Animal Liberation

[Chris_Bacon]

@William

That’s a non sequitur if I’ve ever seen one.

The fact that you could even make any sense what so ever of that statement and define it is a feat of strength in itself. Though I still think it may technically be gibberish (ex: senitience/morality/evolution just don’t link and can’t even form a premise).

Perhaps I should explain it to you then.

Western society has been, and still is, largely influenced by Christianity and its dogma. One instance of this is the belief that God, in the new testament, told some lucky human that it’s ok to eat non-human animals. If we are to take secularisation seriously, then we need to re-evaluate all our values and beliefs; in this case, eating non-human animals. Under Christian morality, you know, the stuff from the old and new testament that tells us how to live our lives, it is permissible to eat meat. So by saying, ‘in getting rid of christian morality we have to look at morality from the perspective of evolution’, I am referring to this re-evaluation of values, and proposing we look at morality from the perspective of evolution.

Hope that makes it clearer.

[gotlucky]

@Chris_Bacon

Western society has been, and still is, largely influenced by Christianity and its dogma. One instance of this is the belief that God, in the new testament, told some lucky human that it’s ok to eat non-human animals. If we are to take secularisation seriously, then we need to re-evaluate all our values and beliefs; in this case, eating non-human animals. Under Christian morality, you know, the stuff from the old and new testament that tells us how to live our lives, it is permissible to eat meat. So by saying, ‘in getting rid of christian morality we have to look at morality from the perspective of evolution’, I am referring to this re-evaluation of values, and proposing we look at morality from the perspective of evolution.

It’s still a non-sequitor. How do you go from “getting rid of christian morality” to “looking at morality from the perspective of evolution”? It does not follow. You have to show how you got from point A to point B. Why, in abandoning Christian morality, do we necessarly have to look at anything from an evolutionary perspective, and what does it mean to look at something at an evolutionary perspective? Why not Jewish morality? Hindu? Muslim? Natural Law? Nihilism? Norse mythology? Greek mythology? Utilitarianism? Objectivism? Social Darwinism?

[Dondoolee]

Hmmm, I am pretty sure you don’t know what you are talking about.

But to point out just one of the plethora of confusing words, points, sentences, and premises you have used, this may be of use to you (I don’t know for sure, as I don’t think I have the foggiest clue as to what you are saying):

1. Pick up any world history book, a basic 5th grade text ought to do.

2. Read the parts that take place in BC. Ignore anything to do with Israel, if it bothers you that much. Extra credit: In BCE times notice how insignificant the country in the whole scheme of things is.

3. Ignore any parts of the history book you think are “The West”, if that helps. Whatever you think “the West” may be; if it is BC Greek, Near Eastern, and Persian culture, ignore it.

4. If you refuse to read “Western tainted academia” read, or observe any native BC art or text.

5. Think about how I have no idea what you are talking about when you equate “Western Xtian values” specificaly with killing and eating animals.

Either way, and no offense, I am probably not going to respond to you anymore on this topic.

[Dondoolee]

@gotlucky: We need more Looney Tune avatars around here. Every other avatar should be Foghorn Leghorn, Willi E, Pepe Lepu, or Yosemite Sam.

[Chris_Bacon]

@gotlucky

It’s still a non-sequitor. How do you go from “getting rid of christian morality” to “looking at morality from the perspective of evolution”? It does not follow. You have to show how you got from point A to point B. Why, in abandoning Christian morality, do we necessarly have to look at anything from an evolutionary perspective, and what does it mean to look at something at an evolutionary perspective? Why not Jewish morality? Hindu? Muslim? Natural Law? Nihilism? Norse mythology? Greek mythology? Utilitarianism? Objectivism? Social Darwinism?

I didn’t say that A logically implies B. I said, ‘…proposing we look at morality from the perspective of evolution’. My reason for choosing evolution is that since it is correct - and please don’t say we have some creationists on this forum - then morality can be explained in terms of evolution, and so it makes sense to look at morality from the perspective of evolution.

[Chris_Bacon]

@William

Hmmm, I am pretty sure you don’t know what you are talking about.

5. Think about how I have no idea what you are talking about when you equate “Western Xtian values” specificaly with killing and eating animals.

Either way, and no offense, I am probably not going to respond to you anymore on this topic.

I guess since you don’t understand what someone has said, that automatically means that they don’t understand what they said. Yeah, sure.

Either way, and no offense, you have to be blind or a retard to not see the implications of Christian values on western society, or Muslim values on Middle-Eastern societies in general.

[Dondoolee]

Either way, and no offense, you have to be blind or a retard to not see the implications of Christian values on western society, or Muslim values on Middle-Eastern societies in general

With regards to habits of the eating and killing of animals - minus the avoidance of pork, shellfish products, and fasting days - yes I am blind to the implications.

I do however see how secular leftism is a direct offshoot and even a heresey of Protestantism. Some of the consequences of this would be something like caring about the environment in goofy ways, not killing animals, calling things equal, giving a fig about morality, babbling about rights for this or that group, etc. In that geneology, I suppose I could see the connection.

OK, I’m done now, promise.

[gotlucky]

@Chris_Bacon

I didn’t say that A logically implies B. I said, ‘…proposing we look at morality from the perspective of evolution’. My reason for choosing evolution is that since it is correct - and please don’t say we have some creationists on this forum - then morality can be explained in terms of evolution, and so it makes sense to look at morality from the perspective of evolution.

I will ask again: Why, in abandoning Christian morality, do we necessarily have to look at anything from an evolutionary perspective, and what does it mean to look at something at an evolutionary perspective?

Why not a Natural Law perspective? Objectivist? Utilitarian? Social Darwinist?

Abiogenesis, evolution, and natural selection are all theories rooted in reason, and I believe they are more or less accurate. Creationism only has to do with abiogenesis. Evolution and natural selection are still compatible with creationism.

What you need to demonstrate is how evolution implies morality of any kind. Evolution is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms. I am at a loss as to how I can determine morality from this.

[AaronBurr]

Valject:

I have not used reductio ad absurdem . You have accused me of it without any evidence.what you have ointed out is not reductio ad absurdem.

I couldn’t care less if an individual likes to torture animals.Ill stop him by force if I can just as I would stop him tortuing a mentally disabled child with any luck he will be killed by my force.

[Chris_Bacon]

@gotlucky

I will ask again: Why, in abandoning Christian morality, do we necessarily have to look at anything from an evolutionary perspective, and what does it mean to look at something at an evolutionary perspective?

Why not a Natural Law perspective? Objectivist? Utilitarian? Social Darwinist?

Abiogenesis, evolution, and natural selection are all theories rooted in reason, and I believe they are more or less accurate. Creationism only has to do with abiogenesis. Evolution and natural selection are still compatible with creationism.

What you need to demonstrate is how evolution implies morality of any kind. Evolution is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms. I am at a loss as to how I can determine morality from this.

Why are you putting words in which I’m not using? I didn’t say anything about necessity, I simply proposed that we look at morality from the perspective of evolution because evolution has been scientifically proven. To look at morality from the perspective of evolution I mean that we ask what the role morality is, why we have it, how we have it etc - essentially I’m just saying that we look at morality scientifically.

Evolution by natural selection isn’t compatiable with creationism - creationism being the belief that the genesis account of creation is correct.

Again, please stop putting words in which I’m not using. I didn’t say anything about implication. I am simply proposing that we look at morality from the perspective of evolution; in other words, that we look at morality scientifically. Come on man, this isn’t hard.

[gotlucky]

‘in getting rid of christian morality we have to look at morality from the perspective of evolution’

Is saying:

1) If we get rid of Christian morality, then we must look at morality from the perspective of evolution.

2) We have gotten rid of Christian morality

3) Therefore, we must look at morality from the perspective of evolution

Which is saying, in getting rid of Christian morality, necessarily morality must now be viewed through the lens of evolution. Either you didn’t mean the words you used or you did and are denying that now. I don’t care. I asked you to show why A implies B. You are now saying that you are just “proposing” we do it this way. Again, the question was relevant. Why evolution and not something else. To your credit, you did eventually answer the question.

To look at morality from the perspective of evolution I mean that we ask what the role morality is, why we have it, how we have it etc - essentially I’m just saying that we look at morality scientifically.

Morality cannot be determined scientifically. It is subjective. Natural law and reason attempt to define rights. Libertarian ethics are separate from morality. Is it moral to prostitute oneself? Many consider it immoral. This is irrelevant in terms of Libertarianism - an individual has the right to prostitute herself (as it is the more common form). An individual Libertarian may find it immoral, but he would recognize the right of prostitution.

The conclusion with Natural Law is that animals do not have rights. Just as a wolf can eat a sheep without violating the sheep’s rights, a human can do the same. I understand that you do not like Natural Law theory. Fine. But do not make the mistake that morality can be objectively defined.

Evolution by natural selection isn’t compatiable with creationism - creationism being the belief that the genesis account of creation is correct.

This is false. There are many brands of creationism. I previously posted links to wikipedia defining terms for you. You clearly did not read them. If you did, then you didn’t understand them. So I will make it clear. Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life. Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. Natural selection is the main process of evolution. Creationism does not deny evolution. There are forms of creationism that deny macroevolution, but not evolution. Creationism is a belief that attempts to explain the origin of life in a mystical way. Again, evolution does not conflict with that. Evolution does not speak to the origin of life. All of these terms and theories are related, but they are separate ideas.

Come on man, this isn’t hard.

The next time you get frustrated with someone asking you questions, ask yourself: “Why is he asking me questions?” "Is he asking me questions so that I can clarify my beliefs and opinions for him?" “Or is he asking me in order to troll me?”

What you don’t need to do is think: “I am being asked questions and I do not have the ability to clarify my beliefs in a more specific way. I only have the ability to continue to give vague answers that do not clarify my beliefs. I must now attempt to belittle the questioner in order to make up for my own insecurities.”

I think that about sums you up. No need to respond to this post, as I’m through with this thread.

[Phaedros]

Gravity was once criticized as a “mystical” force. Just to throw that in there.

[Chris_Bacon]

@gotlucky

‘in getting rid of christian morality we have to look at morality from the perspective of evolution’

Is saying:

1. If we get rid of Christian morality, then we must look at morality from the perspective of evolution.

2. We have gotten rid of Christian morality

3. Therefore, we must look at morality from the perspective of evolution

Which is saying, in getting rid of Christian morality, necessarily morality must now be viewed through the lens of evolution. Either you didn’t mean the words you used or you did and are denying that now. I don’t care. I asked you to show why A implies B. You are now saying that you are just “proposing” we do it this way. Again, the question was relevant. Why evolution and not something else. To your credit, you did eventually answer the question.

Taken alone it does seem to imply that I was implying that, but if you read the sentence in it’s entirety then you would perhaps understand:

'So by saying, ‘in getting rid of christian morality we have to look at morality from the perspective of evolution’, I am referring to this re-evaluation of values, and proposing we look at morality from the perspective of evolution.’

@gotlucky

Morality cannot be determined scientifically. It is subjective. Natural law and reason attempt to define rights. Libertarian ethics are separate from morality. Is it moral to prostitute oneself? Many consider it immoral. This is irrelevant in terms of Libertarianism - an individual has the right to prostitute herself (as it is the more common form). An individual Libertarian may find it immoral, but he would recognize the right of prostitution.

The conclusion with Natural Law is that animals do not have rights. Just as a wolf can eat a sheep without violating the sheep’s rights, a human can do the same. I understand that you do not like Natural Law theory. Fine. But do not make the mistake that morality can be objectively defined.

If you mean ‘objective’ as: ‘not dependent on the mind’, then language and all cognitive abilities aren’t objective; yet they can be studied scientifically. I don’t have a problem with morality being not objective, so I’d agree that it is subjective. But you need to show why it can’t be studied scientifically, because I don’t think for a minute that it is the result of classical conditioning.

Rights are equally subjective, so I don’t see how they help you at all.

@gotlucky

Evolution by natural selection isn’t compatiable with creationism - creationism being the belief that the genesis account of creation is correct.

This is false. There are many brands of creationism. I previously posted links to wikipedia defining terms for you. You clearly did not read them. If you did, then you didn’t understand them. So I will make it clear. Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life. Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. Natural selection is the main process of evolution. Creationism does not deny evolution. There are forms of creationism that deny macroevolution, but not evolution. Creationism is a belief that attempts to explain the origin of life in a mystical way. Again, evolution does not conflict with that. Evolution does not speak to the origin of life. All of these terms and theories are related, but they are separate ideas.

Don’t be patronising, even the English know what evolution is; afterall it was an Englishman who proposed natural selection and evolution. If it is the case that creationism takes many forms, then it is just an error of terminology that I committed - I’m sure you can forgive that, can’t you?

@gotlucky

Come on man, this isn’t hard.

The next time you get frustrated with someone asking you questions, ask yourself: “Why is he asking me questions?” “Is he asking me questions so that I can clarify my beliefs and opinions for him?” “Or is he asking me in order to troll me?”

What you don’t need to do is think: “I am being asked questions and I do not have the ability to clarify my beliefs in a more specific way. I only have the ability to continue to give vague answers that do not clarify my beliefs. I must now attempt to belittle the questioner in order to make up for my own insecurities.”

I think that about sums you up. No need to respond to this post, as I’m through with this thread.

You think that sums me up? - I don’t think you would make a very good psychologist. And this is the second time today someone has said they aren’t going to respond anymore. Why? Is it the case that you can’t face counter criticism? if we are to talk about insecurities I could quite easily bring up psychological projection, but let’s not get into silly childish games here; I take it you are a grown up?

[banned]

I simply proposed that we look at morality from the perspective of evolution because evolution has been scientifically proven.

Another non sequitur.

And evolution isn’t a moral theory, it has absolutely nothing to say about moral dilemas.

Also, theories in the natural sciences are not ‘proven’ they are verified. A proof requires that something necessarily cannot be falsified, wheras the scienfific method is a method where one attempts to falsify. Sorry to be nitpicking language, but there is a huge epistemic difference between proof and verification.

[Valject]

“I have not used reductio ad absurdem . You have accused me of it without any evidence.what you have ointed out is not reductio ad absurdem.”

My apologies. I seem to have to spell this one out. It’s not that I have provided no evidence. It’s that you are making the assertion that I didn’t. I shall show now precisely where my evidence is.

Ad reductio ad absurdum…the technique by which an argument is taken to a logical conclusion that turns out to be absurd, correct? Do you agree with that? If so, continue.

Now, you said, and I quote:

"The idea that beings are deserving of protection because they are productive is unreasonable unless there are people here who would honestly eat mentally disabled people or the physically incapable. "

In doing so, you take the argument that “only the productive deserve protection” and apply it to those who may not be productive, such as the mentally disabled or physically incapable. You then suggest that the implication of such an argument is that there is no problem with eating such people. Now, the only way we can NOT call this ad reductio ad absurdum is if you do not find the notion of people eating each other absurd. However, we have to assume you do, since you are challenging the notion. You reduced the argument to an absurd consequence. Can you present evidence that this is not ad reductio ad absurdum?

That being said, I will now explain how I returned in kind with my own ad reductio ad absurdum. You said:

“It is my belief that beings need protection according to how they suffer. Oysters don’t need protection they appear to have no ability to feel distress so do what you like with them.”

By saying so, the implication is made that something with the inability to feel is the standard by which protection should be applied. But in such an implication, that means any human being, or animal, or rock, which for ANY reason cannot feel pain, is not deserving of protection. So, I brought that statement to its absurd logical conclusion that you would have no problem with the torture of someone who couldn’t feel pain. I’m assuming, since you sound sincere, that you do not find that notion absurd. I mean, I know people like to let their emotions get in the way of logical discussions, and that you are quicker to brush away the discussion for the joy of expounding that you would use force to prevent the torture of someone, which is admirable, but that wasn’t my point. I merely wished to show that you used an argument which you had previously claimed fallacy. I am sincere too. I was hoping you would find some humor in it. And I also believe that by pointing such things out, it gives people pause when they have to make a really important argument.

So I have presented my case.

[Zephyr]

Because it would be violating his right to his body? Is that a trick question?

[Zephyr]

Valject pretty much summed up my thoughts on rights.

Chris_Bacon,

There is no moral system that accompanies evolution. I don’t see how you believe evolution means we shouldn’t eat animals; it seems to be the opposite to me.

[Chris_Bacon]

@banned

I simply proposed that we look at morality from the perspective of evolution because evolution has been scientifically proven.

Another non sequitur.

And evolution isn’t a moral theory, it has absolutely nothing to say about moral dilemas.

Also, theories in the natural sciences are not ‘proven’ they are verified. A proof requires that something necessarily cannot be falsified, wheras the scienfific method is a method where one attempts to falsify. Sorry to be nitpicking language, but there is a huge epistemic difference between proof and verification.

Formal fallacy

Perhaps you should read that. My statement is not a non sequitur. Maybe you should try and explain why you think it is a non sequitur.

I understood science to try and falsify, not verify, its theories. But regardless, when we are talking about scientific proof that, verificationism, or falsificationism, is what we are talking about.

I don’t really see what else could constitute ‘proof’ other than that.

[Chris_Bacon]

@Zephyr

Valject pretty much summed up my thoughts on rights.

Chris_Bacon,

There is no moral system that accompanies evolution. I don’t see how you believe evolution means we shouldn’t eat animals; it seems to be the opposite to me.

I’m saying that we can explain morality as an evolutionary phenomena, or in terms of evolution. Once we understand morality we can then look at what makes right and wrong. For example, you could argue that morality is beneficial for the survival of a species, or you could argue that it is the by-product of language or consciousness. Whatever you believe, your belief will determine what you eat. So, I’m saying it would be a good idea to make sure we understand morality.

Of course I could be wrong, perhaps all animals don’t feel pain. If that is the case, then yeah sure, I wouldn’t have a problem with eating animals, and if that meant eating humans as well, then why not? My belief here, is that causing pain, and in general reducing the quality of life is bad or immoral. I don’t think I’m even saying anything controversial, just that we understand morality.

[Valject]

Whether morality can be explained as evolutionary phenomena or not is unimportant in the debate. I think at the very least it is obvious that a certain level of intelligence is required to contrive a moral theory. But that does not mean that everyone will have the same morals. As far as eating people goes, this isn’t necessarily something related to moral theory. It CAN be, but there are other reasons someone might choose to not eat people, just like there are other reasons to not eat meat besides being against the killing of animals. For instance, let us assume I love the taste of human meat. However, it is in my interest not to go around eating humans or promoting the eating thereof, because this could lead to my own demise.

No one can understand morality, because it is subjective.