Well I got quite the reply from the lady from the other Aussie Farms site. She again is Bold Italics and my replies are not. Out of courtesy her name has not been used, but we'll give her a fake name...Jay.
Peter the fact that you appeal to a "higher authority" means there is no point in discussion.
Oh I wonder why? So even though I never stated what Moral Authority/Creator/Lawgiver/God/Religion I "appeal" to (actually its try to follow & try not to appeal at all) because I believe in a "higher authority" there is no point in the discussion.
Ahh lemme think on this I'm a God follower of unknown type therefore conversation is over.
I'm suspecting she's only keen to talk to atheists wishing to lock onto an animal cult or...no, we better not speculate.
It's a logical fallacy along with the few straw men you threw in, but that figures.
Yes, logical fallacies/straw man argument. This is where one brings in an unrelated argument which is indisputable so as to bolster the argument. Jay was only ever expected to expand on her (and others) Moral Truth Claim. If its Moral, shows us by what standard, what Moral Authority you make the claim. She went onto to mention murder, rape, slavery & thieving. Now these are strawman arguments, because they have no relation to animals. Currently all legal statutes on this crimes have humans as the victims, no animals. OK except maybe bestiality which Peter Singer who she less so follows these days is questioning.
Would I throw in a straw man argument, you bet I try to avoid doing so but sometimes I drop my guard and drop one in. It helps no one generally. Guess if we'd stuck to the original line of questioning "If you make a Moral Truth Claim, please cite the Moral Authority, Moral Standard etc you're using as the standard to determine your judgement please"
If Jay had stuck to that, indeed if I'd held firm and tried to hold Jay to that we'd not see so many rabbit holes and distractions. I'll cop a portion of the blame ;-)
All you have to say is "it's ok with God, it's ok with me" without ever having to demonstrate anything.
Wrong, never said that at all, dunno why it even has quotation marks really.
Reminder Jay, I wasn't making a Moral Truth Claim about animal slaughter, meat processing and meat consumption as being bad, wrong, inherently cruel or evil. Y'know I never mention what religion etc I follow but if I was asked why is it Amoral as I contend and by which stand do I base that claim I can and would. Again, Jay is beginning to be an atheist who opposes any God (as she didn't ask which God I had in mind) and very possibly is Moral Relativist. If that's right there's a moral implosion where she's at.
Convenient. It was also used by those who had slaves to justify human slavery.
Ahh maybe, but if you check the Torah, the Bible, the Koran (just to cover the big three religions) you'll find with proper hermeneutics/interpretation of those "Scriptures" there is nothing to support the African American slave trade. In fact the slavery abolitionists were Christians (not sure about Jewish or Islamic persons) and they used proper reading of the Scriptures to help persuade governments to oppose it, that and throw in a Civil War. I'm still looking but I can only find Moral Relativist Atheists amongst the pro slavery crowd, not the abolitionists. Oops sorry, I got sucked in, I see what you did...bugger you dropped a Strawman argument in there. :-)
What happened back then if God was so successfully used to justify human slavery?
People have been twisting the Scriptures of the Jewish faith, Christianity and Islam for centuries, in the case of the former two, for millennia. This why people should be quick to say and ask "by what standard do you make that claim?" - I'm not sure that it was accepted part of Jewish/Christian/Islam brutally kidnap people and force them into an utterly cruel life of slavery. definitely 2 of the 3 don't support that, not sure even Islam does, (need to do more checking). Oops I got way laid on the Strawman distraction again. It would be a better strawman if the claims Jay attached actually held a modicum of truth historically and the facts were viewed in context.
Was God wrong or were the people who used his name wrong?
Which God do you mean Jay because you've kinda poo-canned any possible God. If you're talking of the "Big 3" well its pretty easy (but you deftly avoided this possibility which is actually the most right "The people, who used his name/word wrongly, were very wrong.
You said: "I don't believe in harm for pleasure that's for sure" - So why do you harm and kill animals?
Firstly I have never deliberately, maliciously or wilfully (3 very important legal angles) harmed any animal.
Secondly, killed? Yes. Why? Well eating meat is Amoral, it is not "moral or immoral". By the way, that's a moral truth claim, which can be backed up by referencing a Moral Authority. I didn't make it up, I didn't cherry pick aspects of various religions to create my own hand picked bowl of ok-ness.
I, and many other vegans, are living proof we have no need to use animals.
Ahh that's fine, good for you. I have always held the view you get to choose how to fuel your body. I would never force anyone to eat meat...nor should anyone see fit to say I shouldn't eat meat because its immoral, inherently cruel, bad and/or evil without citing a moral standard by which I can assess the claim.
The only justification is "I like the taste", "I like wool" etc. Nothing to do with necessity but pleasure.
Sooo necessity is the only Moral Good? At last we see that like many overt vegans who brandish false morals about, you may say that you've left Peter Singer behind a bit, but we genuinely see you haven't. Life is still very morally correct if its utilitarian...kinda.
Necessity means you live a 50 year old fibre home with a tin roof, 2 bedrooms one toilet, harvesting your own water etc. You don't need to be in the metro area, you don't need anything remotely pleasurable it must be, whatever it is necessity based. Lets not be duplicitous now."The only justification is..." sorry, its never been likes but we see here with the surface scratched ever so slightly that "likes" is central to you Jay. You don't like meat for food...therefore it is bad, wrong, immoral and evil. You don't like animal fibres being used...therefore animal fibres are bad, wrong, immoral and evil. Do you like a good free trade soy latte? If you do like such a beverage...its therefore good, right, moral and without fault. Yet again we return to Moral Relativism. Stripped of all the profoundly vague and vaguely profound blah-blah its really "There is no deity, if there is, its me" - Yeah good luck with that...sorry yours is an opinion based on what you like and what you hate. I mean that's ok if you want to go that path but it'd be way more honest to just say that than to falsely cloak up in moral outrage garments from various clashing religions you don't otherwise follow. That approach could actually be used to justify slavery in theory couldn't it. Oops again I went too far exposing the false nature of the strawman you shouldn't have let onto the field. (insert smiley perhaps?)
I believe in Ahimsa (do no harm) and most religions have a very similar Golden Rule (do unto others...).
Ahhh...hahahaha "Ahimsa" - no if that's what you believe in you must be...
a) Hindu (which has a number of differing sects)
b) Buddhist (which has a number of differing sects)
c) Jainism follower (which has a number of differing sects)
d) An atheist who's cherry picked a number of aspects of various religions which conform to your self appointed requirements in life (bits you "like") and disposed ignored bits you don't "like"
So far if were to lodge a bet, it'd be a dead cert on d)
You know the Jain diet can in some sects also exclude root vegetables so if you're c) you need to get them out too. Jains like the Buddhist & Hindus have a central reincarnation belief at its core. If you're planning to claim someone famous from the past as one of your previously lives, you need to get in fast before all the good ones are gone. Reincarnation has the maths don't work problem, there's more people alive today than any other period in time and many many times more than say 200BC. So new folk have been coming from somewhere. OOps.
Hindu of course is very much to blame for the caste system in India which is a grotesque form of socio-economic form of slavery. Hindus often grapple terribly with the non violence approach then burn daughters alive for choosing partners from lower castes.
You really got to be a Richard Gere type Buddhist. Go through the motions and stick with the bits you "like" and try to ignore and hide the bits you don't "like"
Oops, the extremely false imploding strawman got me again ;-)
Now whilst on the topic of Hindu/Buddhism/Jainism and how Ahisma is a part of those three...so too is Asceticism characterized by abstinence from worldly pleasures, often pursuing spiritual goals. Ahisma and Ascerticism get separated and although its found in a number of other religions, "A & A" are usually co-joined twins...until you get to folk who like to create their own worldview.
Duplicitous is a word that fits well, very well. Its a part of Moral Relativism and another good pointer why it not only implodes, it goes sinkhole. Morally Incoherent is what some philosophers suggest. I call it that and far worse.
By "being" I mean a sentient being so that means both human and non-human animals.
Again it should come as no surprise that "sentient" being is something some philosophy
leaders" have cherry picked from eastern religions...namely Hindu, Buddhism & Jainism. They deftly left out the other parts and rather than formulate ideas, they co-opted appealing aspects that suited their purpose.
Saying you adhere to "Ahimsa" is kinda like saying "Oh I believe and follow the Proverbs from the Bible...but nothing else in the Bible, I'm not Jewish"
Or, "Oh I believe in and follow Revelation, but that's it from the New Testament for me, I'm not a Christian"
Now how funny is it Jay pointed to "and most religions have a very similar Golden Rule (do unto others...)." - is that cherry picking all completely laid open and bare for all to see. "do unto others..." comes from the Bible, same book of faith declaring itself the ONLY WORD OF GOD, of the ONLY GOD and that there is NO OTHER God. So if you point to the Bible, how do you escape being dodgey if you only choose the bit that suits you and your position which you then say is MORAL and then attack Judeo/Christian scripture as being false and without validation.
Odd yeah...unless you're a Moral Relativist who can say what they like is good and what they don't is wrong, then you're ok...but even then as long as you don't apply any scrutiny because then its gunna fall flat straight away. You need to hide, come out and throw logic hand grenades and then go hide again in a deep hole. Yes eventually you'll realise you've pulled the pin and thrown it at logic and run back into the protected cave with the grenade. It is gunna go off, but only you will see it, you intended victim outside will know you've self detonated but not seen it and as we all know "Pictures or it didn't happen"
Oh on the topic of eradicating non native species, or rather exterminating introduced species that are declared pests, apparently that hit a nerve too & I was asked about the dispatching of all non native species (I added that are declared pests but never mind) I was then asked "Are you aboriginal?"I guess the barrel has a bottom but yet that's no barrier to those searching for more $3.00 notes
Peter you might be interested in this man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Linzey
Why? You contend that Christianity is worthless, is without sense or reason, supports slavery, contributed to it. Now you find one point to support your view its ok to use.
Duplicitous...AGAIN :-)
You know Linzey is highly regarded for his work on the theology of creation?
OK, you threw me another logical fallacy, straw man...no wait, you're cherry picking again.
Just because someone is of the clothe, doesn't make them a good pastor. If they're not a good pastor (and you'll find the Bible is actually pretty specific about that, very prescriptive) then we don't have to listen to them on any matters pertaining to theology and his work with Regan skirts conflict with Scripture. But you knew that right Jay?
Oh that's right, he's a professor, a theologian...not a pastor. He can say anything he "likes"
Handy that.
Now on the topic of my Aboriginality/Non-Aboriginality...indigenous Australians are a proud people of an ancient culture and if I am or ain't sure as hell ain't relevant to anything.
Always someone dragging race, Nazis, the Holocaust, Stalin, Pol Pot into unrelated topics to bolster a failing argument.
Don't be fooled folks, stop, take a deep breath and look at what matters.
Don't be fooled by people running into caves with live grenades that are about to go off.
Whilst Jay made the point of looking at Andrew Linzey's work, please balance it out and read this http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/animals_vantassel.pdf
Its important, more so if you're Jewish, Messianic Jewish or Christian
Your Scriptures will show you that you have "dominion responsibilities"
Unlike the uber fab cherry picking set ;-)
Wednesday 9 July 2014
Tuesday 8 July 2014
The post
On one of the Aussie Farms FB pages, the anti meat/anti farmer one, there was this post (name deleted out of courtesy) - The poster's comments over 2 posts are in Bold Italics and my assessment (for whatever its worth, who cares) are not. Warning its loooong, take ya time. :-)
Animals are not commodities. They are living, sentient, beings who have individual experiences, thinking brains and beating hearts.
Thinking brains, beating hearts, individual experiences? Yes I reckon they do. They are living, I reckon they are while they're alive but what of sentient beings? Its a mix of funny philosophical bents derived from Eastern Religions. What is a sentient being, well apparently a growing carrot is not, fungus is not but a sheep and another animal are. But again we come back to the old lion & antelope thing. Both apparently sentient beings yet the lion commits no transgressions legally, morally or ethically by chasing the antelope down to eat it. In some cases eating begins before the antelope is fully dead. If we're in a godless existence, that is there is no creator there is no purpose, no morals...everything that happens is just what happens. Funny isn't it. Personally I reject the silly notion and refer to a moral authority that transcends us, that guides me and has a rationally full explanation why morals, ethics and laws are required and why they came about. It also allows me to easily say why it is wrong indeed an abomination to murder, rape, steal etc. For the sentient being believer, the no-god-at-all-religion follower, its all evolution, by accident, without meaning or purpose, everything that happens is just, well its just what happens or what we make happen. To apply the "sentient being" angle to oppose humans eating meat and not apply it to the lion and all the other carnivores is actually a form of overt "SPECIES-ISM". The very thing meat eaters are accused of. Here we have, another logical implosion. What's even more ironic is that for the believer in a religion and a Creator-God, Species-ism actually makes perfect sense and is quite a coherent notion. We have dominion over the animals...simple really.
We don't need to exploit them or kill them.
Exploit? Well in the case of domesticated farm animals, none that I know of are in fear of extinction so exploit yet again comes down to a worldview based truth claim. Kill them, well if they're bound for the table I'm sure as heck not eating them live :-)
They are a resource which humans have used for thousands of years and once exploration by ship started, so to did Live Export.
We need none of it for survival.
If you're a vegan that is correct, however for all the suggestions farms prevent an animal's from their natural behaviour, ours is very much omnivore. But for the vegan, carry on. By all means fuel your body how ever you like, I support that, defend that and encourage a person to do that if they wish. And likewise those who eat meat should be allowed, encouraged, supported and their right to do so should be defended. I'm not in survival mode, if I were that desparate then I guess any animal or vegetable is on the menu...but not humans. I know that's a bit "SPECIES-IST" but I have a moral authority I obey and humans are off the menu no matter what.
To harm and kill another being for pleasure, convenience or profit (the only reasons it's done) is unethical.
Unethical? By what standard do we decide its unethical. Glib one liner motherhood statements with little or no foundation are as useful as water proof tea bags. Without fleshing out the foundation we have one person's opinion vs another person's opposing opinion. Killing an animal for pleasure...well I am a hunter, but I only hunter declared pests in Australia. I can't say there's pleasure in it beyond the satisfaction of doing a job that needs doing and doing it properly. If I were not to kill the feral cat, wild dog, fox etc it will kill the native species and some domesticated farm species. I have no ethical dilemma killing an introduced declared pest that threatens to kill or displace other animals that should be there.
Convenience, not sure what that means. Sorry.
Profit? What's wrong with raising livestock for food and making a paid career from it?
If its unethical, if that's the truth claim, you have to back it up by citing by what standards are you making the judgement. Does society judge? If that's the case, some societies love their neighbour while others eat their neighbour, both able to comply with the ethical standards of their respective society. For me however, cannibalism is something I definitely oppose because my worldview states its not allowed no matter what a ruler decides anywhere. No human gets to trump the moral authority I follow...they do evil (that is break the moral authority) but it never ends well.
Peter Robins Thanks for the lesson in ethics. I know what professional ethics are and I'm not talking about that.
No maybe you're not, maybe you're talking about what's good and what's evil, but we never get to find out which moral authority you're following, which exacting "Ethics" or ethical standard you're using to make the truth claim you did. But we continue...
Now, with ethics it depends on whether you're a believer of moral relativism or realism.
For your position to float that might be the case, but I suggest it doesn't float well and not for very long at all. In fact most of the complexity involved in philosophy is trying to make it all line up with contradictions, quite funny really.
Moral Relativism can be split up in a number of groupings depending on the philosopher.
To sum up the relative moral philosophy, Frederick Nietzsche wrote, “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, it does not exist.” - He also called out to God on his death bed and as a result his lover then declared him mad. Its relative, personal and well false as 3 dollar bank notes. For it to work often adherents will cite the funny old line "There is no such thing as absolute truth, its all relative"
Once in a discussion about this I asked in reply "You sure about that"
"Yes, certain with no doubt" can the quick and commanding reply.
I then replied "Serious, that's how it is, no absolute truth at all?"
The condemning reply then came, "For sure, take it to the bank"
"Wow" I pondered out loud, that sounds like an absolute truth, which you said doesn't exist then?"
The blank look was worth a mint, then came the "Ummm, ahh well you see, ahh..."
Not nice but I quietly came out "And that ladies and gentleman is the sound of a contradiction, or incoherent implosion". No its not nearly as loud as an explosion but quite the impact nonetheless. The deeper complexity follows to try and side step the problem blocking the road. It gets closely linked from time to time with evolution, which I actually agree with on a micro level. I think animals can adapt and evolve, but a cat will not evolve into a giraffe, a fish will not evolve into a mosquito. We have never seen nor found nor replicated jumps from one species to another. Never. But it is accepted on the macro level regardless. How soup of chemicals can turn from beaker fluid into a live living cell is also a mystery. But like relativism, the best bet is to find much much more complexity to overcome proven results. Just saying.
Realism - Can again be split up, but its the core atheist tenant and if its true and correct, morals are just words with no real meaning whether they're followed or not. Its ok to shoot the kid on the bus because he has a bottle of water and I'm thirsty. Yes, there's legal consequences but no moral ones.
If you believe there is no transcendent Creator lawgiver then you need to come clean and work out what morals are, how they apply and why they should be even considered or used in arguments of practices you don't personally like. Realism, well you're using "morals" as a fake trump card in a game of poker logic. You're bluffing and you know it.
Relativism, you're right, I'm right nothing is absolute..."POOF!!!" there goes that pesky implosion again.
If you're a moral relativist then you could think it's all just opinion. Ok. Then everything that comes under ethics could be opinion, right? Rape, murder, theft, slavery, lynching, human experimentation etc.
Correct, which is one reason why I oppose it totally. All those abominations just also happen to be abominations to the transcendent God, Creator, Lawgiver. I have no implosion. On a side note, the animals were also designed as food and we're directed so. Still no implosion. For the relativist, my view is correct, theirs is correct even though they are completely incompatiable...my moral authority also points this out :-)
Now we can talk about law, which is related to ethics, and remember that it was once legal to rape (in marriage), keep slaves, murder (what happened during the holocaust was legal) etc. So, what's the point?
Luckily for me, whilst that may have been historically been the case to some extent, murder, rape etc has never had Moral Authority/Creator/Lawgiver approval. Slavery yes, but according to the Moral Authority, slavery is servitude, there is Jubilee Years to wipe away debt and if the slave fulfils their obligation the Moral Authority I'm under makes provision for the free slave to rejoin the house they were in servitude to as a bond servant. This huge honour was seen openly by the ear ring worn as a bond servant. They became a part of the household til they day they died and their family were under the provision of the house. It wasn't exactly Egyptian slavery or Pre American Civil War type slavery. In fact, some of those foul treatments handed out are direct violation of the Moral Authority I actually follow. Australia's legal start also came from its Judaeo-Christian base. As it formed, it like America, was a Christian country. If you read the earliest speeches from statesmen from the respective earliest days you can find this. There has been no atheist, relativism or realism society that has survive more than a few generations. Soviet Russia, Communist China and North Korea are 3 very secular societies. They all be fine with atheism but relativism would be out. Odd yeah?
Point returns, if you're a relativist, you have an incoherent problem before you even start "legally" doing those things. If you're atheist you have a slightly more coherent position regards anything dog eat dog...but sorry, my Moral Authority opposes it completely. If its legal and unethical, you're still stuck with massive elephant in the room..."ethical" by what standard? More $3 notes :-)
The point is, if we want to evolve ethically to establish what we now think is right and wrong, we need to talk about it much like the abolitionists talked about the ethics of keeping human slaves.
Strangely the abolitionists were mainly Christians. William Wilberforce just one very notable abolitionist. He cited Christian grounds in opposing the slave trade. No relativists or realism-ists or Atheist fronts to the rescue. That's one point, but before that, you say we need to talk if we're to evolve. Again that's a thoroughly atheist position to evolve agreed ethics, but there is no moral standard that points to any higher ground whatsoever. This is dog eat dog, or dog wearing down other dogs in a conversation, where again we're left with ethics which are just words that have no standard to line up with to be ethical.
Slave owners asked the same questions, made the same objections and, thankfully, people realised that black people have rights and were not commodities for use by others.
Abolition of the slave trade came about by people pointing to the Moral Authority, they employ sound hermeneutics in relation to their Lawgiver's instructions. It was not the Atheist hard fought and slogged out talk fest. If those who began the slave trade actually adhered to the Moral Authority that Wilberforce and others adhered to, the trade would never have started. The beginnings are far more likely to be the outcomes of devout non believers, doing the Darwinian dog eat dog, survival of the fittest. We should never slip into revisionism of history either :-)
Now, you being so bright, I'm sure you know where I'm going with this.
Got a rough idea...this is the rim of Ground Zero where a lot of implosions happen or already happened...but sadly continue on :-)
If you want to know the stem of these ethics, you can refer to Prof Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights, whose views I most closely adhere to and consider logical and rational.
So Francione is your moral authority? You know his views are...well his views. He made them up, you do realise that don't you. He has made up theories he's gifted with under Relativism, what's true to him is true enough. You do know his idea of rights of the animal not to be property don't extend to lions and antelope relationship? All sentient beings have rights but no ability to enforce them. Somehow (as yet unexplained) we are the only animal capable to enforcing these rights for other species. Extended to the highest forms, we all roam, we hunt, we gather and we don't farm at all.
Sadly its not uncommon for a philosopher to spout things profoundly vague or vaguely profound in a crisp authorative well educated accent and accept without full and proper testing. If all these folk are so clever and smart...Francione, Singer, Regan and others should have, as you put it, done the logical, rational thing, sat down and talk and as a result a better approach evolved as you put it? But alas no, each has a career or side career pushing past implosions. Add Dawkins to the list, the biologist who somehow makes theological decrees. More$3 notes, I still ain't buying.
I used to like Peter Singer but have since moved on from utilitarian philosophy.
Yes, Animal Australia founder and still lingering poster boy. That will fade. He's the guy who asked the question on ABCTV's "Q&A" what exactly is wrong with a human and an non human species engaging in sex if the animal is not forced but is willing. My Moral Authority rules that out, pretty simple but whilst you may reject Singer a bit now, relativism could allow that to happen and be morally ok. So too realism. Of course if you were to come home and your significant other, endearing life partner happened to be in the laundry having sex with the dog, how would you react? A true realism atheist and relativist would have to say "Oopsy sorry to barge in, I shoulda knocked" if they were true adherents to the cult. Kinda doubt that.
I also like Tom Regan. They each have something to offer but, overall, I prefer Francione.
Regan, Francione, Singer, coupla things in common. Pre-suppositional, they all begin from the prior belief God does not exist. All are seeking to develop a moral code and see it become the norm and the mainstream. Good luck with that, my Moral Authority says if they don't align with the Moral Authority/Creator/Lawgiver they're quite wrong. Despite whatever they each or together concoct, it is self developed, self decided. They're all trying to develop a moral stance which cannot be tested against a moral standard. Ahh think they've got little chance of evolving as you put it.
You say we kill animals for food.
Yes we do.
That suggests we need to do this for survival, which is not true for the vast majority of us.
That suggestion is true for the relativist and the realism-ist...so too the opposing position.
No one is pushing for the abolition of Veganism, however some are arguing for meat eating and any non-vegan menus to be abolished. To do so on ethical grounds, on moral grounds one must cite which moral standard this is pulled from. Sorry but it could be acceptable to you that I presume its correct to say the Abolitionist Three Stooges (Regan, Singer, Francione) are pushing for a diminutive moral position which doesn't actually exist until all people are (rightly or wrongly) convinced and agree with them. You can survive on solely McDonalds but I wouldn't advise it, its up to you but to attach a moral/immorality stance to it whilst avoiding what the moral standard actually is, well its pretty odd. I eat meat, not because I have to, not because I think I'll die without it. Its a traditional food source and forms part of my diet. Y'know what's really funny? when some folk say "Yeah well eating meat cause cancer"
Ahh says who. Is this a cancer debate? Is it provable claim, is it worse than smoking? Not its a quick pull from the desperate basket to help float a sinking argument.
There is no moral standard that says you must not eat meat, nor own livestock and treat them as property.
We do it for profit and taste.
So do meat eaters, neither meat eaters nor vegans transgress or violate any ethical standards or moral authority. However some folk are busily trying to construct some.
Harming and killing another being for pleasure or profit is wrong.
Ahh have you told the lion lately? He has no recognised legal tender I grant you and not sure its for the pure fun of it. Wrong by what standard? Who created the standard? If we're all just animals who evolved from a primordial soup then its all there for the taking and you can only be bluffed by dawkins, singer, regan, francione and others...if you don't believe in God, you're just an animal too in the food chain. Its ok, I won't ever eat you...its against the Moral Authority I follow :-)
If you are a firm believer in evolution and oppose the idea that there exists a (any) Creator with a purpose, then everything is fair game y'know. Strip it away the moral ideas float are just words and when you wipe them off the whiteboard there is no purpose...its all accident, survival of the fittest. No purpose, everything that happens is just whatever happens. Pays to be consistent.
Its far more coherent for the follower of a Moral Authority ;-)
I think I've answered your question.
Seriously, it doesn't matter if you have or haven't if you're a core non believer of God. Its all 2 animals barking, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
Its quite possible you're as presuppositional as I am. Mine comes from a Moral Authority which thankfully validates itself and did so long before I found it and understood it and yours comes from...well yours comes from you. You may not have concocted it, but you careful selected it. Singer outlast his welcome and you selected another couple of prophets who are still working on the incoherent details and have yet to (as you put it, allow me to paraphrase) come together talk and evolve into one idea.
If you'd return the favour and answer this simple question: do you think it's right to harm and kill another being for pleasure or profit?
1)I think there is no grounds to harm or kill another human being for pleasure or profit. That view is consistent with the moral authority I follow. (like you and the many more than Three Stooges, its a Moral Authority I chose so in the relativism/realism realm, that quite ok)
2) Do I think its right to harm or kill another (non human) creature for pleasure or profit?
No & yes in that order. No for pleasure, yes for profit. They're a vital resource that my Moral Authority is very clear about, animals are under my stewardship and should be afforded the best treatment possible before they become a meal. I didn't make it up, its the Lawgiver's instructions, however you have room to move, you can follow that lawgiver and be vegan if you like, because remarkably neither choice has a moral basis.
On Hunting, some do it for a past time & I have no problem with that. In fact I support it IF its a part of a properly worked out conservation plan or its the destruction of declared pests and invasive species. But hunting should always be swift, clean and quick. I don't its right to see any animal suffer for pleasure or profit.
Ironic isn't it, Mr AA poster boy cheerfully quizzes what's wrong with a human having non forced sex with their companion animal but shooting a feral cat or wild dog is a pleasure based perversion of the highest order.
Francione says animal rights is all about no ownership...some folk think that means release everything. Think he's still "evolving"
Regan's inherent value is...well only recognised by him and his ilk - so he made that up. Wipe it off the blackboard, it doesn't exist you know? Apparently as an individual, we all have some distinctive and unique value, that's the "inherent value." He argues that the basis for rights is this inherent value and not rationality, autonomy, or some other quality. Soooo....the idea he made up, that wasn't previously invented is the basis for the value he says is morally a part of each individual. It really is like herding cats in a snow storm.
Dawkins - well there is no God, its all dog eat dog, please buy another Flying Spaghetti Monster badge and root out and ridicule all people of faith cos we're all just animals, nothing more, nothing less...accidents of evolutionary mutations over enough "given time" so morals are a false survival construct that have no real foundation except to survive as a species and dominant all others. Now the real logic atheist will go this view and if we're all lucky they'll also adhere to the law of the land because morals are bogus traits of evolutionary survival...the philosophers are all bull dusters :-)
Animals are not commodities. They are living, sentient, beings who have individual experiences, thinking brains and beating hearts.
Thinking brains, beating hearts, individual experiences? Yes I reckon they do. They are living, I reckon they are while they're alive but what of sentient beings? Its a mix of funny philosophical bents derived from Eastern Religions. What is a sentient being, well apparently a growing carrot is not, fungus is not but a sheep and another animal are. But again we come back to the old lion & antelope thing. Both apparently sentient beings yet the lion commits no transgressions legally, morally or ethically by chasing the antelope down to eat it. In some cases eating begins before the antelope is fully dead. If we're in a godless existence, that is there is no creator there is no purpose, no morals...everything that happens is just what happens. Funny isn't it. Personally I reject the silly notion and refer to a moral authority that transcends us, that guides me and has a rationally full explanation why morals, ethics and laws are required and why they came about. It also allows me to easily say why it is wrong indeed an abomination to murder, rape, steal etc. For the sentient being believer, the no-god-at-all-religion follower, its all evolution, by accident, without meaning or purpose, everything that happens is just, well its just what happens or what we make happen. To apply the "sentient being" angle to oppose humans eating meat and not apply it to the lion and all the other carnivores is actually a form of overt "SPECIES-ISM". The very thing meat eaters are accused of. Here we have, another logical implosion. What's even more ironic is that for the believer in a religion and a Creator-God, Species-ism actually makes perfect sense and is quite a coherent notion. We have dominion over the animals...simple really.
We don't need to exploit them or kill them.
Exploit? Well in the case of domesticated farm animals, none that I know of are in fear of extinction so exploit yet again comes down to a worldview based truth claim. Kill them, well if they're bound for the table I'm sure as heck not eating them live :-)
They are a resource which humans have used for thousands of years and once exploration by ship started, so to did Live Export.
We need none of it for survival.
If you're a vegan that is correct, however for all the suggestions farms prevent an animal's from their natural behaviour, ours is very much omnivore. But for the vegan, carry on. By all means fuel your body how ever you like, I support that, defend that and encourage a person to do that if they wish. And likewise those who eat meat should be allowed, encouraged, supported and their right to do so should be defended. I'm not in survival mode, if I were that desparate then I guess any animal or vegetable is on the menu...but not humans. I know that's a bit "SPECIES-IST" but I have a moral authority I obey and humans are off the menu no matter what.
To harm and kill another being for pleasure, convenience or profit (the only reasons it's done) is unethical.
Unethical? By what standard do we decide its unethical. Glib one liner motherhood statements with little or no foundation are as useful as water proof tea bags. Without fleshing out the foundation we have one person's opinion vs another person's opposing opinion. Killing an animal for pleasure...well I am a hunter, but I only hunter declared pests in Australia. I can't say there's pleasure in it beyond the satisfaction of doing a job that needs doing and doing it properly. If I were not to kill the feral cat, wild dog, fox etc it will kill the native species and some domesticated farm species. I have no ethical dilemma killing an introduced declared pest that threatens to kill or displace other animals that should be there.
Convenience, not sure what that means. Sorry.
Profit? What's wrong with raising livestock for food and making a paid career from it?
If its unethical, if that's the truth claim, you have to back it up by citing by what standards are you making the judgement. Does society judge? If that's the case, some societies love their neighbour while others eat their neighbour, both able to comply with the ethical standards of their respective society. For me however, cannibalism is something I definitely oppose because my worldview states its not allowed no matter what a ruler decides anywhere. No human gets to trump the moral authority I follow...they do evil (that is break the moral authority) but it never ends well.
Peter Robins Thanks for the lesson in ethics. I know what professional ethics are and I'm not talking about that.
No maybe you're not, maybe you're talking about what's good and what's evil, but we never get to find out which moral authority you're following, which exacting "Ethics" or ethical standard you're using to make the truth claim you did. But we continue...
Now, with ethics it depends on whether you're a believer of moral relativism or realism.
For your position to float that might be the case, but I suggest it doesn't float well and not for very long at all. In fact most of the complexity involved in philosophy is trying to make it all line up with contradictions, quite funny really.
Moral Relativism can be split up in a number of groupings depending on the philosopher.
To sum up the relative moral philosophy, Frederick Nietzsche wrote, “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, it does not exist.” - He also called out to God on his death bed and as a result his lover then declared him mad. Its relative, personal and well false as 3 dollar bank notes. For it to work often adherents will cite the funny old line "There is no such thing as absolute truth, its all relative"
Once in a discussion about this I asked in reply "You sure about that"
"Yes, certain with no doubt" can the quick and commanding reply.
I then replied "Serious, that's how it is, no absolute truth at all?"
The condemning reply then came, "For sure, take it to the bank"
"Wow" I pondered out loud, that sounds like an absolute truth, which you said doesn't exist then?"
The blank look was worth a mint, then came the "Ummm, ahh well you see, ahh..."
Not nice but I quietly came out "And that ladies and gentleman is the sound of a contradiction, or incoherent implosion". No its not nearly as loud as an explosion but quite the impact nonetheless. The deeper complexity follows to try and side step the problem blocking the road. It gets closely linked from time to time with evolution, which I actually agree with on a micro level. I think animals can adapt and evolve, but a cat will not evolve into a giraffe, a fish will not evolve into a mosquito. We have never seen nor found nor replicated jumps from one species to another. Never. But it is accepted on the macro level regardless. How soup of chemicals can turn from beaker fluid into a live living cell is also a mystery. But like relativism, the best bet is to find much much more complexity to overcome proven results. Just saying.
Realism - Can again be split up, but its the core atheist tenant and if its true and correct, morals are just words with no real meaning whether they're followed or not. Its ok to shoot the kid on the bus because he has a bottle of water and I'm thirsty. Yes, there's legal consequences but no moral ones.
If you believe there is no transcendent Creator lawgiver then you need to come clean and work out what morals are, how they apply and why they should be even considered or used in arguments of practices you don't personally like. Realism, well you're using "morals" as a fake trump card in a game of poker logic. You're bluffing and you know it.
Relativism, you're right, I'm right nothing is absolute..."POOF!!!" there goes that pesky implosion again.
If you're a moral relativist then you could think it's all just opinion. Ok. Then everything that comes under ethics could be opinion, right? Rape, murder, theft, slavery, lynching, human experimentation etc.
Correct, which is one reason why I oppose it totally. All those abominations just also happen to be abominations to the transcendent God, Creator, Lawgiver. I have no implosion. On a side note, the animals were also designed as food and we're directed so. Still no implosion. For the relativist, my view is correct, theirs is correct even though they are completely incompatiable...my moral authority also points this out :-)
Now we can talk about law, which is related to ethics, and remember that it was once legal to rape (in marriage), keep slaves, murder (what happened during the holocaust was legal) etc. So, what's the point?
Luckily for me, whilst that may have been historically been the case to some extent, murder, rape etc has never had Moral Authority/Creator/Lawgiver approval. Slavery yes, but according to the Moral Authority, slavery is servitude, there is Jubilee Years to wipe away debt and if the slave fulfils their obligation the Moral Authority I'm under makes provision for the free slave to rejoin the house they were in servitude to as a bond servant. This huge honour was seen openly by the ear ring worn as a bond servant. They became a part of the household til they day they died and their family were under the provision of the house. It wasn't exactly Egyptian slavery or Pre American Civil War type slavery. In fact, some of those foul treatments handed out are direct violation of the Moral Authority I actually follow. Australia's legal start also came from its Judaeo-Christian base. As it formed, it like America, was a Christian country. If you read the earliest speeches from statesmen from the respective earliest days you can find this. There has been no atheist, relativism or realism society that has survive more than a few generations. Soviet Russia, Communist China and North Korea are 3 very secular societies. They all be fine with atheism but relativism would be out. Odd yeah?
Point returns, if you're a relativist, you have an incoherent problem before you even start "legally" doing those things. If you're atheist you have a slightly more coherent position regards anything dog eat dog...but sorry, my Moral Authority opposes it completely. If its legal and unethical, you're still stuck with massive elephant in the room..."ethical" by what standard? More $3 notes :-)
The point is, if we want to evolve ethically to establish what we now think is right and wrong, we need to talk about it much like the abolitionists talked about the ethics of keeping human slaves.
Strangely the abolitionists were mainly Christians. William Wilberforce just one very notable abolitionist. He cited Christian grounds in opposing the slave trade. No relativists or realism-ists or Atheist fronts to the rescue. That's one point, but before that, you say we need to talk if we're to evolve. Again that's a thoroughly atheist position to evolve agreed ethics, but there is no moral standard that points to any higher ground whatsoever. This is dog eat dog, or dog wearing down other dogs in a conversation, where again we're left with ethics which are just words that have no standard to line up with to be ethical.
Slave owners asked the same questions, made the same objections and, thankfully, people realised that black people have rights and were not commodities for use by others.
Abolition of the slave trade came about by people pointing to the Moral Authority, they employ sound hermeneutics in relation to their Lawgiver's instructions. It was not the Atheist hard fought and slogged out talk fest. If those who began the slave trade actually adhered to the Moral Authority that Wilberforce and others adhered to, the trade would never have started. The beginnings are far more likely to be the outcomes of devout non believers, doing the Darwinian dog eat dog, survival of the fittest. We should never slip into revisionism of history either :-)
Now, you being so bright, I'm sure you know where I'm going with this.
Got a rough idea...this is the rim of Ground Zero where a lot of implosions happen or already happened...but sadly continue on :-)
If you want to know the stem of these ethics, you can refer to Prof Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights, whose views I most closely adhere to and consider logical and rational.
So Francione is your moral authority? You know his views are...well his views. He made them up, you do realise that don't you. He has made up theories he's gifted with under Relativism, what's true to him is true enough. You do know his idea of rights of the animal not to be property don't extend to lions and antelope relationship? All sentient beings have rights but no ability to enforce them. Somehow (as yet unexplained) we are the only animal capable to enforcing these rights for other species. Extended to the highest forms, we all roam, we hunt, we gather and we don't farm at all.
Sadly its not uncommon for a philosopher to spout things profoundly vague or vaguely profound in a crisp authorative well educated accent and accept without full and proper testing. If all these folk are so clever and smart...Francione, Singer, Regan and others should have, as you put it, done the logical, rational thing, sat down and talk and as a result a better approach evolved as you put it? But alas no, each has a career or side career pushing past implosions. Add Dawkins to the list, the biologist who somehow makes theological decrees. More$3 notes, I still ain't buying.
I used to like Peter Singer but have since moved on from utilitarian philosophy.
Yes, Animal Australia founder and still lingering poster boy. That will fade. He's the guy who asked the question on ABCTV's "Q&A" what exactly is wrong with a human and an non human species engaging in sex if the animal is not forced but is willing. My Moral Authority rules that out, pretty simple but whilst you may reject Singer a bit now, relativism could allow that to happen and be morally ok. So too realism. Of course if you were to come home and your significant other, endearing life partner happened to be in the laundry having sex with the dog, how would you react? A true realism atheist and relativist would have to say "Oopsy sorry to barge in, I shoulda knocked" if they were true adherents to the cult. Kinda doubt that.
I also like Tom Regan. They each have something to offer but, overall, I prefer Francione.
Regan, Francione, Singer, coupla things in common. Pre-suppositional, they all begin from the prior belief God does not exist. All are seeking to develop a moral code and see it become the norm and the mainstream. Good luck with that, my Moral Authority says if they don't align with the Moral Authority/Creator/Lawgiver they're quite wrong. Despite whatever they each or together concoct, it is self developed, self decided. They're all trying to develop a moral stance which cannot be tested against a moral standard. Ahh think they've got little chance of evolving as you put it.
You say we kill animals for food.
Yes we do.
That suggests we need to do this for survival, which is not true for the vast majority of us.
That suggestion is true for the relativist and the realism-ist...so too the opposing position.
No one is pushing for the abolition of Veganism, however some are arguing for meat eating and any non-vegan menus to be abolished. To do so on ethical grounds, on moral grounds one must cite which moral standard this is pulled from. Sorry but it could be acceptable to you that I presume its correct to say the Abolitionist Three Stooges (Regan, Singer, Francione) are pushing for a diminutive moral position which doesn't actually exist until all people are (rightly or wrongly) convinced and agree with them. You can survive on solely McDonalds but I wouldn't advise it, its up to you but to attach a moral/immorality stance to it whilst avoiding what the moral standard actually is, well its pretty odd. I eat meat, not because I have to, not because I think I'll die without it. Its a traditional food source and forms part of my diet. Y'know what's really funny? when some folk say "Yeah well eating meat cause cancer"
Ahh says who. Is this a cancer debate? Is it provable claim, is it worse than smoking? Not its a quick pull from the desperate basket to help float a sinking argument.
There is no moral standard that says you must not eat meat, nor own livestock and treat them as property.
We do it for profit and taste.
So do meat eaters, neither meat eaters nor vegans transgress or violate any ethical standards or moral authority. However some folk are busily trying to construct some.
Harming and killing another being for pleasure or profit is wrong.
Ahh have you told the lion lately? He has no recognised legal tender I grant you and not sure its for the pure fun of it. Wrong by what standard? Who created the standard? If we're all just animals who evolved from a primordial soup then its all there for the taking and you can only be bluffed by dawkins, singer, regan, francione and others...if you don't believe in God, you're just an animal too in the food chain. Its ok, I won't ever eat you...its against the Moral Authority I follow :-)
If you are a firm believer in evolution and oppose the idea that there exists a (any) Creator with a purpose, then everything is fair game y'know. Strip it away the moral ideas float are just words and when you wipe them off the whiteboard there is no purpose...its all accident, survival of the fittest. No purpose, everything that happens is just whatever happens. Pays to be consistent.
Its far more coherent for the follower of a Moral Authority ;-)
I think I've answered your question.
Seriously, it doesn't matter if you have or haven't if you're a core non believer of God. Its all 2 animals barking, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
Its quite possible you're as presuppositional as I am. Mine comes from a Moral Authority which thankfully validates itself and did so long before I found it and understood it and yours comes from...well yours comes from you. You may not have concocted it, but you careful selected it. Singer outlast his welcome and you selected another couple of prophets who are still working on the incoherent details and have yet to (as you put it, allow me to paraphrase) come together talk and evolve into one idea.
If you'd return the favour and answer this simple question: do you think it's right to harm and kill another being for pleasure or profit?
1)I think there is no grounds to harm or kill another human being for pleasure or profit. That view is consistent with the moral authority I follow. (like you and the many more than Three Stooges, its a Moral Authority I chose so in the relativism/realism realm, that quite ok)
2) Do I think its right to harm or kill another (non human) creature for pleasure or profit?
No & yes in that order. No for pleasure, yes for profit. They're a vital resource that my Moral Authority is very clear about, animals are under my stewardship and should be afforded the best treatment possible before they become a meal. I didn't make it up, its the Lawgiver's instructions, however you have room to move, you can follow that lawgiver and be vegan if you like, because remarkably neither choice has a moral basis.
On Hunting, some do it for a past time & I have no problem with that. In fact I support it IF its a part of a properly worked out conservation plan or its the destruction of declared pests and invasive species. But hunting should always be swift, clean and quick. I don't its right to see any animal suffer for pleasure or profit.
Ironic isn't it, Mr AA poster boy cheerfully quizzes what's wrong with a human having non forced sex with their companion animal but shooting a feral cat or wild dog is a pleasure based perversion of the highest order.
Francione says animal rights is all about no ownership...some folk think that means release everything. Think he's still "evolving"
Regan's inherent value is...well only recognised by him and his ilk - so he made that up. Wipe it off the blackboard, it doesn't exist you know? Apparently as an individual, we all have some distinctive and unique value, that's the "inherent value." He argues that the basis for rights is this inherent value and not rationality, autonomy, or some other quality. Soooo....the idea he made up, that wasn't previously invented is the basis for the value he says is morally a part of each individual. It really is like herding cats in a snow storm.
Dawkins - well there is no God, its all dog eat dog, please buy another Flying Spaghetti Monster badge and root out and ridicule all people of faith cos we're all just animals, nothing more, nothing less...accidents of evolutionary mutations over enough "given time" so morals are a false survival construct that have no real foundation except to survive as a species and dominant all others. Now the real logic atheist will go this view and if we're all lucky they'll also adhere to the law of the land because morals are bogus traits of evolutionary survival...the philosophers are all bull dusters :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)