Pages:
Author

Topic: the moral hand and veganism - page 2. (Read 5661 times)

newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
January 02, 2015, 06:37:02 AM
#67
You are ignoring the fact that beings learn and evolve. Would you 'enforce' a baby not to throw up food on the carpet?

yes, everyone would 'enforce' that baby in the sense that everyone will interfere in such a way that the baby does not throw up on the carpet. We enforce our values on the natural behavior of the baby.
 
Are you going to prevent the baby from eating where there is a carpet? In other words are you going to change the babies behavior around a carpet, or your behavior when a carpet is present?
changing his behavior might be more difficult than changing his position away from the carpet. In any way, my behavior towards the baby is different when a carpet is present: I can move the baby away, or the carpet. And when instead of a baby we have an older child, I can try to directly change its behavior.

If you want to enforce a creature not to eat because you do not understand how their diet fits into some longer term picture, then you are taking food from a stranger, a hostile act that can merit death in nature.
in the case of a chimp we were talking about killing someone for food that was not necessary for survival. If it was necessary for survival, to avoid death, then we have to use the ring finger which says that the animal is allowed to eat whatever is necessary for survival. Then we have the situation of the lion eating the zebra.
Life is not only about survival. No one survives life so if it were about survival everyone fails. A chimp has his or her path in life. You are saying you have some superior path that justifies eviscerating the chimp's path and making it a branch of your path. Violence, including eating animals, should be discouraged, I agree with that. But your method makes no sense.
if everyone fails at survival, then how come there still is biodiversity? Look at the ring finger principle: it is about the conservation of biodiversity. So with survival I meant that biodiversity does not get lost. Or you can say: it is survival of a population instead of an individual.
Yes, the chimp has his own path in life, and yes we should respect his path. But we should do it consistently! We should respect everyone's path, without arbitrary exceptions. You forgot someone: the hunted colobus monkey. Why did you not say that this monkey has his own path in life? Why is the chimp allowed to kill the monkey? With hunting and killing the monkey, the lifepath of the monkey is very drastically changed, you agree? But with preventing the chimp from hunting the monkey, the lifepath of the chimp is changed only a little bit.
You are saying you have some superior path that justifies making the chimps path much more superior than the monkey's path.

If you want to try to be more civilized and try to convince the monkey not to kill for food, my suggestion would be first to master that skill in your own life, then in the lives of those who share your language and would not need 'enforcement' to agree with you, then maybe consider trying to force yourself on monkeys.
that sounds obvious. But it is not merely about convincing someone. We did not convince the baby not to throw up on the carpet. Yet, we interfered in its behavior with the goal that the baby doesn't throw up on the carpet.
Again, if you interfered in the babies behavior blindly, by force, you did nothing good.[/quote]
my sister has a baby, and she puts the baby in a chair at the table so that he cannot throw up on the carpet. My sister used force to lift the baby up and put him in the chair. I don't know what you mean with interfering blindly. But are you suggesting that this interference did nothing good?

 
What you suggest is to physically prevent monkeys from eating animals. Why don't you describe to what lengths you might go. It is certainly good to give monkeys a respect for life, and encourage nonviolence that way. Also okay to arm their potential victims so the price of a meal is clear. But how far are you thinking to go? Would you be willing to limit their habitat so they would not have contact with potential living food? Put on shock collars to zap them when the brain part associated with meat lights up?
good idea :-)
we can go as far as a teacher or policeman go when they see a child attacking another child. Perhaps in the kindergarten they are interested in this shock collar that zaps a child when the brain part associated with agression lights up. And yes, let's arm the other children. Cool :-)
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
January 02, 2015, 01:49:54 AM
#66
. . .

yes, they act with conscious intention. No instinct. (although they don't ethically reflect on their actions, whereas I do)
But with or without conscious intention is not relevant here, unless it is related to "being above nature", but I don't see how.

Are black holes ethical?

[T]hey are amoral[.]

Yet, they are merely an expression of some of the most fundamental elements of this universe (e.g., mass, momentum, gravitation, and magnetism).


Username you are probably the most intellectually capable among us in this crowd but your silliness minimizing the awareness of a chimp cost you a shitload of IQ points. You have been reduced from " shit, he's quick" to "a mile wide, an inch deep". Come back when you are older.
(Red colorization mine.)

I debate upon the goban. In light of that, was this post a gote one? Wink


It will be a while before I figure that out. I play go well enough to lose and read the book Shibumi a few decades ago but the applicability of the game to life strategies is a few steps past me.

In which case, you have known it only as a game (i.e., too well).
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
January 01, 2015, 05:43:57 PM
#65
You are ignoring the fact that beings learn and evolve. Would you 'enforce' a baby not to throw up food on the carpet?

yes, everyone would 'enforce' that baby in the sense that everyone will interfere in such a way that the baby does not throw up on the carpet. We enforce our values on the natural behavior of the baby.

If you want to enforce a creature not to eat because you do not understand how their diet fits into some longer term picture, then you are taking food from a stranger, a hostile act that can merit death in nature.
in the case of the chimp we were talking about killing someone for food that was not necessary for survival. If it was necessary for survival, to avoid death, then we have to use the ring finger which says that the animal is allowed to eat whatever is necessary for survival. Then we have the situation of the lion eating the zebra.

If you want to try to be more civilized and try to convince the monkey not to kill for food, my suggestion would be first to master that skill in your own life, then in the lives of those who share your language and would not need 'enforcement' to agree with you, then maybe consider trying to force yourself on monkeys.
that sounds obvious. But it is not merely about convincing someone. We did not convince the baby not to throw up on the carpet. Yet, we interfered in its behavior with the goal that the baby doesn't throw up on the carpet.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
January 01, 2015, 04:25:01 PM
#64
my ethical system says that it is not permissible for chimpanzees to eat meat, because they can survive without meat.

So the next step is to enforce your values on chimps? Give them the gift of your morality? Maybe first send Torquemada to find out why they have evil intent so you can purge it better?
well, why should the chimp be allowed to enforce his values on others, on his victims, his prey? By killing a colobus monkey, a chimpanzee enforces his values in a very brutal, lethal way. Why should that be permissible? Why should the interests of the chimp count more than the interests of the monkey? When I protect the monkey by preventing that chimpanzee from hunting, I do not kill the chimp, so my enforcement is much less violent than what the chimp intended to do. What would you prefer: being enforced not to kill someone else, or being enforced to sacrifice yourself?

My first choice is to remove the enforcer and that is one of the very few circumstances in which killing can be justified sometimes.
but you evaded the question. You could not choose to remove the enforcer. In the case of the chimp, there is always enforcement: either the chimp enforces the monkey to sacrifice himself, or either I enforce the chimp to stop hunting the monkey. Removing the chimp means that the problem does not even pose itself. Removing me would not remove the enforcement of the monkey.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
January 01, 2015, 04:09:33 PM
#63
This guy was a vegetarian and protector of animal rights:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Adolf_Hitler-1933.jpg


1) Hitler was not an ethical vegetarian, and not even a vegetarian.
2) He also did not protect the rights of jews, so he was not consistent in protecting animal rights. (jews belong to the species Homo sapiens, who belong to the class of mammals, who belong to the kingdom of animals)
3) It is true that some other nazi's had some sympathies with non-human animal rights, but they were not consistent either.
4) Hitler was against the rape of Arian women. So some ideas of Hitler were good, and the fact that Hitler had those ideas is not evidence that those ideas are less reliable. Rape of Arian women is wrong, even if Hitler was right on this point.   

What about the rape of non Aryan women?

Hitler condoned the rape of jews in concentration camps (although there were antimiscegenation laws, so you had to kill the jewish girl afterwards)
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
January 01, 2015, 03:59:22 PM
#62
3 questions for you:


- Can I still use my animals as working beasts to grow my tasty veggies?

https://i.imgur.com/TqQmQL0.jpg
probably not; it is too close to slavery

both can be derived from the moral hand. There are strong analogies between using someone's muscle tissue against his will and using someone's vagina against her will, between thinking that someone else (a pig) has less moral status and thinking that someone else (a woman) has less moral status, between antispeciesist veganism and antisexist feminism

Quote
- Vitamix or Blentec?

https://i.imgur.com/jJIbRDT.jpg
dammit, tough one... How many seconds do I have left?






[/quote]
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
January 01, 2015, 02:46:43 PM
#61
This guy was a vegetarian and protector of animal rights:




1) Hitler was not an ethical vegetarian, and not even a vegetarian.
2) He also did not protect the rights of jews, so he was not consistent in protecting animal rights. (jews belong to the species Homo sapiens, who belong to the class of mammals, who belong to the kingdom of animals)
3) It is true that some other nazi's had some sympathies with non-human animal rights, but they were not consistent either.
4) Hitler was against the rape of Arian women. So some ideas of Hitler were good, and the fact that Hitler had those ideas is not evidence that those ideas are less reliable. Rape of Arian women is wrong, even if Hitler was right on this point.   



What about the rape of non Aryan women?




legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
January 01, 2015, 02:38:48 PM
#60
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
January 01, 2015, 05:52:27 AM
#59
my ethical system says that it is not permissible for chimpanzees to eat meat, because they can survive without meat.

So the next step is to enforce your values on chimps? Give them the gift of your morality? Maybe first send Torquemada to find out why they have evil intent so you can purge it better?
well, why should the chimp be allowed to enforce his values on others, on his victims, his prey? By killing a colobus monkey, a chimpanzee enforces his values in a very brutal, lethal way. Why should that be permissible? Why should the interests of the chimp count more than the interests of the monkey? When I protect the monkey by preventing that chimpanzee from hunting, I do not kill the chimp, so my enforcement is much less violent than what the chimp intended to do. What would you prefer: being enforced not to kill someone else, or being enforced to sacrifice yourself?
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
December 31, 2014, 10:33:24 PM
#58
. . .

yes, they act with conscious intention. No instinct. (although they don't ethically reflect on their actions, whereas I do)
But with or without conscious intention is not relevant here, unless it is related to "being above nature", but I don't see how.

Are black holes ethical?

[T]hey are amoral[.]

Yet, they are merely an expression of some of the most fundamental elements of this universe (e.g., mass, momentum, gravitation, and magnetism).


Username you are probably the most intellectually capable among us in this crowd but your silliness minimizing the awareness of a chimp cost you a shitload of IQ points. You have been reduced from " shit, he's quick" to "a mile wide, an inch deep". Come back when you are older.
(Red colorization mine.)

I debate upon the goban. In light of that, was this post a gote one? Wink
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
December 31, 2014, 09:06:34 PM
#57
. . .

yes, they act with conscious intention. No instinct. (although they don't ethically reflect on their actions, whereas I do)
But with or without conscious intention is not relevant here, unless it is related to "being above nature", but I don't see how.

Are black holes ethical?

[T]hey are amoral[.]

Yet, they are merely an expression of some of the most fundamental elements of this universe (e.g., mass, momentum, gravitation, and magnetism).
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
December 31, 2014, 08:52:51 PM
#56
. . .

yes, they act with conscious intention. No instinct. (although they don't ethically reflect on their actions, whereas I do)
But with or without conscious intention is not relevant here, unless it is related to "being above nature", but I don't see how.

Are black holes ethical?
they are amoral
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
December 31, 2014, 08:36:54 PM
#55
The only difficulty in our societies is the group pressure from non-vegans. That is the main reason why vegans experience difficulties.
Really? I can't remember a single incident of meat eaters giving a vegetarian flack for choosing to not eat meat. I can however remember endless incidents of vegans trying to push their lifestyle onto meat eaters, and then act as if they were minding their own business when they are told to fuck off and mind their own affairs as they wag their finger at omnivores as if they occupy some kind of moral high ground. Veganism is more of a cult than a dietary choice.


I thought I was going to find at least one logical argument against eating meat in here like for example how much grain and water has to be used for every pound of meat you eat, therefore reducing the available food supply by that much more, but no. All I read was a bunch of ideological drivel. Your diet is not a question of morality, and just because you eat plants and twigs doesn't make you any better than anyone else. Hitler was an environmentalist and a vegan too. IMO this type of ideology is often just anti-humanism disguised as some new agey spiritualist bullshit. Now take your malnourished ass back out the door you came in from and find some more cult members so you can reassure each other of your moral superiority.

Odd I found this thread, just this afternoon was thinking...


***********
Dahan.

He had the conch shell and the big knife toss on the passenger seat.   A hard left for the SUV, then stomp on the gas.  He was late.

The fifty kilo pig in the trunk was fresh from the butcher shop.  It should have been on the fire an hour ago, or the party wouldn't be right.  That pig needed to be coming out, golden red, precisely at seven o'clock.  It'd be midnight, now.    They wanted it authentic, so he had to do the job.

Maybe it hadn't been too smart to take the shortcut through the Vegan Heaven subdivision.  After all, it had recently incorporated as a municipality with it's own ordinances, codes, police department, even a old house converted to a city hall.

Because when he saw the flashing lights behind him, he didn't even think to hide the knife.  And when he pulled over, he wasn't thinking about the laws in Vegan Heaven.  Then when the officer asked him to open the trunk, he didn't even think about protesting.

A couple of hours later, behind bars in their three room jail, he was thinking about the charges.

Misdemeanor Murder.
Speeding.
Felony possession of a deadly weapon.

Could he show true remorse in front of the judge, and expect leniency?  Hell, one thing at a time.  First he had to get out of the rathole.  It'd be four days before the judge showed back up to arraign him, so he could post bail.

Four days of eating some kind of stuff made from spoiled bean curd called vegan turkey.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
December 31, 2014, 08:30:42 PM
#54
. . .

yes, they act with conscious intention. No instinct. (although they don't ethically reflect on their actions, whereas I do)
But with or without conscious intention is not relevant here, unless it is related to "being above nature", but I don't see how.

Are black holes ethical?
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
December 31, 2014, 08:26:59 PM
#53
. . .

what do you mean with being above nature? That you interfere in nature? But the chimpanzee also intervened in nature by eating some food, so in that sense the chimpanzee was above nature as well. The chimpanzee wanted to stop someone else from living, I wanted to stop the chimpanzee from killing.
You know that we should be above nature when it comes to ethics, because in nature some ugly unethical things happen. So we should not listen to nature and not condone the ugly things. Being above nature in the ethical sense is good. But first of all you should clarify what you really mean with being above nature.
Yes, humans and animals are equal, and yes humans have the right to stop chimpanzees from eating meat. Where is the contradiction? Chimpanzees also have the right to stop humans from eating meat, so there is our equality.
What do you mean with that natural state and being in contradiction to a natural state?
I don't understand your whole question. What makes whom different making what allowable?

“Want,” as you used the word, implies conscious intention. Did you intend to claim that chimpanzees act with conscious intention when acquiring meals (instead of, for instance, instinct)?
yes, they act with conscious intention. No instinct. (although they don't ethically reflect on their actions, whereas I do)
But with or without conscious intention is not relevant here, unless it is related to "being above nature", but I don't see how.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
December 31, 2014, 08:17:00 PM
#52
. . .

what do you mean with being above nature? That you interfere in nature? But the chimpanzee also intervened in nature by eating some food, so in that sense the chimpanzee was above nature as well. The chimpanzee wanted to stop someone else from living, I wanted to stop the chimpanzee from killing.
You know that we should be above nature when it comes to ethics, because in nature some ugly unethical things happen. So we should not listen to nature and not condone the ugly things. Being above nature in the ethical sense is good. But first of all you should clarify what you really mean with being above nature.
Yes, humans and animals are equal, and yes humans have the right to stop chimpanzees from eating meat. Where is the contradiction? Chimpanzees also have the right to stop humans from eating meat, so there is our equality.
What do you mean with that natural state and being in contradiction to a natural state?
I don't understand your whole question. What makes whom different making what allowable?

“Want,” as you used the word, implies conscious intention. Did you intend to claim that chimpanzees act with conscious intention when acquiring meals (instead of, for instance, biological instincts)?
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
December 31, 2014, 08:01:39 PM
#51
Stijn, you are so completely lacking in logic that I feel like trying to debate you point by point might actually damage my ability for critical reasoning by being exposed to such an extreme density of ignorance. Also you are too lazy to set up your quotes correctly, and I don't think I could live with myself if someone mistook your words for my own by mistake. I want you to answer this.
sorry for the quotes; I hope this is better...
(and I hope you can give counterarguments point by point insetad of merely saying that I'm lacking logic.

If it is so horrible to eat animals, why is it ok for animals to eat other animals? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?
That is the ring finger of the moral hand. Briefly put: you and I and all primates don't need meat in order to survive. So if all beings who do not need meat stop eating meat, those populations would no go extinct and biodiversity would not decrease. But a lion needs meat. So if a lion is not allowed to hunt and eat, then no animal is (apply the thumb principle of rule universalism to the ring finger principle), and then all obligate carnivores would die from starvation and then biodiversity decreases a lot. Now we can democratically decide how much moral value biodiversity should have. I want to give it a lot of value, and therefore my ethic says that predation by obligate carnivores is permissible.  
You didn't answer my question, you simply replied with a single example that fit your ideology. Lets try this with a more specific question.

Why is it ok for say chimpanzees (omnivores) for example to eat meat, but not humans? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?
my ethical system says that it is not permissible for chimpanzees to eat meat, because they can survive without meat.
So your ethical system says that you are some how above nature and have some kind of authority to make this distinction in contradiction to nature. Your own "ethical system" contradicts itself. If humans are equal to animals, what gives you the right to stop a chimpanzee from eating meat in contradiction to its natural state? Furthermore, you didn't answer my whole question, what makes them different making this allowable?
what do you mean with being above nature? That you interfere in nature? But the chimpanzee also intervened in nature by eating some food, so in that sense the chimpanzee was above nature as well. The chimpanzee wanted to stop someone else from living, I wanted to stop the chimpanzee from killing.
You know that we should be above nature when it comes to ethics, because in nature some ugly unethical things happen. So we should not listen to nature and not condone the ugly things. Being above nature in the ethical sense is good. But first of all you should clarify what you really mean with being above nature.
Yes, humans and animals are equal, and yes humans have the right to stop chimpanzees from eating meat. Where is the contradiction? Chimpanzees also have the right to stop humans from eating meat, so there is our equality.
What do you mean with that natural state and being in contradiction to a natural state?
I don't understand your whole question. What makes whom different making what allowable?
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
December 31, 2014, 06:25:46 PM
#50
Stijn, you are so completely lacking in logic that I feel like trying to debate you point by point might actually damage my ability for critical reasoning by being exposed to such an extreme density of ignorance. Also you are too lazy to set up your quotes correctly, and I don't think I could live with myself if someone mistook your words for my own by mistake. I want you to answer this.
sorry for the quotes; I hope this is better...
(and I hope you can give counterarguments point by point insetad of merely saying that I'm lacking logic.

If it is so horrible to eat animals, why is it ok for animals to eat other animals? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?
That is the ring finger of the moral hand. Briefly put: you and I and all primates don't need meat in order to survive. So if all beings who do not need meat stop eating meat, those populations would no go extinct and biodiversity would not decrease. But a lion needs meat. So if a lion is not allowed to hunt and eat, then no animal is (apply the thumb principle of rule universalism to the ring finger principle), and then all obligate carnivores would die from starvation and then biodiversity decreases a lot. Now we can democratically decide how much moral value biodiversity should have. I want to give it a lot of value, and therefore my ethic says that predation by obligate carnivores is permissible.  
You didn't answer my question, you simply replied with a single example that fit your ideology. Lets try this with a more specific question.

Why is it ok for say chimpanzees (omnivores) for example to eat meat, but not humans? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?
my ethical system says that it is not permissible for chimpanzees to eat meat, because they can survive without meat.
So your ethical system says that you are some how above nature and have some kind of authority to make this distinction in contradiction to nature. Your own "ethical system" contradicts itself. If humans are equal to animals, what gives you the right to stop a chimpanzee from eating meat in contradiction to its natural state? Furthermore, you didn't answer my whole question, what makes them different making this allowable?
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
December 31, 2014, 04:09:28 PM
#49
Stijn, you are so completely lacking in logic that I feel like trying to debate you point by point might actually damage my ability for critical reasoning by being exposed to such an extreme density of ignorance. Also you are too lazy to set up your quotes correctly, and I don't think I could live with myself if someone mistook your words for my own by mistake. I want you to answer this.
sorry for the quotes; I hope this is better...
(and I hope you can give counterarguments point by point insetad of merely saying that I'm lacking logic.

If it is so horrible to eat animals, why is it ok for animals to eat other animals? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?
That is the ring finger of the moral hand. Briefly put: you and I and all primates don't need meat in order to survive. So if all beings who do not need meat stop eating meat, those populations would no go extinct and biodiversity would not decrease. But a lion needs meat. So if a lion is not allowed to hunt and eat, then no animal is (apply the thumb principle of rule universalism to the ring finger principle), and then all obligate carnivores would die from starvation and then biodiversity decreases a lot. Now we can democratically decide how much moral value biodiversity should have. I want to give it a lot of value, and therefore my ethic says that predation by obligate carnivores is permissible.  
You didn't answer my question, you simply replied with a single example that fit your ideology. Lets try this with a more specific question.

Why is it ok for say chimpanzees (omnivores) for example to eat meat, but not humans? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?
my ethical system says that it is not permissible for chimpanzees to eat meat, because they can survive without meat.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
December 31, 2014, 03:45:05 PM
#48
Quote from: Leo Tolstoy, Ch. 5, translated by David Patterson, 1983. - Confession (1882) link=http://izquotes.com/quote/273248
The only absolute knowledge attainable by man is that life is meaningless.

“Morality,” as an adaptive mechanism, is, by extension, begotten of the arbitrary circumstances that beget its originators; therefore, it is “meaningless.”

Absolute knowledge is, by definition, outside the context of life[, s]o both of those statements are meaningless.

How do you know that?

Oh shit. My ass handed to me. ~time to run and hide~

You are right but it simply shows the silliness of the concept of absolute knowledge.

It is like the proof some baboon in the middle ages constructed to prove 'god' exists.

1) Think of the biggest thing you can think of.
2) 'god is bigger than that, or some shit.
more intermediate steps.
x) Q.E.D.

Mystics from all traditions, every culture, every time, say that 'god' does not fit in the mind. So when someone argues rationally about god or any similar subject, like absolute knowledge, the argument is necessarily flawed. A person can debate a lesser god. He is this tall, his beard is white etc. But no serious person will argue about higher things that do not fit into debates.

Knowledge is a duplication of information extrinsic to the mind: the mind, proving a subset of that information, cannot contain that superset of itself without, in some way, becoming it.
Pages:
Jump to: