Subject:
|
Re: Why is cockfighting bad? (was: Pokemon (was: Harry Potter Lego Line))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jul 2000 19:02:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1571 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > > Here is where we diverge a bit. I'm not a vegetarian and never will be.
> >
> > Never? You allude further down to being close (at least) to buying in to the
> > idea that you're rationallizing somewhere. Mightn't you change your mind? • If
> > not, why not? I am convinced that every person capable and willing to do the
> > thinking will come to largely the same conclusion that that I have and decide
> > that it's evil/wrong/immoral (take your pick) to eat meat when it is _so_
> > clearly not needed.
>
> I am equally convinced that anyone who every person who eats plants must
> acknowledge the fundamental equality between vegetarianism and carnivorism
> insofar as the both pertain to the consumption of (once) living
They are equal in that life is extinguished by both.
> (and, as I
> explain below, sentient) matter,
I'll get to you description below, but for now: Bzzzzt. Thanks for playing.
> and titling vegetarianism "superior" is arbitrary and inconsistent.
Maybe somewhat arbitrary, but not, I would say inconsistent.
> Eating anything but the minimum required to sustain oneself adequately
> is "clearly not needed," yet we eat much more than that all the time.
Right, but there is nothing inherently wrong with eating more than is needed.
What is wrong is hurting something when it is not needed.
> > > I see it as OK to eat meat of non sentient creatures, and I see it as a
> > > difference of kind, not degree.
> >
> > In the vernacular that I understand, sentient is taken to mean self-aware
> > which leaves the issue a bit fuzzy. How self aware? In what senses? But
> > actually it means to have sensation.
>
> Be that as it may, I would ask you to define sensation. It has been
> conclusively demonstrated that plants react to their environment, whether it's
> something as simple as following the sun or as complicated as secreting a
> particular chemical into the air when ants are chewing into bark. The latter,
> in fact, is indicative of communication, in that trees (I'll have to double
> check the species) nearby are able to produce a substance unfavorable to ants,
> thereby protecting themselves specifically because they'd been warned by
> another tree.
OK, the need to define sensation is valid.
1) A perception associated with stimulation of a sense organ or with a specific
body condition
2) The faculty to feel or perceive
3) An impression, or the consciousness of an impression, made upon the central
nervous organ, through the medium of a sensory or afferent nerve or one of the
organs of sense
I tend to think of nerves and some kind of processor as being needed to really
consider it sensation. But maybe it's fuzzier than that. I'm not sure your
plant-based examples count. A rock gets hot when the sun shines...is the rock
sensing the sun?
But all that aside, I'm not necessarily the one who needs to argue about
sensation, since the vernacular definition that I listed is more topical to
this conversation.
> Given these facts, how can one distinguish between animals'
> sentience and that of plants;
Well, we can clearly state that plants don't _know_ anything about their
surroundings. They don't feel pain. They don't have purpose or drive. They
autonomically react to chemical etc. stimuli.
> that is, how is it therefore morally less wrong to eat plants than animals?
My set of values is satisfied by the fact that the plant doesn't mind being
eaten, while most animals do. Please note that on the very simple end of
animals many of my arguments about plants apply too. So I'm not
differentiating between them in the exact sense of the Linnaean taxa, but
more between those big fuzzy things and those big leafy things.
> > What we are genetically a bunch of things that we should consider hurdles.
> > There are many of those. We are told by our genes to protect our woman,
>
> Do you have any actual sources to cite in this regard?
No.
> From what I've read,
> the genome product hasn't yet pointed out the "protect the woman" gene. Such
> protectiveness could just as easily be explained as a result of environment
> and upbringing rather than some kind of genetic hardwiring.
Yes. I should have stated it as an opinion or a hypothesis.
> > In modern society with so much powerful infrastructure, it is downright
> > _easy_ to not eat meat. So killing for food is clearly avoidable.
>
> Do you only eat living plants, and are they still alive after you've eaten
> them? I'm not trying to be absurdly nit-picky, but it can readily be argued
> that the line you've drawn between plants and animals is as ill-defined as the
> line others have drawn between people and animals.
The actualy line drawn by my morals is based on suffering. So I am allowed by
my morals, but not my preferences to eat very simple animals too. The line
between the two kingdoms would be as arbitrary as the lines that I'm
complaining about, but I don't think that my actual line is.
> > > I'd rather we just grew beef and chicken muscle in vats but we're
> > > not there yet.
>
> That's what we do now, while it's still attached to the cows and chickens!
I think you probably know what we're talking about.
> > > Heck, my cousin the molecular geneticist (or genetic biologist, I can never
> > > keep it straight) has been causing pain to fruit flies for 20 years now,
> >
> > Can you prove to me that drosophila feel pain? My understanding is that they
> > do not; but I could be wrong.
>
> Heh. I don't know that I could prove to you that *I* feel pain, but I'm
> pretty sure about it. Interestingly, I've read that the octopus has a
> specially-protected status somewhere (the UK?) due to its apparently
> sophisticated response to pain stimuli.
That's interesting. Did you catch in what way it is notably sophisticated?
> > > We're not talking about sentient things when we talk about chickens and
> > > roosters, though.
> >
> > As I pointed out, we are. What exactly marks the difference between us and
> > them?
>
> But as I pointed out, your definition of sentience arguably applies equally
> to plants. What exactly marks the difference between us and the vegetables
> you eat?
See above.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
149 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
|
|
|
|
