Evolution, religion, animals, and Slavery
Me:
I eat meat and plants and have no problem at all with either. I do not see eating as a moral issue at all.
You:
Yes you do because no doubt you do not agree with eating and caging humans for such purposes.
I eat meat and plants and have no problem at all with either. I do not see eating as a moral issue at all.
You:
Yes you do because no doubt you do not agree with eating and caging humans for such purposes.
Me:
I assign a high level of rights to other humans, on the basis that I assume that they have the same level of self-awareness that I do.
You:
I do not understand how a scientist lives on foundations of assumption for such important matters.
I assign a high level of rights to other humans, on the basis that I assume that they have the same level of self-awareness that I do.
You:
I do not understand how a scientist lives on foundations of assumption for such important matters.
Me:
If you want me to assign that level of respect to animals, you will have to prove to me that they also possess that same quality.
You:
But why should no one have to prove to you that fellow humans have the same level of consciousness, evolution suggests we are from the same source.
If you want me to assign that level of respect to animals, you will have to prove to me that they also possess that same quality.
You:
But why should no one have to prove to you that fellow humans have the same level of consciousness, evolution suggests we are from the same source.
Me:
In the absence of proof, I have absolutely no interest in your concerns, at all. I will continue to eat meat or plants in whatever proportion I see fit without regard to those concerns.
You:
I don't think we need proof I think evolution points out we are all of the same original nature.
In the absence of proof, I have absolutely no interest in your concerns, at all. I will continue to eat meat or plants in whatever proportion I see fit without regard to those concerns.
You:
I don't think we need proof I think evolution points out we are all of the same original nature.
Me:
If it should come to pass that the animal rights advocates should get enough political power to make eating meat illegal, then I will stop.
You:
I find this strange too, to believe in the powers of law. Is it your countries law that you follow? Aren't many laws against the understandings of science? Regardless your beliefs on the morality of the issue would not change with the law would it?
If it should come to pass that the animal rights advocates should get enough political power to make eating meat illegal, then I will stop.
You:
I find this strange too, to believe in the powers of law. Is it your countries law that you follow? Aren't many laws against the understandings of science? Regardless your beliefs on the morality of the issue would not change with the law would it?
Me:
I am not willing to go to war to preserve my freedom to eat meat, but I will oppose those initiatives politically under all circumstances.
You:
We should be clear war does not bring freedom.
I am not willing to go to war to preserve my freedom to eat meat, but I will oppose those initiatives politically under all circumstances.
You:
We should be clear war does not bring freedom.
Me:
No "if" required. Evolution is a fact.
You:
We are in the religious section
No "if" required. Evolution is a fact.
You:
We are in the religious section
Quote:
You also can direct evolution in the way you suggest.
...
In any event, you can direct evolution.
Me:
I appreciate the explanations but I highlighted these two parts, I am pretty sure science accepts that as well. Not sure why its called pokemon. Seems a 10 year would understand all this.
You also can direct evolution in the way you suggest.
...
In any event, you can direct evolution.
Me:
I appreciate the explanations but I highlighted these two parts, I am pretty sure science accepts that as well. Not sure why its called pokemon. Seems a 10 year would understand all this.
Me:
To evolve a system as complex as photosynthesis which involves dozens of specific enzymes would take millions of years, just like the millions of years it took to evolve our current energy intake system, ie. a digestive system and a neurological system that allows us to seek out, ingest and digest energy sources.
You:
This does not whatsoever take into account the pace of technology.
To evolve a system as complex as photosynthesis which involves dozens of specific enzymes would take millions of years, just like the millions of years it took to evolve our current energy intake system, ie. a digestive system and a neurological system that allows us to seek out, ingest and digest energy sources.
You:
This does not whatsoever take into account the pace of technology.
You:
But nonetheless I don't care that we can make it feasible, it seems clear to me if you follow the 'science' that it shows we have no basis for treating animals as lesser beings in these way, nor do we for plants.
But nonetheless I don't care that we can make it feasible, it seems clear to me if you follow the 'science' that it shows we have no basis for treating animals as lesser beings in these way, nor do we for plants.
I am sympathetic with your overall point, but strictly speaking there is no test for sentience, at least to my knowledge.
As Original Position pointed out, newguy has a habit of ascribing views to people that they have never claimed. A quick ctrl+f will show that I've never even mentioned tests for sentience, or indeed, anything about sentience.
i think there's lots of tests for sentience to go along with many different definitions.
Fair enough. I was just responding to the one limited exchange that I saw. That's why I made the broader expression of sympathy to your statement.
I have absolutely no idea what to think of anyone who answered "No".
I tend to be disappointed in the tests and the definitions. For one thing, I think that although a definition is difficult to formulate, we all know what is meant. I posted a poll once that reinforced that opinion for me. I would stand by my statement that there is no test, at least one that would satisfy anyone that answered "Yes" to the poll.
I have absolutely no idea what to think of anyone who answered "No".
I have absolutely no idea what to think of anyone who answered "No".
You should understand as it is not difficult. There are many questions that cannot be answered that are important in our lives. Whether you are a scientist or not you have to make some kind of assumption and move forward as best you can.
I said it was an assumption. It is a personal choice. Nothing more profound than that. Evolution suggests that the starting point a billion years ago was the same. It does not say that the endpoint is the same.
Again, evolution suggests that we started the same. Also, my statement was addressing my personal position. If you want to change my position you will need the proof I mentioned. Whether you need proof or not is not my concern.
I did not say anything about "powers of law". I simply stated that I was not willing to give up the benefits of living under the rule of law to preserve the freedom to eat meat.
Your comment is nonsense. I am sure that it sounded profound to you, but it sounds childish to me. I spoke of the "freedom to eat meat" which is fairly narrow and I used the term "war" somewhat metaphorically. But we should be clear that war can bring freedom. For example, the American Revolutionary War brought US citizens freedom from taxes imposed from Britain. Right or wrong on a moral scale, the limited freedom attained is undeniable.
Evolution is a term that refers to a largely natural process. The pace of evolution is slow. If we start to bring in other technologies such as genetic engineering, then things change. But that does not address your misuse and very probable misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works.
Actually in some sense this is correct. Science does not really provide a basis for making an ethical decision about how to treat animals or plants. It does not remove it either. The entire question of ethics is not a scientific question at all. I suspect you do not really understand evolution or science very well. Perhaps you should try getting some education in those subjects before you plunge into debate about them.
The same key combo will show I never said you mentioned sentience.
I tend to be disappointed in the tests and the definitions. For one thing, I think that although a definition is difficult to formulate, we all know what is meant. I posted a poll once that reinforced that opinion for me. I would stand by my statement that there is no test, at least one that would satisfy anyone that answered "Yes" to the poll.
I have absolutely no idea what to think of anyone who answered "No".
I have absolutely no idea what to think of anyone who answered "No".
I'm sure neither of us are keen to retread this well-worn ground, but I really think you need to stop treating "self-awareness", "sentience" and "consciousness" as synonyms. They are not the same thing at all, at least as far as cognitive science and/or philosophy of mind is concerned. There is a good primer on SEP. In particular you need to read the first section "Concepts of Consciousness".
Sentience will likely have vedic roots in its origin and esp its definition, while consciousness will have a scientific definition and therefore can draw certain boundaries because of certain assumptions.
It could be asked though is consciousness the line we use to determine what is rightfully food?
Absolutely not.
Yes it does keep in mind you can't just argue by cutting the context of the conversation out, and then say my quote doesn't' make sense.
I said if they are equal at origin they will always be so.
If we are dust made of god, we will always be that, regardless of change.
We are talking about the wholistic origin.
Form changes, but the original nature cannot.
I said if they are equal at origin they will always be so.
If we are dust made of god, we will always be that, regardless of change.
We are talking about the wholistic origin.
Form changes, but the original nature cannot.
I am saying that eating IS a moral thing to you because you don't eat humans.
Yes as long as we agree its hypocritical to think eating humans is wrong but not animals and plants.
Science does not have this dialog because it has to face the fact that if everything starts out the same from the same origin then it will always be the same. If you come back to say that a seed is not a plant then I don't think you understand.
I'm pointing out your position was formed without logic.
I think you said you would not eat meat if it was illegal to do so.
Freedom is total never partial, I just want to to point that out. For example if you are caged, freedom to move from one side to the other is not freedom by any means.
technology is not separate from evolution, rather than take 10 pages to point that out ill just point to bio/nanotech. Or metal is not part of my bio make up today?
No you see we agree on this I am pointing out that atheist scientists make these decisions based on religious beliefs.
Yes as long as we agree its hypocritical to think eating humans is wrong but not animals and plants.
Science does not have this dialog because it has to face the fact that if everything starts out the same from the same origin then it will always be the same. If you come back to say that a seed is not a plant then I don't think you understand.
I'm pointing out your position was formed without logic.
I think you said you would not eat meat if it was illegal to do so.
Freedom is total never partial, I just want to to point that out. For example if you are caged, freedom to move from one side to the other is not freedom by any means.
technology is not separate from evolution, rather than take 10 pages to point that out ill just point to bio/nanotech. Or metal is not part of my bio make up today?
No you see we agree on this I am pointing out that atheist scientists make these decisions based on religious beliefs.
I have lost interest in general. But I will respond to the bold. This is exactly wrong (not unlike most of the rest of your post). Freedom is always partial, it is never total. If you start bound and gagged in a cage and then your bonds and gag are removed, you have gained freedom to speak and move about a bit. If they open the cage door then you can leave the cage, but perhaps not the building, etc.
To think freedom can be partial or is always partial is the cage.
Its your implication that I am suggesting we do so.
Zumby says I don't understand science because science doesn't give us moral basis.
But that is my point, without religion, you cannot suggest man should not be enslaved and eaten, without suggesting animals and plants should be treated equally.
But that is my point, without religion, you cannot suggest man should not be enslaved and eaten, without suggesting animals and plants should be treated equally.
You don't have to evolve them to see this as fact.
Unless you want to evolve all life to not kill but you just said you never meant that. Which is confusing.
In any case its also not possible to evolve everything since the environment would collapse without those little tiny bugs that feed off each other, afaik.
But seriously think about this, that is your logic for why we should eat/cage animals, because of smaller types.
If i was given the option to not eat other animals or life through a magic pill, i think it would be a more moral position to take the pill. Im not making an excuse for eating animals and killing life, i think its wrong given other options.
Im questioning your logic. Your use of the word slavery doesn't seem consistent on seeing all life as one.
And you dont seem consistent in your treatment of all life.
Which why i asked you if you would stop taking showers. If you think all is one and all life should not be killed you should agree that its morally wrong to take a shower and kill that life over not taking a shower.
[But I can't suggest that we shouldn't eat animals because we dont' believe in eating humans?
Thats hypocritical at best I think.
Thats hypocritical at best I think.
Douglas Adams, always relevant, suggests we will end up eating at Milliways:
A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox's table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips.
"Good evening,'' it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, "I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in parts of my body?'' It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters into a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them.
Its gaze was met by looks of startled bewilderment from Arthur and Trillian, a resigned shrug from Ford Prefect and naked hunger from Zaphod Beeblebrox.
"Something off the shoulder perhaps?'' suggested the animal, "Braised in a white wine sauce?''
"Er, your shoulder?'' said Arthur in a horrified whisper.
"But naturally my shoulder, sir,'' mooed the animal contentedly, "nobody else's is mine to offer.''
Zaphod leapt to his feet and started prodding and feeling the animal's shoulder appreciatively.
"Or the rump is very good,'' murmured the animal. "I've been exercising it and eating plenty of grain, so there's a lot of good meat there.'' It gave a mellow grunt, gurgled again and started to chew the cud. It swallowed the cud again.
"Or a casserole of me perhaps?'' it added.
"You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?'' whispered Trillian to Ford.
"Me?'' said Ford, with a glazed look in his eyes, "I don't mean anything.''
"That's absolutely horrible,'' exclaimed Arthur, "the most revolting thing I've ever heard.''
"What's the problem Earthman?'' said Zaphod, now transferring his attention to the animal's enormous rump.
"I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing here inviting me to,'' said Arthur, "it's heartless.''
"Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten,'' said Zaphod.
"That's not the point,'' Arthur protested. Then he thought about it for a moment. "Alright,'' he said, "maybe it is the point. I don't care, I'm not going to think about it now. I'll just ... er ...''
The Universe raged about him in its death throes.
"I think I'll just have a green salad,'' he muttered.
"May I urge you to consider my liver?'' asked the animal, "it must be very rich and tender by now, I've been force-feeding myself for months.''
"A green salad,'' said Arthur emphatically.
"A green salad?'' said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at Arthur.
"Are you going to tell me,'' said Arthur, "that I shouldn't have green salad?''
"Well,'' said the animal, "I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am.''
It managed a very slight bow.
"Glass of water please,'' said Arthur.
"Look,'' said Zaphod, "we want to eat, we don't want to make a meal of the issues. Four rare steaks please, and hurry. We haven't eaten in five hundred and seventy-six thousand million years.''
The animal staggered to its feet. It gave a mellow gurgle.
"A very wise choice, sir, if I may say so. Very good,'' it said, "I'll just nip off and shoot myself.''
He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur.
"Don't worry, sir,'' he said, "I'll be very humane.''
It waddled unhurriedly off into the kitchen.
A matter of minutes later the waiter arrived with four huge steaming steaks. Zaphod and Ford wolfed straight into them without a second's hesitation. Trillian paused, then shrugged and started into hers.
Arthur stared at his feeling slightly ill.
"Hey, Earthman,'' said Zaphod with a malicious grin on the face that wasn't stuffing itself, "what's eating you?''
Originally Posted by Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox's table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips.
"Good evening,'' it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, "I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in parts of my body?'' It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters into a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them.
Its gaze was met by looks of startled bewilderment from Arthur and Trillian, a resigned shrug from Ford Prefect and naked hunger from Zaphod Beeblebrox.
"Something off the shoulder perhaps?'' suggested the animal, "Braised in a white wine sauce?''
"Er, your shoulder?'' said Arthur in a horrified whisper.
"But naturally my shoulder, sir,'' mooed the animal contentedly, "nobody else's is mine to offer.''
Zaphod leapt to his feet and started prodding and feeling the animal's shoulder appreciatively.
"Or the rump is very good,'' murmured the animal. "I've been exercising it and eating plenty of grain, so there's a lot of good meat there.'' It gave a mellow grunt, gurgled again and started to chew the cud. It swallowed the cud again.
"Or a casserole of me perhaps?'' it added.
"You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?'' whispered Trillian to Ford.
"Me?'' said Ford, with a glazed look in his eyes, "I don't mean anything.''
"That's absolutely horrible,'' exclaimed Arthur, "the most revolting thing I've ever heard.''
"What's the problem Earthman?'' said Zaphod, now transferring his attention to the animal's enormous rump.
"I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing here inviting me to,'' said Arthur, "it's heartless.''
"Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten,'' said Zaphod.
"That's not the point,'' Arthur protested. Then he thought about it for a moment. "Alright,'' he said, "maybe it is the point. I don't care, I'm not going to think about it now. I'll just ... er ...''
The Universe raged about him in its death throes.
"I think I'll just have a green salad,'' he muttered.
"May I urge you to consider my liver?'' asked the animal, "it must be very rich and tender by now, I've been force-feeding myself for months.''
"A green salad,'' said Arthur emphatically.
"A green salad?'' said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at Arthur.
"Are you going to tell me,'' said Arthur, "that I shouldn't have green salad?''
"Well,'' said the animal, "I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am.''
It managed a very slight bow.
"Glass of water please,'' said Arthur.
"Look,'' said Zaphod, "we want to eat, we don't want to make a meal of the issues. Four rare steaks please, and hurry. We haven't eaten in five hundred and seventy-six thousand million years.''
The animal staggered to its feet. It gave a mellow gurgle.
"A very wise choice, sir, if I may say so. Very good,'' it said, "I'll just nip off and shoot myself.''
He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur.
"Don't worry, sir,'' he said, "I'll be very humane.''
It waddled unhurriedly off into the kitchen.
A matter of minutes later the waiter arrived with four huge steaming steaks. Zaphod and Ford wolfed straight into them without a second's hesitation. Trillian paused, then shrugged and started into hers.
Arthur stared at his feeling slightly ill.
"Hey, Earthman,'' said Zaphod with a malicious grin on the face that wasn't stuffing itself, "what's eating you?''
Science (evolution) suggests its so, whether or not we are technologically capable at this moment.
I realize like you do its the logical next step, to enact it. But I'm still pointing at the idea. I haven't thought about enacting it.
Yes its likely we disagree. I think that if we go into we will find there is no basis for any morals.
This isn't the only way the ecosystem has to be.
You could though, and knowing you could, dissolves anyone from saying 'it has to be this way so I eat meat'.
We admit its so hard its impossible but we also admit there is no scientific 'law' that says its not possible.
And plants are the same as animals.
I'm saying when we abolished slavery it should have included animals. It should be all colors and races are free, all midgets, all tall people, all **** habilis, all monkeys all animals, all plants, all life. Isn't it all the same evolved thing?
I dont' think any of us is consistent, I'm hypocritical in this regard. I do admit it.
I know.
Its your words that make me think you want to. If im mistaken sorry.
We disagree on what is and what is not religious. I believe you can have morals without religion.
I dont know that you can. There is no way that i can see of living without killing something. Even if its just a microscopic bug living in your eyebrow when you rub your eyes.
Unless you want to evolve all life to not kill but you just said you never meant that. Which is confusing.
In any case its also not possible to evolve everything since the environment would collapse without those little tiny bugs that feed off each other, afaik.
If i was given the option to not eat other animals or life through a magic pill, i think it would be a more moral position to take the pill. Im not making an excuse for eating animals and killing life, i think its wrong given other options.
Im questioning your logic. Your use of the word slavery doesn't seem consistent on seeing all life as one.
And you dont seem consistent in your treatment of all life.
Which why i asked you if you would stop taking showers. If you think all is one and all life should not be killed you should agree that its morally wrong to take a shower and kill that life over not taking a shower.
I liked it. And clearly we could do that. But its a form of suppression and slavery.
I realize like you do its the logical next step, to enact it. But I'm still pointing at the idea. I haven't thought about enacting it.
Yes its likely we disagree. I think that if we go into we will find there is no basis for any morals.
This isn't the only way the ecosystem has to be.
You could though, and knowing you could, dissolves anyone from saying 'it has to be this way so I eat meat'.
We admit its so hard its impossible but we also admit there is no scientific 'law' that says its not possible.
And plants are the same as animals.
'm saying when we abolished slavery it should have included animals. It should be all colors and races are free, all midgets, all tall people, all **** habilis, all monkeys all animals, all plants, all life. Isn't it all the same evolved thing?
I dont' think any of us is consistent, I'm hypocritical in this regard. I do admit it.
I know.
I know.
And plants are the same as animals.
I'm saying when we abolished slavery it should have included animals. It should be all colors and races are free, all midgets, all tall people, all **** habilis, all monkeys all animals, all plants, all life. Isn't it all the same evolved thing?
I dont' think any of us is consistent, I'm hypocritical in this regard. I do admit it.
I'm saying when we abolished slavery it should have included animals. It should be all colors and races are free, all midgets, all tall people, all **** habilis, all monkeys all animals, all plants, all life. Isn't it all the same evolved thing?
I dont' think any of us is consistent, I'm hypocritical in this regard. I do admit it.
The problem with this view is that it assumes that if there is no relevant difference between humans and other living things then we should treat them equally. But this is itself a moral claim and so not, according to newguy1234, justified on scientific grounds. Hence, it is not, on scientific grounds alone, hypocritical or wrong to treat humans differently from other living things.
Another way of putting it is like this: if we are only assuming science, we need no justification for not eating or caging humans and doing so to other living things.
This is a common mistake, so I'll try to be a bit clearer in pointing it out. Newguy1234 is claiming that according to science there is no relevant difference between humans and other animals and plants such that we should not be willing to cage or eat humans but are willing to do so to other living things. On this basis he concludes that it is hypocritical and wrong to single out only humans for this kind of treatment.
The problem with this view is that it assumes that if there is no relevant difference between humans and other living things then we should treat them equally. But this is itself a moral claim and so not, according to newguy1234, justified on scientific grounds. Hence, it is not, on scientific grounds alone, hypocritical or wrong to treat humans differently from other living things.
Another way of putting it is like this: if we are only assuming science, we need no justification for not eating or caging humans and doing so to other living things.
The problem with this view is that it assumes that if there is no relevant difference between humans and other living things then we should treat them equally. But this is itself a moral claim and so not, according to newguy1234, justified on scientific grounds. Hence, it is not, on scientific grounds alone, hypocritical or wrong to treat humans differently from other living things.
Another way of putting it is like this: if we are only assuming science, we need no justification for not eating or caging humans and doing so to other living things.
But yes, what you say here is mostly gibberish, with you using concepts that you clearly don't understand. Frankly, I think you would be better served to focus your attention on the Buddhism thread where you can teach people unlearning and unknowledge--both of which you have exhibited personal expertise in.
Those are two clearly different things, and its clear to me why no one will let that go.
But this is itself a moral claim and so not, according to newguy1234, justified on scientific grounds.
Hence, it is not, on scientific grounds alone, hypocritical or wrong to treat humans differently from other living things.
Another way of putting it is like this: if we are only assuming science, we need no justification for not eating or caging humans and doing so to other living things.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE