danielmims

No, several questions are being debated. The comment you refer to also asked why eating should be considered evil. And the question of whether or not humans have evolved to eat meat, especially to eat meat anywhere near the levels that Westerners (and increasingly, Easterners) do today. Of course, it has been downmodded because it doesn't comport with the status quo.

The reason I asked for people to justify their eating of meat is that this is the first logical step in any of these debates. It is not up to me to tell you why your behavior is unjustified before you have even attempted to justify it yourself. Of course, whether or not humans evolved to eat is a separate question from whether or not it is moral to cause unnecessary suffering.

You can deride moral beliefs as mere "opinions," but moral propositions -- like all propositions -- contain ontological commitments. Those moral propositions that are founded upon false ontological propositions are bad moral propositions. Opinion doesn't come into that equation. Those who value their own suffering but do not value the suffering of others have breached logic and upheld falsehoods.

Wow. Thanks for reading, I guess.

First, again again again, we are not just talking about "killing animals for food." We are talking about torturing them for their entire lives and then killing them.

Second, you say you think "killing [animals] for food is OK." Can you please at some point contend with the fact that this killing is completely unnecessary? Can you contend with the fact that the "killing" we are talking about also has catastrophic effects for the environment, both in localized ecosystems and in the atmosphere of our planet?

You can make simple declarations all day ("Killing things for food is OK"), but that doesn't amount to justification at all.

I'm obviously not saying humans don't have a single trait in common with some predators. Humans have blood, for example. Get over your indignation at being challenged and think about what you say. That'd be nice.

To answer your question, these are simply the most clear-cut traits that are present in herbivores versus omnivores and carnivores. The "front-facing eyes" is an out-of-date meme from high school textbooks.

Why the downmodding? Because you don't like sound arguments and facts? Further confirming the greatness of your species, I guess.

Humans did not "evolve eating meat." Yes, they began to eat meat relatively recently, but only during winter periods after migrating into colder climates. Even then, humans ate almost no meat when plant food was abundant, during warmer seasons.

Anatomically the case for human herbivorism, or at least heavy-plant omnivorism, is strong. Check it (I hope this formats okay):

      Meat-eaters: have claws
      Herbivores: no claws
      Humans: no claws

      Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
      Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
      Humans: perspire through skin pores

      Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
      Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
      Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding [we're talking about actually sharp teeth, not so-called human “canine” teeth]

      Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
      Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
      Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

      Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
      Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
      Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

      Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
      Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
      Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits

      Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
      Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
      Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

There's quite a lot to say in response, but I'll limit the scope of it to two of your points, and I'll try to be brief with each.

(1) "My species is more important to me than theirs."

Our species is only more important in a very big way: we are the scourge of the Earth. We have destroyed our planet and its inhabitants beyond comprehension, and people like you -- likely among the more intelligent of our precious and wonderful species -- cannot find it in their self-pronounced greatness to be good. We are extremely important in that we annually torture and kill 50 billion fellow animals, sensitive creatures all, for the sake of our own convenience and culturally imputed preferences.

So yes, we are extremely important. Catastrophically so.

And by the way, your species-ism is shamelessly fallacious. You are not better or correct or more valuable simply because you belong to homo sapiens, and your fellow species members are not better or correct or more valuable simply because they belong to the same species as you do.

Moreover, comparing human value to pig value in support of factory farming is a complete canard. It's a moot point whether or not humans are "more" valuable, because we do not need to factory farm other creatures in order to live healthy, happy lives ourselves. Indeed, factory farming will be a primary reason why humans in the future will have horrible lives indeed, on a hellscape formerly known as the green planet.

(2) "The animals are domesticated, therefore are part of a symbiotic relationship in which they get to live fairly well, without so much worrying about getting to eat, breed etc, in exchange for being docile, and eaten at the end of the road."

You are so amazingly incorrect about this. The animals do not "live well." Here is a sampling of what is routinely done to animals on factory farms, in no particular order: confinement in spaces so tight they can't move; traumatic mutilation, including tail-docking, hole-punching, de-beaking, and castration; living in piss and feces, their own and others; rampant disease; unnatural food, including corn and other animal product waste, that causes them to be sick and so overweight that their bones break; and many more abuses besides. The animals literally go insane after a short while, and you would too, believe me. And yes, then, after they have lived in these conditions for they are slaughtered.

"A symbiotic relationship?" "Living well?" Couldn't be further from reality.

And again! I suppose some people don't believe they should have to justify themselves.

Voting me down for saying this:

"How about this: you prove that eating meat is justifiable? That would be something."

Whoever did it, you're realllly smart.

You're going to deny that the degree of something isn't relevant to its severity? Seriously?

How about this: you prove that eating meat is justifiable? That would be something.

Evgen, the system isn't letting me reply to you directly for some reason, so my apologies if this garbles the thread.

What you have written is so riddled with logical fallacies I don't know where to start, but I'll give it a shot.

You said: "There is a difference between pain response and suffering. The latter requires the consciousness to know what the future has in store for the organism."

Your redefinition of what it means to suffer is entirely ad hoc (and just plain weird). The word "suffering" describes a pained state of being. One who is suffering need not have any beliefs whatsoever about whether or not that suffering will continue. They need not even have a word for it. If you contest this, I suggest you look in a dictionary. And by the way, no creature "knows" what the future has in store, not even members of your delusional humanity. By your sloppy ad hoc definition, then, nobody can suffer. What a meaningless little semantic game you play with yourself.

You said: "Animals can be abused, but very few of them have the level of consciousness required for the abuse to be 'torture.'"

And the trivial game continues. Once again you redefine common words for your own ad hoc convenience. All of a sudden, in your view, one must have some vague level of consciousness that goes beyond the feeling of intense pain in order for the abuse one undergoes to be called "torture." Of course, this is not a part of the definition of "torture." Moreover, you say non-human creatures can be "abused" but not "tortured." That is some pretty... tortured... logic.

You said: "You can pretend that animals are people too all you want, but wishing it to be true does not make it so."

If by "people," you mean "humans," obviously nobody has made the claim that a cow is a human. Straw man fallacy. Also, you are conveniently defining "people" as the only beings who are worthy of deep moral concern to argue that humans are the only beings worthy of deep moral concern. That is, you've assumed a premise that is identical to your conclusion, committing a blatant, egregious fallacy of circularity. Forget about proving your point; you haven't even made one.

With that, I'll throw your own words right back at ya: "Wishing it to be true does not make it so." Quite.

How would it be "poetic justice" for a vegan, who cares for other living things, to be malnourished? They're just being not evil. Of course, being vegan has all kinds of eprsonal health benefits in addition to its benefits for others. Vegans have significantly lower rates of cancer and heart disease, for example. Maybe you're one of those people who think that being trim is equivalent to being malnourished. It isn't.

On the other hand, one who pays another to torture and slaughter living creatures for his own discretionary meals is indeed making a withdrawal from his/her karmic balance, if you will.

"While jeremymims didn't explicitly espouse a vegan viewpoint, he did mention the "slaughter [of] 10 billion sentient, thinking animals", an emotionally charged choice of words which in my experience is a characterization that only ever comes from a vegan viepoint."

"Emotionally charged," eh? Is it not "slaughter?" Of course it is. Are these slaughtered creatures not "sentient" -- that is, do they not have the ability to experience sensations? Of course they do. Are they not "thinking," even though they use their brains to process sensory inputs? Of course they are. Tell me, when did facts become "emotional" expressions? You should really bother to ask yourself, What exactly do I deny about his statement?, prior to auto-defending whatever thought first comes to mind.

"Serious moral consideration is a whole different story than "don't eat them"."

You definitely win the obliviousness award. "Serious moral consideration" requires that you not arbitrarily dismiss viewpoints simply because you have a bias against the label. All you've stated is that you have an aversion to the word "vegan." You haven't made any other point whatsoever. "Serious moral consideration," indeed.

"But when a cow can push against an electric fence, recoil from getting shocked, and then push on the fence again, there is clearly something missing in that cow brain that accounts for learning in other creatures."

Perhaps the cow is like countless human prisoners throughout history, who have gone insane at the tedium of their prolonged imprisonment. Perhaps the cow has not lost its mental footing, but instead prefers the sensation of something, anything, rather than the tedium of standing in a stall.

"Cows are not intelligent creatures."

Clearly, you've done a great study into the matter. I'm sure you know that cows have personalities and problem-solving abilities. I'm certain that you must know they share every part of the human brain except for the pre-frontal cortex, which allows us to do all sorts of bad things. So, maybe they're not smart enough to enslave, torture, and murder other animals en masse, but hey, that isn't really a strike against them.

The significance of a hamburger being comprised of many different pieces of multiple cows is that it's hard to track and there are higher-risk meats than others. For example, meat that resided near the intestines/colon has a much a higher risk of e. coli contamination.

Honestly, I'm with you in my lack of concern, but probably for a different reason. It is a very small justice that meat-eaters should get e. coli from time to time.

The scientific evidence supporting the similarity of other animals' experiences of the world to humans' experiences is indeed "mounting." It shouldn't have to, because the incredibly evidenced theory of evolution -- the single unifying idea behind all modern biological understanding -- necessitates that such is the case. But scientists are also species-ist, even when the truth stares them right in the face.

Oh, and I would like to take a moment to point out that humans, via that supposedly morally superior "sapience" (talk about a circular, species-indulgent term), have used their intelligence to needlessly torture and kill tens of billions of fellow creatures every year in death camps, and to cause the only mass extinction of life on Earth ever initiated by a single species. If moral status comes down to what you do -- not what you are -- then humanity has a lot of work to do, and a lot of sacrifice to make, before it can claim the mantle of special moral worth.

Unpredictability (or randomness) does not preserve the possibility of free will. One must have control over the process. That's really the basis of why we care about free will in the first place -- control.

"If we feel it, then it's real."

The word "real" loses all meaning once we start saying that what we feel -- any old fantasy, delusion, speculation -- is real. We also indulge one of the central fantasies of human reflexive identity -- that we are supernatural -- when we say that what we feel is therefore, ipso facto, real.

As for Dennett, he is a serial question-begger and equivocator on this topic. He doesn't merely change the definition of "free will" in that book. He arbitrarily changes the definition to a trivial one; argues that that new kind of free will is possible; and then reinserts his conclusions into a debate in which the definition has not changed. Hence he has offered absolutely nothing to the issue that we're all talking about -- free will that would allow for culpability, or what I call non-trivial free will. I recommend Peter Van Inwagen and Galen Strawson instead, who offer much more rigorous good-faith arguments about free will.

Good points. I would take it a bit further by noting that a defense of non-trivial free will cannot rely upon quantum mechanics (or any other engine of unpredictability). By non-trivial free will, I mean a kind of free will that allows for some control over what is being willed.

The thesis describing a wholly causal universe is known as "determinism." The thesis of a less-than-wholly causal universe, no matter the degree to which strong causality governs, is known as "indeterminism." Together, they describe the entire set of possible worlds. Because free will is impossible in either case, free will is thus absolutely impossible, no matter what.

Importantly, even if effect doesn't necessarily follow cause (also known as "indeterminism"), free will isn't possible. Hence free will is absolutely impossible, alongside any conditions whatsoever.