Is eating meat morally wrong

Rick · May 23, 2006

well i agree with james r since that is a scientific opinion, so whatever, plants do not suffer or feel pain
and bah@irrationality determined by chemical process, argumentative.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Rick

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Joaquin · May 23, 2006

You vegetarians keep stuffing your face with pills to have the extra voom.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Rick · May 23, 2006

i eat meat so go eff yourself
and i still take supplements, dont even get me started on bodybuilding

RIck

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tiassa · May 24, 2006

Zion said:

well i agree with james r since that is a scientific opinion, so whatever, plants do not suffer or feel pain
Click to expand...

Plants do not suffer or feel pain in ways we comprehend easily. That much is clear. But there are sensory issues about plants: why does classical music make plants grow better? Why should it matter whether or not you anesthetize a tree before transplanting it? Pain, to use a simple comparison derived from a fairly simple movie, is merely data. That a plant does not have a central nervous system akin to humans or cows does not mean the plant does not receive and process data. A plant will struggle to repair an injury, and, as Huxley noted, continue to fight for life even after its living necessities are threatened or severed. It is not the nature of living organisms to simply give up and die when compromised. Living organisms tend to keep on living at least until they fulfill their purpose. That we do not recognize pain in plants is merely aesthetics: we are not generally able to sympathize with the data transfer and response in plants, hence we consider that process something else entirely.

Like the heads of lettuce killed just before serving the salad: they are still clinging to life in the way Huxley noted as we eat them. But it's lettuce, and not an unconscious animal when it is slain, so we don't care. Seems a pretty shallow distinction to me.

Tiassa · May 24, 2006

General notions for consideration:

What is pain?

What is suffering?

James R · May 24, 2006

TW Scott:

No, but you are just rpoving you are James R. My problem with you is that he is a coward who wants me to agree with your falsehoods and yet ignore the truths, It is sad really that you had to resort to sock puppetry. No just stop lying and I may respect you more.
Click to expand...

I write another long and detailed reply to you, and the best you can do is to back again with this paranoid accusation (admittedly directed at Meathead, but you think we're one and the same)?

You've lost touch with reality and sense.

James R · May 24, 2006

tiassa:

You have written a lot of words, and I hope you will not complain if I do not reply to each and every word you have written.

It seems to me that we are both repeating ourselves. So, let me summarise your arguments, as I understand them.

1. The choice of whether or not to eat meat is not a moral decision, but an aesthetic one. Whether to eat meat or not to eat meat is not a moral question, but merely one of aesthetics.
2. If eating meat is a moral question after all, then the "human endeavor" ought to take precedence over any potential animal rights, whenever there is a conflict.
3. Making moral decisions to alter human behaviour interferes with "nature's plan" (whatever that is), and therefore should never be done.
4. Plants suffer just as much as animals, so an argument for animal rights is equally an argument for plant rights, and therefore vegetarians hold a double standard in that they eat plants but not animals, despite the fact that plants suffer.

I will briefly summarise my responses to your arguments.

1. I disagree that there is no moral issue to be discussed here. We are dealing with our treatment of other conscious, living things. It is generally accepted that human-human interactions raise moral issues and obligations. In fact, these interactions are probably the major focus of ethical discussion. I see no reason that human-animal interactions do not raise parallel moral issues and obligations.

2. According to the Principle of Equal Consideration, there ought not to be an assumption that human desires and interests will automatically trump any competing animal interests wherever they come into conflict.

3. There is no "plan" for human evolution. Everything we do as human beings potentially affects our environment, including ourselves, other people and animals, and the wider world we inhabit. To assert that what currently exists is somehow sacrosanct is equivalent to an injunction to human beings not to act at all, since any action will affect the future.

4. The simplest response to this silly argument is that two wrongs don't make a right. If it is wrong to eat plants and animals, then it is surely better to eat only plants than to commit the double sin of eating both plants and animals. The argument that plants suffer in the same way as animals is an argument only against eating plants and animals, not an argument which supports the idea that it is acceptable to eat meat. Leaving that aside, the "plants are sentient" argument is fundamentally flawed as a matter of basic fact, and that is something I will discuss in more detail below.

------

Let us tackle the issue of plant pain in more detail. The argument seems to go like this:

A. If a sentient being can consciously experience pain and suffering, then it is wrong to inflict pain & suffering on such a sentient being.
B. Plants are sentient beings that can experience pain & suffering.
C. Therefore it is wrong to inflict pain & suffering on plants.

The first thing that strikes me about this argument being made by somebody who considers eating animal meat morally acceptable is the hypocrisy of it. Replace the word "plants" in (B) with "meat animals" and you have the animal rights argument, word for word.

Why does the meat-eater reject the animal rights argument? Fundamentally, it is because the meat-eater doesn't accept premise A. Clearly, the meat eater believes that it is NOT wrong to inflict pain and suffering on animals that are killed for his or her food, despite their capacity to consciously experience pain and suffering.

Why then, should the vegetarian or animal rights supporter be held to a different standard than the meat-eater holds for himself?

At its best, as I have said, the plant argument merely backs up the argument for not eating meat. If we accept (A) and (B), then vegetarians are immoral, but that in not way lessens the immorality of the meat eaters.

But are the vegetarians really inconsistent? Let us accept that they hold by premise (A). What, then, of premise (B)? Is it valid? In fact, it is not. It is a silly assertion without proof.

Can plants "experience pain and suffering"? tiassa has tried to argue that they can. A plant being eaten by insects suffers, he says. A plant which is pruned suffers. There is interesting evidence about plants reacting to local tissue damage and even sending signalling molecules serving to stimulate certain chemical defenses of nearby plants. But this is a strange description of "suffering". And is it an "experience"?

Let's step back and ask: What is required for a living thing to "experience pain and suffering"? The first thing which springs to mind is the existence of mental states. How can you "experience" anything (in more than the trivial sense of "having something happen to you") if you don't have a mind with which to have the experience?

Do clouds experience suffering when their water is released as rain? They incur damage to their structure, in the same way a plant incurs damage when it is pruned. Is the mere reaction of a cloud to oversaturation an indication of "suffering"? What then, can we say about the chemical reaction of a plant to insect attack?

To experience feelings such as pain requires the existence of mental states, and such states are marked by consciousness. Mental states are not the same thing as mere reactive behaviours or actions which seek to minimize further harm or change. Looked at from the same point of view as the "plants can feel" argument, we'd have to say that a thermostat can feel, since it reacts to changes in it's environment in such a way as to avoid "undesirable" changes to its state.

At a higher level, let us ask: what is the purpose of pain? In animals, it is a warning to take steps to avoid (further) injury. What is the usual reaction of an animal to pain? First, it moves away from the cause of the pain. Is pain, then, a useful thing for plants to have? For, if not, evolution would suggest that if pain is not useful to plants then there is no reason they would experience it. How could a plant which was "in pain" react? Obviously, the option to run away does not exist, which suggests to me that pain is not a particularly useful thing for a plant.

To further demonstrate the absurdity of the claim that plants suffer in the same morally-signficant way that animals suffer, ask yourself these simple questions:

1) Do you believe that animals like dogs and cats should receive pain-killing drugs prior to surgery?
2) Do you believe that plants should receive pain-killing drugs prior to pruning?

If you're really committed to the "plants can feel" argument, you will answer "yes" to question (2). However, I find it hard to believe that anybody would seriously hold such a view.

(more to come)

TW Scott · May 24, 2006

1 Yes
2: if such pain medication worked for plants then yes.

Tiassa · May 24, 2006

JamesR said:

1. The choice of whether or not to eat meat is not a moral decision, but an aesthetic one. Whether to eat meat or not to eat meat is not a moral question, but merely one of aesthetics.
Click to expand...

An interesting way of putting it. I would say that the question of the morality of eating meat is an aesthetic one.

Whether or not to eat meat, as a general question could literally be a health issue, a conscience issue, or any question that seems normal or strange. There are a number of animal products I don't eat for textural reasons. I don't eat chorizo for aesthetic reasons.

But to make it a moral issue? Our disagreement, as I see it, focuses at this point on the foundation for the moral assertion. Just like we can pester God into nihilism by examining the reasons for this or that, so I see your foundation for argument standing, at some point, on emptiness.

2. If eating meat is a moral question after all, then the "human endeavor" ought to take precedence over any potential animal rights, whenever there is a conflict.
Click to expand...

The human endeavor takes precedence, period. We are human beings. I would offer, as a strange juxtaposition, the Law of Thelema: Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law. Simply doing what thou wilt for purely selfish greed becomes problematic to the function of doing what thou wilt at all. Think of it in terms of rape and murder and prison or the gallows if you want. And also think of the Thelemites, who are said to be no more because of this Law.

We humans can learn from history, one would think. We can learn a lot of strange things in a lot of ways. Perhaps one might argue that murder and rape are part of natural selection. It's a fair argument, but I do not think murder and rape are conducive to the perpetuity of the human endeavor. Consider my thoughts on cannibalism. I don't think it's conducive to the perpetuity of the human endeavor. I could be wrong on that point. But notice that humans never express the benefits of their social structures in terms of extinction. What politician would be elected anywhere, save an apocalyptic, post-millenarian Christian theocracy of unbelievable stupidity, proclaiming that we should work not toward prosperity, but extinction? Call it stupid political promises if you're so inclined, but the species whose behavior tends toward extinction will become extinct. Species is an abstraction? Surely when you're asserting morals, the degree of abstraction about species is irrelevant.

The human endeavor is what humanity is. When it's over, it's over.

3. Making moral decisions to alter human behaviour interferes with "nature's plan" (whatever that is), and therefore should never be done.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that's just stupid.

Look, it's real simple: morals are shaky assertions to begin with. So few are anchored to any objective reality. It is my opinion that morals without foundations in objective reality are invalid. Remember that bit I've repeated a few times from the topic about whether having morals is moral?

Tiassa said:

The morality of having morals, aside from being a paradoxical question, can be determined by the objective foundation, the functional result, and the fundamental simplicity of the morals asserted.
Click to expand...

"Interfering with nature's plan," as you put it, should only be done for very good reasons.

JamesR said:

4. Plants suffer just as much as animals, so an argument for animal rights is equally an argument for plant rights, and therefore vegetarians hold a double standard in that they eat plants but not animals, despite the fact that plants suffer.
Click to expand...

Your cynicism seems to be inhibiting your understanding. I'll defer to one of the points later in the post when I would just be repeating what goes here.

1. I disagree that there is no moral issue to be discussed here. We are dealing with our treatment of other conscious, living things. It is generally accepted that human-human interactions raise moral issues and obligations. In fact, these interactions are probably the major focus of ethical discussion. I see no reason that human-animal interactions do not raise parallel moral issues and obligations.
Click to expand...

It's not that there's no moral issue to be discussed here. I find the notion of species-wide moral vegetarianism morally problematic. Have you any idea how many cows and pigs and ducks and fish and dogs and cats and snails and rats have died so that humanity could reach such heights that we could sit here talking about the Principle of Equal Consideration vs. the human species? There are so many ways to improve humanity in general and help the animals if we look at this according to the nearest facts of objective foundation: either you believe the Universe exists or maybe you don't. Life is. Okay? Life. "Life." As in, "Everything that lives". Life, the universal miracle or symptom, take your choice, simply is.

We humans can dwell on that fact. We can wonder and inquire as to why we're here, and whether good and evil actually exist. We invent religions and wars to define things. Why are we here? Does that make the salmon better than us because they've already figured out the answer to that question, and live and die by it?

"Morals" are generally shaky assertions for lack of objective root. You cite the Principle of Equal Consideration:

2. According to the Principle of Equal Consideration, there ought not to be an assumption that human desires and interests will automatically trump any competing animal interests wherever they come into conflict.
Click to expand...

"According to the Principle of Equal Consideration ...." You might as well tell me it's according to God.

3. There is no "plan" for human evolution. Everything we do as human beings potentially affects our environment, including ourselves, other people and animals, and the wider world we inhabit. To assert that what currently exists is somehow sacrosanct is equivalent to an injunction to human beings not to act at all, since any action will affect the future.
Click to expand...

And if we choose not to decide, we still have made a choice. Look, it's real simple: The Principle of Equal Consideration is no good reason for what amounts to eugenics. If humanity goes vegetarian, that will be what life demands. I said a while back that economics will force the situation before "morals". If you think you can wield that kind of economic clout in some way, take a number with the rest of the special interests whose moral purpose amounts to their personal satisfaction. It can be done. But it's a bad reason to affect something so fundamental as species diet for a moral assertion that has no objective foundation.

4. The simplest response to this silly argument is that two wrongs don't make a right. If it is wrong to eat plants and animals, then it is surely better to eat only plants than to commit the double sin of eating both plants and animals. The argument that plants suffer in the same way as animals is an argument only against eating plants and animals, not an argument which supports the idea that it is acceptable to eat meat. Leaving that aside, the "plants are sentient" argument is fundamentally flawed as a matter of basic fact, and that is something I will discuss in more detail below.
Click to expand...

Not only do you identify the issue wrongly (perhaps you didn't read that part; after all, it was in a post to Zion), but your conclusion is skewed even if your assessment of the issue was correct in the first place.

Again, deferring to a later point when I would just have to repeat myself.

Let us tackle the issue of plant pain in more detail. The argument seems to go like this:

A. If a sentient being can consciously experience pain and suffering, then it is wrong to inflict pain & suffering on such a sentient being.
B. Plants are sentient beings that can experience pain & suffering.
C. Therefore it is wrong to inflict pain & suffering on plants.
Click to expand...

An interesting way of summarizing it.

The first thing that strikes me about this argument being made by somebody who considers eating animal meat morally acceptable is the hypocrisy of it. Replace the word "plants" in (B) with "meat animals" and you have the animal rights argument, word for word.

Why does the meat-eater reject the animal rights argument? Fundamentally, it is because the meat-eater doesn't accept premise A. Clearly, the meat eater believes that it is NOT wrong to inflict pain and suffering on animals that are killed for his or her food, despite their capacity to consciously experience pain and suffering.

Why then, should the vegetarian or animal rights supporter be held to a different standard than the meat-eater holds for himself?

At its best, as I have said, the plant argument merely backs up the argument for not eating meat. If we accept (A) and (B), then vegetarians are immoral, but that in not way lessens the immorality of the meat eaters.
Click to expand...

Life is suffering. Did that ever occur to you? It's as valid as God or the Principle of Equal Consideration.

What is the moral hypocrisy again? Remember Huxley: "But the new self-denial would be as vain as the old. The ostrich, the sword-swallower, the glass-eating fakir are as cannibalistic as the frequenters of chop-houses, take life as fatally as do the vegetarians." Life is. That's all. The whole difference you're making is like saying an abacus isn't a computer. It's a prideful and intentionally-limited claim.

Plants are alive and respond to stimuli. When damaged, they respond. An apple wasn't made for us to eat, was it? It was made to propagate apple trees. What right do we have? We are human. We eat apples. Apples are good. Our bodies like them. Between birds and rainstorms and such, nature's enough. We humans are worse a problem than the rest of nature for apple trees. But because a tree lacks a central nervous system, we discount its sensory experience. You overstate the suffering of animals: we agree that certain techniques for raising and harvesting livestock are barbaric, but at least the poor animal is unconscious when it is killed. Giving animals proper consideration as your Principle asserts, most animals would live hard and be afraid, anyway. That I won't allow one of my friends to be killed in my presence without making some effort on their behalf: does this mean I ought go out and interfere in nature? You know, take the ant from the chimpanzee? What about those loving walruses? Ought we not protect them? Offer them birth control and resource-management systems? Fight for their every birth? What is the compelling reason not to?

Life is.

So I didn't have to repeat myself: You missed Huxley's point entirely.

Morals are difficult propositions when we know so little about life.

But are the vegetarians really inconsistent? Let us accept that they hold by premise (A). What, then, of premise (B)? Is it valid? In fact, it is not. It is a silly assertion without proof.
Click to expand...

Interesting question. Vegetarians are vegetarians. If they choose to make a moral platform out of their diet and conscience, it would behoove them to go with more than an aesthetic standard: specifically, one which draws its limitations on an aesthetic basis. You are not a plant. You are an animal. You can sympathize with the cow. You do not sympathize with the plant. The cow's suffering must be horrible, you believe. The plant, or so it seems of your assertion, is a numb and null existence. That last is the aesthetic issue. Your lack of sympathy with life's diversity is an artificial construction of your own. Mere abstraction.

I could not care less what people eat. In some cases, I'd rather not know. (Yes, that latter for aesthetic reasons.) But I do hope that anyone who should assert a moral proscription to my diet, and the diet of the human species, would have a better reason than, "Because I say so".

Okay, maybe I could care less. That thing about eating pygmies for magical war powers ... that's just screwed up. And you think we can afford to consciously tamper with fundmental facets of our humanity? For morals?

Can plants "experience pain and suffering"? tiassa has tried to argue that they can. A plant being eaten by insects suffers, he says. A plant which is pruned suffers. There is interesting evidence about plants reacting to local tissue damage and even sending signalling molecules serving to stimulate certain chemical defenses of nearby plants. But this is a strange description of "suffering". And is it an "experience"?

Let's step back and ask: What is required for a living thing to "experience pain and suffering"? The first thing which springs to mind is the existence of mental states. How can you "experience" anything (in more than the trivial sense of "having something happen to you") if you don't have a mind with which to have the experience?
Click to expand...

Such a neat distinction, eh? Do you understand the data transfer involved in a plant's response to a given stimulus well enough to consciously choose its numbness and insignificance?

Do you know a plant's existence intimately enough to say it doesn't matter?

Do clouds experience suffering when their water is released as rain? They incur damage to their structure, in the same way a plant incurs damage when it is pruned. Is the mere reaction of a cloud to oversaturation an indication of "suffering"? What then, can we say about the chemical reaction of a plant to insect attack?
Click to expand...

What makes a cloud a single entity? Only the line you choose to draw.

Do the raindrops care? Maybe you and Huxley and Bose could ponder that. Although water can't die. Poor bastard. Can you imagine an eternity of suffering? Maybe that's what happened to Christianity. They should just "Blame it on the Rain".

To experience feelings such as pain requires the existence of mental states, and such states are marked by consciousness. Mental states are not the same thing as mere reactive behaviours or actions which seek to minimize further harm or change. Looked at from the same point of view as the "plants can feel" argument, we'd have to say that a thermostat can feel, since it reacts to changes in it's environment in such a way as to avoid "undesirable" changes to its state.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. Disquailfy the plant because it operates differently than what you can sympathize with.

At a higher level, let us ask: what is the purpose of pain? In animals, it is a warning to take steps to avoid (further) injury. What is the usual reaction of an animal to pain? First, it moves away from the cause of the pain. Is pain, then, a useful thing for plants to have? For, if not, evolution would suggest that if pain is not useful to plants then there is no reason they would experience it. How could a plant which was "in pain" react? Obviously, the option to run away does not exist, which suggests to me that pain is not a particularly useful thing for a plant.

To further demonstrate the absurdity of the claim that plants suffer in the same morally-signficant way that animals suffer, ask yourself these simple questions:

1) Do you believe that animals like dogs and cats should receive pain-killing drugs prior to surgery?
2) Do you believe that plants should receive pain-killing drugs prior to pruning?

If you're really committed to the "plants can feel" argument, you will answer "yes" to question (2). However, I find it hard to believe that anybody would seriously hold such a view.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on what is best for each individual patient. Putting aspirin in the Christmas tree's water helps ease the transition into death. Kill a tree for Christ: tell me that's not a stupid idea.

And think of experience: when it's a cheeseburger on my plate, only you remember the pain.

There is no cow heaven.

You know, you're so worried about your morality. It's not that you're immoral for conscience-vegetarianism. Rather, it's that you're human. The fact of plants responding to stimuli does not make a vegetarian immoral. Rather, it reminds that moral assertions are extremely delicate, problematic, and limited notions.

Humans are expected to sympathize with the familiar. Nor, as history has shown, has humanity gained anything by their failure to sympathize with the unfamiliar except the refinement of destruction. The Principle of Equal Consideration would, in the end, finish that problem. In fact, it could keep us warm at night when we're back wandering the savannah.

What, aside from comfort, pleasure, greed, is our human progress? Perhaps it is our humanity?

James R · May 24, 2006

tiassa:

I will now respond to some of the details in your recent post. Let's start with the brief summary you wrote for zion.

JamesR and I disagree on all counts. He believes plants don’t suffer or feel pain; I assert the difference ‘twixt animal and plant is a matter of sympathy and aesthetics. He makes much of an animal’s suffering in cultivation and slaughter, and I consider the greatest portion of that question a matter of economics and not selfish pleasure. Lastly, he attributes a walrus cow’s defense of herd offspring as a matter of love; while my jury is still out on the complexities and nuances of love in such a case, love among humans owes much to irrationality determined by chemical processes.
Click to expand...

This is a reasonable summary. Let me re-emphasize my position:

1. Plants do not suffer in any sense that we normally define "suffering". (see above).
2. This is a moral issue, not an economic one. It might be profitable to kill animals and sell their carcasses so meat-eaters can enjoy themselves, but you need to look at the end result as well as all the intermediate steps. Why is it economical? Because the demand for meat exists? Why does the demand exist? I have addressed that question in detail, previously.
3. Regarding walruses, I think you're oversimplifying. I have said there are complex reasons why animals defend their young, but what they feel as they do so is a somewhat different question. Similarly, there may be many ultimate reasons for you to act one way or another in any situation, tied up in your genes, your personal history, the environment in which you find yourself, your personal goals etc. Not all of those reasons will come up in any conscious explanation you give when asked "Why did you do that?" Much is hidden in a response such as "I felt like doing that." or "I felt I had to do that."

Much of it has to do, in the end, with the Principle of Equal Consideration (cited by JamesR) and the fact of our species (cited by me). My counterpoint to Equal Consideration is that we seem to be elevating the animals above the humans, while JamesR’s counterpoint to the fact of our species is that species is an abstraction, and apparently doesn’t count for much in our considerations.
Click to expand...

I am puzzled as to where you think the "Equal" went in the term "Equal Consideration". If we elevated animals "above" humans, that would surely be "preferential consideration". And similarly if we elevated humans above animals (which is the current status quo).

----

Now, at the risk of being accused of skipping important points, I will respond to your detailed posts.

So, are we, as in you and I, being immoral in even having this debate via computers which are products of that immoral, barbaric Western cultural heritage? And it's not just the Western, I know. But familiarity serves well enough.

Should we be more like those rare mystics, then?
Click to expand...

This is a distraction. I'm working within a framework of a Western ethical tradition here. Features that are shared (or not) with other traditions don't concern me at this point.

When you use phrases like "pure selfish pleasure", you're being irrational and rather quite rude. Nonetheless, is that a right endowed by nature or by convention?
Click to expand...

A right is a human recognition of an interest worthy of protection by moral, and often legal, sanctions. Interests may be endowed by nature. Rights are endowed by convention.

And yet you'll eat plants because you believe they don't suffer. They do. But it's not a suffering you're familiar with; you do not recognize it in part because its manifestations are rather subtle. As Huxley explained: if you could perceive with your naked eye the sufferings of the plant, such a distinction between plant and animal cannot be made. The difference, the reason you don't advocate for the plants, is aesthetic. That it is a response to what you can perceive and construct a projected sympathy with, such as with death and animals, and, of course, the wretched conditions of economic provision, makes this issue rather aesthetic.
Click to expand...

As I said above, I consider the absence of mental states in plants to be a morally significant dividing line to draw between plants and animals. I really can't say anything more than that on this point, and I have little interest in our going around this circle yet again.

Can I take it that your view is that plants suffering is morally equivalent to animal suffering, and be done with it? Or are you saying that all suffering is only an "aesthetic perception", and is therefore never morally significant? Or what?

What is the compelling reason to destroy billions of bacteria? Might it be a personal or species bias? Is bias a compelling reason to set aside equal consideration?
Click to expand...

Like plants, bacteria do not possess mental states. Moreover, in some cases where they are killed they directly threaten our lives. If it's us or them, I vote for us. But that's not the case when it comes to eating meat - 99% of the time, anyway.

Does the fact of your species mean nothing to you?
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by this question. What "fact"? And why should it mean something to me in the current context?

Certain preferences toward our own species are very important in keeping us, both individually and collectively, alive.
Click to expand...

A preference for meat over vegetables is not one of those.

We could always manifest the Principle of Equal Consideration by committing species-wide suicide; at least that way, our unfair toll against nature would be finite.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't think many people would be willing to make that particular choice. I wouldn't, for one.

Political: Self-termination ought to be at the discretion of the individual. The moral principle here is that each person has only their own experience, and they owe no part of it to anyone; observable conditions suggest that we are unable to consent to our birth, and while I do not oppose the efforts to change a suicidal's mind, I find it morally unjustifiable that suicide should be against the law.

Existential: Every act of creation requires destruction. Less dramatically, and perhaps a tad more originally, Existence causes changes of state in an environment. The moral principle here is considerably more complex, as manifestations change depending on the classification of existence one makes. Basically, we are supposed to be somewhat aware of the changes we cause, but we cannot devote our entire existence to such examination.

Existential: Nature is not extraneous. The answers to obscure questions of "Why?" are of the utmost. Why did God make the Universe as such? Couldn't a loving God make a universe without these horrible things? Such questions have puzzled Christians and their infidel critics for ages, but what of more natural considerations? The question "Why are we here?" pertains to the essential question of "What role do we play in the order of the Universe?" What are these ten fingers and toes for? What about this brain? What condition of nature demands this form of existence? Some think such life is an impossible rarity. I tend to think it is a statistical necessity. But even that belief doesn't explain to me what constitutes necessity. The black and white moral directive is to use these tools. But for what?
Click to expand...

Are these examples of aesthetic considerations, or moral ones?

And given your rejection of species as an abstraction, I would not dare speculate on why you keep raising arguments that demand moral parity between humans and other animals. Are children really so insignificant in your outlook? Is the fact of your humanity so unimportant to you? Do you not understand that humans are compelled by nature to want to reproduce? People have uses for children that don't involve eating them alive? Aren't you being a little absurd on that point?
Click to expand...

If species is an abstraction, then it is perfectly consistent to demand moral parity between humans and non-human animals, isn't it?

What gave you the impression that I consider children insignificant? I can't see where that came from. Unless you're saying that I should elevate human children to an especially privileged moral level? If that's what you are advocating, then I will need some reasons (see Principle of Equal Consideration, again).

Whether children are important in general terms, or whether my humanity is important to me seem to have no direct relation as to whether I should or should not eat meat. Maybe I'm missing your point again.

Your improvement would be moralistic, aesthetic. The reduction, as I've explained, is the narrowing of our food spectrum.
Click to expand...

There is often a price to be paid for acting morally. Protecting the environment is more expensive than simply exploiting it. Paying for food instead of shop lifting incurs higher costs for the individual in the short term. Similarly, if conversion to vegetarianism leads to a human incapacity to eat meat 100000 years from now, that doesn't particularly worry me.

If cows weren't good food, they'd probably be extinct by now.
Click to expand...

No. There are many wild cattle, even today.

What double standard? Imagine there's a hurricane and the dike breaks. Am I being immoral if I save a human child and not a young calf? Maybe I should ferry that rat over there to safety?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. But if you could save the calf AND the child, what then? Would it then be immoral NOT to save the calf, in your opinion? Or wouldn't it matter either way? Or would it only matter if the calf was of economic value to you?

For that matter, what if one chose not to save the child, or the calf or the rat? Would it be immoral to watch the child drown? Would it be immoral to watch the calf drown? Would one be worse than the other? Why?

------

What follows is a section where you quote previous posts of mine and assert that I have been inconsistent in my statements. I do not consider it necessary to defend myself in any great detail on these matters, since it appears most of the problems have arisen from misinterpretation on your part.

Briefly...

1. I did not perceive Huxley's comments as an assertion of moral authority.
Click to expand...

So were you just dodging the issue, then?
Click to expand...

No. I addressed Huxley's comments in detail in a later post.

5. I have not cast rape as "about mere pleasure". That is a straw man.
Click to expand...

If you say so:

- I have limited myself to comparing only one particular aspect of killing and eating an animal to raping a human - i.e. the aspect of the act which has to do with a selfish desire on the part of a human being. (#1041466)

- Again, I need to repeat myself. My point is that the desire to rape is no different from the desire to eat meat. Both are desires which require a choice of action: to rape, or not to rape. To eat, or not to eat. The potential rapist can choose not to rape. The potential meat eater can choose not to eat meat. Both decisions have moral implications. (#1045231)

- Now consider the right not to be eaten for the pure selfish pleasure of another animal. (#1047275)

That last one does in fact come from the post I'm responding to, but I don't think you would be so ridiculous as to claim that's the first time you've made meat consumption about pleasure. Or do I really have to go that far back through the topic to prove it to you?
Click to expand...

Nothing you have quoted from me supports your claim that I regard rape as solely about the pleasure of the rapist, so I am correct that this is a straw man. In case there is any residual confusion, my view is that rape is not solely about pleasure.

On the other hand, the fact that rape is not solely about pleasure does not imply that there is no pleasure involved in rape.

But my main point in this comparison was not one about pleasure, but about selfish desires taking precedence over competing interests of other people, or animals in the case of meat eating. I don't think I really need to re-emphasize that point.

More complaint? Is nothing any more complex than "pure selfish pleasure"?
Click to expand...

Need I say "straw man" again?

Ever think that maybe moralism is about "pure selfish pleasure"? At least, the way you're going about it? Really, has it ever occurred to you? I have tried to explain to you about the "pleasure" of eating; you insist it is something much more simple. I have tried to explain to you about baseless morals, and you still assert yourself from an arbitrary a priori.
Click to expand...

I doubt you actually believe that morality is nothing more than an individual pecadillo. ... On the other hand, given that moral relativism is the current vogue, especially in the United States, perhaps you do believe that. There's another thread running on absolute vs. relative morality, where we can discuss this if you wish. Suffice it to say that the basis of my position in this thread is not "arbitrary". To the contrary, it is based on a principle which has proven its utility in moral philosophy, as it applies to many situations.

Take your next point about Huxley: is your view of what he discussed really so narrow? Why? Furthermore, your standard of what constitutes viable suffering is demonstrably irrational. Would you really claim that what you see with the naked eye is all that is real? What you hear with your own two ears is the only sound in the Universe? Would you? I don't think you would.
Click to expand...

Huxley's point is simple enough (at least, what I've seen of it). I disagree with his attempted redefinition of "suffering", which I have explained in previous posts.

Your assertion that I only regard as real things I see with the naked eye etc. is not based on anything I have said, and is essentially another straw man.

How do you determine "the good of the species" in advance, tiassa?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know. What about you? Or do you just not consider it important, as long as you get to feel better about yourself in having set a moral standard for humanity?
Click to expand...

I don't consider it important in the present context to try to determine "the good of the species". Why? Because I don't believe it is possible to answer what is in the best long-term interests of the human species regarding meat eating. Nor do I think we have to decide. Let's suck it and see. We can always change later, if necessary. It won't be long until we can alter human physiology in any way we want - certainly we'll be able to do that long before we lose the capacity to eat meat due to evolution. But this pie-in-the-sky stuff just isn't important here and now.

How do you determine the good of the species in advance, that you would advocate an evolutionary outcome deliberately according to a moral assertion based in aesthetics?
Click to expand...

Suppose vegetarianism ultimately turns out to be "bad for the species". Who knows? But I can say with certainty, here and now, that it will be good for the cattle and sheep and chicken species. It is only because you put humans on a pedestal that only the good of the human species matters to you, regardless of the evils done to other species.

That a plant's experience of pain or suffering does not focus on a central nervous system does not mean such an experience does not exist.
Click to expand...

No. And just because I can't physically lay eggs doesn't mean you shouldn't defend my right to lay eggs if I want to. If I have a deeply felt belief that I should be allowed to lay eggs, then I guess that is as good as actually being able to lay eggs.

Maybe we ought to redefine "egg layers" to include male human beings.

Ok, ignore all this. It's silly, isn't it? But so is the assertion that plants feel pain.

There are some things to consider about an animal's "suffering". Is 5%, or 6.6% too high a number? Perhaps.
Click to expand...

You're aware, of course, that you've slipped into talking about animal welfare again, as opposed to animal rights. From an animal rights perspective, even "humane killing" is wrong. In fact, "humane killing" in the context of the meat industry is an obvious oxymoron to animal liberationists. That's not to say that cruel killing isn't even worse, of course.

To simply moralize against meat consumption circumvents the more realistic option of addressing the problems of our economic demands. Moral vegetarianism implemented among humanity only solves the problem of one's sentimentality toward animals. In such a case, animals apparently take precedent over humans, since human suffering remains, and its causes go unaddressed. What is the compelling reason, under the Principle of Equal Consideration, for discriminating against humanity in such a manner?
Click to expand...

Let me see if I understand this argument. You're saying killing animals for meat is acceptable because it has economic benefits? I don't need to repeat again that moral acceptabity does not follow from economics, do I?

And stopping the killing of meat animals means animals "take precedence over humans"? No. It means only that we've finally come to the point where we recognise that animals share some of the most basic rights all humans have. Does it mean that animal rights takes precedence over the longing of some humans to enjoy eating their meat? Yes, obviously. Does ceasing to eat meat mean that humans will suffer? No, there's no obvious connection there.

And "discrimination"? No. We'd be ending the discrimination.

We're obviously on completely different pages here. I have difficulty adjusting my mindset enough to even begin to understand how you justify this kind of reasoning to yourself.

You will find, when considering the issue rationally, that preferred slaughter methods are aware of stress put on animals.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of that. Failing to achieve action on animal rights, I fully support action to improve animal welfare. Any positive steps in the right direction are better than nothing.

Is a walrus' love any more rational than human love?
Click to expand...

I'm sure it isn't.

And yes, I'm well aware of oxytocin and it's role in falling in love, and so on.

Again, I'm confused as to your point in bringing these things up.

Like I said, it would be great to see brain imagery of a walrus experiencing a love effect. But I suppose the walruses are just selfish and greedy, right? Is it at all possible, according to your outlook, that human or walrus intent, or the intentions of any species, might fail to account rationally for all the effects an action or condition causes or contributes to in the Universe?
Click to expand...

I have never claimed that conscious intent was the explanation of all behaviours. Where are you going with this? Is this just a subtle way of repeating your argument that "My body knows what it needs, and it needs meat!"?

[slavery etc.] It is the same with your reduction of meat consumption to pure, selfish pleasure, or greed. You demonize those who disagree with you so that you do not feel obliged to consider the validity of their experiences and understandings. It's an escape that seems convenient, but has proven historically problematic.
Click to expand...

My position is that, at its base, people eat meat because they want to. They like the taste. They were brought up in a social environment in which meat eating was acceptable, expected, and often the only offered option. Moreover, they are, on the whole, unaware of the moral implications of their actions in this regard.

So far, so good. But what of people who become aware of the moral issues, and yet continue to eat meat? They know they are doing the wrong thing, and it is at this point that it becomes justifiable to condemn their actions on moral grounds.

Why do people continue to act immorally when they know it is wrong? There is only a limited set of reasons, and those reasons do include selfishness and greed.

Nature can assert itself in many ways; I don’t eat whales or dolphins because I respect their intelligence. I don’t eat horses because they are capable of communicating with humans. I don’t eat elephants because, frankly, have you ever seen elephants paint? They create art; hardly a tooth-and-nail standard. Yet, if that was all there was to eat, I wouldn’t let myself starve. And I certainly wouldn’t resort to cannibalism if there was a horse or elephant or whale to be had. As the actor said to his horse in Bergman’s Seventh Seal, “Pity I don’t eat grass. Maybe you can teach me.”
Click to expand...

Just as I apparently don't appreciate the "suffering" of plants, it seems you don't appreciate the intelligence of cattle, the art of sheep, and so on. I can only comment that it seems you give a greater level of consideration to beings which are more similar to you, rather than appreciating difference and recognising intrinsic value. And strangely, this seems inconsistent with your argument about plant sentience.

Now you’re pushing moral parity between cows and humans. You could make the same case for pets as you do slaves. I anxiously await your advocacy on behalf of either the ownership of slaves or the equality and rights of pets.
Click to expand...

Do you consider pet ownership as akin to slave ownership? Or could it be that pet ownership is more akin to the guardianship of a human child?

Can you see any differences between owning a pet and owning a cow you intend to sell to the butcher? I can. There are some very obvious ones.

When the cattle are functionally equal to humans, they will be regarded as equals.
Click to expand...

Fine.

Cows are functionally equal to humans in their capacity to feel pain and to wish their lives to continue and in their desire not to be eaten.

So, will you now regard them as equal in that respect? Or must we wait until they start playing chess, too?

Tiassa · May 24, 2006

JamesR said:

This is a distraction. I'm working within a framework of a Western ethical tradition here. Features that are shared (or not) with other traditions don't concern me at this point.
Click to expand...

Alright. I call horsepucky.

I will reconsider whatever else you have to say in that post ... um ... later.

Do you not see the limitations of your moral construct emphasizing themselves at this point?

2inquisitive · May 24, 2006

James R,

I am puzzled as to where you think the "Equal" went in the term "Equal Consideration". If we elevated animals "above" humans, that would surely be "preferential consideration". And similarly if we elevated humans above animals (which is the current status quo).
Click to expand...

I am somewhat puzzled by your response. IIRC, you stated earlier that it was OK for carnivorous animals to eat other animals, even if we humans kill or feed live animals to the carnivores, but it was not OK for a human to eat meat. Is that Equal Consideration or preferential consideration? Could humans not prepare meals consisting of eggs, milk, cheese and vegetables that the carnivores could digest?

TW Scott · May 24, 2006

James R.

Wouldn't functionally equal mean that they can do <c>everything</c> we can? I mean we would call two cars functionally equal unless all their vital statistcs (MpG, Top Speed, Passengers carried, Fuel tank size, Cargo room, etc) were identical. And that is just one example. Cows share a few mental functions with huamn being but fall so short on the rest that it is luaghable? I mean even if they were up to the level of lab rats you would think that they would organize an escape from the ranch. You are looking at one similiarity and screaming that we're the same. It's sad really. Especially the way Tiassa is tearing you apart in this debate without trying. Of course the way you hand out ammunition and paint concentric red circles on your argument really help.

Let me sum up Tiassa's argument and perhaps you can finally see why you've been beaten.

Tiassa has shown (with your help) that you are only concerned with the being which have a central nervous system. You know how you feel when you are in pain, and project that onto the animal. So becuase you hate the ugliness of pain you do not eat animal flesh. Now Tiassa comes along with creddible research results that show plants may suffer as much or more than we do to pain and dying. Now sisnce you cannot wrap your mind around a plant feeling anything you say it's suffering does not matter.

Don't you see it's a matter of aesthetics. You imagine the animals pain is worse than the plants so you feel justified eating plants and scorning meat. Your moral decison is based of aesthetics. The aethetic here is that you want the world to be a beautiful painfree place and anything that violates that is ugly/immoral.

You fail to see life is pain (to quote <i>The Princess Bride</i>). Every part of life is pain and suffering, there is no exception. Now you might go "If there was no meat industry those animals would not exists so they would not suffer.", but that is a strawman and a bad one at that. Those animals do exists and no hypothetical situation wuill change it. Given that they exist they suffer pain whter or not we do anything. We have no cupability in that. It is just life.

So please have your moral, but remember it has no foundation that goes any deeper than "Becuase I say so."

James R · May 24, 2006

TW Scott:

I think my discussion with tiassa has gone beyond what you are capable of following. Rather than trying to keep up with tiassa, I think you ought to just bow out gracefully at this point.

I have not based my argument on "functional equivlance" between humans and other animals, so that entire paragraph of your post is irrelevant.

As for your attempt to summarise tiassa's arguments, I advise you to let him do that himself, because I'm sure he'll do a much better job.

Tiassa has shown (with your help) that you are only concerned with the being which have a central nervous system. You know how you feel when you are in pain, and project that onto the animal. So becuase you hate the ugliness of pain you do not eat animal flesh.
Click to expand...

I have been up front from the start that having a central nervous system, or equivalent capacity which results in mental functioning, is important. I'm glad you're finally catching up.

There's no need for me to "project" my imaginings onto animals. One need only observe their behaviour to deduce that they feel pain the same way you and I do. I urge you to check this for yourself.

My argument is not based on "ugliness" or any squeamishness. I urge you to read my previous posts on this matter, where I have elaborated explicitly on that very point.

Now Tiassa comes along with creddible research results that show plants may suffer as much or more than we do to pain and dying. Now sisnce you cannot wrap your mind around a plant feeling anything you say it's suffering does not matter.
Click to expand...

You're way out of your depth. Sorry, but it's just too much of an effort for me to go through it again just to try to get you up to speed. Go back and read my previous posts on this matter.

Don't you see it's a matter of aesthetics.
Click to expand...

You are completely out of your depth trying to piggy-back on an argument you don't understand. And it shows.

You fail to see life is pain (to quote The Princess Bride). Every part of life is pain and suffering, there is no exception.
Click to expand...

Except when you chow down into your juice steak, I presume.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So please have your moral, but remember it has no foundation that goes any deeper than "Becuase I say so."
Click to expand...

There's no point in having a battle of wits concerning meta-ethics with an unarmed opponent, so I won't. I'll take it up with tiassa instead.

draqon · May 24, 2006

James R. u just killed millions of bacteria! Why is it that you choose to grant life to animals who behave just as same as the bacteria, they behave to survive. What have bacteria done to you, James R.? Why are you so evil?

TW Scott · May 24, 2006

James R said:

I think my discussion with tiassa has gone beyond what you are capable of following. Rather than trying to keep up with tiassa, I think you ought to just bow out gracefully at this point.
Click to expand...

No, I understand better than you do which is the point of my post. Of course you want me to bow out as that would leave you playing ostrich to one intelligent poster and not two.

I have not based my argument on "functional equivlance" between humans and other animals, so that entire paragraph of your post is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Actually you have based a good percentage of your argument on that, you are just ignoring that small fact. Of course I can see why as it basically building your house in the sand so do speak.

As for your attempt to summarise tiassa's arguments, I advise you to let him do that himself, because I'm sure he'll do a much better job.
Click to expand...

Well I did just have a few courses in primary education, so i thought I would lend a hand. I have no doubt Tiassa could do it better.

I have been up front from the start that having a central nervous system, or equivalent capacity which results in mental functioning, is important. I'm glad you're finally catching up.
Click to expand...

Catching up? I was to this before you wrote your first words on the subject. However suffering, is suffering, is suffering. If we have evidence that plants suffer than it supercedes hat we think we know.

There's no need for me to "project" my imaginings onto animals. One need only observe their behaviour to deduce that they feel pain the same way you and I do. I urge you to check this for yourself.
Click to expand...

Actually, no you are projecting your imaginings. You have said before you are not quite sure how feed animals are sluaghtered. So you have this whole image in your mind of what it must be like to die. Have you died? Of course not. Have you spoken to anyone who has? Probably not. How do you know they feel any pain in the slaughter house? You don't, so you imagine what is 'must' be like.

My argument is not based on "ugliness" or any squeamishness. I urge you to read my previous posts on this matter, where I have elaborated explicitly on that very point.
Click to expand...

You can say anything you want, James R. It does not cahnge the truth. You are basing your moral on an aesthetic. Not the worst underpinnings of a moral. DOesn't make it any less valid to you. However to the next person it is rubbish.

You're way out of your depth. Sorry, but it's just too much of an effort for me to go through it again just to try to get you up to speed. Go back and read my previous posts on this matter.
Click to expand...

I have been up to speed before you even turned on the motor. I am trying to bring you up to speed. I am making an effort for you James R., now please return the favor and expand your mind a little bit. I think you'll find you are quite capable.

You are completely out of your depth trying to piggy-back on an argument you don't understand. And it shows.
Click to expand...

You are hopelessly dodging a truth and it shows.

Except when you chow down into your juice steak, I presume.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Click to expand...

You presume a lot. I have felt pain eating a juicy steak, an abcess tooth that snuck up on me. That is beside the point though. Although I am amused you that you tried to turn the tables on me with that one. Too bad it was clumsy and ultimately stupid.

There's no point in having a battle of wits concerning meta-ethics with an unarmed opponent, so I won't. I'll take it up with tiassa instead.
Click to expand...

Cheap shot, and ultimately not true, though talking to you reminds me of my sister's saying. "I feel I have come to this battle of twits unarmed."

Tiassa · May 25, 2006

JamesR said:

1. Plants do not suffer in any sense that we normally define "suffering". (see above).
Click to expand...

How we normally define suffering is an interesting proposition, don’t you think? Or has human knowledge achieved the end-all of such definitions?

Consider that while you reconsider Huxley; we sympathize with what we understand as “normally defined” suffering. To split such hairs as whether a plant’s existence constitutes an experience is avoiding the subject. According to your expression of the Principle of Equal Consideration, I do not see human ignorance as a compelling reason to exclude plants from consideration. The plant experience, whatever it equals (a null sum, by your argument) is foreign to human recognition. While we can easily see that a black human being is, in fact, human, the lack of sympathy to a foreign experience has much to do with the now-defunct American standard that blacks were not human. Mere aesthetics in order to escape issues of conscience.

2. This is a moral issue, not an economic one. It might be profitable to kill animals and sell their carcasses so meat-eaters can enjoy themselves, but you need to look at the end result as well as all the intermediate steps. Why is it economical? Because the demand for meat exists? Why does the demand exist? I have addressed that question in detail, previously.
Click to expand...

Economy exists whether or not there is a consciousness capable of recognizing, identifying, documenting, or theorizing about it. Such a premise as, “It might be profitable to kill animals and sell their carcasses so meat-eaters can enjoy themselves”, is absolutely vicious, utterly subjective, and ridiculously mean-spirited. The issue of how animals are treated in industrial-scale farming and ranching is economic in the more specific sense of humans and monetary-based resource allocation. Your previous address of the questions of demand seem to come down to assertions of selfish pleasure and greed. By such methods, your moral demand comes down to helping you feel better about your place in nature, which is also an issue of selfish pleasure and greed. This need not, however, be a discussion of hypocrisy, but rather one of the weakness of unfounded moral assertions. The Principle of Equal Consideration sounds nice and all, but it has no objective foundation.

3. Regarding walruses, I think you're oversimplifying. I have said there are complex reasons why animals defend their young, but what they feel as they do so is a somewhat different question. Similarly, there may be many ultimate reasons for you to act one way or another in any situation, tied up in your genes, your personal history, the environment in which you find yourself, your personal goals etc. Not all of those reasons will come up in any conscious explanation you give when asked "Why did you do that?" Much is hidden in a response such as "I felt like doing that." or "I felt I had to do that.”
Click to expand...

“Walrus love” as an explanation for behavior is in itself an oversimplification. Did that ever occur to you? Have you ever noticed that, whether or not we intend or even care about an evolutionary result, our actions often tread into that arena? Has it ever occurred to you that human beings are part of nature, and not separate from nature? It seems you are aware of such considerations, since you discuss genetics, personal history, and environmental considerations at least. But did it ever occur to you that “love” in humans, and walruses if you must, is an evolutionary tool on behalf of species? That some woman somewhere “wants to have a baby” for whatever reasons … do the reasons for her desire change the fact that the arrival of the baby is, quantitatively at least, a perpetuation of the human species? If a barren woman saves a child’s life, is it mere heroism? Perhaps a Christian conscience? Does any of that change the fact that a potentially-viable human’s life has been extended, so that it might contribute to the species’ perpetuation? That we don’t think, “For the species,” every time we act does not change the fact that considerations of the species are included in the outcome. Walrus love? Fine. Whatever. Nature is not extraneous, sir. If love, including its irrational manifestations, have no value to any species, then maybe we have to start thinking about the possibility that something so irrational as the God of the Bible exists. If the human species evolves to regular cybernetic enhancements such as we see in any number of anime productions, such is evolution. If the human species becomes vegetarian for any reason, moral or economic or otherwise, such is evolution. Which brings me back to my basic point: I think “morals” are a terrible reason to tailor the evolutionary outcome because so few morals have objective foundations.

I am puzzled as to where you think the "Equal" went in the term "Equal Consideration". If we elevated animals "above" humans, that would surely be "preferential consideration". And similarly if we elevated humans above animals (which is the current status quo).
Click to expand...

You seem, for instance, unsatisfied with the possibility that human economics will eventually force species-wide vegetarianism. On the one hand, I would find this tragic: that we reduce our diet in order to keep lining various pockets with cash is even more ridiculous a proposition than the warm fuzzy of morality. But for reasons beyond diet, I find a moral imperative for economic change among humans. If we seek to solve the suffering of cows and chickens while ignoring the suffering of humans, are we not giving the animals preferential consideration? I find the fact of our humanity a very compelling reason to consider the human impacts of our actions before stopping to wring our hands over what the cows think.

This is a distraction. I'm working within a framework of a Western ethical tradition here. Features that are shared (or not) with other traditions don't concern me at this point.
Click to expand...

This really is horsepucky, as I said before. We’ll go with the anecdotal, since I can’t seem to dig up the link: there was a BBC News report sometime in the last couple years about a guy in India who claimed to have not eaten anything in ten years; doctors were looking into the claim, and I’ve never heard the outcome. Nonetheless, should we be more like those mystics who seek to minimize our impact on nature?

A right is a human recognition of an interest worthy of protection by moral, and often legal, sanctions. Interests may be endowed by nature. Rights are endowed by convention.
Click to expand...

Rights are, indeed, endowed by convention. However, inasmuch as human recognition of interests are concerned, are there no logical reasons for rights?

As I said above, I consider the absence of mental states in plants to be a morally significant dividing line to draw between plants and animals. I really can't say anything more than that on this point, and I have little interest in our going around this circle yet again.
Click to expand...

We come back to the questions of “What is pain?” and “What is suffering?” The dividing line you draw is one I see as aesthetically-founded. You perceive one suffering, and not the other. You sympathize with one suffering, and not the other. You validate one suffering, and not the other. The difference between one and the other is merely a classification based on what we perceive, and what subjective value those perceptions bear. Of course you don’t have much interest in going ‘round the circle again: at the crux of your argument is a very specious claim to knowledge and difficult apathy toward ignorance.

Can I take it that your view is that plants suffering is morally equivalent to animal suffering, and be done with it? Or are you saying that all suffering is only an "aesthetic perception", and is therefore never morally significant? Or what?
Click to expand...

Life is suffering. What I’m saying is that the line you draw is a false construct designed entirely to make those who accept it feel better about themselves, which is a petty reason for any moral assertion, and a terrible, even dangerous foundation for morality. The effects of this particular moral assertion include the eventual evolutionary limitation of the human diet. This is a difficult proposition in general, much less for assertions of morality. That your argument seems to ignore such issues does much to cast your own argument as being purely selfish, and for nothing more than pleasure and greed. I know you’re not an idiot, James. Really. Sincerely. Were you not so emotionally tied up in the morality of vegetarianism, I’m quite sure you would give better consideration to reality.

Like plants, bacteria do not possess mental states. Moreover, in some cases where they are killed they directly threaten our lives. If it's us or them, I vote for us. But that's not the case when it comes to eating meat - 99% of the time, anyway.
Click to expand...

Is it a species bias (killing humans) or a personal bias (killing you) that serves as the compelling reason to exclude bacteria from equal consideration? When you get right down to it, life simply is.

I don't know what you mean by this question. What "fact"? And why should it mean something to me in the current context?
Click to expand...

The fact is that we are humans, and not cows or chickens or apple trees or plague bacteria. Does the fact that you are human mean nothing to you? Your argument seems to undervalue the fact of our humanity. Certainly, if you cast human action as being about greed and selfishness, it makes it easier to argue that eating meat is about nothing more than pure selfish pleasure. But when we consider the fact that we are human, what do our actions mean in that context? Your argument refuses species as mere abstraction. Who knows? Maybe babies do make good food. Nine months’ investment in maybe two meals? Doesn’t make much sense to me. And besides, eating babies is counterintuitive according to the benefit of our species: no future generation means extinction. And to tamper with the nature and context of the fact of our humanity for moral reasons, so that you can feel better about your own place in the grand scheme of life, the Universe, and everything, really does seem silly.

A preference for meat over vegetables is not one of those.
Click to expand...

Not as long as you insist that it’s all about greed and selfishness. You seem to be arguing that our species should have no priority over any other in our regard. Such an argument would be counter-evolutionary.

Yes, but I don't think many people would be willing to make that particular choice. I wouldn't, for one.
Click to expand...

But there’s a moral argument to be had on behalf of making such a choice. Is it a species bias that compels you to reject such a choice, or are you just greedy?

Are these examples of aesthetic considerations, or moral ones?
Click to expand...

I tend to think they would count reasonably as moral considerations, since they pertain to the wellbeing of the human species. Since the “right to life” is simply a human construct, what of the “obligation to exploit collective resources in order to prolong one’s own suffering”?

If species is an abstraction, then it is perfectly consistent to demand moral parity between humans and non-human animals, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Convenient how that works out, eh? Damn those greedy walruses, and those purely selfish salmon.

What gave you the impression that I consider children insignificant
Click to expand...

Oh, comparisons of eating meat to the rape and murder of children? The rejection of species considerations (including reproduction) as abstractions? Comparing the consumption of a live prawn or head of lettuce to a human baby? Just maybe?

Unless you're saying that I should elevate human children to an especially privileged moral level? If that's what you are advocating, then I will need some reasons (see Principle of Equal Consideration, again).
Click to expand...

Well, since you hold species as an abstraction, there is no reason that would make sense to you, at least aside from the purely selfish greed of raising children.

Whether children are important in general terms, or whether my humanity is important to me seem to have no direct relation as to whether I should or should not eat meat. Maybe I'm missing your point again.
Click to expand...

There is no maybe about it, sir. That you are missing the point is quite clear, and has been throughout our discussion.

(Part 2 of this response to follow.)

Tiassa · May 25, 2006

JamesR said:

There is often a price to be paid for acting morally. Protecting the environment is more expensive than simply exploiting it. Paying for food instead of shop lifting incurs higher costs for the individual in the short term. Similarly, if conversion to vegetarianism leads to a human incapacity to eat meat 100000 years from now, that doesn't particularly worry me.
Click to expand...

Because your morals are simply that important to you. Greed? Selfish pleasure? The reason to protect the environment is because in doing so we protect our habitat. The reason for participating in society (e.g. paying for food) is that society is a better condition for the species than wandering the plains in search of our next meal. You know, what you call a species bias.

Given a choice between species bias and megalomaniacal greed, I’ll choose the species bias.

No. There are many wild cattle, even today.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Bison, buffalo, yes. Guernseys? Maybe not.

Not necessarily. But if you could save the calf AND the child, what then? Would it then be immoral NOT to save the calf, in your opinion? Or wouldn't it matter either way? Or would it only matter if the calf was of economic value to you?
Click to expand...

Depends on the risk involved. Risk assessment is important. I will undertake far greater risk for the human child than the calf; that doesn’t mean the calf is SOL, but if abandoning the calf is what the conditional risk assessment demands, fine with me. (I know, our attachment to our own lives is so artificial, so greedy, isn’t it?)

For that matter, what if one chose not to save the child, or the calf or the rat? Would it be immoral to watch the child drown? Would it be immoral to watch the calf drown? Would one be worse than the other? Why?
Click to expand...

The answer, my friend, depends on whether species is an abstraction worth dismissing or not.

No. I addressed Huxley's comments in detail in a later post.
Click to expand...

A dishonest response. You did, after all, reject Huxley as a moral authority. Furthermore, it’s quite clear that your emotional investment in denouncing the selfish pleasures and greed of your fellow human beings limited your comprehension of what Huxley was after. That later address fell quite short. I know you’re smarter than what you came up with.

Nothing you have quoted from me supports your claim that I regard rape as solely about the pleasure of the rapist, so I am correct that this is a straw man. In case there is any residual confusion, my view is that rape is not solely about pleasure.
Click to expand...

Is there any residual confusion that your rape comparisons are stupid?

Scream straw-man all you want while you appeal to emotion and aesthetics. I think it is your emotional demand in this topic, the quest to feel better about yourself, that pushes your argument into such dishonesty.

But my main point in this comparison was not one about pleasure, but about selfish desires taking precedence over competing interests of other people, or animals in the case of meat eating. I don't think I really need to re-emphasize that point.
Click to expand...

It would do much for our perception of both your intelligence and character if you didn’t re-emphasize the point. It’s rather a stupid assertion that doesn’t really qualify as an argumentative point. It is what the cow leaves in the field for us to step in.

Need I say "straw man" again?
Click to expand...

Scream it to the mountains if you want. Maybe the rocks will listen. After all, they lack mental processes, and thus won’t perceive the paucity of your argument.

I doubt you actually believe that morality is nothing more than an individual pecadillo. ... On the other hand, given that moral relativism is the current vogue, especially in the United States, perhaps you do believe that. There's another thread running on absolute vs. relative morality, where we can discuss this if you wish. Suffice it to say that the basis of my position in this thread is not "arbitrary". To the contrary, it is based on a principle which has proven its utility in moral philosophy, as it applies to many situations.
Click to expand...

I have repeated in this topic what I wrote in another topic regarding the nature of morality. Individual peccadillo? You’re not paying attention. I’m not surprised.

And yes, your position is arbitrary until you provide a rational, objective foundation for it. As it is, you might as well be telling me that your argument derives from God’s will.

Huxley's point is simple enough (at least, what I've seen of it). I disagree with his attempted redefinition of "suffering", which I have explained in previous posts.

Your assertion that I only regard as real things I see with the naked eye etc. is not based on anything I have said, and is essentially another straw man.
Click to expand...

Since you have missed the point entirely, perhaps I should tell you to go out back and set fire to your damned straw man?

I don't consider it important in the present context to try to determine "the good of the species". Why? Because I don't believe it is possible to answer what is in the best long-term interests of the human species regarding meat eating. Nor do I think we have to decide. Let's suck it and see. We can always change later, if necessary. It won't be long until we can alter human physiology in any way we want - certainly we'll be able to do that long before we lose the capacity to eat meat due to evolution. But this pie-in-the-sky stuff just isn't important here and now.
Click to expand...

Myopia does nothing to advance your argument.

Suppose vegetarianism ultimately turns out to be "bad for the species". Who knows? But I can say with certainty, here and now, that it will be good for the cattle and sheep and chicken species. It is only because you put humans on a pedestal that only the good of the human species matters to you, regardless of the evils done to other species.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the evils done to other species? What a ridiculous statement. First, good and evil are human inventions; secondly, it is only that my conscience about animals does not satisfy your demand for psychological warm fuzzies that you would even say “regardless of the evils”. Additionally, species may be an abstraction to you, but all that demonstrates is that you ought to spend some time asking a few questions about why life, the Universe, and everything are the way they are. Walrus love … wait’ll they get to snap bracelets.

No. And just because I can't physically lay eggs doesn't mean you shouldn't defend my right to lay eggs if I want to. If I have a deeply felt belief that I should be allowed to lay eggs, then I guess that is as good as actually being able to lay eggs.

Maybe we ought to redefine "egg layers" to include male human beings.

Ok, ignore all this. It's silly, isn't it? But so is the assertion that plants feel pain.
Click to expand...

Work on your condescension, James. That was pretty stupid. As long as you insist that you understand what you do not, of course such an assertion seems stupid to you. I speak English; is someone speaking Arabic “not speaking”? Is my computer “not communicating” when it manipulates electricity?

You're aware, of course, that you've slipped into talking about animal welfare again, as opposed to animal rights. From an animal rights perspective, even "humane killing" is wrong. In fact, "humane killing" in the context of the meat industry is an obvious oxymoron to animal liberationists. That's not to say that cruel killing isn't even worse, of course.
Click to expand...

Stop overstating animal suffering in order to bolster your argument. That was the general point in that portion. I’m not surprised you missed it.

Let me see if I understand this argument. You're saying killing animals for meat is acceptable because it has economic benefits? I don't need to repeat again that moral acceptabity does not follow from economics, do I?
Click to expand...

Nope. You do not understand yet. Human economics are responsible for a good amount of the animal suffering you’re exploiting out of context. Addressing the issue to satisfy your sentimentality toward animals is like putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound. Morphine only numbs the pain of the cancer, and does little to cure the disease.

And "discrimination"? No. We'd be ending the discrimination.
Click to expand...

By making the problems of animals more important than the problems of humans, we’d be ending discrimination?

Whatever you say, since that’s all you hear.

We're obviously on completely different pages here. I have difficulty adjusting my mindset enough to even begin to understand how you justify this kind of reasoning to yourself.
Click to expand...

Then try paying attention to what I’m actually saying instead of trying to figure out how to stoke your sense of righteousness.

I'm well aware of that. Failing to achieve action on animal rights, I fully support action to improve animal welfare. Any positive steps in the right direction are better than nothing.
Click to expand...

Then consider the role of economics instead of confusing yourself.

I'm sure it isn't.

And yes, I'm well aware of oxytocin and it's role in falling in love, and so on.

Again, I'm confused as to your point in bringing these things up.
Click to expand...

You’re the one who finds species such an abstraction that you would explain an organism’s actions by citing its inherent irrationality; given that you do so in order to justify your own irrationality, it’s no wonder you’re confused.

I have never claimed that conscious intent was the explanation of all behaviours. Where are you going with this? Is this just a subtle way of repeating your argument that "My body knows what it needs, and it needs meat!"?
Click to expand...

You’re the one who offered “walrus love” as a response to the fact that species tends toward its perpetuation or else goes extinct.

Damned greedy walruses, right?

My position is that, at its base, people eat meat because they want to. They like the taste. They were brought up in a social environment in which meat eating was acceptable, expected, and often the only offered option. Moreover, they are, on the whole, unaware of the moral implications of their actions in this regard.

So far, so good. But what of people who become aware of the moral issues, and yet continue to eat meat? They know they are doing the wrong thing, and it is at this point that it becomes justifiable to condemn their actions on moral grounds.

Why do people continue to act immorally when they know it is wrong? There is only a limited set of reasons, and those reasons do include selfishness and greed.
Click to expand...

Megalomaniacal presuppositions. When you expect people to be so horrible, that is how you will perceive them. I find such a process rather ridiculous and akin to religious fanaticism. That you assign value to a moral issue does not validate the value you assign. You already know this. Why are you so conveniently forgetting it? Stop letting sentimentality and aesthetics strangle your rational side.

Just as I apparently don't appreciate the "suffering" of plants, it seems you don't appreciate the intelligence of cattle, the art of sheep, and so on. I can only comment that it seems you give a greater level of consideration to beings which are more similar to you, rather than appreciating difference and recognising intrinsic value. And strangely, this seems inconsistent with your argument about plant sentience.
Click to expand...

The “art” of sheep? This I gotta see.

And, by the way, you still don’t understand the argument about plants. I must consider the terms of your comprehension and reformulate my expression of the concept. It is clear that you are either unable or unwilling to understand; I suspect the latter.

Do you consider pet ownership as akin to slave ownership? Or could it be that pet ownership is more akin to the guardianship of a human child?
Click to expand...

Yes, I will weep tears of joy when my cat gets her PhD and takes up a job teaching literature at Harvard.

Pet ownership can be very much like slavery. To the other, though, I recognize that my cat also chooses me, inasmuch as she has had plenty of opportunity to strike out for other environs. Depends on how you feel about animals. Of course, is it cruel for people to try to hold my cat and be nice to her? After all, she freaks out about most people. Her secure relationships are fewer than most cats I’ve known.

Can you see any differences between owning a pet and owning a cow you intend to sell to the butcher? I can. There are some very obvious ones.
Click to expand...

The cow sent to the butcher was specifically intended to be sent to the butcher. My current cat was conceived against the intentions of her mother’s guardian, and for the most part my family’s cats have been strays that chose to hang around. Can’t say many cows have come a-knockin’ on our door.

Fine.

Cows are functionally equal to humans in their capacity to feel pain and to wish their lives to continue and in their desire not to be eaten.

So, will you now regard them as equal in that respect? Or must we wait until they start playing chess, too?
Click to expand...

Cows don’t desire much. You anthropomorphize bovines far too much. Plants are functionally equal to humans inasmuch as they respond to injurious data and do not simply surrender to death. I doubt the cow or the salad are aware that they will be eaten. It’s more about life, and specifically, I think the cow is more readily objecting to its immediate conditions. Presuming that the cow, like Koestler’s unfortunate Rubashov, understands that it is walking to its execution is a persuasive notion, but one that inclines greater reflection on the mysteries of life in general, and not the misfortune of an animal that would not exist were it not for its utility as food.

Sentiment and psychological comfort are no good reasons for a moral assertion that so fundamentally affects the course of human evolution.

James R · May 28, 2006

TW Scott:

You latest post is a mix of petulant childishness and contentless strutting, which seems to be how you are now choosing to conduct yourself as a matter of course in discussion with me. I see little point in descending to your level, so I will restrict myself to responding only to your substantive points. Being few and far between, that will take less of my valuable time.

Let's see...

You have said before you are not quite sure how feed animals are sluaghtered.
Click to expand...

This is a false claim.

So you have this whole image in your mind of what it must be like to die. Have you died? Of course not. Have you spoken to anyone who has? Probably not. How do you know they feel any pain in the slaughter house? You don't, so you imagine what is 'must' be like.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been President of the United States? Does that disqualify you from commenting on the President's decisions?

Have you ever had an abortion? Does that prevent you from commenting on the issue of abortion?

Done.

James R · May 28, 2006

tiassa:

I wish to return to my assessment of your line of argument, and your responses.

1. The choice of whether or not to eat meat is not a moral decision, but an aesthetic one. Whether to eat meat or not to eat meat is not a moral question, but merely one of aesthetics.
Click to expand...

An interesting way of putting it. I would say that the question of the morality of eating meat is an aesthetic one.

Whether or not to eat meat, as a general question could literally be a health issue, a conscience issue, or any question that seems normal or strange. There are a number of animal products I don't eat for textural reasons. I don't eat chorizo for aesthetic reasons.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that it is you, and not me, who is blurring the line between aethetic considerations and moral ones. To me, issues of health and "texture" related to food, are not moral issues at all. Being healthy or unhealthy has no moral implications. Desiring a certain texture or not has no moral implications. Conscience, on the other hand, is inextricably bound with morality.

More on this later.

2. If eating meat is a moral question after all, then the "human endeavor" ought to take precedence over any potential animal rights, whenever there is a conflict.
Click to expand...

The human endeavor takes precedence, period.
Click to expand...

Well, you can't get much clearer than that.

My argument is that this view is a logically unsustainable double-standard, since it ignores basic rights. More on that later, too.

"According to the Principle of Equal Consideration ...." You might as well tell me it's according to God.
Click to expand...

I plan to discuss the Principle of Equal Consideration as a basic right below. My position on this is that, without the principle, virtually ALL other so-called rights become meaningless. Since you accept that human beings have a set of complex rights, then if you are to be consistent in your moral views you are forced to accept the Principle of Equal Consideration. And once that is established, you are logically forced to accept that animal rights follow.

But more on that later.

3. Making moral decisions to alter human behaviour interferes with "nature's plan" (whatever that is), and therefore should never be done.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that's just stupid.
...
"Interfering with nature's plan," as you put it, should only be done for very good reasons.
Click to expand...

Your first response is "that's stupid", but only slightly later you basically affirm that this is your argument. Here's what you said in between:

Look, it's real simple: morals are shaky assertions to begin with. So few are anchored to any objective reality. It is my opinion that morals without foundations in objective reality are invalid. Remember that bit I've repeated a few times from the topic about whether having morals is moral?

The morality of having morals, aside from being a paradoxical question, can be determined by the objective foundation, the functional result, and the fundamental simplicity of the morals asserted.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

For interest, could you list some of the morals (if any) that you consider to have "foundations in objective reality"? Because it seems to me that your view leaves little leeway for the existence of ANY valid ethical precepts.

Returning to the passage you keep requoting, I repeat that the Principle of Equal Consideration has an objective foundation, functional results if it is applied as it should be, and it has fundamental simplicity in that it is a prerequisite to any logically consistent system of workable morals. But more on that later...

4. Plants suffer just as much as animals, so an argument for animal rights is equally an argument for plant rights, and therefore vegetarians hold a double standard in that they eat plants but not animals, despite the fact that plants suffer.
Click to expand...

It's not that there's no moral issue to be discussed here. I find the notion of species-wide moral vegetarianism morally problematic. Have you any idea how many cows and pigs and ducks and fish and dogs and cats and snails and rats have died so that humanity could reach such heights that we could sit here talking about the Principle of Equal Consideration vs. the human species? There are so many ways to improve humanity in general and help the animals if we look at this according to the nearest facts of objective foundation: either you believe the Universe exists or maybe you don't. Life is. Okay? Life. "Life." As in, "Everything that lives". Life, the universal miracle or symptom, take your choice, simply is.

We humans can dwell on that fact. We can wonder and inquire as to why we're here, and whether good and evil actually exist. We invent religions and wars to define things. Why are we here? Does that make the salmon better than us because they've already figured out the answer to that question, and live and die by it?

"Morals" are generally shaky assertions for lack of objective root.

Not only do you identify the issue wrongly (perhaps you didn't read that part; after all, it was in a post to Zion), but your conclusion is skewed even if your assessment of the issue was correct in the first place.
Click to expand...

Here, you say that there is no moral issue to be discussed at all. I presume this is tied up with your views on "the aethetics or morals". But to me, it just looks like you're dodging the question. Or returning to your meta-ethical point about the lack of objective roots for any kind of morality. As I said before, I will address this question in a later post.

What follows from this point is a response to the remainder of the particular post which contains the material quoted from you above. Excuse me if I do not address the central points you make in detail here, since I wish to postpone that for a later post, as noted above. That will allow me to structure my response in a way that is somewhat less haphazard-looking, which hopefully will mean my main points are not submerged by side issues.

Life is suffering. Did that ever occur to you? It's as valid as God or the Principle of Equal Consideration.
Click to expand...

In ethics, we talk about what ought to be, and that does not automatically follow from what is.

Plants are alive and respond to stimuli. When damaged, they respond. An apple wasn't made for us to eat, was it?
Click to expand...

It is interesting that you raise this point. In fact, apples are made for us to eat.

Fruit-bearing trees bear fruit in order to propagate their seeds. An apple is made to be attractive to birds and insects, which the tree uses to disperse its seeds far and wide. It is no accident that humans like the taste of apples. They are "meant" to be tasty.

Also, it is interesting to note that apple trees freely sacrifice their apples. They suffer no long-term harm in creating apples. Pluck and apple from a tree and a new one will grow. Compare killing a cow. The cow does not lay down its life willingly, and new cows don't grow when they are "plucked".

You overstate the suffering of animals: we agree that certain techniques for raising and harvesting livestock are barbaric, but at least the poor animal is unconscious when it is killed. Giving animals proper consideration as your Principle asserts, most animals would live hard and be afraid, anyway. That I won't allow one of my friends to be killed in my presence without making some effort on their behalf: does this mean I ought go out and interfere in nature? You know, take the ant from the chimpanzee? What about those loving walruses? Ought we not protect them? Offer them birth control and resource-management systems? Fight for their every birth? What is the compelling reason not to?
Click to expand...

The fact of killing our meat animals is wrong. The question of suffering, as I have said before, is a separate one.

As for interfering in nature, taking the ant from the chimp and so on, the Principle of Equal Consideration does not demand that we interfere in interactions in which humans play no role. We are concerned with how we, as human beings, act towards other creatures, not how other creatures act amongst themselves. Let's order our own house first.

You are an animal. You can sympathize with the cow. You do not sympathize with the plant. The cow's suffering must be horrible, you believe. The plant, or so it seems of your assertion, is a numb and null existence. That last is the aesthetic issue.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that plants are conscious in any way. That makes all the difference in the current context.

Your lack of sympathy with life's diversity is an artificial construction of your own. Mere abstraction.
Click to expand...

I have covered this before. If I am supposed to assign consciousness to a plant, then I am forced, by your argument, to also assign it to rocks and thermostats. The absurdity of such a view is plain, is it not?

Ah, yes. Disquailfy the plant because it operates differently than what you can sympathize with.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of sympathy. It is an objective fact that plants are not conscious. If you wish to assert otherwise, then at least try to provide some scientific evidence to support your assertion.

You know, you're so worried about your morality. It's not that you're immoral for conscience-vegetarianism. Rather, it's that you're human. The fact of plants responding to stimuli does not make a vegetarian immoral. Rather, it reminds that moral assertions are extremely delicate, problematic, and limited notions.
Click to expand...

I wonder: can you, tiassa, separate meta-ethical issues from ethical issues?

If you truly see all morality as "problematic and limited" then it seems to me that there's nothing to discuss in the current forum until you have sorted out for yourself whether you think any moral precept at all is legitimate. Perhaps we need to confront that more directly in a separate thread, and only then return to the issue of this thread. What do you think?

Log in or Sign up

Is eating meat morally wrong

Rick ॐ Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Joaquin Sleuth Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Rick ॐ Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

draqon Banned Banned

TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Is eating meat morally wrong

Rick ॐ Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Joaquin Sleuth Registered Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Rick ॐ Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

draqon Banned Banned

TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches