What you're saying is not related to an objective morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Printable View
What you're saying is not related to an objective morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Who cares about what Christians say about the issue? Christianity is most likely wrong. Same with Jainism (though at least they're never hurting anyone, if they want to do MORE than technically necessary then let them do it, if it makes them happy that's great). Of course it comes down to individual choice eventually, but that doesn't mean all ethical systems are equal! Do you really think all ethical systems result in the same amount of well-being? Is slavery even wrong under Christianity? Suppose it wasn't (might well be the case, I think it's ambiguous), would you say the same stuff you're saying now about slavery? It's a 'personal choice'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
You're thinking in absolutes, but that's not necessary. Eating meat causes suffering. Not eating meat when you HAVE TO in order to survive causes suffering too, and even death. So obviously the moral thing to do is to choose the path with less suffering (which would be eating meat, while still trying to treat the animals well). Who eats the most meat in the world? Rich Westeners. They DO have alternatives. Many of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I'm not even a perfect 'vegan' myself. I still eat milk/eggs/cheese quite often. I know it's bad, but it's also hard to make the transition. At least I try not to be too much of a hypocrite.
As for '(not) making a positive impression', who cares? I'm not trying to be loved by everyone, I'm trying to raise awareness that we should reduce the suffering in the world. And I don't condemn people (merely their habits), how could I when I've been a meat-eater for the most part of my life. I know how it is.
True, it's a good thing. And maybe science is soon able to produce artificial meat out of the lab. Without 'brains' and 'consciousness'. That would solve all the problems (if people could get over their 'gross!!-intuitions' that is).Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Another relativist... Why not accept that some positions make more sense / produce more happiness than others? You don't even have to agree with ME, but at least you can take a stand and DISagree with the more outlandish suggestions. I have good reasons to think killing for food is only intrinsically immoral when the killed beings are self-aware. But since we agree on suffering, our views aren't too far apart. What I'm wondering now is just why you can make statements like 'x is immoral' while (further below) maintaining that you're a product of your biology. Either you have moral responsibility, or you don't. You can't make claims about morality and then hide behind biology. Make a choice (:Quote:
Originally Posted by Armel P
Yeah I get it, some studies are biased. But saying 'for every study saying one thing, there's a study saying something else' is a huge exageration calling into question the whole enterprise of science. You can't be that pessimistic. Think of all the diseases we can cure at the moment. We managed to more than double the life expectancy in the last 200 years. A lot of that is due to findings from 'studies'. Every new drug has to complete study trials (and yeah, they're sometimes 'bought', but that doesn't mean you should abandon its merit altogether).Quote:
Originally Posted by Armel P
Anyway, vegetarianism IS healthier than a meat-heavy diet. There's a scientific consensus.
Why wouldn't you go against your 'genetic nature'? Many people are born with hereditary diseases. We treat these diseases. In the short future, we'll be able to splice out the defective genes from the genome, or at least select sperms or egg cells that don't have the particular defect (this is already done actually with the gene for Huntington's Chorea) and then perform an in-vitor fertilization with only 'healthy' chromosomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Armel P
Nature isn't 'good', that the naturalistic fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Nature is indifferent to good and evil, indifferent to suffering. Xenophobia and hatred of out-groups is in our genes too. So is pronness to violence or rape, at least in some cases. That doesn't mean we HAVE TO act that way. Genes aren't deterministic (except for i.e. Huntington's Chorea), there are other factors shaping human behavior. And fortunately, compassion, empathy and reason are in our genes too. We have to cultivate the good stuff and beware and supress the bad stuff.
I don't believe in 'free will' in the sense it's most commonly understood. But if you think about it, who really does? If free will means you could technically do several different actions at some exact point in time, with all the input (genes, memories, outside situation, memes / neuron firing patterns etc.) being the same, then what/who would actually be making the decision?? Without 'deterministic factors' (the input I was talking about), we wouldn't have REASONS for our actions / decisions. It would have to be random. The traditional definition of 'free will' is self-contradicting.
Daniel Dennett came up with a new, useful definition:
Free will is whatever gives us moral responsibility, if we have it.
And yes, most people do have it. That's why punishment works as a deterrent, at least to some extent. We can grasp moral truths, and we try to act morally, at least most of the time, if the temptations aren't too big.
"Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence; the gift of revulsion against its implications; the gift of foresight - something utterly foreign to the blundering short-term ways of natural selection - and the gift of internalizing the very cosmos."
- Richard Dawkins
I never mentioned objective morality. I'm saying that your stance about evolution making you a meat eating omnivore is not the whole story. That's just the starting point. As an individual, you can make the choice about what you eat. Evolutionary excuses can be given for all kinds of activity which are really about power an domination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Armel P
I merelly referred to Christianity and Jainism as representing two poles of attitudes concerning eating meat. I'm not quite sure why you are going on about all ethical system being equal. I'm talking about the range of perspectives on eating meat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
I'm a vegetarian because killing animals causes suffering. I've mentioned choice in earlier posts.
As for '(not) making a positive impression', who cares? I'm not trying to be loved by everyone, I'm trying to raise awareness
This is misguided. Nor am I interested in being loved by everyone. My point is that it is less effective to be aggressively vegetarian than to set a positive example. Soap box vegetarianism does more harm than good. It hardens attitudes, and polarises the argument. There is a good case for vegetarianism which can stand by itself - health, morality, as it causes inordinate suffering, and it is economically more sensible.
Unfortunately the terror of the slaughterhouse begins some time before this process. Many years ago, I was being driven along a country road in a friend's car when we were held up because a large van had stopped in the road. The vehicle was a cattle transporter and one of the cows had broken out and was trying to run into a field while two men were trying to force it back into the van. When we managed to pass the van we could see by the sign painted on it that it was a slaughterer's vehicle. I said to my friend what a terrible thing it was for the animal but he didn't reply and looked fixedly ahead with this jaws clenched. From that day on he refused to eat meat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Yes. As I said, I worked in a slaughterhouse in the 1980's - times were hard, I couldn't get a job etc etc. I saw this all the time; the fear present in the animals as they were unloaded from the wagons. Pigs would often die in transit due to stress, and there was always the chance that animals would be injured going into the lairage. There were vets on site to ensure that the animals were looked after whilst they were there - which always seemed a bit odd to me, but must have had a better effect than if they weren't present. Some of the workers were not exactly cruel, in the pain inducing way, but would terrorise the animals into the slaughter pens. It's not a nice industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
I know you're a vegetarian, even for the same general reasons as I am. Some of what you said earlier just had this relativistic component in it. Meaning 'I am vegetarian for personal reasons, but if other people choose something else then there's nothing wrong with it'. If you have sound moral reasons, so should they. So basically if we're disagreeing somewhere (I'm not even sure we are), then it's about meta-ethics, the 'reach' of ethics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Fair enough. It's the same with 'strategies promoting atheism', either be blunt and risk to alienate lots of 'moderates', or be respectful while still subtly pointing out things. I personally think the former is more effective, but I can't be sure. Something to think about though: You mention 'morality' as a reason. That's just what I'm doing too, making a strong moral case. And as I see it, it's either right or wrong, there's no middle ground. People should at least try to eat less meat, and look where it comes from choosing the more animal-friendly ways of production. Many already do this -- great! And fortunately, as you said, there are also ecological (this sorta touches morality too because we have responsibility for future generations, as well as towards starving / dying of thirst people living in the present), money- and health related reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
We are basically in agreement about the meat thing, just not about whether we can change others' behaviour by what we say. I don't think we can, and I would not want to try. Some religious people try this method, but I'm pretty sure it puts off more than it attracts. Against the weight of family and culture, what we say is probably meaningless in the wider sense. I have little faith in that method. We can perhaps hope to influence people near us by our example, but not necessarily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
Of course there's always more that can be done - pressure groups, whistle blowing, monitoring etc etc. It depends whether you or I are in a position to do any of that, or are even willing to do it. I'm wary of radical groups - it's not perhaps their ideals, but the type of people they attract and their personal agendas. I prefer a softer approach.
That's exactly my point. We could talk forever about why, that part doesn't really matter. What does matter is that when people try to take the stance that they're "educating" us, especially on issues of morality (implying that we are the ones who are immoral), we'll take the opposite stance and do it in as blatantly and excessively as possible. In short, if you keep preaching about eating meat, people are going to get annoyed and eat MORE meat, and it will be your fault that more animals died (which I assume is the opposite reaction to what you want). This isn't just true of vegetarianism, it's the way things are with almost everything. I first became an atheist because of evangelists (you've got to admit that they're annoying, and when was the last time that Jehovah's Witnesses actually converted someone?). You'd be better off shutting up about how morally superior you are. If you want people to listen to your point, you've got to think of a less heavy-handed way to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
And Augustine wasted 15 minutes of my life talking about how he stole some pears?...He woulda' written volumes over this. xDQuote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
I don't think the argument about the way in which animals are slaughtered is a good one. It doesn't take into account that, whatever your circumstances, there is no pleasant way to die. Consider the ways in which an animal may be killed in a slaughterhouse and compare them to the ways in which an animal may die in the wild. I know which kind of death I would choose for myself.
In all honesty, if I was to be reborn as an animal, I think I would prefer the security of a farm than the life of a wild animal. From a certain point of view farming is the best thing that happened to animals, much as you might say industrial civilisation was the best thing to happen to us. It reminds me of Hobbes's idea about the state of nature being nasty, brutish and short. Perhaps you believe in the idea of a noble savage...maybe a pig left in the wild leads a blissful uncorrupted life, but it seems to run counter to the principle of natural selection.
In Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennett writes:
I don't know what I think about this idea. I think it comes down to where you find the value in being alive. I do have a big problem with animals being battery farmed but I don't see that eating meat is necessarily wrong. I feel quite happy eating free range meat...in fact I think it may be better than not eating meat at all. Nobody will notice if I become a vegetairian but if I pay twice as much money for an ethically farmed chicken I am sure it will register somewhere.Quote:
How clever of wild sheep to have acquired that most versatile adaptation, the shepherd! By forming a symbiotic alliance with Homo sapiens, sheep could outsource their chief survival tasks: food finding and predator avoidance. They even got shelter and emergency medical care thrown in as a bonus. The price they paid – losing the freedom of mate selection and being slaughtered instead of being killed by predators (if that is a cost) – was a pittance compared with the gain in offspring survival it purchased.
[my emphasis]Quote:
Originally Posted by ladderandbucket
That's exactly what it comes down to. Additionally, there's the question whether our treatment of animals being 'somewhat better' than nature's is 'enough'. (And we'd be talking about nice farms here, factory farms are clearly worse than nature's average.)
I think the argument you introduced doesn't hold up. Nature is indeed cruel, but that doesn't give us the right to mimic it.
In Saudi Arabia, all religions except Islam are severely discriminated against. Does that mean other countries should/can ban Islam? Obviously not, because by repeating the mistakes of others, we'd be giving up the edge that allows us to call it a 'mistake' in the first place. We know better, so we should do better.
Now to the 'value of being alive'. This is a far-reaching question, but I think the answer is obvious when you think it through. I don't see any reason why 'life' should have intrinsic value. Maybe 'happy life / happiness' has it, but even that's highly questionable. If we accept that 'happy life' is ethically desirable, we would have to try our very best to fill the whole universe with happy sentient beings (and, if necessary, even sacrifice some pre-existing happiness for more beings). Parents would be obliged to have as many children as possible if they're wealthy enough to raise them happily. Intuitionally, that doesn't seem right.
I think 'creating life' is a morally neutral process, the interests of a sentient being can only come into play once it actually exists. So we're not doing the animals a favor by having them in masses, because if they didn't exist, they couldn't care.
Dennett is probably right about the sheep, but only in a limited way. If 'sheep consciousness' only lives 'in the moment' and doesn't care about future plans, then they might as well have gone extinct, ethically it wouldn't make a (direct) difference. This may sound counterintuitive, but the conclusion rests on solid assumptions (preference utilitarianism, see 'Practical Ethics' by Peter Singer for an introduction). Anyway, cows, pigs and chicken have it, on average, much worse than sheep, so the 'better than the state of nature' reasoning doesn't apply there.
Off topic:
The Dennett quote is awesome in regard to religion. I wish I had read 'Breaking the Spell' instead of 'God Delusion' (I love Dennett's books; Dawkins is great too but he's better with biology), but since I've had my fair share of religion debates, I'd probably be bored by the unavoidable redundancy that comes with reading several books on the same topic.
I see your point. Maybe I'm naive, but I'm somewhat optimistic regarding the strength of reason. Admittably, from all the countless discussions I've had with religious people, I only changed the minds of four (that I know of, and three of them were already starting to doubt certain things they'd been told); and regarding vegetarianism, I've only managed to make some people a little bit more aware of the issue (i.e. they'd try to eat a bit less and look better where they buy from), but still, I'm trying (: After all, I myself became, against my primordial meat-loving desires, convinced that the choice was either vegetarianism or hypocricy, all this by mere arguments. Also, I don't like the word 'preaching' because it implies dogma. I don't see myself as having all the answers, I'm just providing input for dialouge. I'm very confident about my views, but I have changed them regarding some issues in the past, so they might change again in the future if I ever encounter convincing arguments against them. But yeah, maybe being less 'aggressive' works better. Actually, I'm less 'aggressive' about the issues in real-life, there I'm more 'polite'. Here it's all about hard facts and arguments, mere text, no emotions (:Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
The Buddhist view on this concerns suffering. I don't want to railroad the discussion into Buddhism, but it does provide a consistent worldview on this topic. The view is that all sentient beings strive to achieve happiness. Some good points were made earlier about farmed animals having food, shelter and medicine, which won't necessarily happen in the wild. Herd animals may benefit from this, though it is not clear cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
As for filling the universe with happy beings, the Buddhist worldview sees this as impossible, as we exist in a state of constat suffering. Besides this, resources are scarce and you could suffer due to the lack. Who is happier - poverty stricken kids in large families in the third world or limited children in a progressive economy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
This is partially why I don't tell people about it. Usually the only time it comes up is when I go out to dinner with people and they want to know why I don't get the meat entrées. One such time was just a week ago, when I chose a salad since every other item was with meat. The reactions were not pleasant.
Unfortunately the majority are meat eaters, and so they can gang up on you. You're an easy target, but then again, who's folowing the herd?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by faithosaurus
I don't consider it morally wrong to kill an animal in order to feed myself. I do consider the meat industry to be morally wrong. So I make sure I know where my meat comes from. I'm very strict about this.
I believe a healthy diet is a balanced one with lots of vegetables and fruit and small amounts of meat. I believe a balanced diet is a lot healthier than a vegetarian diet.
I like the fact that I can have a natural, nutritious healthy diet composed solely of local produce and meat without having to take supplements. That's something none of my vegetarian friends can do. And they do admit this.
It would be a lot better if people in general ate less meat and even insert a few "veggie days" in their week, though.
It's my understanding that there are fewer cancers associated with a veggie diet. On a more mundane level, I never get the stomach troubles of the kind that are associated with meat. Nor does the family.
I don't see why a vegetarian would need supplements (if that's what is being suggested--it might not be...). I don't use them. Vegans apparently need supplements, but a vegetarian that eats dairy products and/or eggs shouldn't need them at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Propter W.
That being said, it sounds like you have a good thing going on, Propter--I certainly don't mean to disparage the main thrust of your post (that being your approach to nutrition.)
I think this is a misguided approach. The logical error is:Quote:
Who cares about what Christians say about the issue? Christianity is most likely wrong.
P1: Christianity is based on historical errors (such as, "God exists").
P2: Christian ethics are the result of such errors.
Therefore: Christian ethics are "most likely wrong".
However, the conclusion may very well be in error. Whether or not the Christian ethos is based on factual or historical errors, Christian ethics have a few things going for them: 1) They have stood the test of time (nearly 2000 years); 2) They have been thoroughly investigated by the leading intellectuals of many centuries; 3) They are inextricably connected to standard, Western ethics (and most of us are Westerners).
In addition, the above conclusion does not follow from the premises. The ancients believed the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong. Nonetheless, they could predict when the sun would rise, or when the winter solstice would occur. Although their premises were incorrect, their conclusions about when the days would start growing longer were accurate. It would have been incorrect to say, “Who cares what ancient astronomers said about when the solstice would occur – they were most likely wrong.”
My point is that one cannot assume that because there is no God, it is now OK to refrain from loving one’s neighbor as oneself, or that it is now OK to kill, steal, and covet one’s neighbor’s wife. Basic Christian ethics remain the essence of modern, atheistic, liberal ethics. When we believe that modern, scientific US can ignore the wisdom of the past because it was based on precepts we no longer accept, we do so at our peril (as a century of Marxism may suggest). All ethics are culturally constituted, and “dialogic”. Westerners cannot (and do not) invent new ethics in a vacuum.
By the way, I've been reading some Mikhail Bakhtin recently (hence my use of "dialogic" in the above post). Here's a Wikipedia explanation:
Quote:
The term 'dialogic', however, does not just apply to literature. For Bakhtin, all language - indeed, all thought - appeared dialogic. This means that everything anybody ever says always exists in response to things that have been said before and in anticipation of things that will be said in response. We never, in other words, speak in a vacuum. As a result, all language (and the ideas which language contains and communicates) is dynamic, relational and engaged in a process of endless redescriptions of the world. That said, Bakhtin also emphasized certain uses of language that maximized the dialogic nature of words, and other uses that attempted to limit or restric their polyvocality. At one extreme is novelistic discourse, particularly that of a Dostoevsky (or Mark Twain) in which various registers and languages are allowed to interact and respond to each other. At the other extreme would be the military order (or 1984 newspeak) which attempts to minimize all orientations of the work toward the past or the future, and which prompts no response but obedience.
One of my best friends has to take supplements mainly due to iron deficiency, as did my ex-girlfriend. Most other vegetarians I know don't take supplements but eat all kinds of foodstuffs that contain vital minerals, proteins... The bulk of this food is not produced locally, however. That's why I said I can find everything my body and mind need locally whereas my veggie friends can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
I like to think I have a good thing going on too :smile5:
No doubt that's true. But these studies usually focus on the typical meat eater. And the typical meat eater eats too much meat. I'm talking about a balanced diet. Generally I eat red meat two or three times a week and my portions don't exceed 150g.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I've never had stomach troubles at all. I'm not talking about scientific studies, by the way, I'm talking about my own experience.
I tried a vegetarian diet twice. Both times it had the same result: I felt weaker, I had less energy, I was tired, got head aches and felt lifeless. When I started to eat meat again I felt better almost instantly. It didn't take three days before my skin had a healthier, livelier hue and my energy levels were completely replenished. I simply felt a thousand times better and healthier. The second time I was a little bit more careful, but to no avail, I stayed weak, tired and listless.
I then decided to simply stop buying mass produced meat. My opposition to the meat industry is the only reason why I'd consider a vegetarian diet anyway, so I've found a way around it. The chicken I eat walked and lived freely in my back yard, as did the sheep. I took care of these animals (together with my father and a friend of the family). We also have our own pigs (not in our backyard). We get our other meat from a local ecological farmer. This meat is not your average store bought meat. It's actually a lot healthier. The pork, mutton and chicken is actually a lot tastier too.
D'uh, so Christianity AND Christian ethics are most likely wrong, I'd of course agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
1) Do you seriously believe that counts as an argument? People thought the earth was flat for probably over 40'000 years.
2) Intellectuals who believed in a God that gives dogmatic laws. If they can't think for themselves, then what use are they? (To be fair, some recognized that it can't be that simple. They saw that if 'the good' is good only because God chose it, he might as well have chosen that torture is good. If not, it exists indepently of God, so he's not needed for ethics. Still, those intellectuals were too influenced by the Bible to come up with great results.)
3) That's wrong, an unfortunately common misconception. People like to talk of 'Christian Values', but what they actually mean (mostly anyway) is values from the Enlightenment, which had specifically been eked out against Christian dogma. Women's rights, non-discrimination of homosexuals, freedom to have a private, guilt-free sex life, freedom of religion (one of the ten commandments is 'thou shalt not worship other gods'), freedom of speech (no blasphemy laws), no slavery (that one might be ambiguous, but the Bible did NOT specifically condemn it), I could go on! Western culture is based on SECULAR VALUES.
I see your point, but the question is whether these predictions are dependent solely on the 'sung going round the earth' theory. They weren't because they weren't calculating the sun's movement at all, they simply noticed patterns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Who actually loves one's neighbor as oneself? No one. And is it really that useful? Not really. And we don't need God to tell us that killing is wrong (and ironically, apparently god often ASKED people to kill for him, so what about that part?). Morality is 'dialogic', because society changes slowly. Christians today have, on average, hugely different moral beliefs than Christians 1000 years ago, yet the Bible is still the same! But that doesn't mean 'ethics' has to go that slow, dialogic way too. Kant, Mill, Rawls, they all proposed quite new ethical systems. Either way, don't act as if Western culture is based on 'Christian values', that's just absurd. Buddhists aren't Christians, but they don't kill each other all the time! Now isn't that surprising.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Obviously, there is a "dialogic" interaction betwen Christianity and Western values that has been going on for nearly two millenia. You think that you can reason your way to a superior set of ethics. I don't buy it. Ethics don't devolop in a vacuum -- they develop over the centuries; they are subject to evolutionary pressures (values that are overtly harmful to human societies, for example, are probably selected against and do not sruvive). That's why the test of time is a reasonable and important factor in developing an ethos.
I'll grant that we may not "need a God" to tell us what is right and wrong. However, all I suggested is that we refrain from throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It does not follow from the belief that there is no God that the moral precepts of the Bible (or the moral precepts of the Enlightenment, or of Liberal 19th century thinking) should be ignored. As Bakhtin might say, all moral precepts are relational, and exist in response to those that have gone before, and in anticipation of those to come.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Propter W.
A quick note: I haven't read Feyerabend's book "The Tyranny of Science", but it looks interesting:
http://politybooks.com/book.asp?ref=9780745651897
Evolutionary pressures? That's absurd, evolution favors power and oppression. Germany with its ethics did great in the beginning of the second world war. Values aren't overthrown because they're bad to human societies. They're overthrown because people realize they're bad for certain human beings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
I think you're confusing the practical with 'in principle ethics'. In order for a whole society to be following 'one code of morality', it has to be practically feasible. Even if Christianity was in principle right about sex being evil except for procreation purposes in married couples, this code of morality would not work for a society -- at least if we don't modify human nature.
Perfect utilitarianism can never be the official code of a society, because it would demand too many sacrifices (veganism, no luxury). But it is still useful as an ideal to aspire to, much like Jesus was useful for that.
My point is that objectively, there has to be one way to behave which produces the most happiness / preference fulfillment, and the goal of ethics would be to find that way. And why use dialogue if one can think it through with armchair reasoning?
You already support such a position, it would be more interesting for you to read something you DISagree with. I strongly suggest you pick up 'Practical Ethics' at some point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Since I don't know what Feyerabend's position is in "Tyranny of Science", I can't say that I support it. I do know that Feyerabend is probably the most respected philosopher of science since Kuhn (Feyerabend died in 1994, and this last book was published posthumously).
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.
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.)Quote:
My point is that objectively, there has to be one way to behave which produces the most happiness / preference fulfillment, and the goal of ethics would be to find that way. And why use dialogue if one can think it through with armchair reasoning?
No one on this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikhar
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikhar
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
(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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
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.
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.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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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.
It was the approximate equivalent of living in fairyland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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.