Atheists and vegetarianism

[tetsujin]

Any atheist who says rationality is the basis for whether or not we should eat or not eat an organism is not thinking this through unless they are willing to concede that it is okay to eat a human that is mentally retarded to the point where their cognitive functions are no better than an animal or a vegetable. Rationality has *something* to do with it but not everything. No non-sentient life form can feel any significant threshold of pain or suffering so it doesn't matter if they are killed for food or not and that appears to be our general rule of thumb in eating or not eating things (besides taste ) but not the only rule.

We don't eat humans because a) our society has instilled the desire not to eat humans whereas some societies are cannibalistic b) our social contract teaches us to respect the dead so out of the duty towards our dead we do not eat them. There isn't anything wrong with eating humans in itself (unless you kill them but that's a different issue) but we have created a moral system based on our desire NOT to have our relatives eaten and that is reflected on our social contract. So yeh, humans > animals.

emotion + social contract + deductive reasoning = Ethics

Ethics aside, cannibalism is not an economical means of ensuring food supply or our survival as a species. I am not aware of any evolutionary advantage for humans to kill and eating their own kind. We are omnivores by nature and can survive on many different types of food, and have changed our dietary habits over time and environments.

Am I trying to cut back on meat? Yes. Do I see myself as an aspiring vegetarian? No.


All the best,


Faysal

 

[Lynx]

is it 'respectful for the dead' to pose them and sometimes in an obscene manner at the 'Body world'?

ah the selective 'empathy' of atheists!

Umm my entire point was that most people would not find anything wrong putting bodies on display in a science center (they consented after all) but most people would have problems with eating our dead relatives. Proof= the existence and success of the Body Worlds exhibit and the lack of success of cannibalism ;\. My previous post clearly argued that cannibalism is bad because it goes against our social contract and that is why it's unaccepted...along with the other things I said.

THAT ASIDE: What's wrong with Body world? It's an educational experience and if I had the spare time and spare cash I'd definitely check it out since it is on exhibition over here.. I guess there are some people who think these things are obscene I just don't think dead people should have any rights besides contractual rights (i.e., a will)...and I am totally for 'learn as much as you can about anything you can without any restrictions or interference'. You don't have to reply since it will derail the thread.

Ethics aside, cannibalism is not an economical means of ensuring food supply or our survival as a species. I am not aware of any evolutionary advantage for humans to kill and eating their own kind. We are omnivores by nature and can survive on many different types of food, and have changed our dietary habits over time and environments.

Sure, I got no problem with that. I would say though that a situation where cannibalism would be justified is if there was absolutely nothing else to eat and we were forced to eat dead humans or something. This is obviously not a problem Islamically since the clause of necessity negates a lot of rules.

 

[جوري]

Umm my entire point was that most people would not find anything wrong putting bodies on display in a science center (they consented after all) but most people would have problems with eating our dead relatives. Proof= the existence and success of the Body Worlds exhibit and the lack of success of cannibalism ;\. My previous post clearly argued that cannibalism is bad because it goes against our social contract and that is why it's unaccepted...along with the other things I said.


THAT ASIDE: What's wrong with Body world? It's an educational experience and if I had the spare time and spare cash I'd definitely check it out since it is on exhibition over here.. I guess there are some people who think these things are obscene I just don't think dead people should have any rights besides contractual rights (i.e., a will)...and I am totally for 'learn as much as you can about anything you can without any restrictions or interference'. You don't have to reply since it will derail the thread.

'ummm' The body world isn't a 'science center' it is a museum of dead people. People who enter are lay folks and the displays aren't for the purposes of science. I certainly don't know many folks who walk out of there knowing where their innominate artery is or even of its significance. consenting to it and making money of it doesn't make it anymore ethical than eating dead folks.. and I don't believe that it is a derailment of the thread it is a mere point out of hypocrisy when your ethics are personally tailored!

Sure, I got no problem with that. I would say though that a situation where cannibalism would be justified is if there was absolutely nothing else to eat and we were forced to eat dead humans or something. This is obviously not a problem Islamically since the clause of necessity negates a lot of rules.

Eating human flesh is akin to the worse crimes.. I really think it would be easier to resort to pica for nutrient needs than feasting on the dead!

bizarre people we have on this board!

 

[Lynx]

'ummm' The body world isn't a 'science center' it is a museum of dead people. People who enter are lay folks and the displays aren't for the purposes of science. I certainly don't know many folks who walk out of there knowing where their innominate artery is or even of its significance. consenting to it and making money of it doesn't make it anymore ethical than eating dead folks.. and I don't believe that it is a derailment of the thread it is a mere point out of hypocrisy when your ethics are personally tailored!

Of course you learn something. You learn about how the insides of a human look like ;\. But this wasn't my point. My poitn is that ethics is determined (largely) by our social contract. So that's why you don't get people eating people. And that's why there isn't anything to feel guilty about when eating meet (For an atheist) nor are there any double standards. there are atheists out there who do feel guilty about eating meat but that's their personal feeling. I guess this the viewpoint of some utilitarians like Peter Singer.

Eating human flesh is akin to the worse crimes.. I really think it would be easier to resort to pica for nutrient needs than feasting on the dead!

bizarre people we have on this board!

Well if you say so?

I'd totally punish a rapist more than a cannibal though ~.~ . I don't know about you.

 

[جوري]

Of course you learn something. You learn about how the insides of a human look like ;\. But this wasn't my point. My poitn is that ethics is determined (largely) by our social contract. So that's why you don't get people eating people. And that's why there isn't anything to feel guilty about when eating meet (For an atheist) nor are there any double standards. there are atheists out there who do feel guilty about eating meet but that's their personal feeling. I guess this the viewpoint of some utilitarians like Peter Singer.

You can learn and more so by looking at a plastic model in fact if you aren't actively involved in the sciences specifically in a clinical setting then it wouldn't make a difference in your life whatsoever.. it is what it is a macabre display of the dead and at times in a disgusting and obscene fashion as was done in his 'circle of life' display. Thus this alleged 'social contract' is nothing but a fictive sham of folks who feign civility when in fact they are far removed from it, and that is usually what is left when folks are left to determine 'ethics' from their own devices and not a religious moral code!
I really don't see a difference from where I am standing on whether you want eat the dead or just watch them encased for display!

Well if you say so?

I'd totally punish a rapist more than a cannibal though ~.~ . I don't know about you.

A crime is a crime though indeed in varying degrees!

all the best

 

[Lynx]

You can learn and more so by looking at a plastic model in fact if you aren't actively involved in the sciences specifically in a clinical setting then it wouldn't make a difference in your life whatsoever..

Okay. The difference is that I have seen the real insides of the human body. I would now know what the insides of the human body 'really' look like. Might not make a difference to you but it does to the nerdy types like me haha.

Thus this alleged 'social contract' is nothing but a fictive sham of folks who feign civility when in fact they are far removed from it, and that is usually what is left when folks are left to determine 'ethics' from their own devices and not a religious moral code!

The basis of any society is the social contract. That is a simple social fact. We don't kill each other because we have an implicit agreement to get along since getting along, trading, etc are ALL better for ALL our happiness. The reason why Body Worlds is allowed IS BECAUSE most people don't have a problem with it. If there was no demand for such an exhibition the Market would eliminate the exhibition but it's still here isn't it? Social Contract in action!.

Oh and how is a religious code any different from a society coming up with rules and regulations? I think giving permission to a husband to marry 4 wives without the permission of any of his previous wives is abhorrent. < this is really derailing the thread so we should stop any discussion on this; if you want to talk about it you can start a new thread.

I really don't see a difference from where I am standing on whether you want eat the dead or just watch them encased for display!

The verb 'to eat' versus the verb 'to watch'

A crime is a crime though indeed in varying degrees!

all the best

So then you take back what you said about it being as worse as the worst crimes. Good I would think there is something seriously wrong with you if you thought a girl getting raped was "akin" to some guy eating a dead corpse.

 

[جوري]

Okay. The difference is that I have seen the real insides of the human body. I would now know what the insides of the human body 'really' look like. Might not make a difference to you but it does to the nerdy types like me haha.

No plastinated specimen looks realistic enough, in fact for that matter an anatomy dissection differs greatly from an autopsy. You can get very realistic specimen synthesized rather than displaying someone's mother or uncle or pregnant wife!

The basis of any society is the social contract. That is a simple social fact. We don't kill each other because we have an implicit agreement to get along since getting along, trading, etc are ALL better for ALL our happiness. The reason why Body Worlds is allowed IS BECAUSE most people don't have a problem with it. If there was no demand for such an exhibition the Market would eliminate the exhibition but it's still here isn't it? Social Contract in action!.

I have no idea what this drivel means.. and I find it funny that china is being chastised in the public eye of for trafficking body parts of criminals to laboratories yet folks have no problems having body parts on display. Further you have not surveyed the folks who frequent or don't frequent said museum of their feelings on the matter. Sometimes folks don't enter for the reasons you think legitimate in your mind and the other half find it plain macabre!

Oh and how is a religious code any different from a society coming up with rules and regulations? I think giving permission to a husband to marry 4 wives without the permission of any of his previous wives is abhorrent. < this is really derailing the thread so we should stop any discussion on this; if you want to talk about it you can start a new thread.

Who said a husband can marry without the consent of the others? further isn't better than having a mistress on the side? at least it gives identity to the ******* children as well proper inheritance?
http://harrypottering.com/gossip/Dumbledore-has-second-child-with-mistress-at-age-68-528693.html

The verb 'to eat' versus the verb 'to watch'

substituting the senses makes it less abhorrent?

So then you take back what you said about it being as worse as the worst crimes. Good I would think there is something seriously wrong with you if you thought a girl getting raped was "akin" to some guy eating a dead corpse.

I find them both equally disgusting!

all the best

 

[Lynx]

No plastinated specimen looks realistic enough, in fact for that matter an anatomy dissection differs greatly from an autopsy. You can get very realistic specimen synthesized rather than displaying someone's mother or uncle or pregnant wife!

Okay I don't know about you but I can't like just walk into an autopsy just to check out dead bodies. I gotta settle for what I can get.

I have no idea what this drivel means.. and I find it funny that china is being chastised in the public eye of for trafficking body parts of criminals to laboratories yet folks have no problems having body parts on display. Further you have not surveyed the folks who frequent or don't frequent said museum of their feelings on the matter. Sometimes folks don't enter for the reasons you think legitimate in your mind and the other half find it plain macabre!

I apologize for an unclear post I almost did not want to get into social contract theory because it would turn into a debate far beyond what the OP had intended. Read some Locke and maybe some John Stuart Mill. This bit of the discussion is a bit of a tangent anyway. Also, why do you find it funny? Taking someone's body parts without their permission is a little different from donating one's body for display.

Who said a husband can marry without the consent of the others? further isn't better than having a mistress on the side? at least it gives identity to the ******* children as well proper inheritance?
http://harrypottering.com/gossip/Dumbledore-has-second-child-with-mistress-at-age-68-528693.html

First and foremost, since I am a stickler for logical fallacies, mentioning the mistress bit there is a red herring. So avoid that please. Anyway, SURE I absolutely agree that having some institution of marriage even if its polygamous is much much better than having a mistress on the side. You get no disagreement from me. But I am creating a thread on the 4 wives thing to avoid derailing this one so if you want you can reply to me there.

I find them both equally disgusting!

all the best

Jeez, I am a guy and I don't agree. but whatever, everyone has their own moral compass i suppose.

 

[جوري]

Okay I don't know about you but I can't like just walk into an autopsy just to check out dead bodies. I gotta settle for what I can get.

Great in that case a plastic model is better than a human being!

I apologize for an unclear post I almost did not want to get into social contract theory because it would turn into a debate far beyond what the OP had intended. Read some Locke and maybe some John Stuart Mill. This bit of the discussion is a bit of a tangent anyway. Also, why do you find it funny? Taking someone's body parts without their permission is a little different from donating one's body for display.

They are the body parts of criminals, criminals have no rights even here in the U.S they lose their right to vote.. so frankly it is funny to point your accusing finger when you are just disgusting and deviant!

First and foremost, since I am a stickler for logical fallacies, mentioning the mistress bit there is a red herring. So avoid that please. Anyway, SURE I absolutely agree that having some institution of marriage even if its polygamous is much much better than having a mistress on the side. You get no disagreement from me. But I am creating a thread on the 4 wives thing to avoid derailing this one so if you want you can reply to me there.

How is it a red-herring? do you enjoy throwing terms around when you can't defend your stance?

Jeez, I am a guy and I don't agree. but whatever, everyone has their own moral compass i suppose.

Guys enjoy eating dead flesh more than bench pressing someone with wails of protests? that is peculiar the new breed of man!

 

[Lynx]

Great in that case a plastic model is better than a human being!


They are the body parts of criminals, criminals have no rights even here in the U.S they lose their right to vote.. so frankly it is funny to point your accusing finger when you are just disgusting and deviant!




How is it a red-herring? do you enjoy throwing terms around when you can't defend your stance?



Guys enjoy eating dead flesh more than bench pressing someone with wails of protests? that is peculiar the new breed of man!

It's a red-herring because whether or not having a mistress is better than having a polygamous marriage is irrelevant to whether or not polygamous marriages are in themselves morally rephrensible or not. But I started a new thread waiting for approval and hopefully we can discuss things there.

Prisoners DO have rights in the U.S. They can't vote but they have the right NOT TO have their organs ripped out. I cannot believe you inferred from 'they don't have the right to vote' that 'they must not have the right to keep their organs'. No way. In fact I think even you see the problem in that. So I'll assume you regretfully posted what you just said.

I didn't say guys like to eat flesh more than raping women. I said raping women is much worse. I don't know how you can disagree. Desecrating a dead body versus potentially ruining a living person's entire life. Hmm. Like I said, we all have our own moral compasses.


And this discussion has gone seriously off topic so for the benefit of the OP I will just re-iterate my original stance.

There's no need for an atheist to feel guilty about eating an animal because we are not violating any social obligation to others. The only thing being harmed is the animal itself but it's a personal choice of the atheist or whoever to care about killing something that is not sentient.

 

[جوري]

It's a red-herring because whether or not having a mistress is better than having a polygamous marriage is irrelevant to whether or not polygamous marriages are in themselves morally rephrensible or not. But I started a new thread waiting for approval and hopefully we can discuss things there.

Ah, in this case the 'red-herring' was introduced by your person as such if you like castigating yourself publicly then pls. don't let me hold you back!

Prisoners DO have rights in the U.S. They can't vote but they have the right NOT TO have their organs ripped out. I cannot believe you inferred from 'they don't have the right to vote' that 'they must not have the right to keep their organs'. No way. In fact I think even you see the problem in that. So I'll assume you regretfully posted what you just said.

I am merely playing along with your logic or lack thereof. I find both acts morally reprehensible but I think it worse to be a Tartuffe on top of being base!

I didn't say guys like to eat flesh more than raping women. I said raping women is much worse. I don't know how you can disagree. Desecrating a dead body versus potentially ruining a living person's entire life. Hmm. Like I said, we all have our own moral compasses.

How do you judge that it ruins someone's life more so to rape them than to eat their dead flesh? can we see the numbers on your sin-O-Meter?

And this discussion has gone seriously off topic so for the benefit of the OP I will just re-iterate my original stance.

There's no need for an atheist to feel guilty about eating an animal because we are not violating any social obligation to others. The only thing being harmed is the animal itself but it's a personal choice of the atheist or whoever to care about killing something that is not sentient.

Ok.. so the take home message is that atheists though evolved (maybe for some not fully so) are ok with eating their brethren animals because cannibalism is a lesser offense than raping?

got it..

all the best

 

[tetsujin]

There's no need for an atheist to feel guilty about eating an animal because we are not violating any social obligation to others. The only thing being harmed is the animal itself but it's a personal choice of the atheist or whoever to care about killing something that is not sentient.

I think it violates a social obligation. Producing livestock for human consumption is very inefficient. Our bodies are not equipped to handle the high amounts of fat, salt, and sugar that the world is able to produce, at the prices we demand, at our convenience at every corner store. We need to understand what is good for us, collectively and individually and act towards those goals. Eating a pound of flesh every day is not helping us.

All the best,


Faysal

 

[KAding]

There's no need for an atheist to feel guilty about eating an animal because we are not violating any social obligation to others. The only thing being harmed is the animal itself but it's a personal choice of the atheist or whoever to care about killing something that is not sentient.

What makes you come to the conclusion that an animal is not sentient?

 

[Justufy]

We feel this kind of sympathy towards animals because of the present relation towards food in our societies and not because of atheism or whatever... Indeed this relation to food especially meat has changed considerably throughout very recent years.
With mass production and cetera we have lost the relation we had back then with our food, back in the days, killing a cow or any other animal was not wrong, because humans had to eat.

The lion does not ask himself if it’s wrong to eat a gazelle?

But nowadays the relation to animals we had in the past has been severed, we only see their meat in grocery stores, we all eat if of course, but we don’t kill the beast anymore, this is what I believe has created this élan of sympathy towards animal: we don’t need to kill the beast ourselves to east its meat.

No one wants to see suffering but they sure want to eat that juicy good meat!

 

[Lynx]

What makes you come to the conclusion that an animal is not sentient?

I might have used the wrong term. I meant to say self-aware. Certainly animals feel pain and pleasure and I guess they are sentient by virtue of that (well some animals are). But my point was that their capacity for pain and pleasure is not as significant as ours. My comment about eating animals as something that does not violate any social obligations was meant to address the possible objection of "well some humans are so mentally handicapped that they cannot feel pleasure or pain so we should be allowed to eat them by this logic". We have a social responsibility to other members of society who have chosen not to have our dead bodies eaten up.

 

[Lynx]

How do you judge that it ruins someone's life more so to rape them than to eat their dead flesh? can we see the numbers on your sin-O-Meter?

Lol?..Well clearly a dead person is dead so they have no life to be ruined. Dontcha think?


edit: added quote brackets

 

[Alpha Dude]

Click 'Download MP3' here to listen to a short half hour podcast on this topic by Peter Singer:

One of the most controversial and influential philosophers alive today, Peter Singer is DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne. He writes a regular column for Free Inquiry magazine, and is the author of dozens of books, including Practical Ethics, Rethinking Life and Death, Animal Liberation, and Writings on an Ethical Life.

In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Peter Singer defends vegetarianism, arguing that we should give equal consideration to all "beings who have interests." He draws ethical distinctions between human fetuses and animals, such as dogs and cats. He argues against "dominionism," which is the idea that humanity is special, and that other animals were made by God for humanity's benefit. He attacks "speciesism," and explains why he did not sign the Humanist Manifesto 2000. He describes factory farming, and the commercial imperatives that he says cause animals to be treated as mere property. He talks about the decision to become a vegetarian, and what keeps secularists and scientists from making the decision, in terms of the question he posed to Richard Dawkins at a recent Center for Inquiry conference. And he considers how working with the religious may advance vegetarianism in society.

Somebody pointed me in his direction and he pretty much says at minute 7ish essentially what I am arguing - that an implication of evolutionary based atheism (once we get rid of the notion that we humans are assigned a special purpose by God and given license to use what's in the Earth for ourselves) is that we don't have any basis for elevating ourselves above animals in terms of thinking our pain and suffering is worth more than theirs are. I really have to agree with his conclusion.

 

[tetsujin]

What makes you come to the conclusion that an animal is not sentient?

It doesn't matter, it's the wrong line of reasoning. Whether or not a being is sentient is dependent on that being's "ability" to perceive and respond to external stimuli. As humans we have 5 of the many possible senses, but are most familiar with seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, and tasting.

The average human can only see within the 'visible' portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The average human only hears frequencies up to about 17-18 kHz. Our sense of smell, taste, touch, all vastly inferior to hundreds of other species.

What we feel or perceive as pleasurable or painful is a result of capacity to interact with our environment.

On the scale, are we more or less sentient than honey bees who can see "ultraviolet" light.

On the scale, are we more or less sentient than dogs that can smell thousands of times more scents to a greater degree.

Tomorrow, we may find ourselves in contact with some extra-terrestrial form of life which has twice as many "senses" and to a greater degree than our own. Will they be more sentient? Would they be justified in killing and eating us because they believe we cannot feel the kind of pain they can feel? What if their religion gives a green light to devouring everything they find outside of their own planet?

All the best,


Faysal

 

[tetsujin]

Click 'Download MP3' here to listen to a short half hour podcast on this topic by Peter Singer:
Somebody pointed me in his direction and he pretty much says at minute 7ish essentially what I am arguing - that an implication of evolutionary based atheism (once we get rid of the notion that we humans are assigned a special purpose by God and given license to use what's in the Earth for ourselves) is that we don't have any basis for elevating ourselves above animals in terms of thinking our pain and suffering is worth more than theirs are. I really have to agree with his conclusion.

Evolution has nothing to say regarding the existence of a "god".

All the best,


Faysal

 

[جوري]

Lol?..Well clearly a dead person is dead so they have no life to be ruined. Dontcha think?


edit: added quote brackets

Other things can be ruined like the sanctity of their body and a regard and respect for the life they had--but since you have no feelings on the matter, perhaps you can donate the body of your mother so we can rip into her with knives and forks!

all the best