupid. Coming back to the topic, the same reengineering should be done with animals too, obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I’m not sure what the goal of ethics should be – but the goal of limiting suffering, while admirable in a limited sense, appears questionable as an ultimate goal. After all, if all suffering were to be eliminated, so would all courage, fortitude, justice, charity, and patience. Perhaps that would be a good thing but perhaps not. Have you ever read the great pre-Tolkien fantasy novel "The Worm Orouboros"? The basic notion is that the heroes win out over their evil enemies, and then regret their inabilty to practice the above virtues without said enemies.

---

This is completely unrealistic. In the short lifespan of humans, suffering in the ordinary sense will never eliminated, so to talk of limiting that is useless speculation. I suppose you're talking about necessity creating a stronger individual/ nation/ breed, but each generation finds different challenges to overcome according to the challenges that arise.

Trying to stop suffering is a noble goal and talk of limitation of that merely a distraction.

That's a reasonable point. However, there are two ways of looking at enhancing human life: one is positive, the other negative. We can either try to minimize suffering or try to maximize (joy, or virtue, or whatever word we want to use to describe admirable human experiences).

Here's a concrete example: when I was younger, I was an avid mountaineer. I even lived in Yosemite for nine months once. Mountaineering, far from limiting suffering, CAUSES suffering. Some of the climbs I remember most fondly were what mountaineers call "epics". In other words, they were made more dramatic by injuries, bad weather, and (in general) suffering. Of course these climbs weren't always fun at the time. But, looking back, it's these climbs I remember -- not the one's made in perfect weather when nothing untoward happened. Yet mountaineering was my choice -- and I freely chose, if not to suffer, at least to participate in an activity where suffering was inevitable, if you climbed often enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

That's a reasonable point. However, there are two ways of looking at enhancing human life: one is positive, the other negative. We can either try to minimize suffering or try to maximize (joy, or virtue, or whatever word we want to use to describe admirable human experiences).

Here's a concrete example: when I was younger, I was an avid mountaineer. I even lived in Yosemite for nine months once. Mountaineering, far from limiting suffering, CAUSES suffering. Some of the climbs I remember most fondly were what mountaineers call "epics". In other words, they were made more dramatic by injuries, bad weather, and (in general) suffering. Of course these climbs weren't always fun at the time. But, looking back, it's these climbs I remember -- not the one's made in perfect weather when nothing untoward happened. Yet mountaineering was my choice -- and I freely chose, if not to suffer, at least to participate in an activity where suffering was inevitable, if you climbed often enough.

---

I think mountaineering and other extreme sports are a choice, and not really related to suffering in a wider sense. The achievement of fulfilling a climb, winning a game of rugby, a race etc, all involve a certain amount of chosen suffering, which is not the issue here. The suffering being discussed is of the unchosen, inevitable type.

Obviously, people choose to climb (although the choice is not to suffer, but to risk suffering). Nonetheless, the BENEFITS and THRILLS of climbing are inextricable from the risk of suffering. I assume some of these same benefits acrue to risky activities that may be UNCHOSEN. So although I see your point, my point continues to be valid as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Obviously, people choose to climb (although the choice is not to suffer, but to risk suffering). Nonetheless, the BENEFITS and THRILLS of climbing are inextricable from the risk of suffering. I assume some of these same benefits acrue to risky activities that may be UNCHOSEN. So although I see your point, my point continues to be valid as well.

---

Life is risky and unchosen. I don't think your point is valid in the sense that not only are these sports chosen voluntarily, they are a priviledge of leisure and wealth. They are not part of the intrinsic suffering that many people have to endure without choice.

I agree that there are thrills and benefits to extreme sports, and, don't get me wrong, I am not against them. I don't think that they are a significant factor in the wider aspet of suffering.

I bet it was good living in Yosemite. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Which is why it is difficult to be dogmatic about vegetarianism and meat eating due to individual needs. Having said that. I'm not sure what you mean about a typical meat eater - of course it is typical - usual in other words. More usual to have health related problems, and amount is an individual thing too.

---

Typically, (Western) people eat way too much meat. Excess is never good and usually leads to problems. I'd like to see a study where meat eaters are not all lumped together in one category. You could easily divide them in different groups e.g. people who eat, on average 1g - 75g of meat per week, people who eat 76g -150g per week and people who weekly eat an average of 150g of meat or more. I'd be interested in the results.

And people who only eat fish (no other meats) are also meat eaters, and they score pretty well in these studies.

Anyway, you hit the nail on the head, it's difficult to be dogmatic about our diets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I bet it was good living in Yosemite. :D

---

It was the approximate equivalent of living in fairyland.

I am a vegan. I love my diet, but I usually keep it to myself unless someone asks.

PETA and hippies have given us a bad rep as arrogant or crazy.