Vegetarianism is a Higher level View

@MJA,

I'm thinking of becoming a vegetarian. I love salad. Especially chef salad.

@MJA,

LWSleeth,

First, I clarified "personal truth" up top (see my last post to Mr. FTP). I understand "truth" is not the right word for what I was proposing. I have since ceased used of "personal truth" and will instead use "personal belief". I hope this settles your fury regarding this issue.

LWSleeth wrote:

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.

"Animals go through pain after I cut them with a hatchet" is not a moral proposition - it can be evidenced by the research into nervous systems - an objective means of rationalization. However, "It's wrong to put animals in pain when I cut them with a hatchet" is a moral proposition. I hope you see the distinction, and this is one of the points I was trying to make in my last post. Let's be very clear: I never made a moral judgment regarding this situation in my conversation with you.

LWSleeth wrote:

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.

Quote me one statement I made in denial of what's going on in slaughter houses.

Next, quote me where I noted I did or did not think what was going on in the slaughter houses was wrong (or right - any moral judgment).

Thanks.

---

Perhaps you should go back and read my last post. I addressed three points, all of which you seem to have either misunderstood or ignored:

I was distinguishing "personal belief" (I've since clarified the word, as admittedly it did not fit well) and objective truth. That is, some propositions should not be placed under the rigorous evaluation of logical coherency, for they are out of the realm of objective rationalization. This includes, but is not limited to, mystical notions such as, "God loves me", moral notions such as "I think it's wrong to kill animals", and other beliefs that do not necessarily have valid truth-statements. Some of them may have truth-statements, and for these to hold any weight, read point 3.
Morality is not limited to "Do not harm others". I've elaborated on this in my last post, but basically: Morality is much broader than you stated.
Statements which may be moral propositions but seem to elicit an objective understanding, the example we used "Homosexuals harm society", must have a method of objective evaluation specified if they are to hold any truth. In this case, "Harm" must be defined, and an objective measurement of *how* society is being harmed (maybe 12,000 people are dying a year, for example).

@MJA,

I do believe vegetarianism is one of the hardest commitments and can show some great self-restraint. Although, I do agree that vegetarianism is a higher level view, not being that it's higher than people who choose to eat meat but in general. People say animals were put here on Earth by God for our consuming uses, but humans take that to a horrid extant.

In my views, I believe we would be better off killing a few whales or bigger animals here and there then mass-slaughtering thousands of chickens. That's thousands of lives for only a little bit of meat when we could only kill one whale, which is one life, to save hundreds to possibly thousands of lives.

@Zetherin,

Morals + Survival + Practicality + Ego = Better Solution?

Morals

By itself, the moral, that killing animals is cruel seems to be the most common answer from the human emotional spectrum. We feel physical pain, that may not be similar to an animals pain, but the premise that it is not embraced seems to hold its weight.

Survival

By itself, Humans can have good immune systems without eating meat.

Practicality

By itself, it is not realistic to expect the entire human population to stop the process of meat consumption. Jobs and economic stability have repercussions in this area.

Ego
by itself, if we hold the ego just a fraction higher then the previous subjects then they don't matter.

Better Solution?

Seems to me that if you want everyone to eat meat, then your ignoring other human traits. If you Think we should be working on a way to improve the process of meat consumption, then you incorporate some of the each subject above. And if you want everybody to stop eating meat, then you are ignoring other human traits.
This is all subjective due to the wide applications, but I think the final agreement should be understood. We butcher millions of animals in The United States alone. The United States wastes food and consumes above the needed human standards. This is becoming a trend in other countries as well. That's the problem with eating meat. Its becoming a by any means situation which leads to really bad methods. Also we as a race, do not share(Sharing has nothing to do with value, its done without rules or regulations, although we like to label "practicality" as such). That's important to remember.

oops. I left out my final thought on the threads statement.

Vegetarianism is not a HIGHER anything. Its just a solution that could or could not solve whatever problems we have with Human and animal and environment interactions. It all Depends on Human commitment to an idea.

@Joe,

[CENTER]"The time will come when men such as I
will look upon the murder of animals
as they now look upon the murder of men."

LEONARDO DA VINCI (1425-1519)
Italian sculptor, artist and inventor
[/CENTER]
That time has come for me too.

=
MJA

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;54257 wrote:

Morality is not limited to "Do not harm others". I've elaborated on this in my last post, but basically: Morality is much broader than you stated.

But you haven't elaborated. All you say is, "morality is much broader." Notice you say "much broader." Not . . . a bit broader or somewhat broader. So then, if it so much broader, why not list some of the examples of morality that are NOT non-harming principles which would justify your claim morality is "much" broader?

If you can, then I will submit; otherwise, I maintain that morality is 95% (a rough estimate) about that which harms others, and the rest is stuck on by religions trying to get people into heaven.

A little rant here . . . this site is the worst I've run into for members making statements without support by evidence and careful reasoning. No philosopher reasons like that. I think this site needs to decide if it is going to be merely a place to exude unsupported opinions, or if it is going to promote the long-established principles of reason that define philosophical discourse.

Zetherin;54257 wrote:

Statements which may be moral propositions but seem to elicit an objective understanding, the example we used "Homosexuals harm society", must have a method of objective evaluation specified if they are to hold any truth. In this case, "Harm" must be defined, and an objective measurement of *how* society is being harmed (maybe 12,000 people are dying a year, for example).

You are distorting what I said. I said that people have perceived homosexuality as harmful, not that it really is. We too often develop moral principles based on perception and understanding (or lack of), not on objective evaluation. But let's leave homosexuality out of it and get back to the meat industry.

In that case, we have lots of evidence that eating meat, at least by buying it through the meat industry, is harmful to others, especially if we include poor innocent animals in the category of "others." But I will admit that for the most part, I don't think meat eaters realize what's going on in the slaughter houses.

On the other hand, when you try to show them and they rationalize it away with ridiculous arguments like "who can say if an animal suffers," that to me is immoral. Either you stand up for what is right, or you hedge, slip, rationalize, and sophisticate the TRUTH away (truth=the reality of slaughter animal life and death).

@MJA,

LWSleeth wrote:

If you can, then I will submit; otherwise, I maintain that morality is 95% (a rough estimate) about that which harms others, and the rest is stuck on by religions trying to get people into heaven.

A little rant here . . . this site is the worst I've run into for members making statements without support by evidence and careful reasoning. No philosopher reasons like that. I think this site needs to decide if it is going to be merely a place to exude unsupported opinions, or if it is going to promote the long-established principles of reason that define philosophical discourse.

You, without support, state 95% (a rough estimate) of morality involves the not harming of others, and then provide this rant?

That aside, I believe I've supported every point I've made thus far, and if you don't agree, please note which of the three points I noted above I did not support.

I will now elaborate on my morality point:

Firstly, this is what you said initially concerning morality:

LWSleeth wrote:

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).

This is what I said in response:

Zetherin wrote:

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.

Now, using part of the definition provided by wikipedia:

"...Morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience."

Note "individual conscience". With this, we can see the subjective nature of such a term. Regardless how many codes of ethics you can compile to show me humanity generally doesn't seek to harm, this does not remove morality's subjective nature*. My personal morality does not necessarily abide by "Do not harm others". There are many cases where I'd be willing to harm others, and I'd find this part of my morality; I would find it 'right' to do so. I would argue those 'terrorists' we so fear do have morality, and this morality actually advocates murder. Do you really want me to compile a full list of religions, cultures, people, that I don't feel necessarily have a solid "Do not harm others" within their morality?

Let's take out another key excerpt:

"In this respect, morality is not absolute, but relative and constitutes any set of behaviors that encourage human cooperation based on their ideology."

Note 'ideology'. If your ideology disagrees with mine, I may find it within my morality to murder you. Evidence of this is prevalent throughout all of human history. Do you not believe these people had morality? I believe they did, and I believe many of them killed because of their moral beliefs (what they justified as 'right' or 'wrong'). Again, do you really want me to compile a list as support?

This is why I say morality is much broader than "Do not harm others". It can encompass any belief system with the understanding and distinction "right" and "wrong". One could interpret killing another as "Right", and thus "Do not harm others" would not necessarily be a part of their morality.

LWSleeth wrote:

You are distorting what I said. I said that people have perceived homosexuality as harmful, not that it really is. We too often develop moral principles based on perception and understanding (or lack of), not on objective evaluation.

I am not distorting anything. I was just saying that if you were going to construct an objective argument, you would need to make an objective evaluation. My noting this was not implying you were doing this; I was just making sure. I was explaining my thought process.

LWSleeth wrote:

In that case, we have lots of evidence that eating meat, at least by buying it through the meat industry, is harmful to others, especially if we include poor innocent animals in the category of "others." But I will admit that for the most part, I don't think meat eaters realize what's going on in the slaughter houses.

And if you actually wanted to construct a solid argument, you'd have to provide logical propositions for the claim "eating meat is harmful to others". That's the only point I was making. I, personally, have never been presented with any evidence supporting the buying of meat harms others. I am aware of the slaughter houses.

Remember, though, I never made a moral judgment on this like you said I did. Yes, this means you said something unsupported. The irony.

PS: I don't know why you are so infuriated. You seem to be lashing out at me, and have even insulted the forums. I've enjoyed conversation with you, but hope you do not continue on with this demeanor. Some of this was a complete misunderstanding, and instead of getting angry, work this through maturely.

@Zetherin,

Morality?

What greater morality is there than equality?
Equality is the good, right, just, or true moral reason to not eat meat.
Or more simply: Just Common Sense.
Is anyone here in need of a philosophical discourse on the good of common sense?:perplexed:

=
MJA

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

Morality?

What greater morality is there than equality?
Equality is the good, right, just, or true moral reason to not eat meat.
Or more simply: Just Common Sense.
Is anyone here in need of a philosophical discourse on the good of common sense?:perplexed:

=
MJA

Common Sense? I would like some sir! :popcorn:

:big-guns::meuh:This isnt common sense, right?:shifty:

@Joe,

MJA Im sorry for doing this but I need to know if you find this offensive.

YouTube - delicious cat for Valentine's dinner

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

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 think I can best answer this by asking you a question:

Can you believe something that you know is not true?

Quote:

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

Moral/ethical propositions hold intersubjective value. No proposition holds any objective value.

Quote:

Name me some fundamental traits of morality.

Man understands himself as an agent who chooses and acts purposefully. Man would not act without the understanding that he can choose and act according to "shoulds". These "shoulds" imply that a man accepts that he can offer justification for all of his actions.

A criteria for justification is that it is freely acceptable by others; one cannot provide justification with any force other than the force of the justification itself.

Therefore, before man can be a man, that is a rational acting agent, he implicitly accepts the prohibition against physical, aggressive force against another.

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

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.

It depends of how you view life. For me, for example, only human life is important and therefore it doesnt matters even if the animals are made to suffer beyond the necessary and even beyond the pratic. And I do not think this way for believing humans are superior, I merely dont believe in universal fairness: If you can take it, take it if you want.

Kelly wrote:

In my views, I believe we would be better off killing a few whales or bigger animals here and there then mass-slaughtering thousands of chickens. That's thousands of lives for only a little bit of meat when we could only kill one whale, which is one life, to save hundreds to possibly thousands of lives.

I do not hold a view that gives value to the life of animals, but I am interested in how you would evaluate the value of life between animals... why a lot of chickens value more than a whale? Smile

LWSleeth wrote:

On the other hand, when you try to show them and they rationalize it away with ridiculous arguments like "who can say if an animal suffers," that to me is immoral. Either you stand up for what is right, or you hedge, slip, rationalize, and sophisticate the TRUTH away (truth=the reality of slaughter animal life and death).

If reason can destroy truth, is that really truth?

@Zetherin,

[SIZE="3"]

Zetherin;54322 wrote:

PS: I don't know why you are so infuriated. You seem to be lashing out at me, and have even insulted the forums. I've enjoyed conversation with you, but hope you do not continue on with this demeanor. Some of this was a complete misunderstanding, and instead of getting angry, work this through maturely.

I'm not infuriated with you, I just get frustrated with this type of debate. But it's my own fault for breaking my rule of not arguing morals. Why do I have that rule? I have tried in vain to explain this in other debates, but I'll try again.

Your statement "morality is much broader" is the kind of intellectualization of morals that goes on in philosophy debates; academics approach morality that way too, so it is no wonder the Wikipedia offered up such a vague, meaningless definition of morality. The definition I submitted -- do no intentional harm -- is not an intellectual assessment, but rather is an understanding distilled from life experience.

When I look back at my life, from teenager years to my 50's I see a selfish and egocentric person. Every immoral thing I did stemmed from wanting something for myself which, in the attaining of it, could hurt others (and usually it was bad for me too). Interestingly, virtually every wholly good thing for me was good for others (or neutral at least). As I learned my lessons, I came to want that which was good for me, and then what was best; and naturally that led to contemplating what really best contributes to my well being and happiness.

During that time I began meditation, which I have practiced daily for 35 years. Through that I discovered a side of me that has been there from birth, but which I'd lost touch with. This side I like to call sensitivity. I sometimes call it "feeling" but people always think I'm talking about emotions -- I'm not. The ability to make oneself evermore sensitive is quite a discovery; few people realize just how much there is to feel if one can get sensitive enough. Sensitivity is heightened by learning to bring the mind to stillness (which is where a strong practice of meditation comes in).

It might seem like I've gotten of the subject of morality, but hang on a little longer.

Consider a healthy happy child. I have always been amazed at a child's natural morality. By "natural" I mean a caring and giving spirit that seems unlearned. Children who've lost it usually are spoiled, abused or neglected, but those who still have it seem to because their environment has helped to preserve it (i.e., not given it to them). Some people make it to adulthood with that; the people I like the most are naturally like that.

Getting back to my contemplation of what is best for me, it has been rediscovering what so many children are still in touch with. It is a feeling (or sensitivity), that one might say is in the "heart," but you could also say at the core of one's being. As I've rediscovered it I realized my selfish egocentric desires were what made me lose touch with it; selfishness and egocentrism in fact are exactly the opposite direction of this deeper self.

As the experience of my core feeling grew, other aspects of it came into play. A particularly profound part of that experience is feeling "one" with all other living beings. That "oneness" has an interesting effect on a person's outlook in that it is hard to not notice the harm you do since you can feel that all others are part of you, and you feel part of them.

I long ago promised myself not to debate morals because so few people see them as deriving from something very simple and natural within us. When you started talking about the issue being "broader," I knew right where you were going . . . to what essentially boils down to behaviorism. Let me use an analogy to explain what I mean by "behaviorism."

If a person experiences joy, doesn't he smile naturally? But if he does not know joy, then he makes his face twist into the shape of a smile. If the majority of people in the world never experienced joy, then there might develop the philosophy of smiling. Professors would say "smiling is a cultural value that is decided by various beliefs." Religions might have developed rules for when you should give your face the look of a smile, and when you shouldn't. And then philosophy websites would debate all the "broad" influences on smiling.

But if someone experiences joy, he is bound to think all the smiling philosophies and principles are nonsense; that they are superficial manipulations of one's behavior. So it shouldn't be a surprise that he might say, "why not learn to experience joy and smiling will naturally follow?"

So here we are, and some want to argue about what morality is, and I just want to say it's a feeling or sensitivity . . . a feeling at the core of one's being that results in not wanting to do harm. I see all the intellectualization of it as people too much in their heads, and not enough in their hearts. This issue of animal cruelty is a great example because I am appalled that anyone wouldn't feel for those creatures, and might even rationalize it away with "how do we know animals suffer." Now isn't that just the kind of outrageous self-deception people have used to justify or ignore some of the world's worst evils?

Anyway, to me the issue is exceedingly simple, not "broad." FIRST things have to feel right, and then they have to make sense. I want both, so it isn't one or the other. But since I have moved feeling right into the first position it has made a huge difference in my own happiness, wisdom, goodness, and ability to care.[/SIZE]

@LWSleeth,

[CENTER]"The obligations of law and equity reach only to mankind;
but kindness and beneficence should be extended
to the creatures of every species,
and these will flow from the breast of a true man,
as streams that issue from the living fountain."

PLUTARCH (46-120 AD.)
Greek philosopher and moralist[/CENTER]

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

" How many realities are there?

ONE

How many descriptions of reality are there?

ZILLIONS

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).

What about "personal truths." This is really nonsense, to the core.

Sorry to edit your post so probably incorrectly, but wanted to ask you about some obvious contradictions that I see.
Real isn't true?
And personally I am true are you? Nope?
And for me personally and truly the Universe is really true too. Nope?
But there is a big "One" reality as you say, What does that personally and truly mean to you?
For me: I am simply and truly or really equal or Universally One.
I don't eat meat because of this Universal truth I am.
Do you?
Thanks,

=
MJA

@MJA,

The whole premise of this thread makes it fallacious. It's a red herring whether a view is "higher level view," whatever that is supposed to mean. A view is not valid because (many) people praise it or because praiseworthy people follow it. And the view certainly is not any more or less true on these bases.

Validity and truth do share this common ground. Truth and validity are of no concern, as far as I can see, to this thread, but rather social demarcation and popularity are the concern here.

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles;54433 wrote:

The whole premise of this thread makes it fallacious. It's a red herring whether a view is "higher level view," whatever that is supposed to mean. A view is not valid because (many) people praise it or because praiseworthy people follow it. And the view certainly is not any more or less true on these bases.

While I neither share the OP's views nor his dietary practices, one can argue for it not being fallacious if one can demonstrate that to eschew meat is consistent with some moral imperative of ours. Of course getting people to agree about the method (let alone the particulars) of determining our moral imperatives is an impossible task...

But can't you see a deontological argument for vegetarianism? Can't you see a utilitarian argument for it? The attempt can be made without inherent fallacy. Not that that has been accomplished in this thread, but it IS possible.

@MJA,

MJA;54413 wrote:

Sorry to edit your post so probably incorrectly, but wanted to ask you about some obvious contradictions that I see.
Real isn't true?
And personally I am true are you? Nope?
And for me personally and truly the Universe is really true too. Nope?
But there is a big "One" reality as you say, What does that personally and truly mean to you?
For me: I am simply and truly or really equal or Universally One.
I don't eat meat because of this Universal truth I am.
Do you?
Thanks,

=
MJA

I'm sorry MJA but I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles;54433 wrote:

Validity and truth do share this common ground. Truth and validity are of no concern, as far as I can see, to this thread, but rather social demarcation and popularity are the concern here.

Since you generalize the situation as "this thread" and not the OP's proposition, I don't think you have read all the posts if you say that. At least for me, not one single justification for avoiding meat that was given had to do with popularity or social demarcation. Therefore, yours is either a straw man fallacy, a biased sample fallacy, a non sequitur fallacy, or . . . (since you seem so enamored with logic fallacies). Actually I think it's just plain lazy reading combined with your desire to appear intellectually superior.

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

Since you generalize the situation as "this thread" and not the OP's proposition, I don't think you have read all the posts if you say that. At least for me, not one single justification for avoiding meat that was given had to do with popularity or social demarcation. Therefore, yours is either a straw man fallacy, a biased sample fallacy, a non sequitur fallacy, or . . . (since you seem so enamored with logic fallacies). Actually I think it's just plain lazy reading combined with your desire to appear intellectually superior.

The original poster has a proposition? "It's the more humane thing to do" which was followed by a listing of presumably "humane quotes" that rally around the proposition. They're not arguments which support it as premises. So they only rally around it. This is bandwagoning and appeal to authority. Both fallacious or at least suspect.

"Humane thing to do" is an evaluation. The original poster's justification was his original post. He didn't give it as justification because the whole of his post what the justification. The "proof by popularity" is implicit as it is the post itself.

All fallacies are non-sequiturs, by the way.

My latter claim is muddled. By "to this thread" I only meant the intent of this thread's original poster, which I thought was just another way of saying "this thread's premise." I'm not generalizing nor saying this entire thread hasn't gone into various tangents. I'm saying this thread, so far as its original poster and intent is concern, is about "who's said what" in the history of ideas and who wishes to side with "who's said what."

It's pretty obvious that if someone obviously doesn't read an entire thread that person cannot appear intellectually superior. Really, cut it out with that. I'm not trying to appear intellectually superior; if anything, I made my point unclear, which isn't a mark of intellectual strength at all. Judge my arguments on their own merit and leave the name-calling to the lay person.

Philosophy Forum

Vegetarianism is a Higher level View

Quick Links

My Account

able2know