What is this in regards to?

Many things in this thread my friend. Many many things.

Personal truth is not universal truth. That is the claim being evaluated. MJA can believe it all he wants and he can have as much passion for it as he can pull forth but that does not make it true in ANY universal sense. It is as simple as that. We are an omnivorous species and always have been. We are designed to hunt, kill and eat meat. Our bodies digest it, slowly perhaps, but they DO digest it. If meat were not for us then we would not be able to eat it at all. Morality does not play a role here. Nature has no moral ambiguity. It is simply kill or be killed, survival of the fittest. We apply morals to that which we feel will better our lives. But morality, like ethics in general, can never have a universal view because it is all man made.

Morals are like television. An entertaining distraction but in the end, not truth.

That's correct, it is not. And this is the distinction I've been trying to make.

However, I don't believe "truth" must be held to the context of objective measurement. When I state "Personal truth", I am not speaking of a 'true', 'false', logical proposition. Morality is outside the realm of objective rationalization, as I keep noting (and as you noted). I do believe that a moral view can be considered a personal *truth* of that individual however. Again, of course it won't be 'universally true', as there is no objective standpoint from which to measure. And, because of this, mythology and morality should not be evaluated by their logical coherency.

Perhaps I confused those reading when I used the word "truth". To me, "truth" does not have to be held to a universal/objective method. If I agree with a philosophy, it could be *true* to me. Does this make sense?

I've quoted both Zetherin and Icon to make a point.




Not so. Morality has an extraordinarily simple objective basis: do not harm others, or do that which could result in the harm of others (such as destroying the environment). A lot of people understand this only subconsciously, and haven't quite figured out what it is one might do that is potentially harmful to others.

Take homosexuality and the history of religious interpretation of that, for example. Two adults of the same gender having sex . . . does it harm others? Well, if you think it degrades the general moral integrity of one's culture, or threatens to bring down the wrath of God, then you might see gayness as personally threatening. That kind of confusion over what is harmful has thoroughly muddied the question of morality.

Killing animals adds a whole new dimension to the question of harmfulness, and that is: who is to be considered "others." Animals (as Blacks were self-servingly viewed by slave owners) are often not accorded conscious/being/soul-possessing status, so it is okay to treat them however one pleases. I'll complete my interpretation of all this below.




Questionable logic, we might have become omnivores out of desperation. Just because we manage to digest meat doesn't mean our bodies are designed for it. We digest Twinkies and antifreeze too . . . does that mean we were designed for them? The question of "designed for" is decided not just by digestibility, but what the overall effect of eating meat has on our system.




Well, this is another confusing concept. "Truth" is how accurately a statement reflects the nature of reality. If morality is "doing no harm" then evaluating a particular moral as truth must be in regard to how well statements correspond to the reality of harming others.

Getting back to meat eating, if we wish to be moral, and define morality as not harming others, the only question is . . . does eating meat harm others?

But I will agree with what I interpret you as saying, which is that we humans have defined morality; it isn't some external non-human reality that decides it. However, humans are part of reality where we exist, so to that extent, we define the truth of morality.




Okay then! But why punish murderers? Kill any bastard competing with you, and if you are hungry, eat him. Why not have, like the Romans used to, a Sunday afternoon of watching extreme cruelty? After all, the fittest have won, they get to decide what's fun don't they?

You are describing the values of not-so-conscious mostly-carnivorous animals. Do you want to live in that kind of world? We humans decided life would be more enjoyable and less threatening if we had "morals." Animals aren't smart enough to decide that, yet it seems you want us all to descend to that level.

What I mentioned above regarding what "others" are . . . I think that and harm are the questions. If you look back a few pages to my links to articles on the impact of eating meat on the environment, one could make a case that it is extremely damaging to the environment, and extremely costly given the number of starving people needing food. But even more relevant is the absolute horrid, cruel, disgusting circumstances slaughter animals are subjected to on their way to being butchered.

Do you think that because they are not fully human we should care if they suffer so terribly to be our food? Why couldn't we kill them without pain? Hell, these days we are affording that kind of mercy to child killers and rapists, yet it's just fine with meat eaters that poor innocent animals suffer an agonizing existence.

So who are "others"?

I haven't a clue where you've derived that definition of morality, but surely you must understand it can be defined much more broadly than "Do not harm others". Morality is a code of conduct driven by the understanding and distinction of 'right' and 'wrong'. Morality can vary diametrically between culture, and "Do not harm others" simply does not apply to every morality.

You can compile a list of as many cultures and religions that advocate "Do not harm others" as you like, but if but one deviates, it cannot be held as a universally objective measurement. Morality in this way is subjective.

There's no universally objective scale with which to measure:

A.) Moral integrity
B.) The wrath of "God"

'A' could be evaluated through the context of a specific ethical construct, and 'B' could be evaluated through the context of a specific religious construct, but neither are universal. Culture to culture we'd see different returns, as ethics and religion vary culture to culture (methods!). Based on personal beliefs (this is what I'm referring as "Truths"*) one could deduce homosexuality harms others, but this would not be supported by a universally objective method of rationalization. 'A' and 'B' would be subjectively interpreted by the individual and then a conclusion drawn based on what I've said above.

If you can think of any universally objective means with which to measure A or B, please prove me wrong.

* I disagree with your statement:

Again, "truth", in the context I've been using, is a belief, and has a personal nature. It is outside the realm of 'true', 'false'. It should not be put through the rigorous evaluation of logical coherency, whether this coherency reflects nature or not. An example being, "God loves me". This could be a 'personal truth' for someone, and there is no universally objective means of rationalization with which to prove or disprove this statement.

"Killing animals is wrong" just as "Homosexuals harm society" are not complete propositions unless we specify a method with which we will evaluate. If we are to objectively evaluate either, we must provide an objective means with which to measure. "Harm" and "Wrong" are not defined here, and are therefore outside the realm of the objective means with which we are speaking.

For distinction, here is a scientific proposition that could be proven or disproven through scientific method: "The killing of antelope from 1930-1970 has significantly increased the amount of desert shrubs in Africa".

Regardless if this is proven or disproven, "Right" and "Wrong" are outside the scope of scientific method. Therefore, if we claim it is "Wrong" that these antelope died, this has nothing to do with the scientific method.

I'm Really tired of your baseless arguments MJA.

You cannot build a house with no foundation. It falls apart.

To LWSleeth: Where on earth did you come up with those definitions? You post as if we have agreed with those definitions. I do not. Morality is nothing but a human definition placed upon a style of living which promotes humanities strive to better themselves. Unfortunately, mankind is imfamous for driving forward with no particular direction.

Also, digesting is not the only thing which comes to mind. Explain why we have teeth specifically designed for eating meat? If you want to talk evolution, certain primates eat meat. So are they wrong too?

When we speak of universal truth, keep in mind that we must remove the human element from it. Universal truth is FAR FAR FAR beyond humanity. As a matter of fact, I am willing to bet that it is far beyond our comprehension. We are still a very young species and have a lot to learn. We aren't doing so well.

Universally though, nature rules. All things must be in balance but all things are not equal.

And Zeth: I now understand where you are coming from and mostly agree.

This has nothing to do with the excerpt you quoted from me.



Neither does this.

Are you sure you meant to quote me?

Personally I advocate making peace with oneself as a member of a rapacious species that has always despoiled the environment wherever it has gone and whatever it has done. I don't see why this means we 'aren't doing so well'. Who are we in contest with and for what? Is it the purpose of species to last a long time? Is the celeocanth the winner of life?

Humans are just a thing nature has thrown up. In the past nature threw up things such as ranges of volcanic mountains or comets that smashed into the planet - thereby killing swathes of the species that were living on it at the time.

Nature is pretty comfortable with the mass destruction of most of the species it has invented - it doesn't care. That a rapacious primate is responsible for this era's mass extinction is only of relevance to the primate really. The planet couldn't give a flying one.

Humanity is in for a big cull. If we all learned to be vegetarian and therefore freed up pasture and cut methane production we would slow the arrival of this cull. If we all rode bikes rather than drove cars we would slow it. If we never took another journey by plane we would slow it. If we reproduced less prolifically we would slow it.

But let's face it, we won't will we?

Humans need to eat organisms to live. The reason we seem to baulk more at the eating of animals than the eating of plants and fungi seems to me to be based purely on the fact that animals are superficially similar to ourselves. We have no appreciation of the feelings of a plant - so we declare by fiat that they have none.

Undoubtably animals on farms suffer greatly if poorly cared for. Animals on well run organic farms are often kept fed and disease-free to a degree that might produce envy in a wild animal, were it able to feel envy. What would happen to most farm animals if we all became vegetarian? They would have to be slaughtered. If vegetarians really cared about the suffering of animals they would be arguing for widespread careful husbandry and the (humane) elimination of carnivores (the war criminals of the animal kingdom). They don't - like some Pontius Pilate they just wish to wash their own hands of blood, and then preach that their neighbours do the same.

I do not wish to challenge what you are saying about the subjective nature of personal belief, I just challenge that it is "truth".

When you say that something "is true", what are you saying?



We do not have grounds to say that morality is man made simply because it manifests only within human understanding. Morality is a fundamental trait of man, not a derivative one, and nothing can alter its fundamental traits.



An important component of truth is coherency. Basically propositions must fit together as a whole to be individually true.

In this sense morality is not outside the realm of truth values and objective rationalization.

This is precisely what I have been trying to do, show that MJA does not hold a coherent set of beliefs, and that therefore some of these beliefs cannot be true.

Morality was not always present in mankind. It developed through experience. It is also something which is unique per culture which shows that it is not universal at all.

Morality, if you look at the history of such, came about around the same time as spirituality/religion and was not actually possible until spoken and written language which man outdates by a great deal. Before this, man was driven by desire and nature.

It is not a fundamental trait but a developed one.

How would anyone know that?

One cannot know anything. One can only observe and conclude.

As far as I know, MJA is right. I am not debating the possibility of him being correct. I am disagreeing with him due to his lack of evidence. I am here for conversation and deduction. Not blind statements and belief. I don't like the word belief. It is a short cut word when we get too lazy to find truth.

Equality or the Oneness of the Universe is not simply a belief like your theories and faiths, but rather much more simple, and much more perfect than that.
Equal is absolute truth.

"Nothing will benefit human health
and increase chances for survival of life on earth
as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." Albert Eimstein

Nothing but truth will set us free. He was humanely right about a vegetarian diet, because he understood the unity of All things but failed to find the equation that makes it truly so. He searched his entire life for the mathematical proof that lay hidden in the simple foundation of mathematics itself. He failed to achieve his goal by over-complicating what simply and truly is.
= is the mathematical proof that he nor anyone else could find until now. = mathematically Unites Universally us All, and enperically equal does the same. = and equal are One or the same. Now we must teach it, practice it, live it, and truly be it. Equality is our destiny. Its the light at the end of the dark tunnel. Its our salvation, as well as the salvation of this beautiful planet and All of it's life that equally depends on the truth of equality to be so.
= is the Universal solvent we've been looking for.
And now it is time to let it be so,
Under the castles of mathematics lay the foundation of truth.
Under the castles of humanity lay the foundation of us All,
= is simply so,

=
MJA

Your assertation that morality came about at the same time as spirituality is a statement of belief, is it not? I cannot 'look at the history' of such a thing, because it occured in prehistory.

Mr. FTP,

For the sake of conversation, I will refrain from using "personal truth" and instead use "personal belief". I believe this is more appropriate for the notion I am trying to speak.



Beliefs do not have to be coherent; they do not have to go through the rigors of logical evaluation. "Truth" in the sense that you were speaking, does. Many religious beliefs also can be deemed incoherent, without truth-statements, do you also combat those?



I'm not a moral realist, and therefore I do not believe moral/ethical propositions hold any objective value. I suppose you do?



Name me some fundamental traits of morality.

The problem is, your definition of morality is what a dictionary would say, not what a philosopher would propose trying to look into it deeply for meaning. If as philosophers we are to be remotely objective and empirical, we observe reality and then try to see what the general rule is. I can make my case for the definition I gave, you however offer something other than an objective contemplation with a definition that seems contrived to render morality baseless and wholly subjective.

To make my case I would try a few "thought experiments" to test my hypothesis that morals are essentially "do no intentional harm."

My first thought experiment would be to list humanity's most prevalent morals to see if they meet the standard of "do no intentional harm." Is it universally immoral to murder, steal, rape, torture, embezzle, assault, cheat, lie . . . .?

Let's try another test. What if you steal from yourself, or cheat yourself, or assault yourself . . . are you immoral? We'd probably say a person doing that is not so bright, but not immoral. It is the harming of others that gets the immoral label; in fact, I don't think you can list a single intentionally harmful act that most people wouldn't agree is immoral.

Enter religion's influence on (and complication of) morality to help us analyze morality a little deeper. Now, we can still find tribes whose religion lacks moral rules, focusing instead on mostly the superstitious appeasement of spirits/gods; yet the tribes nonetheless have a social concept of morality that includes not to murder, rape, etc. . . . virtually all of it has to do with preventing harm to others.

But organized religion, especially that of Western civilization, is very different from primitive religion in that it incorporates grand theologies that are intended to get us to heaven, obey God's will, and so on. Consequently, a small amount of what religion claims is immoral is designed to preserve religion and its beliefs (such as that gluttony or promiscuity will help send you to hell); even so, the vast majority of religiously-inspired morals -- from the ten commandments to the golden rule -- are something that if obeyed, would result in preventing harm to others.




That sounds impossible to me since if it weren't for humans we'd have no conception of universal or truth or anything else. But why do you feel you can make statements without justifying them with evidence and reason? You merely state universal truth is "FAR FAR FAR" beyond humanity without offering on iota of logic or facts to support your hypothesis.

I believe I find universal truth within me each and every morning I sit down and turn inward, and many thousands of other meditators have reported the same thing. So maybe it is just YOU who feels "FAR FAR FAR" away from that truth, and then you project your lack of experience with it onto the nature of reality.




I don't think you can assume "nature rules," there is still a huge debate going on about this and no one yet has made the deciding argument. Some say, for example (and I am among them) that when it comes to our physical make up, nature has decided the fundamentals; but not everyone views consciousness as limited to its participation in the physical body.




Well, because we don't have teeth designed for eating meat. The evidence indicates all we can say at the very most is that human teeth, along with the entire digestive system, has evolved to be omnivorous.

But before going further, why did you ask "are they wrong too"? Do you think I am claiming eating meat is "wrong"? I want you to understand my ONLY objection to eating meat, and that is the horrible, incessant cruelty done to the millions of slaughter animals each and every day (I also object, though less strenuously, to the immense toll the meat industry takes on the environment, and how many more people could be fed with the grain we feed slaughter animals). Take the cruelty out of the story, and my "moral" complaint goes with it (which I actually see as my empathy for living things, at least those with central nervous systems).

Anyway, getting back to what humans are "designed" to eat, you've probably seen Mill's anatomical analysis of humans compared to true carnivores. I don't think it proves we are herbivores, but his evidence is food for thought. From an online article:

Teeth and Nails
To contrast human physiology with that of carnivores, start at the beginning of the digestive tract. Teeth, nails, and jaw structure indicate that nature intended for people to eat a plant-based diet. They have much shorter and softer fingernails than animals and pathetically small "canine" teeth (they're canine in name only). In contrast, carnivores all have sharp claws and large canine teeth capable of tearing flesh.

The jaws of carnivores move only up and down, requiring them to tear chunks of flesh from their prey and swallow it whole. Humans and other herbivores can move their jaws up and down and from side to side, a movement that allows them to grind up fruit and vegetables with their back teeth. Like other herbivores, human back molars are flat and allow the grinding of fibrous plant foods. Carnivores lack these flat molars. If humans had been meant to eat meat, they would have the sharp teeth and claws of carnivores. Instead, their jaw structure, flat molars, and lack of claws indicate that they are best suited for a plant-based diet.

Dr. Richard Leakey, a renowned anthropologist, summarizes, "You can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand. Our anterior teeth are not suited for tearing flesh or hide. We don't have large canine teeth, and we wouldn't have been able to deal with food sources that require those large canines."

Stomach Acidity
After using their sharp claws and teeth to capture and kill their prey, carnivores swallow their food whole, relying on their extremely acidic stomach juices to do most of the digestive work. The stomach acid of carnivores actually plays a dual role-besides breaking down flesh, the acid also kills the dangerous bacteria that would otherwise sicken or kill the meat-eater.

As illustrated in the chart below, our stomach acids are much weaker in comparison because strong acids aren't needed to digest pre-chewed fruits and vegetables. In comparing the stomach acidity of carnivores and herbivores, it is obvious that humans fall into the latter category. We can cook meat to kill some of the bacteria and make it easier to chew, but it's clear that humans, unlike all natural carnivores, are not designed to easily digest meat.

Intestinal Length
Evidence of our herbivorous nature is also found in the length of our intestines. Carnivores have short intestinal tracts and colons that allow meat to pass through it relatively quickly, before it has a chance to rot and cause illness. Humans, on the other hand, have intestinal tracts that are much longer than carnivores of comparable size. Like other herbivores, longer intestines allow the body more time to break down fiber and absorb the nutrients from a plant-based diet.

The long human intestinal tract actually makes it dangerous for people to eat meat. The bacteria in meat have extra time to multiply during the long trip through the digestive system, and meat actually begins to rot while it makes its way through the intestines. Many studies have also shown that meat can cause colon cancer in humans.

Comparing our anatomies clearly illustrates the fact that the human body is built to run on a vegetarian diet. Humans have absolutely none of the distinguishing anatomical characteristics that either carnivores or even natural omnivores have. Read author John Robbins' discussion of the anatomical differences between humans and carnivores.

Here is a chart from "The Comparative Anatomy of Eating" by Dr. Milton Mills that compares the typical anatomical features of carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, and humans. 2 Notice how closely human physical characteristics match those of herbivores:

Facial Muscles
Carnivore: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
Omnivore: Reduced
Herbivore: Well developed
Human: Well developed
Jaw Motion
Carnivore: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
Omnivore: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
Herbivore: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Human: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Teeth (Incisors)
Carnivore: Short and pointed
Omnivore: Short and pointed
Herbivore: Broad, flattened, and spade-shaped
Human: Broad, flattened, and spade-shaped
Teeth (Canines)
Carnivore: Long, sharp, and curved
Omnivore: Long, sharp, and curved
Herbivore: Dull and short or long (for defense) or none
Human: Short and blunted
Teeth (Molars)
Carnivore: Sharp, jagged, and blade-shaped
Omnivore: Sharp blades and/or flattened
Herbivore: Flattened with cusps vs. complex surface
Human: Flattened with nodular cusps
Chewing
Carnivore: None; swallows food whole
Omnivore: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
Herbivore: Extensive chewing necessary
Human: Extensive chewing necessary
Saliva
Carnivore: No digestive enzymes
Omnivore: No digestive enzymes
Herbivore: Carbohydrate-digesting enzymes
Human: Carbohydrate-digesting enzymes
Stomach Acidity
Carnivore: Less than or equal to pH of 1 with food in stomach
Omnivore: Less than or equal to pH of 1 with food in stomach
Herbivore: pH of 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Human: pH of 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Length of Small Intestine
Carnivore: 3 to 6 times body length
Omnivore: 4 to 6 times body length
Herbivore: 10 to more than 12 times body length
Human: 10 to 11 times body length
Nails
Carnivore: Sharp claws
Omnivore: Sharp claws
Herbivore: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
Human: Flattened nails

"As you've been using it"? Why not stick to accepted definitions used in philosophy? Is this a philosophy site or a place for people to make up their own philosophical definitions and their own procedures for reason?

One good reason the correspondence model for truth is the standard for philosophy, and science, is because of the kind of mess you propose as a theory of truth results in nonsense and utter confusion, as I will now demonstrate.

Some people think there is a "universal truth," some people believe there is a "personal truth," some believe there are both, and yet others say there is no truth at all. But there is a problem with using the word "truth" because of its relation to accuracy.

What is actually being described with the word "truth" is reality; i.e., the person is saying reality is like this or like that, AND his characterization of reality is true. From there he eliminates the entire process of what would reveal if his statement/belief about reality is true and instead just uses the word "truth" as a descriptor.

Truth is a process achieved through human consciousness, and it has no relevance outside that domain. We, from our individual spots in the universe, observe reality. How many realities are there?


[SIZE="7"]ONE[/SIZE]


How many descriptions of reality are there?


[SIZE="7"]ZILLIONS[/SIZE]


Does your description correspond to reality? If it does, it is "true" and if it doesn't then it is inaccurate. A truth, therefore describes reality.


Now, are there universal truths and personal truths? Nope. Because there is only one reality, there are only true (accurate) statements about it and inaccurate statements about it (which isn't to say a true statement can only be said one way). Are there aspects of reality that are universally the same? Some say there are but it is hard to know because no one can go every possible place that exists to check.

What about "personal truths." This is really nonsense, to the core. It might be that I know something you don't, and there is no way for you to tell if I do know or don't, but it doesn't change the fact that either my belief/statement about reality corresponds to actual reality, or it doesn't.

Are there things that are a certain way for me but not for you? Of course, but that does not create a separate or "personal" truth! There is a sun shining on a tree over there, but not on the tree here. Are we going to say each tree has its own truth? No, we say each tree exists in reality in unique ways, and then the statements we make about the tree in its frame of reference is true or false.

Truth is a consciousness function, not a property of or synonym for reality.




Harm is easy in this case. Unnecessarily cruel, brutal, excruciatingly painful existence and death for innocent animals. And measurement isn't the only standard for being human, we can feel too, at least some of us can. Others seem deadened to anything but their own lusts.

The meat-eaters' hypocrisy continues to amaze me. Everyone is so outraged at Michael Vick's cruelty to dogs, yet that is a vacation in paradise compared to what millions of cows, pigs, lambs, and chickens go through each and every day. Where is all the outrage over that?




Did you read my post, or are you just saying whatever pops into your head. I specifically took aim at the cruelty involved in the meat business. Since we have the technology to make it humane, the only conclusion to draw is that meat eaters just don't give a sh*t about anything but getting their bloody meat fix. Torture millions of animals a day, raise them under horrible conditions, pump them full of drugs and hormones . . . sure, why not have sex with them too, and play darts using their faces as dart boards . . .they are just unfeeling, stupid beasts here because we SUPERIOR humans have a right to treat other creatures any way we please if we want something bad enough.

Every statement you make in denial of what's going on in slaughter houses only further confirms the suspicion that meat eaters are less human than those who love animals. All you'd have to do, for me anyway, is to say "you know Les, those animals do deserve a good life and death, we should find a way to do that." Instead you rationalize at every turn.

But hey, if you want to really get your rocks off, here's a couple of videos and articles showing how much fun it is for slaughter animals. Just kick back, get yourself a burger and a beer, and enjoy the cruelty!


Meat.org: The Web Site the Meat Industry Doesn't Want You to See

Extreme acts of animal cruelty, beef recall | Salon News

GoVeg.com // Cruelty to Animals: Mechanized Madness

Thank you for offering some scientific evidence on this thread. I think that was what most people here were looking for. I will have to research some of the references before I can comment though. I am just glad to see something other than the ranting of self justification.

Thanks for the thanks I've seen Mills' analysis critiqued step by step, and ending with the conclusion (by the critic) that an omnivore design is just as indicated by those factors as Mills' claim we have an herbivore design.

Personally, I spent the first 25 years of my life eating a hearty midwest country diet centered around meat, and the last 36 years not eating meat. Without question I spend less energy digesting my food, stay healthier, and recover more quickly when I do get sick on a balanced, healthy diet of fruits, vegetables, grains and a little dairy.