Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 1001
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...Page 41 of 43    (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43)
>>> I said that treating living beings, which I contrasted with living things, in certain ways is immoral.

Why the distinction? That, since we are a higher form of life, that their life doesn't matter-but creatures that represent some of our abilities deserve not only our respect, but our protection, and is immoral to cause them any harm in anyway.

>>> That, however, is a discussion for another thread.

Then it really does make sense that you leave the thread- you came in here, said something is an absolute moral truth and no difference in opinion changes that- then stated that it is inappropreiate to discuss and elaborate. Simply put, you believe your judgement is the absolute fact, and any disagreement is moot, because you refuse to acknowledge that your judgement of morals could be anything else but the absolute.

>>>Condemn is a very strong word, and doesn't really come close to what I've said.

Calling people immoral if they disagree with you- this isn't condemning them?

>>>When did I say anything about 'worship'?

You didn't. But you do expect others to accept your moral standards, simply because you dictate them- and I find this moral standard can only be acheived through death, and faith that it is the right thing to do. Hence, Worship.

>>>I also have said very little about my moral system, which is far more complex than you realize.

Zippity-Doo! That doesn't change the fact that morality isn't absolute, its subjective and debatable. And the fact that not everyone agrees with what is and is not morality proves this.

>>> People don't seem to want to listen to the argument though, so I'm not repeating it again.

No, its not lack of conprehension or lack of interest- its disagreement. I do not agree that raising an animal for slaughter is mistreatment.

Shit I hate people whose only interest in these debates is to stroke their ego- the fact that you keep coming back to how superior you feel you are to everyone else reveals this.

>>>First, treating the animal as a food source is an act of disrespect in and of itself.

Again, I disagree.
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 1002
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/3/2009 4:29:50 PM

Insects are exothermic, which means they get their heat from the surrounding environment.


So are crocodiles and other reptiles.


The gods want you to eat bugs ....................
In the Old Testament book of Leviticus, the writers did a nice job of outlining the foods
that are forbidden and permissible to consume.


"The gods"? I thought that the Bible outlined a monotheistic faith?


living on locusts and honeycomb.


So you eat honey?
 Bright1Raziel
Joined: 8/20/2005
Msg: 1003
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/3/2009 5:19:52 PM

Do you remember why I said eating meat is wrong?


Nope, I do not rember because you have not actually said why you belive eating meat is wrong. You have said why you think raising cattle for slaughter is wrong, but not why you think eating meat is wrong.

In post 972, you talk about treatment of animals for slaughter, not about eating meat.
In post 974 you discus your views of PETA.
In post 976 you ask a question.
In post 979 you discus your views on taking life and on why you are vegitarian.
In post 982 you talk about what you belive is good and true.
In post 984 you talk about about truth.
In post 986 you talk about critical reasoning.
In post 991 you call me a hypocrite.

But in none of those do you explain specifically why eating meat is wrong.


You can answer that question about snakes for yourself if you do.


As I can not recal any instance of you explaining your position, then I clearly can not answer that question for you, not that I would feel cappabable of answering any questions for another person anyway.


There is not a single plant on Earth that is sentient, and a little bit of science will demonstrate that. No plant possesses anything that looks like a nervous system, let alone a brain, and therefore could not possibly be sentient. Plants are objects. Period.


As I happen to be a biologist, let me correct your comon mistake. Plants do not posses SAPIENCE. Learn your greek, senteince is the abilty to sense your surounding, sapience is the ability to think. There is no question that all multicellular organisms and most unicelluar organism are able to sense thier suroundings. A little bit of science would have helped you out here.


But this is simply not true. The animal is not safe because you are planning to kill it. It doesn't know your intentions, but that doesn't make you any less of a threat to it. If anything your pleasant treatment of the animal, far from being kind and compassionate, becomes dishonest and deceptive.


And what if I were to keep the animal alive untill the end of its natural life? For example, I ussed to keep anoles, and I bread crickets for them to eat. Crickets bread very rapidly, faster than my anoles would eat them. As a result, many of them lived to be over a year old, before dying of old age. Whilst I was a child I seriously considered eating them, because I did not like seing them go to waste.

Please explain to me why it would be wrong to keep animals in this way?


Of course I would object to that. Being a person who strives for virtue, I happen to believe in showing respect to the dead.


Then I belive you are deluding yourself, IMHO.

I also belive in honouring the dead, but what is left on this material plane when we die is not the person or animal we once knew, it is a corpse and nothig more. It has no conciousness and feels no pain, it dose not care what happens to it. Do you think that a snake cares what happens to its old skin, or a crab its old shell?

Are you a blood donor? Do you have an organ donor card? Should I asume you do not as to do so would be hypocritical, as you aparently belive that it maters what happens to your corpse. Of course Ican't actually confirm that because I can not speak for you.


I never denied that plants are alive, I denied that they are animate.


I belive you should chose anopther word, as aniamte has several difrent meanings and I think they are being confused in this context. I'm guessing that you intended the meaning of :
"endowed with animal life as distinguished from plant life; "we are animate beings" "


Few people actually are after formally studying ethics.


Opinion or do you have evidence?


Condemn is a very strong word, and doesn't really come close to what I've said.


Dosen't condemn mean to strongly disaprove or to pronounce jugment, both of which you have doe on this forum. I do still rember you aserting that I should die, if that is not condemnation then I do not know what is.


First, treating the animal as a food source is an act of disrespect in and of itself.


Please explain why you feel this way about animals and plants? Why is it okay to treat plants as a food source without disrespecting them? And why do you feel it is disreptfull to use the bodies of the dead?


Second, I never made the claim that "all life is sacred".


Indead, I would like to point out that it was infact me who claimed to belive this and so I shall reiterate for everyone to here. I am a ominovre and I belive that all life is sacred.
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 1004
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 11:46:13 AM
There is not a single plant on Earth that is sentient, and a little bit of science will demonstrate that. No plant possesses anything that looks like a nervous system, let alone a brain, and therefore could not possibly be sentient. Plants are objects. Period.


A dead cow is not a sapient or sentient being. Are you against eating meat if the animal dies of natural causes outside of human intent to consume?
 CoeurDeLion246
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 1005
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 12:16:57 PM

A dead cow is not a sapient or sentient being. Are you against eating meat if the animal dies of natural causes outside of human intent to consume?


Yes, because the way I see it doing so would still be mistreating the animal after it has died. The cow was a sentient, and perhaps primitively sapient, being whilst it was alive, and I believe that has a bearing on how it should be treated after death.
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 1006
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 12:22:50 PM

Yes, because the way I see it doing so would still be mistreating the animal after it has died. The cow was a sentient, and perhaps primitively sapient, being whilst it was alive, and I believe that has a bearing on how it should be treated after death.


Rotting into the ground feeds the ecosystem; how is that different than human consumption?

Do you eat honey?
 CoeurDeLion246
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 1007
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 12:33:34 PM

Rotting into the ground feeds the ecosystem; how is that different than human consumption?


In the practical sense, it is essentially the same process. Morally speaking, it is very different. There is nothing unreasonable about leaving a body to be consumed by the earth, although I generally prefer cremation allowing a being to be returned to the earth is still potentially dignified. On the other hand, treating a being's body as food fundamentally denigrates them because it treats them like an object to simply be used. I guess I'm drawing on Kantian theory for inspiration here, except extending it to non-human animals as well.


Do you eat honey?


No, I'm from the school of thought that considers honey to be an 'animal product'. I am, however, aware of the processes involved and where the conflicting opinions arise from.
 Cyke
Joined: 3/25/2009
Msg: 1008
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 12:36:13 PM
Mmmmmm....meat. Meat is yummy!! I usually eat some form of meat with nearly every meal.

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 1009
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 12:39:21 PM


In the practical sense, it is essentially the same process. Morally speaking, it is very different. There is nothing unreasonable about leaving a body to be consumed by the earth, although I generally prefer cremation allowing a being to be returned to the earth is still potentially dignified. On the other hand, treating a being's body as food fundamentally denigrates them because it treats them like an object to simply be used. I guess I'm drawing on Kantian theory for inspiration here, except extending it to non-human animals as well.


The problem I see with this is that if you extend Kantian theory to include all living beings, excluding plants since they are not sapient, is that it is not universalizable. Contradictions lie in that all carnivorous beings consume other sapient beings. If you include them in Kantian theory, then technically, they are also being immoral.

Do you cremate your animals that pass?
 CoeurDeLion246
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 1010
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 12:53:48 PM

The problem I see with this is that if you extend Kantian theory to include all living beings, excluding plants since they are not sapient, is that it is not universalizable. Contradictions lie in that all carnivorous beings consume other sapient beings. If you include them in Kantian theory, then technically, they are also being immoral.


True, though I'm not applying Kant's theory as such, I'm just using his idea as the basis of my own. Still, it is worth my stating that I would say that the carniverous animals' actions are immoral, except for the fact that the animals seem to lack any capacity for understanding morality. It'd be like expecting a toddler, someone about age four or younger, to understand differences between right and wrong. On that basis I would argue that even though the action is immoral, the animal has no moral responsibility or blame/praiseworthiness.


Do you cremate your animals that pass?


It would depend on the animal. If one of my pet birds were to pass, then yes I would insist on cremation.
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 1011
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 1:11:54 PM

True, though I'm not applying Kant's theory as such, I'm just using his idea as the basis of my own. Still, it is worth my stating that I would say that the carniverous animals' actions are immoral, except for the fact that the animals seem to lack any capacity for understanding morality. It'd be like expecting a toddler, someone about age four or younger, to understand differences between right and wrong. On that basis I would argue that even though the action is immoral, the animal has no moral responsibility or blame/praiseworthiness.


I appreciate that you do not eat meat, before I say anything else. I do not want you to feel like you are defending your feelings about it.

To continue on the discussion for purely academic reasons, when we enter in whether or not a toddler knows the difference between right and wrong, we have to define right and wrong. Then it no longer is just a question of morality. It's either normative or descriptive, and depending on the individual they will choose to follow one or the other. A toddler has an inherent normative moral compass, they know that doing something that makes someone sad or mad makes them feel badly.

I follow universal normative morality. In this morality, the animals respect that they are a food source, just as I respect that I could be the food source for another carnivore, and one day will be a food source for the Earth.
 HO2
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 1012
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 1:32:47 PM
^^^^Hence my statement that all morality involves acceptance and compliance.
The question of morality plays no role in the natural food source circle of life
 xzanthius
Joined: 9/28/2004
Msg: 1013
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 2:02:19 PM
There are plenty of animal product foods that involve an unneccessary amount of pain and hardship for the beasts involved. Pate de Fois Gras (force fed ducks), some types of veal (anemic, light starved animals) amungst others. While morality may play no role in the natural food circle of life (because morality is largely a human concept) it does, and in my opinion, should play a role in how we choose to feed ourselves. Not to mention that some types of agriculture are harmful to the environment.
 CoeurDeLion246
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 1014
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 2:12:49 PM

I appreciate that you do not eat meat, before I say anything else. I do not want you to feel like you are defending your feelings about it.


I know, that's why I'm willing to engage in the discussion with you.


To continue on the discussion for purely academic reasons, when we enter in whether or not a toddler knows the difference between right and wrong, we have to define right and wrong. Then it no longer is just a question of morality. It's either normative or descriptive, and depending on the individual they will choose to follow one or the other. A toddler has an inherent normative moral compass, they know that doing something that makes someone sad or mad makes them feel badly.


I'm hesitant to make such a statement about a toddler's understanding of morality. Admittedly, they are typically aware of how their actions impact upon the moods of others but at the same time I'm unsure of whether they are able to extend that into a system of morals and ethics. For example, they may be aware that doing something will make someone mad but do it anyway because they find the reaction funny. Moral knowledge, as I see it, is largely the result of refining intuitions through the application of rational thought, a process which few if any children so young could manage.


I follow universal normative morality. In this morality, the animals respect that they are a food source, just as I respect that I could be the food source for another carnivore, and one day will be a food source for the Earth.


An interesting way of looking at it, though may I ask what you mean by 'respect' in this sense?
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 1015
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 2:38:31 PM

I'm hesitant to make such a statement about a toddler's understanding of morality. Admittedly, they are typically aware of how their actions impact upon the moods of others but at the same time I'm unsure of whether they are able to extend that into a system of morals and ethics. For example, they may be aware that doing something will make someone mad but do it anyway because they find the reaction funny. Moral knowledge, as I see it, is largely the result of refining intuitions through the application of rational thought, a process which few if any children so young could manage.


I don't mean right from wrong like sticking a barbie in the toilet and laughing, I mean right and wrong as in... killing an animal for fun.

My 2 year old and I have an aquarium. One day when I was cleaning the tank, one of the fish jumped out of the temporary home and landed on the floor. My daughter looked at it and quickly picked it up as it was flopping so I could throw it back in the water.

I saw her looking at it, thinking something about stepping on it, and she didn't. Maybe I'm being biased, but based on my experience as a toddler and seeing a bunny get run over and being saddened because I felt the driver purposefully killed the rabbit, among other things.


An interesting way of looking at it, though may I ask what you mean by 'respect' in this sense?


Respect meaning; I cannot be angry with the animal that intends to eat me, I realize the animal needs to eat, and if he intends to harm me, it isn't the point of the animal's intention. (Assuming I hadn't done anything to make it protect itself against me.)
 CoeurDeLion246
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 1016
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 3:06:24 PM

I don't mean right from wrong like sticking a barbie in the toilet and laughing, I mean right and wrong as in... killing an animal for fun. ... I saw her looking at it, thinking something about stepping on it, and she didn't. Maybe I'm being biased, but based on my experience as a toddler and seeing a bunny get run over and being saddened because I felt the driver purposefully killed the rabbit, among other things.


Ah, I see. I guess this is something that depends on the individual a lot, because I've heard stories that essentially amount to the opposite. Environment might play a significant role in in the exception cases though.


Respect meaning; I cannot be angry with the animal that intends to eat me, I realize the animal needs to eat, and if he intends to harm me, it isn't the point of the animal's intention. (Assuming I hadn't done anything to make it protect itself against me.)


That's what I thought. The only problem I see is that this is a rational reflection, and non-human animals don't seem to be capable of such reflections. So whilst you are able to make that judgement, it seems that a non-human could not do so and that this would result in an imbalance.
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 1017
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 3:16:15 PM

That's what I thought. The only problem I see is that this is a rational reflection, and non-human animals don't seem to be capable of such reflections. So whilst you are able to make that judgement, it seems that a non-human could not do so and that this would result in an imbalance.


I don't agree. Have you ever been around a wild animal and made eye contact with them, and they walked away once they realized you were not a threat? While their thoughts couldn't possibly be what ours our, the wolf in my case evaluated me and did not attack me because he or she did not perceive me to be a threat.
 CoeurDeLion246
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 1018
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 3:31:30 PM

I don't agree. Have you ever been around a wild animal and made eye contact with them, and they walked away once they realized you were not a threat? While their thoughts couldn't possibly be what ours our, the wolf in my case evaluated me and did not attack me because he or she did not perceive me to be a threat.


I'll concede that, but I meant something more like when the animal is in the position you were in relative to a human. That is to say, I'm not sure how an animal can respect a human's desire/need to eat in the sense that you mean.
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 1019
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 3:40:29 PM

I'll concede that, but I meant something more like when the animal is in the position you were in relative to a human. That is to say, I'm not sure how an animal can respect a human's desire/need to eat in the sense that you mean.


I believe that they do not need to think about it, it is likely programmed in their DNA. Some animals serve no purpose in the world other than being a food source of another animal. One would have to assume while they were struggling to fight for their life, at the point they gave up they would likely just accept that it was the circle of life in whatever form they could.

But even if we assume that they do not experience this feeling of respect and acceptance with nature, it puts them back in the same position as plants, in my opinion.
 CoeurDeLion246
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 1020
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 4:56:57 PM

I believe that they do not need to think about it, it is likely programmed in their DNA. Some animals serve no purpose in the world other than being a food source of another animal. One would have to assume while they were struggling to fight for their life, at the point they gave up they would likely just accept that it was the circle of life in whatever form they could.

But even if we assume that they do not experience this feeling of respect and acceptance with nature, it puts them back in the same position as plants, in my opinion.


I'm dubious, but unfortunately I don't think it could be conclusively proven either way.
 captain bitterness
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 1021
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 6:19:19 PM
This is a classic example of a situational ethics philosophy. Its in our nature to change what be believe to be "right" depending on circumstance. A better question is " Is it OK to do bad things to people you don't like?" The knee jerk answer is "NO!" but observe yourself and others and you may rethink your belief.

Mike
 captain bitterness
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 1022
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 6:22:52 PM
You sound like a Zealot.
 Susieb
Joined: 7/11/2006
Msg: 1023
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/25/2009 11:35:45 AM
B12? You're talking a load of crap. B12 is readily from yeast extracts/seaweed/pulses - all of which are staples of a vegetarian/vegan diet.

In terms of third world countries/malnourished children .........I'm simply gobsmacked by your attitude.

Clearly you are not 'aware' that the West (i.e. 'us') is promoting 'factory farming' in third world countries or that 'rainforest' is being cleared to provide grazing for beef cattle.......and you suggest that we don't eat meat on Thursday. I am utterly bemused.
 SaharaM
Joined: 4/9/2009
Msg: 1024
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/25/2009 12:29:09 PM
CONTENT REMOVED - POSTERS TAKE NOTE

Reasons posts are reported as violating site rules

  • Chat Thread/Post

  • A Thread, or a series of Message Posts where no Topic or Subject is being Discussed.
    (Chat: to talk socially without exchanging too much information; casual conversation; an interchange devoid of any subject or Topic)

  • Troll Thread/Post or Offensive Topic Matter

  • Any series of Messages from a Poster who is set on causing Conflict or provoking other Posters.

    The posting of gross, disgusting and revolting Subject Matter, etc.

  • Bashing, Insulting, Slamming other Posters

  • Report Posters who post Messages that insult, bash and slam other POF Members.
    Same goes for Thread or Messages warning others of previous dates or meetings you have had in order to embarrass, slam or humiliate them.

    You can slam & bash the Topic or Subject under Discussion all you like, but you cannot insult, bash and slam other Posters.

    Do not do this unless you wish to be barred from posting on the forums

    ~*~Puddles~*~

     Susieb
    Joined: 7/11/2006
    Msg: 1025
    Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
    Posted: 9/23/2009 2:28:33 PM
    I'm a little 'confused'.
    You speak of 'morals' to those whose 'morals' are clearly questionable ...... do they 'hear'? ......are they 'capable of hearing' ....... I doubt it.
    I think 'morality' is 'absolute' ........the fundamentals don't change .......... but it needs a very 'brave' person to defend. Morality may 'adapt' ...... and its good that it does but if it loses those 'core values' then we are 'lost'........but then I think we are/have been for a long time .....and the question must be why/who 'profits'/why have we allowed ........at the end of the day 'we' have the power. We can 'change the world' - but we need the collective 'will'.

    Best wishes
    Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...