Subject:
|
Re: Vegetarianism etc. (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 May 2000 00:17:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1117 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> James,
>
> upon reading through your response to my last longish note on this it struck • me
> that I was kind of beating the same topic, and that I sounded antagonistic to
> you as a religious person. While I disagree with you, and it makes it harder
> to discuss some things because they root down to fundamental differences, I
> appreciate your willingness to overlook my repetition and any potential lack • of
> tact.
Christopher:
I haven't been offended by how you have expressed your views; in fact, I enjoy
a friendly clash of arms.
>
> > Right...what is gratuitous killing? Like shooting bison from a west-bound
> train 140 years ago in the US west? Is that gratuitous because it's merely
> fun? How is that different than merely because it tastes good?
I believe that gratuitous killing includes killing for sport, but I'm not
prepared to say that killing for meat because it tastes good is inherently
gratuitious. Please see my comments on duty below.
> > > And if I'm wrong about the non-existance of anything spiritual, then I doubt
> > > that we're the only ones. I have experienced a few exceptional non-humans • with
> > > more depth of character than most people exhibit. Were I to wax poetic • about
> > > souls and afterlife, I would require that other animals be included.
> >
> > Indeed. The afterlife will be a poorer place if it lacks animal life, but I
> > think that it shall.
>
> But isn't the Christian afterlife the perfect world that we can look toward?
> Mustn't it have animals then if by lacking them it would be a poorer place?
> :-)
I don't have a comprehensive theological understanding on the nature of the
afterlife, but I believe that a good biblical case can be made that all
aspects of creation will be included.
> > For a member of a religious group (such as mine), the question of what we
> > believe that God has said regarding our diets must be weighed into the
> equation.
>
> I'm really, really, unfamiliar with the Bible, but don't the dietary edicts
> that God handed down to the Jews also apply to Christians? Aren't they part • of
> the Old Testament? Why don't Christians follow those?
In theological terms, Christians believe that Christ has fulfilled all of the
ancient laws for us; we are now under the new covenant; thus, there are no
dietary requirements (save those reasonable and unspoken ones such as
refraining from cannabalism [I would argue unless under extreme duress], and
refraining from eating those animals to whom we owe a debt of friendship or
duty - such as our pets.)
> Actually, I just found a cool site at http://unbound.biola.edu/ which • indicates
> that Leviticus and Deuteronomy agree that God says pork is bad. And Isaiah
> implies that pigs are filthy and disgusting and to be reviled. Do these of
> God's words weigh in when you're checking out the Bacon at the Denny's buffet?
As a Christian, unless my conscience so guides me, I am under no rules
governing what type of animal I may eat. I'd say that the restrictions
against pork followed by the Jews and Muslims has been historically influenced
by some environmental factors - pork has never been a wise thing to eat in
warm climates without modern technology (the risk of diseases such as
trichinosis is too great, etc.)
> > I have a friend who is equally orthodox in terms of his theology who has been
> > persuaded by the arguments of Peter Singer (with whom you are no doubt
> > familiar)
>
> Actually, not as a vegetarian advocate...this conversation is the farthest • I've
> ever taken advocacy. I'm familiar with him as a folk musician.
Peter Singer, the Princeton philosopher, is also a folk musician???!!!
>
> > , and has come to the view that it is wrong for humans to eat animal
> > flesh if such act can be avoided. I completely respect that position, but am
> > not ready to make the same commitment.
>
> You don't sound too far off ;-)
Philosophically, I'm not rar off, but as my wife is not prepared to make such
a commitment, it would be very hard on her if I decided to become a vegetarian
because she does most of the cooking.
> > Perhaps you will think my view to be
> > merely self-rationalizing, but it is genuinely where I am at today: Yes, the
> > Bible records God telling Peter in the Book of Acts that humans may eat • animal
> > flesh.
>
> OK, I've been reading this and it seems that in:
>
> "Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts,
> and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him,
> Rise, Peter; kill, and eat."
>
> God is telling Peter that it's OK to eat that stuff rather than to go without.
> What's the history of Peter's conviction at that point? from the stuff
> following, it seems that Peter found some (all?) critters unclean or somehow
> base and God was telling him to get over it. Did God reveal all creatures, or
> just certain ones?
Peter, as a Jew, would have been unwilling to pork, shellfish,etc. (the
dietary laws are listed in Leviticus.) Shortly after the resurrection, most
of the Christians were also Jews, and they did not yet understand that God was
reaching out to the Gentiles through Christ; they in fact believed that to
become a Christian one had to be a Jew, and able to follow the Jewish law. In
that same chapter of Acts, Peter is staying at the home of a Gentile Roman
named Cornelius. While there, both Cornelius and Peter are given a revelation
from God, and Peter sees that God is seeking to reconcile himself to all of
humanity. Shortly thereafter, Peter appears before a council of Jewish
Christians and explains to them his revelation; from that time on, the church
becomes a mix of both Jews and Gentiles (culturally and ethnically.) Anyway,
the point is that the chapter of Acts that we've been discussing is a
historically important event for Christians, as it marks the beginning of the
end of the observance of a number of specifically Jewish laws, such as the
observance of dietary restrictions. As to why God originally forbade the
consumption of certain animals, I am not qualified to answer.
>
> > Now, as I've said I am much persuaded by many of the moral arguments
> > against carnivorous survival. The crux of my decision to eat meat rests on a
> > fact which I believe to be true: God never created this as the best possible
> > world that could be (or has been) created.
>
> I think you allude to this further below, but with your premises, don't you
> feel like you have an obligation to make this a better place? Maybe the best
> place that you can? Maybe God left this place imperfect so that we would have
> something to work toward..?
My understanding of this issue rests upon my understanding of the nature of
moral obligation. If someone is in imminent danger of death (let's say that
person is about to drown), and I can save that person without grave risk to my
own life, then I am probably morally obligated to render aid. But, let's say
that a house is burning and someone is still inside. If I risk certain injury
or death, then it doesn't seem that I am morally obligated to attempt a
rescue. At the risk of being redundant, I think that one other example will
suffice: I am in a foxhole with several other soldiers. A grenade is tossed
in, and I have the choice to jump out and save myself, or throw myself upon
the grenade to save the others. Am I morally obliged to sacrifice my own
life? My moral sensibilities tell me No; sacrificing my own life would be
above and beyond the call of duty. (Please understand - I believe that
risking one's life to save another is the highest form of love. My thought
expirement here is simply to try to deduce whre the limits of human duty may
be found [that point at which any further action is meritorious and above and
beyond the call of duty.])
Now, regarding eating meat: Since carniverous behavior is a natural aspect of
the environmental system in which we all live (and I am a biological creature
of my environment), I do not find a compelling moral imperative as a purely
biological creature to refrain from that practice. Regarding my existence as
a free moral agent (influenced and partially-governed by my conscience, my
society, my culture, and my religion, I find compelling reasons to refrain
from the practice (in order to prevent needless suffering, etc.), but no moral
imperative that bids me to never eat meat, and before which, should I chose to
break it, I shall always stand guilty. (An example of a moral imperative
which will always have a claim on my behavior is that I may never kill other
people because I wish to claim their property as my own.) Thus, I seem to be
under no duty to refrain from eating meat. However, should I chose not to eat
meat, I would seem to be following a course of behavior that is above and
beyond the call of duty and moral obligation as both a biological creature,
and as a human free moral agent.
Thus, just as risking my life by entering a burning building to save another
person is more meritorious than not risking my life, it is not however within
the compass of compelling duty - such an act of courage would be praiseworthy,
but not required. This is how I view the question of eating meat as it
relates to making this the best possible world - I have the free choice to
refrain from eating meat, but I am not morally compelled to do so. I am
leaning toward vegetarianism because I believe that it offers compelling
arguments regarding compassion, but I do not feel guilty when I eat meat
because I believe that I have the freedom to do so, both as a biological
creature and as a moral agent.
> > Necessary predation when done for survival is neither good nor just,
> > nor evil, nor unjust...it is just a fact of our condition as
> > inhabitants of this imperfect system of survival that exists on Earth.
>
> I agree. But this also gives me the philosophical stance that when necessary,
> preying on humans is also just a fact of survivial. I assume you don't take
> that stance.
>
> By the way, I can't find anything in the Bible on cannibalism. Is there
> anything?
Nothing that I can think of; something about eating my kinsmen just feels
morally incompatible with my sense of what faithfullness and friendship means
(as does the act of eating my pets.)
> > But, I concede that because we possess moral faculties,
> > we do have the responsibility to use them correctly. Predation
> > is probably no longer necessary for our society.
>
> And what impact does this have on your actions.
Well, I do not hunt. I find the argument against the factory farming industry
to be the most compelling reason to refrain from eating most meats, and I am
giving this issue serious thought.
> > Ok, when I see a roach outside, I rarely, rarely kill it. I generally leave
> > bugs alone unless they are in my home. If it is in my power to do so, I try • to
> > let all creatures alone (live and let live) unless they are im my home. If I
> > find any insects in my home, I kill them. I respect their survival, but not • at
> > my expense. I realize that I have let down my gaurd with that statement, but • I
> > have already conceded your moral argument.
>
> Well here I'll let my guard down too. I follow just about the same • philosophy,
> but I frequently let the bugs go outside. But not always.
>
> > > A reasonable case for what can be made?
> >
> > Inherent value and the relative worths of different creatures when competing
> > claims must be weighed.
>
> Without an appeal to religion? If you made such a case, I missed it.
No, I did not make a case outside of a theistic worldview, but my point is
that a reasonable case for a theistic worldview can be held with intellectual
honesty. 2 brief subpoints here:
1. The case for objective value can be, and has been, argued by a number of
influential athiest philosophers; it is not an issue that stands or falls with
theism.
2. In terms of inherent value and theism, it would be a fallacy to hold the
idea that God arbitrarily assigns values to organisms. Rather, I would say
that he duly notes their inherent values. "'How can a man be righteous, asks
Traherne, unless he be able to render to things their due esteem?'" (Quote
from The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis.) Actually, let me ask a question
from a non-theistic perspective: Does a lamb have an inherent right to life if
a lion exists that must prey upon it for survival? Either the lamb has an
inherent right to exist, and as such it is our duty to exterminate the lion,
or the lion also has a right to exist, and its claim to the lamb's life is
just as pressing as the lamb's claim to its own life. Even from a non-
theistic worldview, do we not indeed assign inherent values to the lives of
organisms as we weigh their competing claims within the ecosystem?
>
> > > Another "for the record" here: I don't want to step out of the food web. • But
> > > my family - if I'm still in the US will be prohibited by law from following • my
> > > wishes on disposal of my body. I would like to be dumped out of a plane • into
> > > the deep woods and left to the environment to deal with. Burrying and • burning
> > > are both creepy.
> >
> > If you'd like to share why you feel that burrying and burning are creepy, I'd • be
> > interested to know.
>
> For no particularly rational reason, I suppose. But why take up the space, or
> go through those bizzarre rituals? It just doesn't seem right.
>
> Have you heard of the Towers of Silence in Calcutta? I believe that it is
the Jain religion that exumes their dead in these towers (although it may be
the Parsee religion that does this - I'm not sure.)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
