For atheists: is killing animals ok?

[jonesthecurl]

Well, on that one I think we can retreat to the christians' recent "It doesn't mean not to kill it means not to murder", and then let each society define that.

[Juan_Bottom]

Commandments five through nine are 100% universal, and have existed for forever.

That's really not true, and is also impacted by social groups. For instance, there were some Native American tribes who considered it wrong to steal from a member of their tribe but it was perfectly acceptable (in fact, not even considered stealing) to steal from an enemy tribe.

Also, cannibals.

Then it's still true.
And you have indoctrination there working against it. Certainly stealing from another tribe would have increased the survivability of your own tribe, so it becomes seen as a necessary good, so long as you don't steal from your own kind. Stealing from your own tribe would weaken it, so it would be seen as an evil. Later it becomes ritualized stealing against your enemies; As in "you're not a man until you've stolen a horse from your enemies." Enemies who are never really considered human anyway. But among Homo Sapiens, stealing from each other is an exception, never a rule. It goes against evolution.


Cannibalism has always existed as either a religious experience or in a life-or-death situation. In both cases morality has no power.

[Woodruff]

Commandments five through nine are 100% universal, and have existed for forever.

That's really not true, and is also impacted by social groups. For instance, there were some Native American tribes who considered it wrong to steal from a member of their tribe but it was perfectly acceptable (in fact, not even considered stealing) to steal from an enemy tribe.

Also, cannibals.

Then it's still true.
And you have indoctrination there working against it. Certainly stealing from another tribe would have increased the survivability of your own tribe, so it becomes seen as a necessary good, so long as you don't steal from your own kind. Stealing from your own tribe would weaken it, so it would be seen as an evil. Later it becomes ritualized stealing against your enemies; As in "you're not a man until you've stolen a horse from your enemies." Enemies who are never really considered human anyway. But among Homo Sapiens, stealing from each other is an exception, never a rule. It goes against evolution.

Cannibalism has always existed as either a religious experience or in a life-or-death situation. In both cases morality has no power.

So you're just making this shit up as you go along then, because my two examples go against that "100%" statement completely. Stop Phatscottying it.

[Woodruff]

Well, on that one I think we can retreat to the christians' recent "It doesn't mean not to kill it means not to murder", and then let each society define that.

Isn't that handy! And yet, it doesn't follow the "100%" statement at all.

[jonesthecurl]

Well, on that one I think we can retreat to the christians' recent "It doesn't mean not to kill it means not to murder", and then let each society define that.

Isn't that handy! And yet, it doesn't follow the "100%" statement at all.

Well, it's the standard answer christians trot out when you say "how about "thou shalt not kill" then, eh?"

[BigBallinStalin]

I understand that's the basis of utilitarianism, but for other ethical systems, it simply isn't. So pick and choose whichever makes you feel best about this issue, and go from there. To me, that's acting arbitrarily because your choice is based on your preference. One can use such great arguments for a particular ethical system, but for this situation there is no ONE and ONLY ethical system which can be demonstrated as the best one. After all the arguments on either side, one simply has to rely on their preference, thus arbitrarily selects the system which they prefer.

I do not speak for every person in this thread, but I follow a utilitarian system of ethics in general. In particular, I subscribe to preference utilitarianism. Thus I did not select a system of ethics to apply to this situation arbitrarily. Preference utilitarianism is not so different from other forms of utilitarianism when it comes to the question of animal rights, however. Any rational utilitarian system that defends the rights of humans to be unharmed or protected against killing has to base it on some reason why humans deserve not to be harmed. The core reason, as you admit, is that humans do not like feeling pain. Since this is also true of non-human animals (this must be conceded for the reason I mentioned above -- we must assume this to be true, just as we assume that other humans can and do feel pain despite their ability to lie; and also, this is not voodoo, since modern biology confirms that the nervous systems of these animals are really not so different from that of humans), any system that extends the right to be free from harm to humans is arbitrarily speciesist if it does not also extend that to species that have capacities that are of a morally relevant nature.

But some do. Does your ethical system fall apart? (Sounds pretty arbitrary already!).

We know some humans enjoy pain because we ask them questions. Good luck doing that with the animals (since you can't, your applying this ethical system to them is silly). Again, I find it amusing when people apply these human concepts to the realm of earthly non-humans.

And, negative freedom from pain entails the ability to inflict pain on others (e.g. self-defense). It's not just about avoiding pain, and then...

One must adjudicate between relative pains and pleasures of various parties (e.g. my shooting someone who is trying to kill me). We can either choose self-defense or total pacificism. Either is fine with your system of ethics, which can't reveal to us how to make the proper comparison. Now, apply that problem to a group of living creatures---nearly all of which do not understand your language and are not capable of sufficiently understanding, and then the system of ethics becomes useless/dysfunctional, so fill in the gaps with what you want the animals to say and do, and enjoy your self-serving ethical system.

I'll open up the rights and all that jazz to similar or more advanced species, so we can dodge the arbitrarily speciesist attack, which can also be said of your position (e.g. "it's all about pleasure and pain" or "it's about their interests"). So much for the insects and plant life, you arbitrary speciesist you!

The key thing you ignore is my challenge -- it is the crux to this issue. You may not agree with my particular system of ethics. That is not the point. The point is, I challenge you to come up with any self-consistent system of ethics that extends protections to humans but not to non-human animals. The reason I argue that this cannot be done is that the differences between humans and non-human animals are differences of degree and not of kind. As a result of continuous evolutionary progress, humans are not separated from other species by some special kind of line. Chimpanzees share many of the same reasoning characteristics as humans, even if the latter have developed them to a far greater extent than the former.

Good luck divining the interests of all living creatures. I'm sure you won't stop yourself from saying what you want the animals to say.

Arguments on morality generally are pointless. I already stated my opinion on killing animals, and it's good enough for me. With your line of reasoning, you'll deny the production of food from animals to millions of people (*need the animals to agree to being slaughtered). Have fun changing prices and wrecking people's lives because your Reason has led you to silly consequences. Your adherence reminds me of the French Revolution and Rousseau. Let Reason be your guide, and surely you'll get the 'right' answer).

The only defense left is to suggest that because we're much more intelligent than the chimpanzees, we deserve protections that they do not. But intelligence has never been a rationally defensible way for classifying who deserves rights and who does not. It is quite possible that there are chimpanzees that are more intelligent than the profoundly mentally disabled. But also, the logic that some other group, by virtue of its stupidity or "dumbness," as you put it, does not deserve the same rights we do, has been the core of the worst atrocities in our history. What is so different in the argument that because animals are not as smart as humans, we can enslave or torture them, from the argument that because blacks or Jews are not as smart as whites or Aryans, we can enslave or torture them too?

Because they're human. Humans get the special treatment; all others don't--unless we find ET life similar or greater than us because Hey, we can ask them questions and they can respond--on matters which are of greater importance.

It is not enough to assert that you can discard my argument because it's just one of many defensible systems, because I argue that any of the defensible systems, when carried through to its logical conclusion and not just arbitrarily stopped at the line of our species, leads to a revolution in our way of thinking about animal rights. If you wish to discard my thinking, you must advance your own self-consistent system of ethics that is in line with what you have argued, and then live by it.

You prefer preference utilitarianism over other forms of ethics. Why? Because as you develop your worldview, this form of ethics is most appealing to it. It's complementary to your goals--in understanding and in action, so for me that's arbitrarily choosing some ethical system to compliment the conclusions which you've already wanted to attain.

Philosophy is constrained by the inability to confirm or deny the soundness of some claim, so it hits these gray areas where people diverge, thus choose on a whim. You exercise the logic up to a certain point and where the stumbling block occurs, then, it's time to choose, so enjoy your preference utilitarianism.

I don't need to advance some substitute for you, nor would it matter---unless such a substitute provided something similar to what you wanted in the first place (e.g. affirming animal rights or promoting voluntary exchange with animals which don't understand voluntary exchange, which again sounds so silly you should at least be aware of the absurdity to which your position becomes reduced).

[Metsfanmax]

But some do. Does your ethical system fall apart? (Sounds pretty arbitrary already!).

We know some humans enjoy pain because we ask them questions. Good luck doing that with the animals (since you can't, your applying this ethical system to them is silly). Again, I find it amusing when people apply these human concepts to the realm of earthly non-humans.

The concept of pleasure and pain (biologically speaking) is not an intrinsically human concept. We know it is not, because modern biology shows us that the nervous systems of most mammals are very similar in this sense. These mammals can all similarly receive sensory input. So your argument is logically inconsistent. That is, you've effectively admitted that humans feel similar things that we would all call pain, while some of us enjoy this on an intellectual level. But you seem to be taking the side that non-human animals don't have the cognitive skills to do something like that -- which means we have to assume that they all do feel pain and respond the instinctual way most of us do when we have those stimuli.

And this doesn't even address the fact that you don't actually know that humans enjoy pain, because they could be lying.

One must adjudicate between relative pains and pleasures of various parties (e.g. my shooting someone who is trying to kill me). We can either choose self-defense or total pacificism. Either is fine with your system of ethics, which can't reveal to us how to make the proper comparison. Now, apply that problem to a group of living creatures---nearly all of which do not understand your language and are not capable of sufficiently understanding, and then the system of ethics becomes useless/dysfunctional, so fill in the gaps with what you want the animals to say and do, and enjoy your self-serving ethical system.

The fact that this is a non-trivial problem doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to solve it. We can draw many conclusions by analogy, and by studying the biological nature of non-human animals, we can learn about what happens in those animals in response to certain stimuli. Suggesting that we cannot do this implies a collective understanding of science that dates back roughly to the time of Aristotle. We've moved on.

I'll open up the rights and all that jazz to similar or more advanced species, so we can dodge the arbitrarily speciesist attack, which can also be said of your position (e.g. "it's all about pleasure and pain" or "it's about their interests"). So much for the insects and plant life, you arbitrary speciesist you!

Making a choice for how to establish an ethical system doesn't imply automatically that the choice is arbitrary. Usually we start from some general principle, such as a version of the categorical imperative, and then derive from that axiom how we should act. The criticism of speciesism follows directly from that, because few of the characteristics that make humans worthy of ethical protections are related to their intelligence or cognitive ability. That general principle isn't arbitrary either, because it jives with how most people think intuitively. It is admittedly a choice, but we make ethical choices all the time whether we intend to or not, so we might as well construct a consistent system.

Arguments on morality generally are pointless. I already stated my opinion on killing animals, and it's good enough for me. With your line of reasoning, you'll deny the production of food from animals to millions of people (*need the animals to agree to being slaughtered). Have fun changing prices and wrecking people's lives because your Reason has led you to silly consequences. Your adherence reminds me of the French Revolution and Rousseau. Let Reason be your guide, and surely you'll get the 'right' answer).

Perhaps you do not understand the absolute train wreck that our food production system is. We waste around 90% of the food we feed to animals in raising them; that grain and soy could be fed directly to impoverished people instead of feeding it to animals that we're going to slaughter in a few months anyway. Numerous economists have pointed out the huge wastes involved here, and many predict that within a few decades people will be forced to have a much more vegetarian diet either way, because we cannot afford to continue this.

And livestock production is a significant source (18%) of greenhouse gas emissions, which contributes further to the hurting of poor humans. Even if you just look at treatment of humans, our animal production system is a disaster for the poor (and for everyone, within a few decades, as temperatures rise).

Because they're human. Humans get the special treatment; all others don't--unless we find ET life similar or greater than us because Hey, we can ask them questions and they can respond--on matters which are of greater importance.

What is special about being a member of Homo sapiens? I challenge you to find one relevant characteristic that explains why we should feel free to inflict pain or eat a cow, but not a profoundly mentally disabled or anencephalic human, or even a newborn human infant.

[rhp 1]

the question is silly.... being one thing does not predispose you to have an opinion on the matter based only on your original premise... pathetic thread really...

[crispybits]

the question is silly.... being one thing does not predispose you to have an opinion on the matter based only on your original premise... pathetic thread really...

Agreed (to an extent), it's like asking "Football fans, is Bali a nice holiday destination?", but I do understand the wish the OP had to remove the religious comments about things like "the Lord gave man the animals of the earth to serve him". It's kept the debate firmly rooted in ethics rather than theology so it has worked.

[rhp 1]

the question is silly.... being one thing does not predispose you to have an opinion on the matter based only on your original premise... pathetic thread really...

Agreed (to an extent), it's like asking "Football fans, is Bali a nice holiday destination?", but I do understand the wish the OP had to remove the religious comments about things like "the Lord gave man the animals of the earth to serve him". It's kept the debate firmly rooted in ethics rather than theology so it has worked.

put simply... make the argument/question simply "when and why is it ok to kill animals" or something to that effect... I would be happy to delve into that debate...

moreover, I happen to be an atheist, but it seems highly dubious that that is relevant at all to the question of "animal killing"

[crispybits]

That's what the debate is though, so just dive in anyway - the title is just to keep certain comments away

[MeDeFe]

Also, cannibals.

Afaik, cannibalism has in all settings been something highly ritualistic and governed by strict rules. More of a burial than a barbecue, possibly with the exception of the Royal Navy...

[Juan_Bottom]

Commandments five through nine are 100% universal, and have existed for forever.

That's really not true, and is also impacted by social groups. For instance, there were some Native American tribes who considered it wrong to steal from a member of their tribe but it was perfectly acceptable (in fact, not even considered stealing) to steal from an enemy tribe.

Also, cannibals.

Then it's still true.
And you have indoctrination there working against it. Certainly stealing from another tribe would have increased the survivability of your own tribe, so it becomes seen as a necessary good, so long as you don't steal from your own kind. Stealing from your own tribe would weaken it, so it would be seen as an evil. Later it becomes ritualized stealing against your enemies; As in "you're not a man until you've stolen a horse from your enemies." Enemies who are never really considered human anyway. But among Homo Sapiens, stealing from each other is an exception, never a rule. It goes against evolution.

Cannibalism has always existed as either a religious experience or in a life-or-death situation. In both cases morality has no power.

So you're just making this shit up as you go along then, because my two examples go against that "100%" statement completely. Stop Phatscottying it.

Name one society that doesn't have laws/rules against murder, rape, dishonoring your parents, or theft.
You can't because nobody can.

"Oh I just pointed one out"
No you didn't, you just repeated an example of what I had just said.
Because they are 100% universal laws.
Your examples fell exactly in line with what I had already said, that the only way to circumvent this evolutionary behavior is with indoctrination and religion, as I struggle to explain to your giant fat head. As all of CC has learned, there's nobody here as smart as the almighty braininess Woodruff.

[Woodruff]

Commandments five through nine are 100% universal, and have existed for forever.

That's really not true, and is also impacted by social groups. For instance, there were some Native American tribes who considered it wrong to steal from a member of their tribe but it was perfectly acceptable (in fact, not even considered stealing) to steal from an enemy tribe.

Also, cannibals.

Then it's still true.
And you have indoctrination there working against it. Certainly stealing from another tribe would have increased the survivability of your own tribe, so it becomes seen as a necessary good, so long as you don't steal from your own kind. Stealing from your own tribe would weaken it, so it would be seen as an evil. Later it becomes ritualized stealing against your enemies; As in "you're not a man until you've stolen a horse from your enemies." Enemies who are never really considered human anyway. But among Homo Sapiens, stealing from each other is an exception, never a rule. It goes against evolution.

Cannibalism has always existed as either a religious experience or in a life-or-death situation. In both cases morality has no power.

So you're just making this shit up as you go along then, because my two examples go against that "100%" statement completely. Stop Phatscottying it.

Name one society that doesn't have laws/rules against murder, rape, dishonoring your parents, or theft.
You can't because nobody can.

"Oh I just pointed one out"
No you didn't, you just repeated an example of what I had just said.
Because they are 100% universal laws.
Your examples fell exactly in line with what I had already said, that the only way to circumvent this evolutionary behavior is with indoctrination and religion, as I struggle to explain to your giant fat head. As all of CC has learned, there's nobody here as smart as the almighty braininess Woodruff.

So basically all you've done is pre-made an excuse for anything you want to name. EVERYTHING includes indoctrination. Everything. Thus, you can claim victory because you made a ridiculous and meaningless statement. Seems like an awfully hollow victory. I guess that's all you ever have though, so I shouldn't mock it.

[Juan_Bottom]

Hey, the idea didn't come from me. It came from a host of people that you're definitely smarter than.

Richard Dawkins
Michael Ghiselin
Stuart Kauffman
Nicole King


And other people whom I cannot recollect but do not doubt are at best, barely half as intelligent as you are. When I add their collective IQs together I feel stupid for even suggesting the idea to you. If I had a brain half as big as yours, I'd run for president and end world suffering. But then, since I'm only a mere mortal, not fit to stand in the shade of your shadow; How dare I to presume what you should do with your fantastic other-worldly gifts? Only you, a great-creator of intelligent internet commentary and fly-off-the-handle whining "I'm-never-coming-back-never" shit-fits have the insight to what responsibilities you have to we pathetic ugly insects.


What was the name of that tribe again that doesn't have any laws against rape, theft, or murder?

[jonesthecurl]

The Vulcans. They don't need them cos they're illogical.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

But then why are you legally allowed to wrap an Ox in a harness and make it drag a sledge? How do they consent to brutal labor but not sex?

To an ox dragging a plow is not that brutal. They hardly notice. The same for horses and pulling carts.

It's a mutually beneficial symbiosis. Animals are provided with feed, shelter, and protection. Humans are provided with work.

-TG

The same arguments were put forth in the 19th century describing the pro's with human slavery.

And? The two hardly relate. A human knows he is enslaved, a subsentient beast does not. But that is almost beside the point. Human domestication of animals is no different than the multitude of symbiotic relationships throughout the animal or plant kingdoms. Domesticated animals gain an evolutionary edge by being associated with humans.

-TG

[Woodruff]

Hey, the idea didn't come from me. It came from a host of people that you're definitely smarter than.

Richard Dawkins
Michael Ghiselin
Stuart Kauffman
Nicole King

And other people whom I cannot recollect but do not doubt are at best, barely half as intelligent as you are. When I add their collective IQs together I feel stupid for even suggesting the idea to you. If I had a brain half as big as yours, I'd run for president and end world suffering. But then, since I'm only a mere mortal, not fit to stand in the shade of your shadow; How dare I to presume what you should do with your fantastic other-worldly gifts? Only you, a great-creator of intelligent internet commentary and fly-off-the-handle whining "I'm-never-coming-back-never" shit-fits have the insight to what responsibilities you have to we pathetic ugly insects.

Again, it's a statement that is meaningless because indoctrination is involved IN EVERY CULTURE. You can't have a culture without indoctrination. So big damn deal...you've revealed exactly nothing interesting with your statement.

What was the name of that tribe again that doesn't have any laws against rape, theft, or murder?

I gave you an excellent example of a MEANINGFUL aberration from what would typically be called stealing. Of course, you've poo-poo'd it away with the generalization regarding indoctrination (which is obviously unavoidable), so that you can claim superiority where it doesn't exist. Well done on that.

[BigBallinStalin]

But some do. Does your ethical system fall apart? (Sounds pretty arbitrary already!).

We know some humans enjoy pain because we ask them questions. Good luck doing that with the animals (since you can't, your applying this ethical system to them is silly). Again, I find it amusing when people apply these human concepts to the realm of earthly non-humans.

The concept of pleasure and pain (biologically speaking) is not an intrinsically human concept. We know it is not, because modern biology shows us that the nervous systems of most mammals are very similar in this sense. These mammals can all similarly receive sensory input. So your argument is logically inconsistent. That is, you've effectively admitted that humans feel similar things that we would all call pain, while some of us enjoy this on an intellectual level. But you seem to be taking the side that non-human animals don't have the cognitive skills to do something like that -- which means we have to assume that they all do feel pain and respond the instinctual way most of us do when we have those stimuli.

And this doesn't even address the fact that you don't actually know that humans enjoy pain, because they could be lying.

Ever heard of S&M?

And, good luck "talking" to the animals. Still not seeing my logical inconsistency here. You settled for pain and pleasure, which you can't measure nor compare, and you're stuck with that problem which won't advance you to your conclusion (help teh animals in X-amount of ways). It's a faulty ethical system ya got there.

One must adjudicate between relative pains and pleasures of various parties (e.g. my shooting someone who is trying to kill me). We can either choose self-defense or total pacificism. Either is fine with your system of ethics, which can't reveal to us how to make the proper comparison. Now, apply that problem to a group of living creatures---nearly all of which do not understand your language and are not capable of sufficiently understanding, and then the system of ethics becomes useless/dysfunctional, so fill in the gaps with what you want the animals to say and do, and enjoy your self-serving ethical system.

The fact that this is a non-trivial problem doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to solve it. We can draw many conclusions by analogy, and by studying the biological nature of non-human animals, we can learn about what happens in those animals in response to certain stimuli. Suggesting that we cannot do this implies a collective understanding of science that dates back roughly to the time of Aristotle. We've moved on.

Until then, you'll be lacking the foundation to insist that others follow your ethical system.

Good luck divining the interests of all living creatures. I'm sure you won't stop yourself from saying what you want the animals to say. Since you can't control for that, then your ethical system is suspect. It's founded upon: "because I said so."

I'll open up the rights and all that jazz to similar or more advanced species, so we can dodge the arbitrarily speciesist attack, which can also be said of your position (e.g. "it's all about pleasure and pain" or "it's about their interests"). So much for the insects and plant life, you arbitrary speciesist you!

Making a choice for how to establish an ethical system doesn't imply automatically that the choice is arbitrary. Usually we start from some general principle, such as a version of the categorical imperative, and then derive from that axiom how we should act. The criticism of speciesism follows directly from that, because few of the characteristics that make humans worthy of ethical protections are related to their intelligence or cognitive ability. That general principle isn't arbitrary either, because it jives with how most people think intuitively. It is admittedly a choice, but we make ethical choices all the time whether we intend to or not, so we might as well construct a consistent system.

Sure, it does. I've already explained why, and the above doesn't address it.

Arguments on morality generally are pointless. I already stated my opinion on killing animals, and it's good enough for me. With your line of reasoning, you'll deny the production of food from animals to millions of people (*need the animals to agree to being slaughtered). Have fun changing prices and wrecking people's lives because your Reason has led you to silly consequences. Your adherence reminds me of the French Revolution and Rousseau. Let Reason be your guide, and surely you'll get the 'right' answer).

Perhaps you do not understand the absolute train wreck that our food production system is. We waste around 90% of the food we feed to animals in raising them; that grain and soy could be fed directly to impoverished people instead of feeding it to animals that we're going to slaughter in a few months anyway. Numerous economists have pointed out the huge wastes involved here, and many predict that within a few decades people will be forced to have a much more vegetarian diet either way, because we cannot afford to continue this.

And livestock production is a significant source (18%) of greenhouse gas emissions, which contributes further to the hurting of poor humans. Even if you just look at treatment of humans, our animal production system is a disaster for the poor (and for everyone, within a few decades, as temperatures rise).

Citations needed.
Relevant comparison of the benefits and costs of the outcomes of your ethical system needed.

Because they're human. Humans get the special treatment; all others don't--unless we find ET life similar or greater than us because Hey, we can ask them questions and they can respond--on matters which are of greater importance.

What is special about being a member of Homo sapiens? I challenge you to find one relevant characteristic that explains why we should feel free to inflict pain or eat a cow, but not a profoundly mentally disabled or anencephalic human, or even a newborn human infant.

Some range along the spectrum of consciousness--however defined.

Plus, ability to exercise property rights (guardian ship) and being able to express all of these ideas intelligently (which is a phenomena seen within humans of various levels of formal education). With animals, we draw misleading analogies and personify their behavior.

[BigBallinStalin]

the question is silly.... being one thing does not predispose you to have an opinion on the matter based only on your original premise... pathetic thread really...

Agreed (to an extent), it's like asking "Football fans, is Bali a nice holiday destination?", but I do understand the wish the OP had to remove the religious comments about things like "the Lord gave man the animals of the earth to serve him". It's kept the debate firmly rooted in ethics rather than theology so it has worked.

put simply... make the argument/question simply "when and why is it ok to kill animals" or something to that effect... I would be happy to delve into that debate...

moreover, I happen to be an atheist, but it seems highly dubious that that is relevant at all to the question of "animal killing"

Exactly. Context matters, and a grand ethical system designed prior to the various circumstances will be flawed.

[Juan_Bottom]

Again, it's a statement that is meaningless because indoctrination is involved IN EVERY CULTURE. You can't have a culture without indoctrination. So big damn deal...you've revealed exactly nothing interesting with your statement.

The fact that every people, no matter where they are on the Earth have the same set of laws is meaningless to you? It was a hugely fantastic discovery that took decades to prove, with researchers traveling to remote regions all around the world. It's told us more about humanity than all of your posts on CC ever have.
People, no matter where they are, if left alone, will cooperate with each other. They'll work together to ensure the survival of everyone. But if you take that same group of people and tell them that their brothers want to steal their wives from them, they'll turn on their cooperative brothers and murder them, for no reason except that you told them to.
This is a hugely fantastical piece to our evolutionary puzzle. Do you think you can convince a herd of cows to go kill another heard of cows just to keep them from grazing in their field? Human beings are very special indeed. And yet, also trainable.

[Woodruff]

Again, it's a statement that is meaningless because indoctrination is involved IN EVERY CULTURE. You can't have a culture without indoctrination. So big damn deal...you've revealed exactly nothing interesting with your statement.

The fact that every people, no matter where they are on the Earth have the same set of laws is meaningless to you?

The fact that they DON'T is meaningless to you, apparently. Because they don't. Period. I even gave you an example of it.

It's told us more about humanity than all of your posts on CC ever have.

Well that's not exactly setting the bar very high. <chuckle>

People, no matter where they are, if left alone, will cooperate with each other. They'll work together to ensure the survival of everyone. But if you take that same group of people and tell them that their brothers want to steal their wives from them, they'll turn on their cooperative brothers and murder them, for no reason except that you told them to.
This is a hugely fantastical piece to our evolutionary puzzle. Do you think you can convince a herd of cows to go kill another heard of cows just to keep them from grazing in their field? Human beings are very special indeed. And yet, also trainable.

I don't disagree in general with what you're saying in that paragraph. But that's a much more general statement than what you've tried to shove through the eye of a needle elsewhere in this post.

[thegreekdog]

I may (and do) question what people believe, especially when they shove it in my face and tell me that I'm damned. But I don't think you'll find me telling people what they believe. Failing to see any hypocrisy here.

I haven't read all of your religious-themed posts, but it appears to me that you paint all religious people with the same brush; if a person is religious, you believe them to have certain characeristics or to believe certain things. I will never understand the vehement animosity of atheists towards religious people, whether those religious people are vocal about their religion or not. I will certainly also never understand why atheists group all religious people into the same bucket as ignorant and intolerant people.

I think you're wrong here. I'm happy to call out people who make ridiculous statements, especially if as I say they play the "I'm saved and you'e not" card. But I'm perfectly happy to discuss the nature of belief and the details of belief in a non-confrnontational way.

Yes. I overreacted and I apologize. I greatly dislike religious discussions because, for the most part, the religious people who engage in such discussions are not representative (in my opinion) of religious people generally and are absolutely not representative of me (and I'm a religious person). The atheists who engage in such discussions do paint religious people with a broad brush, but are only subject to the comments of those religious people who engage in such discussions (who tend towards ignorance and intolerance). It pains me greatly to read the words of people I respect who do not appear to respect, in any way, my personal beliefs. But if it's any consolation, I did overreact, I do apologize, and I feel just as angry towards people who use their religion as a weapon.

I've typed it before, but I'll type it again. My belief system is my own. It may not be orthodox with respect to my particular brand of religion (as Juan points out), but it is certainly not something I will foist on others, either from a "we should make people do this" perspective or from a "you should believe what I believe" perspective. I expect the same from atheists and I often don't get it. That is why I overreacted.

[BigBallinStalin]

I may (and do) question what people believe, especially when they shove it in my face and tell me that I'm damned. But I don't think you'll find me telling people what they believe. Failing to see any hypocrisy here.

I haven't read all of your religious-themed posts, but it appears to me that you paint all religious people with the same brush; if a person is religious, you believe them to have certain characeristics or to believe certain things. I will never understand the vehement animosity of atheists towards religious people, whether those religious people are vocal about their religion or not. I will certainly also never understand why atheists group all religious people into the same bucket as ignorant and intolerant people.

I think you're wrong here. I'm happy to call out people who make ridiculous statements, especially if as I say they play the "I'm saved and you'e not" card. But I'm perfectly happy to discuss the nature of belief and the details of belief in a non-confrnontational way.

Yes. I overreacted and I apologize. I greatly dislike religious discussions because, for the most part, the religious people who engage in such discussions are not representative (in my opinion) of religious people generally and are absolutely not representative of me (and I'm a religious person). The atheists who engage in such discussions do paint religious people with a broad brush, but are only subject to the comments of those religious people who engage in such discussions (who tend towards ignorance and intolerance). It pains me greatly to read the words of people I respect who do not appear to respect, in any way, my personal beliefs. But if it's any consolation, I did overreact, I do apologize, and I feel just as angry towards people who use their religion as a weapon.

I've typed it before, but I'll type it again. My belief system is my own. It may not be orthodox with respect to my particular brand of religion (as Juan points out), but it is certainly not something I will foist on others, either from a "we should make people do this" perspective or from a "you should believe what I believe" perspective. I expect the same from atheists and I often don't get it. That is why I overreacted.

TGD, would you like a hug?

[Metsfanmax]

Ever heard of S&M?

And, good luck "talking" to the animals. Still not seeing my logical inconsistency here. You settled for pain and pleasure, which you can't measure nor compare, and you're stuck with that problem which won't advance you to your conclusion (help teh animals in X-amount of ways). It's a faulty ethical system ya got there.

...

Until then, you'll be lacking the foundation to insist that others follow your ethical system.

Good luck divining the interests of all living creatures. I'm sure you won't stop yourself from saying what you want the animals to say. Since you can't control for that, then your ethical system is suspect. It's founded upon: "because I said so."

A moment's thought at all about how we construct ethical systems shows that we do this all the time. If we were to follow your denialism to its logical conclusion, we would be forced to conclude that infants, people in comas, etc., have no rights, because they can't communicate, so we can't really know what they want. Unless you are ready to seriously advocate for an ethical system that makes it ok to torture a one-year-old because he doesn't know how to say no, then this argument has no basis. We know that babies feel pain not because we talk to them, or because we remember what it's like to be that young (we don't), but because we understand basic anatomy. The same is true for animals, regardless of whether they are self-aware.

Perhaps you do not understand the absolute train wreck that our food production system is. We waste around 90% of the food we feed to animals in raising them; that grain and soy could be fed directly to impoverished people instead of feeding it to animals that we're going to slaughter in a few months anyway. Numerous economists have pointed out the huge wastes involved here, and many predict that within a few decades people will be forced to have a much more vegetarian diet either way, because we cannot afford to continue this.

And livestock production is a significant source (18%) of greenhouse gas emissions, which contributes further to the hurting of poor humans. Even if you just look at treatment of humans, our animal production system is a disaster for the poor (and for everyone, within a few decades, as temperatures rise).

Citations needed.

It is pretty simple to understand. We have to keep the animal alive for a certain amount of time while it grows to the desired size, and the animal is constantly burning calories while it is alive just to maintain basic biological systems, so, in terms of the mass of food consumed, we lose the vast majority in the conversion from grain, corn and soy to animal flesh.

There are many sources, here's an NYT piece to start with:

Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.