Biggest lie in the history of mankind - Page 4

lucksack · #31 09-13-2007, 03:15 PM

oe39,
well, we arent doing that, right? How could you think we are not just another animal species, when we evolved from apes and our intelligence increased mostly because we were physically so weak that it significantly helped us (despite also having disadvantages)?

lucksack · #32 09-13-2007, 03:39 PM

RoundGuy,

I'm not very interested what you buy from your local supermarket, I'm interested in whether (and WHY) you think meat should be available to be bought (the big ethical questions). When it's already there, it probably doesn't make a huge difference whether some dude buys it or not.

RoundGuy · #33 09-13-2007, 03:45 PM

You keep trying to inject ethics into an ethically neutral situation. There is no logical or rational reason why meat should not be available in the supermarket. Therefore, there is no logical or rational reason why I should not purchase it and eat it.

oe39 · #34 09-13-2007, 03:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
oe39,
well, we arent doing that, right? How could you think we are not just another animal species, when we evolved from apes and our intelligence increased mostly because we were physically so weak that it significantly helped us (despite also having disadvantages)?

[/ QUOTE ]

i didn't say i thought that we are fundamentally different from the other animals, and i don't. i'm not quite sure how your reasoning supports this, but whatever.

aren't you saying that our ethics should compel us to sacrifice our own agendas for the good of other animals?

are there other animals that do that?

Borodog · #35 09-13-2007, 03:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Define "worth". Therein lies your problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

The value of something measured by its qualities. Where's the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's not a very helpful definition. you can basically substitute the word "worth" for "value" back into the definition and it means the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

lucksack · #36 09-13-2007, 03:55 PM

Sephus,

that's what I thought the bigger argument is. And as I said, people also have much larger capability of causing suffering.

How can social norms change then if they're not random? Do you think they are like improving all the time?

Why does capacity to suffer matter, if pretty much all you care about is the norm? Do you think the capacity to suffer is affecting the social norm? If so, the norm is clearly "outdated" since the studies about animal mental abilities are quite new. Should we try to "update" the norm?

lucksack · #37 09-13-2007, 04:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
it's not a very helpful definition. you can basically substitute the word "worth" for "value" back into the definition and it means the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, how about: value means how something should be treated compared to other beings/objects.

lucksack · #38 09-13-2007, 04:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]

aren't you saying that our ethics should compel us to sacrifice our own agendas for the good of other animals?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the sacrifice would be nearly as big as you think, because we would get used to vegan food quickly (also, for many people, it would make them eat healthier and thus feeling better than before). Also, if whole society switched to vegan food (gradually), being a vegan wouldn't be thought of as "weird" (socially not accepted), which is now a big problem. Also, then obviously the availability of different types of vegan food would be much better, and it would be easy to be vegan. But yes, generally, that's what I'm saying.

[ QUOTE ]
are there other animals that do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not. I don't think other animals are smart enough to think about ethics (and it's not even very easy for us).

lucksack · #39 09-13-2007, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no logical or rational reason why meat should not be available in the supermarket.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then where the [censored] is the logical or rational reason why cannibalism is wrong? I repeat my claim (from OP):either abusing both other animals and humans is wrong, or neither is wrong.

Sephus · #40 09-13-2007, 04:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sephus,

that's what I thought the bigger argument is. And as I said, people also have much larger capability of causing suffering.

How can social norms change then if they're not random? Do you think they are like improving all the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

the rules of american football change over time, but not randomly.

how could i say our morality is "improving"? what's the goal? whatever i think is good now? it's like asking if my tastes are "improving." do i have a taste for my tastes?

[ QUOTE ]
Why does capacity to suffer matter, if pretty much all you care about is the norm?

[/ QUOTE ]

ultimately it matters to me because i have a negative emotional reaction to causing suffering. this is true of most people. i have this negative reaction, in large part, because it was instilled in me through socialization.

when i say "X is wrong," i'm saying "i have a negative emotional association with behavior X." the negative emotion tells me it's wrong, not society. however, socialization has (in large part) caused that reaction in me.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the capacity to suffer is affecting the social norm? If so, the norm is clearly "outdated" since the studies about animal mental abilities are quite new. Should we try to "update" the norm?

[/ QUOTE ]

it's not the social norm you want to change. people already care a lot about causing suffering. you want to change people's belifs about the nature and extent of animals' suffering.