About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 10:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just keep in mind, there is a difference between sentiency and sapiency - and rights stem from sapiency, NOT sentiency......

Post 21

Friday, August 18, 2006 - 5:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,
Jon had that bread gone a about 3 days! LOL!  Hope you got the "Thank You" I sent.  :) 


Post 22

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 9:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff - you're really undeserving of a respons after a mindless comment like that. Broccoli suffering? I'm sure you can come up with some comic book esque argument to defend that, though.

Post 23

Friday, August 18, 2006 - 9:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My only comment about vegetarianism is: "You are what you eat."

Post 24

Friday, August 18, 2006 - 11:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I look at the issue this way:

All beings act in accordance with their nature, that which enhances their life and survival.  The ecosystem is replete with examples of sentient beings eating sentient beings.  The behavior is amoral - lifeforms sustains themselves at the expense of other lifeforms.

Humans, while posessing a rational faculty and great intelligence, are otherwise no different in that we are still participating in this same ecosystem.  Non-human animals are merely a material resource available to us which can enhance and sustain our life and survival.  Animals provide food, clothing, recreation, and subjects for important research and more.  Our use of animals as a resource was a natural and moral part of our evolution. 

If one attempts to develop a theory of ethics concerning whether a certain level of complexity or sentience of a given organism entitles it to some form of protection, it is impossible to do so without wading into the realm of the arbitrary and the relative.  Period. The line between humans and non-humans, however, is black and white.

That said, I agree that we have a tendency to empathise with mammals more so than insects for example, and that among mammals we tend to favor those that are less rodent-like.  I myself adore dogs.  I would be interested in seeing further disucssion of this phenomenon from an Objectivist perspective. 


Post 25

Friday, August 18, 2006 - 5:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dustin, my friend, you will love this video, hehehehehehehe!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=buon+appetito


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 9:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"If you're trying to convince us, then you need to demonstrate that you understand ............. before presuming to criticize it."

Does this quote sound familiar to any of you? Please insert the word vegetarian.

As a vegan of 15 years and a vegetarian of 17 years, I believe I can agree that Objectivism has little if any compatibility with the animal liberation ethic. However, this thread began with misconception, and it has garnered reactionary misconception. I'm here moreso to address the latter.

William Dwyer wrote:
"As for ethical vegetarianism, there's a good book that refutes most of the claims of the animal rights activities like PeTA. It's called Animal Scam: The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights by Kathleen Marquardt, with Herbert M. Levine and Mark La Rochelle. "

PETA is not the philosophical cornerstone of animal rights/liberation/welfare. PETA's goal is public awareness, and their means are maligned by many vegetarians and vegans. Many see them as counterproductive. The book you refer to is not particularly impressive. If one wants to refute animal liberation, it seems they would deal with the foundational literature, be it the utilitarian considerations of Peter Singer, or the deontological considerations of Tom Regan. "Animal Scam" prefers red herrings and fallacious arguments.


William Dwyer wrote:
"I think there are some health benefits to eating animal protein, like fish. The DHA found in fish, and certain amino acids, like carnosine, carnitine and taurine, found only in animal protein have been shown to be important nutritionally. Meat also contains creatine, which is important for muscular strength and for brain function, as well as B12. Vegetarians tend to be deficient in these nutrients, especially B12, which is also vital for brain function."

1. Please note the research that exclaims this tendency towards deficiency.

2. Please note the research that demonstrates nutritional value and exclusive creation of each of these items.

William Dwyer wrote:

"Animals slaughter other animals for food, because they need to for their own survival. Human beings can survive without eating animal products, but they survive better if they eat some animal protein, unless they're very careful about taking supplements, and who knows if there aren't other important nutrients found only in meat that have yet to be isolated. We become strict vegetarians at our peril."



1. I take no supplements. I am in a state of optimum health, with no deficiencies to my knowledge. Many world-class athletes are vegan. I find your statements dubious.

2. Who knows if there aren't "other" important nutrients found only in meat...how speculative is that statement? What does it substantiate?

A recent study demonstrates that the vegan diet reverses diabetes symptoms, and is significantly more effective that the ADA diet. The stipulations of such research are as follows.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060727/us_nm/diet_dc


"Of course, the problem today is not that we're strict vegetarians; it's that we're eating far too much meat, and it's much fattier meat than our ancestors consumed from hunting in the wild. The human body is adapted for small amounts of lean mean and fish, on which it does very well; it is not adapted for anything close to the standard American diet."

Now this I can at least generally agree with you on. I'd much prefer living in world where the diversity of vegan/vegetarian/omnivorous diets was conducted outside of the INEFFICIENCY and health-detrimental practices of factory farming. Many family farmers/ranchers/hunters are fighting a parallel battle as the animal liberationists.

Lastly, William, I chose you to "pick on" because you were one of the most thoughtful responses....even if I disagree with many points. This thread was generally doomed at its outset. I hope that I either provide some clarification, or at least some enlightening discussion, coming from a perspective highly underrepresented here.


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 4:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The great part about vegetarians trying to argue that it's healthy is that the burden of proof is on them to show that eating meat (or animal products for the vegans) is never in one's self-interest.

Other diets, like Atkins or Pritkins or whatever, is actually based on science and theories about how to get the right mix of nutrients to live healthy.  They draw their guidelines based on nutritional theories.  Vegetarianism draws their line by an unrelated standard.  They don't want to eat other animals.  Then they have to work to try to prove that there's an indirect connection between this line and being healthy.  It amounts to a major rationalization.  They didn't come at the conclusions based on any science of nutrition.  They just try to justify it.

And so when people point out the deficiencies, they end up having to argue that it's not unhealthy.  But that's no good.  Proving that it's not unhealthy is not a rational reason for doing it.

See, none of it really matters.  The thread started as a rebuttal to an article on the ethics of vegetarianism.  Even if one could conclude that these diets aren't unhealthy, or even marginally better for you (good luck!), you'd have to actually weigh that against any losses.  The loss of not eating tasty meat.  The loss of not being able to go to a restaurant because they don't have anything "vegan".  The irritation of the people around you who have to adjust their habits so you can stick to your "principles".  The extra expense and inconvenience of having to cook vegetarian/vegan diets.  And on and on.  Any benefit gained has to be weighed against the costs.  Why is this important? Because when someone upholds an intrinsic value, like the lives of other animals, they can't rationally compare that value with objective values.  An ethical vegetarian is not equipped to make tradeoffs.  He has to live by a moral rule.  Never, ever, ever, eat animals.

The fact is that vegetarians are nearly exclusively vegetarians because of their ethical views.  They treat animals as intrinsic values.  If there are exceptions (and Dustin is clearly not one), it would be completely misleading or uninformed to try to define vegetarianism by those exceptions.  And to claim that it's some great misunderstanding by non-vegetarians is ridiculous.  It's clear from those promoting vegetarianism and those who practice it that it's an ethical theory, not a nutritional theory.  The latter is at best a poor rationalization.

If you don't want to be associated with ethical vegetarians, you should differentiate yourself from them, not pretend that they don't exist or are an insignificant minority.

But honestly, even then I would have problems believing you, just as I have problems with believing Dustin who uses the term "murder" to describe killing livestock for food.  You'd have to convince me that you chose such a strange dietary line to draw because you honestly think the science supports that very arbitrary breakup.  The far easier conclusion is that if someone says "I won't eat animals", it's because they're animals.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 6:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joseph,

"The great part about vegetarians trying to argue that it's healthy is that the burden of proof is on them to show that eating meat (or animal products for the vegans) is never in one's self-interest.

Other diets, like Atkins or Pritkins or whatever, is actually based on science and theories about how to get the right mix of nutrients to live healthy. They draw their guidelines based on nutritional theories. Vegetarianism draws their line by an unrelated standard. They don't want to eat other animals. Then they have to work to try to prove that there's an indirect connection between this line and being healthy. It amounts to a major rationalization. They didn't come at the conclusions based on any science of nutrition. They just try to justify it.

And so when people point out the deficiencies, they end up having to argue that it's not unhealthy. But that's no good. Proving that it's not unhealthy is not a rational reason for doing it.

See, none of it really matters. The thread started as a rebuttal to an article on the ethics of vegetarianism. Even if one could conclude that these diets aren't unhealthy, or even marginally better for you (good luck!), you'd have to actually weigh that against any losses. The loss of not eating tasty meat. The loss of not being able to go to a restaurant because they don't have anything "vegan". The irritation of the people around you who have to adjust their habits so you can stick to your "principles". The extra expense and inconvenience of having to cook vegetarian/vegan diets. And on and on. Any benefit gained has to be weighed against the costs. Why is this important? Because when someone upholds an intrinsic value, like the lives of other animals, they can't rationally compare that value with objective values. An ethical vegetarian is not equipped to make tradeoffs. He has to live by a moral rule. Never, ever, ever, eat animals."

You apparently haven't read up. Try Peter Singer. Many of us don't dig the Kantian shit. Many of us believe that cost/benefit is a large part of the picture. Furthermore, you may wish to check out John Robbin's Diet for a New America. The research is much more compelling than you might think.


"The fact is that vegetarians are nearly exclusively vegetarians because of their ethical views. They treat animals as intrinsic values. If there are exceptions (and Dustin is clearly not one), it would be completely misleading or uninformed to try to define vegetarianism by those exceptions. And to claim that it's some great misunderstanding by non-vegetarians is ridiculous. It's clear from those promoting vegetarianism and those who practice it that it's an ethical theory, not a nutritional theory. The latter is at best a poor rationalization."

I generally agree, and I believe I've already implied that. You're wasting our time.

"If you don't want to be associated with ethical vegetarians, you should differentiate yourself from them, not pretend that they don't exist or are an insignificant minority."

I don't recall noting a disassociation or differentiation. My motives are based in ethics.

"But honestly, even then I would have problems believing you, just as I have problems with believing Dustin who uses the term "murder" to describe killing livestock for food. You'd have to convince me that you chose such a strange dietary line to draw because you honestly think the science supports that very arbitrary breakup. The far easier conclusion is that if someone says "I won't eat animals", it's because they're animals."



....red herrings and fallacious arguments.

I entirely understand, Joseph, that your interest here is to "maintain" a focus upon the Objectivist line that this thread has never engaged. Dustin's initial rebuttal was nonsense. What followed was, generally, reactionary nonsense.
I'm quite positive that if I had the time and interest, you and I would go head to head on more foundational underpinnings. Perhaps later in another area of this forum. In the meantime, I'm here addressing some questionable assertions. If these things "don't matter," as you say they don't, then I'm surprised that so many of the objectivists here feel the need to assert nutrition with no substance. All I've done is offered a research study and questioned claims.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 7:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Singer's argument doesn't hold crap, and have been refuted time and again - rights are not a consequence of sentiency, dealing with pain, but of SAPIENCY, dealing with cognitivity. The so-called 'ethical' argument is thus null.   In other words, There are no rights at the waterhole.
(Edited by robert malcom on 8/20, 7:37pm)

(Edited by robert malcom on 8/20, 7:38pm)


Post 30

Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 7:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, your assertion is an interesting one, but nothing more than a sidestep. Singer did address it....he called it speciesism.

Do you wish to define "cognivity?" Do you wish to assert where the line is drawn concerning cognition? Are you stating that no non-human animal has the ability to reason, think, or remember?

Just saying "cognitivity" means nothing, and therefore "nulls" nothing. I'm happy to engage you, but I need more from you than that.



Post 31

Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 8:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh no.

OWL deja vu.

Mr. Matney,

How about knowing that one knows? Or knowing that one does not know?  This is unique to humans, no?

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 8/20, 8:25pm)


Post 32

Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 8:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What you guys think of this video? videohttp://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=mym2002&Player=wm&speed=_med


Post 33

Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 8:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa,

An intriguing question. It seems quite difficult to demonstrate such, doesn't it? To me, such appears a linguistic tautology, but I'm open to correction.

Does our future vision, our evolution, look towards "knowing that we know that we know?"

Even if we can demonstrate "knowing that we know" as unique to humans, is it an instrinsic quality of humanity? Shall we delve into the world of the argument for marginal cases and applied behavioral analysis?




Post 34

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 8:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

A Vegetarian or Vegan is probably the best candidate to judge the health benefits of eating animal-free, not some average Joe who eats McDonalds and Burger King in the name of his manly, ethically pure meat consumption.
(Edited by Dustin
on 8/21, 8:20am)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 9:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

A Vegetarian or Vegan diet is certainly not necessarily healthy, french fries, after all, are vegan (assuming they are fried in vegetable oil) as is Tempura.  One can eat unhealthy on an omnivorous diet or a vegan diet.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 9:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I won't eat another species if it can demonstrate that it is self-aware and agrees to abide by the same rules as I do.  So far, no such species qualifies, though many I find no taste for eating in any case.  That is the problem with animals having rights - they cannot reciprocate and agree not to eat us.  For example, those alligators in Florida who are attacking people - and we lost a beautiful young girl recently because animal rights people won't let us kill these things and keep them away from people.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 12:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Singer defines specieism as a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of ones own species and against those of other species.

The problem with this, as has been pointed out times before, is multifold - 'prejudice' is judging in the absence of reason, that is, without rationality.....  'bias' is likewise a consideration of favoring or judging without rationality.....  if, however, preferring one's own specie over others is given by reason, then there is no prejudice or bias - thus no, properly speaking, specieism.....  morover, this is, interestingly enough, only applicable to humans - for we are the only specie which has self-awareness [cognitive ability] and thus can offer reasons for justification.....  all other species of animals have nothing to reason with and as such are furthering their own survival as a biological imperative....  in other words, preferring one's own specie over others is the norm of life across the living organism spectrum, whether human or not....


Post 38

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 5:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Malcolm,

Your 'refutation' is not new, and is not without its flaws. Human beings can and do "reason" anything, not only the name of survival and perceived homeostatic set points, but also in the name of individualized aesthetics. One can give reason to kill their own species. That is not justification.

I find your use of the terms "reason," "rationality," "cognitivity," to be conveniently unsubstantiated. Intellectual continuity theories certainly are at odds with your black and white asessment. Until you take the task of defining these terms specifically, we are at a stand still.

Judging norms across the living spectrum is a largely dangerous process with which to make "rational" judgements.

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 7:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've always argued that if an animal can think and act in terms of principles, then he or she can recognize the principle of rights and choose to respect it. However, I don't think that non-human animals can recognize such an abstract principle, despite the fact that some of them may be able to think on a rudimentary level. And if they cannot grasp such a principle, then the principle doesn't apply to them.

We respect the rights of others, because we want others to respect ours, and we can't demand that they do so, if we're not willing to respect their rights. But that argument doesn't pertain to animals who are incapable of grasping and applying such a principle. We cannot say that the principle of consistency demands that we respect the rights of animals, if we want animals to respect ours. Animals aren't capable of recognizing the principle in the first place. So the consistency argument doesn't apply to animals in the same way that it applies to other human beings.

Moreover, we don't use force against human beings by putting them on a leash or keeping them confined to a cage, whereas in many cases, it is absolutely necessary that we do so with animals. There is a fundamental difference here. The difference is: human beings have rights; animals don't.

Does that mean that it's all right to abuse an animal? No, because cruelty to animals has an adverse affect on human sensibilities. It's distressing to see an animal suffer, and it's not in any rational person's self-interest to witness or entertain it. However, there are some good reasons for sacrificing animals: food, clothing and medical experimentation. If it means finding a cure for a disease, it is better to experiment on animals than to do so on other human beings. But the experimentation should always be done humanely. The same is true in sacrificing animals for food and clothing.

So, there may be grounds to object to certain inhumane practices involving animal husbandry, but I see no grounds for objecting to the humane sacrifice of animals for food and clothing or for medical experimentation.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 8/21, 7:15pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.