Abortion - My own thoughts - such as they are

[jimboston]

If you want to state a radical position... like "It's OK to kill perfectly healthy infants, so long you don't waste State money in the process." Then I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to try to extrapolate that statement so I can understand exactly what you mean and where you stand.

... and please don't try to tell me that's not a radical position.

I would agree that my original position is not a commonly held one, although you are still misrepresenting it a little.

Just a little... I agree.

[jimboston]

Is it therefore ethical for me to kill my boss in order to take his place, because that's the way things go in the wild?

There are cases where that is the ethical move.

If only German Generals got together and killed Hilter!

... in terms of animals doing this. Yes they are responding to their biological imperatives; and that response serves the species by ensuring the "best" genes are reproduced.

... in terms of humans. We evolved to live in groups; and thus our biological imperatives don't demand we kill our leaders. We only collectively want to kill our leaders when they do bad jobs, and put the group in jeopardy. In those cases it is ethical to kill a leader. Additionally, we have evolved to a place where many males in a group have access and ability to reproduce; i.e. reproduction is not limited to a single alpha-male in a group. This eliminates the biological imperative to kill your leader and assume the alpha-male role.

Perhaps we will evolve to a place where we no longer eat meat. This WILL NOT happen because a few fruitcakes think killing cows is bad. If it happens it will happen slowly over many many generations. First meat will become expensive to produce; and the amount of meat in a diet will decrease. Slowly over time it may be eliminated. This might happen quickly on an "evolutionary scale", but we're still talking thousands of years. It will happen because of environmental pressures... environmental pressures are responsible for all evolution. It will not happen because of social pressures.

[mrswdk]

... in terms of animals doing this. Yes they are responding to their biological imperatives; and that response serves the species by ensuring the "best" genes are reproduced.

... in terms of humans. We evolved to live in groups; and thus our biological imperatives don't demand we kill our leaders.

lolwut? Haven't the vast majority of animals also evolved to live in groups?

We only collectively want to kill our leaders when they do bad jobs, and put the group in jeopardy. In those cases it is ethical to kill a leader.

>suggests I would condone the killing of unproductive members of society and acts outraged at the very thought, supports killing leaders who do a bad job

[jimboston]

... in terms of animals doing this. Yes they are responding to their biological imperatives; and that response serves the species by ensuring the "best" genes are reproduced.

... in terms of humans. We evolved to live in groups; and thus our biological imperatives don't demand we kill our leaders.

lolwut? Haven't the vast majority of animals also evolved to live in groups?

No. Many animals do not live in groups, and of those that do live in groups, many have evolved where the dominant alpha-male is the only male with access to reproduction. This is the driving factor. You neatly cut this part of my comment out.

Reproduction for humans is not limited to a single alpha-male per group. The driving force for "killing your boss/leader" in the animal kingdom is to enhance your reproductive opportunities. Since pre-history we had already evolved away from that means of controlling reproduction to a more diverse and more spread out method.

We only collectively want to kill our leaders when they do bad jobs, and put the group in jeopardy. In those cases it is ethical to kill a leader.

>suggests I would condone the killing of unproductive members of society and acts outraged at the very thought, supports killing leaders who do a bad job

1) I never acted outraged. It might be a good idea. I was simply trying to understand your position.
2) Unproductive members of society a like pin pricks, annoying but not deadly. Bad leadership, on the scale of a Hilter or even 3rd World Dictator... they can cause a lot more harm than a couple junkies.

[Metsfanmax]

Are you opposed to eating animals because killing is wrong... OR... is it because the current method of mass-producing animals for consumption in the modern world is cruel? Or are you opposed to it for both reasons?

I am opposed it for both reasons, but it depends on the situation which of the two (or both) apply. When it comes to animals that I think have at least some level of self-awareness, it is wrong to kill them and wrong to be cruel to them. When it comes to animals that have no sense of self and only live moment to moment (like, say, probably many reptiles), then it is wrong to be cruel but not inherently wrong to kill them.

So nature is unethical?

Ethics doesn't apply to beings without the capacity to reason about what is right. You and I do have this reasoning capacity, therefore we should be bound by ethics. Small children do not, so we do not hold them responsible for their actions.

In fact it is precisely for this reason that we can learn very little about how to act ethically by observing nature. That is why you shouldn't be making arguments of the form "X happens in nature, therefore humans are morally permitted to do X." Your argument is akin to saying that because children in the sandbox are often cruel to each other, that's the natural state of human affairs and it is OK for us adult humans to be cruel to each other. In fact, that's how humans were for most of their development, they acted like children their whole lives, and it is only a fairly recent development (in evolutionary terms) that cruelty towards others outside our immediate group was recognized to be morally wrong. This was a pleasant advancement, let's not abandon it now.

God/Supreme Being/Universal Karma has let/helped/guided us on our evolution... and now after millions of years "telling" us (by providing a biological imperative) to eat meat... we now have reached a stage where eating meat in unethical?

(Unless you don't believe in evolution... then that's another debate, that I can't have with you... as anyone who denies evolution is simply an idiot.)

If you understand evolution then you should recognize that there is no guiding, there is no point. Evolution did not tell us to do anything. Evolution is the result of blind processes. So there is nothing to learn about how to be ethical from observing that evolution occurred.

I mean, obviously if you do think that some being was guiding evolution, you would disagree with that. But anyone who believes that is simply an idiot, and is profoundly misinformed about the way evolution proceeded.

If an entity reacts to pain stimuli, then it's reacting to pain.

What is a pain stimulus? I'm not going to proceed with this discussion until you define that.

I am simply pointing out the fact that plants are living entities. If it's wrong to kill animals to eat; why then is it not wrong to kill plants? How are the life experiences of animals any different than the life experiences of plants? There's NO FUCKING WAY that you could know. You can speculate... that's all.

How do I know how you feel? Is there ANY FUCKING WAY that I can understand what your life experiences are? If not, is it OK for me to just kill you since I don't understand?

No, of course not. There's a lot more than mere speculation going on. There is intelligent reasoning, that because you am biologically similar to me, you probably have a similar reaction to pain as I do. The argument for respecting animal welfare proceeds along similar lines. I don't need to live the experiences of you or anyone else in order to conclude that I should be respecting your right to be left alone.

3) You know killing animals to eat is "wrong"?

You are thinking about this the wrong way. When I said that I see something wrong, what I was referring to is the fact that an advanced industrial nation like the US centers a vast majority of its food supply around the concept of breeding and animals for food. The entire massive system is wrong.

We can also have a discussion about the individual ethics of eating meat. I would say that for the vast majority people in advanced industrial nations like ours, it is wrong to eat meat if you can avoid doing so without incurring a truly substantial decrease in your quality of life. But note that my indictment of the latter stands regardless of individual circumstances. For example, you might imagine some hypothetical person somewhere in the US for whom meat is cheaper than plants on a regular basis, and who is poor enough that it would really hit them hard financially to stop eating meat. If such a situation exists, I would blame that on the fact that we invest massive amounts of resources in the inefficient animal agriculture system. If we put all that economic power into plant-based foods, I really doubt that situation would occur.

[jimboston]

Are you opposed to eating animals because killing is wrong... OR... is it because the current method of mass-producing animals for consumption in the modern world is cruel? Or are you opposed to it for both reasons?

I am opposed it for both reasons, but it depends on the situation which of the two (or both) apply. When it comes to animals that I think have at least some level of self-awareness, it is wrong to kill them and wrong to be cruel to them. When it comes to animals that have no sense of self and only live moment to moment (like, say, probably many reptiles), then it is wrong to be cruel but not inherently wrong to kill them.

So what about controlled hunts authorized by the State for animal population control?

Are these unethical?

Example, around here there are areas where deer hunting was illegal. Now deer populations have grown to the point where they are destroying their own habitat. Other natural hunters, like wolves, don't exist in large enough numbers to cull the population. If we do nothing, they will destroy their habitat and put the whole population at risk.

Are hunters who participate in these types of hunts being unethical? Why or why not?

[jimboston]

... it is wrong to eat meat if you can avoid doing so without incurring a truly substantial decrease in your quality of life.

I really really really enjoy me a nice ribeye.

I believe that my quality of life would decrease if I couldn't enjoy that once in awhile.

While I'm at it I like a nice steak & cheese sub too. Not at the same time mind you... just I also like steak i& cheese. Sausages are good too. As is bacon.

Now that I think about it... I can't imagine living without these things.

Having them taken from me would definitely have a severe impact on my quality of life.

Thanks for giving me your approval to eat meat.

But note that my indictment of the latter stands regardless of individual circumstances. For example, you might imagine some hypothetical person somewhere in the US for whom meat is cheaper than plants on a regular basis, and who is poor enough that it would really hit them hard financially to stop eating meat. If such a situation exists, I would blame that on the fact that we invest massive amounts of resources in the inefficient animal agriculture system. If we put all that economic power into plant-based foods, I really doubt that situation would occur.

Still didn't address the Inuit population. That's the only native population I know of (or that immediately comes to mind) when I think of a population that really lives off animals. I'm sure there are many others. No change in our agricultural system will help them. So are they unethical or no?

[Metsfanmax]

So what about controlled hunts authorized by the State for animal population control?

Are these unethical?

Population ethics is hard. The answer to this question depends strongly on whether you think utilitarianism means that we should be creating as much pleasure as possible, i.e. that the more happy lives there are, the better. I don't really subscribe to that philosophy; for me, the important part is that those who are alive are living lives as free from suffering as possible.

So there is a sense in which, if the population control is done with the welfare of the animals being hunted in mind, a utilitarian would approve of it.

On the other hand, I think it is important to view a lot of ethical questions about self-aware animals through the lens of: would you do this to a human? If not, you probably shouldn't do it to any other self-aware being. The biologically dividing line of species is not a morally relevant dividing line.

Those two lenses might give conflicting answers in a lot of cases. As expected, because our moral intuitions are often a confused morass. Consequently, I don't have a clean answer for you in general. I'll say that I think at least in some cases this could be an ethically responsible thing to do, but I'm not going to endorse it in general.

I believe that my quality of life would decrease if I couldn't enjoy that once in awhile.

The general rule of thumb for this sort of thing is: who gets the worse end of the bargain? Your quality of life might decrease a bit by not getting to eat foods you like. On the other hand, the quality of life of the cow decreases a lot by being raised for food and then eaten. Even if I think that a given amount of pain is more important if you feel it than if the cow feels it, the cow feels a much higher level of pain, making it unethical.

Still didn't address the Inuit population. That's the only native population I know of (or that immediately comes to mind) when I think of a population that really lives off animals. I'm sure there are many others. No change in our agricultural system will help them. So are they unethical or no?

I think there's a good argument to be made that they are not acting unethically. I haven't thought about it very carefully, since I don't live near any Inuits and don't have much hope of changing their behavior. I'm going to continue to not think about it very carefully, because it's a distraction from the current issue.

[thegreekdog]

Aw, you're no fun. You're basing your argument for abortion on state costs and then refuse to discuss anything having to do with state costs. I'm not even trying to get into a debate about whether abortion is murder. I just want to talk about whether it makes a difference to your point of view if certain other things were factual. Would your views change if we only aborted poor people's babies? Would your views change if the state didn't have to invest a significant (or any) money?

If the state didn't have to invest any money then yes, that would be different.

Who is the 'we' aborting poor people's babies? Are you talking about some sort of euthanasia/eugenics? I don't see what gain would be made be engaging in such practices.

Really? You typed at multiple points in this thread that the costs to the state are a good reason to legalize abortion. If it can be proven that poor people have babies that end up being poor more often than not, and if it can be proven that poor people are a net cost to the state, why wouldn't your argument extend to that area as well?

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, the law has nothing to do with this. Cows are not sentient, by definition.

You seem to be quite confused about the definitions both of "sentient" and of "self-aware." Please educate yourself on what these terms mean before continuing in this discussion.

Sorry, but no. I am not confused. I do realize some people want to change the definitions, though.
Here is from Websters, since the study of animals being my field doesn't seem to matter to you:

full Definition of SENTIENT
1
: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>
2
: aware
3
: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

but I am not going to get into a word discussion. I fully recognize that the PETA-ites want to claim the right to change the definition based on their beliefs and not science. I object, which is why I corrected you. If you want to discuss why I draw the distinction, fine.. but probably ought to be in another thread.[/quote]

]And, let me ask you this. Which kills in a more human way? A traditional (read not factory farm) farmer raising beef for sale and product or the new "eco-friendly" solar powered housing development? Chances are are more animals are killed, and not just the individuals, but the entire progeny line , the entire community, sometimes the entire population are killed by new developments. Farming done traditionally means working with nature (to some extent), treating animals well, caring for them.

We can get utilitarian if you like, but you haven't thought it through very carefully. Other than the initial ethical harm of killing the initial population, if there is one, I don't have an a priori problem with things like eliminating populations or even entire species (aside from their potential effects from the perspective of biodiversity loss). To me, what counts is suffering. And there's a lot of suffering of animals in the wild. By reducing the amount of land there is for wildlife, I think that on balance we could very well be doing a net good thing in terms of reducing suffering in the long run.

OH please, I have been in enough debates to know my way around this and no... you don't get a win. See, the problem is you want to set up a world where people live in one world, essentially apart from the animals and plants that exist in imagined "pristine" parks (in the biologic sense, not referring to cleanliness). The problems are multitudinal, but the basics are that I do and have grown up with animals always a part of my life, not just something I observe from afar. This is true of most real "country" folk, though I realize the stereotype is often something else. And, yes, the "city" "ecofriendly", lecturers more often than not really are harming the world and environment far more than most "country" folk.

Of course, I am not certain of this analysis; it's very complicated. The point is, no one is, including you.

Wrong. I actually do know more than a tad about this

On the other hand, I can at least stop engaging in the harms I am certain I am engaging in, and then as society becomes more educated on the harms of various agricultural and industrial practices, work to stop engaging in the harms we then recognize we are engaging in.

If you want to engage is stopping harm, then buy from small, LOCAL producers, including meat producers, reduce your energy consumption and pay attention to where everything you buy originates, including how it is produces, not just the cost or whether you bought it at the local co-op versus a more traditional store.

Or.. to put it another way, it was hunters that created the wonderful wildlife refuge system here in the US, its farmers that have preserved most of the small microhabitat sections and unique areas bought by the nature conservancies. (National Parks are a tad different, they are living museums)

Why are those things wonderful? Because it feels good to humans that we did it, or because it's actually good for the wildlife living there?

Because without them, we would not have many types of wildlife.

Sorry, but you waded into a discussion I actually do know quite a bit about. I have to head off to work right now, but I can tackle more of this later if you wish to do so. Again, though, it really does not belong in a thread about abortion. (though yes, I get your initial point.. don't agree, find it repugnant, in fact, but I do get it).

[Metsfanmax]

Here is from Websters, since the study of animals being my field doesn't seem to matter to you:

Simply put, sentient means having the ability to have subjective experience. Feeling pain, for example, is an example of sentience. So you have said that cows do not have the ability to feel pain. If you know anything about animals, you will recognize that this is patently false. And if you know anything about scientific study of animals, you will recognize that this is patently false. I agree that a debate about words isn't important, I just want to make sure you agree that the Descartes view of animals as automata is flat out wrong. I assume you do agree.

See, the problem is you want to set up a world where people live in one world, essentially apart from the animals and plants that exist in imagined "pristine" parks (in the biologic sense, not referring to cleanliness).

Why do you think that I believe that? I don't believe that. The bonds between humans and animals can be wonderful. What I advocate is that animals have moral relevance and should be treated accordingly. That doesn't mean the proper response is to stop interacting with them at all; in fact, I think it's the reverse of that. We should be good stewards. Part of being good stewards is not murdering who you're trying to protect just because you like the taste of their flesh.

In fact this response sounds literally absurd because in the previous post you were arguing that it's a great thing that people are setting up nature reserves for animals to live in, free from human intervention, and now you're criticizing me for the perceived argument that animals should be free from human intervention? What the f*ck are you actually even advocating?

Incidentally, I think that many animals are people. It is not only humans that count as people.

[Symmetry]

Player, have you read much stuff regarding ecotheology? I had an interesting discussion with a Jesuit about it a while ago, but I've lost my notes. He recommended some writers, but I can't recall any of them.

[jimboston]

So what about controlled hunts authorized by the State for animal population control?

Are these unethical?

Population ethics is hard. The answer to this question depends strongly on whether you think utilitarianism means that we should be creating as much pleasure as possible, i.e. that the more happy lives there are, the better. I don't really subscribe to that philosophy; for me, the important part is that those who are alive are living lives as free from suffering as possible.

So there is a sense in which, if the population control is done with the welfare of the animals being hunted in mind, a utilitarian would approve of it.

On the other hand, I think it is important to view a lot of ethical questions about self-aware animals through the lens of: would you do this to a human? If not, you probably shouldn't do it to any other self-aware being. The biologically dividing line of species is not a morally relevant dividing line.

Those two lenses might give conflicting answers in a lot of cases. As expected, because our moral intuitions are often a confused morass. Consequently, I don't have a clean answer for you in general. I'll say that I think at least in some cases this could be an ethically responsible thing to do, but I'm not going to endorse it in general.

So... ummm... ah... wait... I don't know.

OK.

... and truthfully it's fine.

I appreciate your position. I completely disagree, but I appreciate the thought you put into it... and even more the fact that you're not a righteous ass like mrswdk.

I also appreciate that not all issues are yes/no.

I think we are fundamentally divided along these lines... you believe that we should view "ethical questions about self-aware animals through the lens of: would you do this to a human? If not, you probably shouldn't do it to any other self-aware being. The biologically dividing line of species is not a morally relevant dividing line."

I have a few problems with this statement, and I'm not going to agree because...

1) I don't think self-awareness is a yes/no thing. I think there are degrees of self-awareness. So even plants have some sentience, but not enough for us to care about their "feelings". Fish maybe more, animals maybe more. Some animals are so "aware" that it makes us (generally, though not totally) squeamish to consider them food. Others seem oblivious and are happy eating and shitting. I just don't think they are "aware" to a degree necessary for me to care if they live or die.

2) One could argue that it's about the species, and not even the individual animal. From the species point of view, you could argue they evolved to become livestock and that was an evolutionary advantage. That because they were a food source for humans, their species was destined to continue. That essential their species has "ridden our coat-tails" from an evolutionary perspective. You could take it to the next level. If we no longer cared about cows as a food source... wouldn't their species go extinct? Isn't that more unethical?

Shit, even within the human species... some of us are more self-aware than others.
Others here have argued that lack-of self-awareness in mentally ill patients is a valid reason for infanticide. I disagree with that extreme, but you have to admit we do treat people differently based on their mental capacity.

3) I just don't agree that "The biologically dividing line of species is not a morally relevant dividing line." I think it is completely morally relevant.
-> For example, I think it's perfectly fine to use animals as domestic pets or working animals. I don't think it's fine to do this with humans... that would be called slavery.
-> Another example, I think I have a duty to my pet dog to provide him with food, shelter, and basic healthcare. I don't think that duty is equivalent to the duty I have to provide these same needs to my children. I would mortgage my house to get the best medical care for my kids; I would not do the same for my dog; though I may (and have) spent thousands of dollars at the vet, I can't be expected to not factor in cost when looking at his healthcare needs.

4) I like the taste of meat. I'm just not willing to give this up.

I believe that my quality of life would decrease if I couldn't enjoy that once in awhile.

The general rule of thumb for this sort of thing is: who gets the worse end of the bargain? Your quality of life might decrease a bit by not getting to eat foods you like. On the other hand, the quality of life of the cow decreases a lot by being raised for food and then eaten. Even if I think that a given amount of pain is more important if you feel it than if the cow feels it, the cow feels a much higher level of pain, making it unethical.[/quote}

That "rule of thumb" you state is only applicable if you value the two lives equally. I do not.

My life (to me) is priceless. The cow's life (to me) is worth some monetary figure based on market fluctuations, quality of cut, and sometimes preparation.

Still didn't address the Inuit population. That's the only native population I know of (or that immediately comes to mind) when I think of a population that really lives off animals. I'm sure there are many others. No change in our agricultural system will help them. So are they unethical or no?

I think there's a good argument to be made that they are not acting unethically. I haven't thought about it very carefully, since I don't live near any Inuits and don't have much hope of changing their behavior. I'm going to continue to not think about it very carefully, because it's a distraction from the current issue.

It's no distraction... it's a valid counter-point.

You refuse to think about it, because it creates a problem that can't be solved by your stated ethical system.

[Symmetry]

If God didn't want us to eat animals he wouldn't have made them out of food.

[Metsfanmax]

1) I don't think self-awareness is a yes/no thing. I think there are degrees of self-awareness. So even plants have some sentience, but not enough for us to care about their "feelings". Fish maybe more, animals maybe more. Some animals are so "aware" that it makes us (generally, though not totally) squeamish to consider them food. Others seem oblivious and are happy eating and shitting. I just don't think they are "aware" to a degree necessary for me to care if they live or die.

What is the level of self-awareness necessary for you to care? Do chimpanzees have it? Does a one-year-old human have it? Does a dog? What about a human in a permanent coma?

Pigs are pretty much universally regarded as being more intelligent than dogs on average, so if it makes you squeamish to eat a dog because of how aware it is, shouldn't bacon make you even more squeamish?

2) One could argue that it's about the species, and not even the individual animal. From the species point of view, you could argue they evolved to become livestock and that was an evolutionary advantage. That because they were a food source for humans, their species was destined to continue. That essential their species has "ridden our coat-tails" from an evolutionary perspective. You could take it to the next level. If we no longer cared about cows as a food source... wouldn't their species go extinct? Isn't that more unethical?

I don't think cows would become extinct if we stopped growing them for food. However, even if they did: no, it's not unethical to "let a species go extinct" purely on its own merits. What matters is the pain or pleasure of individual beings, not whether "the species" (which is just an abstract concept) exists.

Shit, even within the human species... some of us are more self-aware than others.

Yes, which is precisely why species-based discrimination is a bad idea. You don't treat someone based on an arbitrary group they belong to -- that's the fuel for racism and sexism. You treat them as an individual. And an individual pig is capable of suffering, which makes it morally relevant.

Some people in the past (and some today, still) argued that black people were inferior and really belong to a subhuman race. That is the same type of thinking most people now use towards animals -- because of the group they "belong to," they are denied any possibility of rights, rather than being treated as an individual deserving of the same rights as you or I.

Others here have argued that lack-of self-awareness in mentally ill patients is a valid reason for infanticide. I disagree with that extreme, but you have to admit we do treat people differently based on their mental capacity.

There are certain ways we do treat people differently based on mental capacity (and rightly so). For example, children do not receive the same rights that adults do. However, there are certain properties that are independent of how intelligent you are -- children and adults both feel pain in more or less the same way, and both deserving of being free from pain. Your argument is tantamount to saying that it's more wrong to hit an adult than to hit a child, because the child is less intelligent. This is wrong because your intelligence has essentially nothing to do with the fact that you don't want to be hit.

That "rule of thumb" you state is only applicable if you value the two lives equally. I do not.

OK, then consider it to be some stranger who you don't know and don't personally care about. That's how you're supposed to make ethical decisions, it is the principle of universalizability. Or, said another way, the golden rule. An action doesn't become acceptable just because it's not you that it's happening to.

[jimboston]

blah, blah, blah

I tried to end this debate politely. I do appreciate your position, but there's NO WAY we are going to agree.
So let's agree to disagree.

Pigs are pretty much universally regarded as being more intelligent than dogs on average, so if it makes you squeamish to eat a dog because of how aware it is, shouldn't bacon make you even more squeamish?

No. Bacon is delicious.

I wouldn't necessarily say no to dog meat. I know it is eaten in other parts of the world.

I might be squeamish eating animals I owned as pets... but also maybe not. I assume people on farms get to know the piglets and such. I don't imagine I would give up on Baby Back Ribs because I had a friend like Arnold from Green Acres.

Watch Arnold test his Civil Rights, circa 1967/1968...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTEcL7bw6U4

One could argue that it's about the species, and not even the individual animal. From the species point of view, you could argue they evolved to become livestock and that was an evolutionary advantage. That because they were a food source for humans, their species was destined to continue. That essential their species has "ridden our coat-tails" from an evolutionary perspective. You could take it to the next level. If we no longer cared about cows as a food source... wouldn't their species go extinct? Isn't that more unethical?

I don't think cows would become extinct if we stopped growing them for food. However, even if they did: no, it's not unethical to "let a species go extinct" purely on its own merits. What matters is the pain or pleasure of individual beings, not whether "the species" (which is just an abstract concept) exists.

So the word "species" describes and abstract concept? Ethic's isn't an abstract concept?

Maybe "species" is an abstract concept... only of biology is an abstract concept... which is true if physics is an abstract concept... which would mean the universe is an abstract concept... and we are just living in a simulation. So none of this matters anyway. Which means it's OK to eat meat.

That "rule of thumb" you state is only applicable if you value the two lives equally. I do not.

OK, then consider it to be some stranger who you don't know and don't personally care about. That's how you're supposed to make ethical decisions, it is the principle of universalizability. Or, said another way, the golden rule. An action doesn't become acceptable just because it's not you that it's happening to.

Again... you are asking me to equate the life of an animal with the life of a human. I won't. I value human life greater than animal life. Sorry.

[PLAYER57832]

I mean, obviously if you do think that some being was guiding evolution, you would disagree with that. But anyone who believes that is simply an idiot, and is profoundly misinformed about the way evolution proceeded.

Metsfanmax, if you wish to speak of science, please stick to science! Although a lot of people like to claim that evolution necessarily means no God, no direction, no plan, that is not science, it is an opinion about events science has discovered/studied.

As a point in fact, many scientists have come to God through the study of science and evolution, because the more you study, the more you begin to see that there are very much patterns. You can say they came about from "pure" happenstance, whatever that means (definitely NOT purely random, in the mathematical sense, though!). A Christian would say that evolution is the tool God used to biologically bring about everything, including humanity (though Christians believe that to be human involves more than just physical "biology" -- the spirit absolutely and directly involved God).

[Metsfanmax]

I mean, obviously if you do think that some being was guiding evolution, you would disagree with that. But anyone who believes that is simply an idiot, and is profoundly misinformed about the way evolution proceeded.

Metsfanmax, if you wish to speak of science, please stick to science! Although a lot of people like to claim that evolution necessarily means no God, no direction, no plan, that is not science, it is an opinion about events science has discovered/studied.

As a point in fact, many scientists have come to God through the study of science and evolution, because the more you study, the more you begin to see that there are very much patterns. You can say they came about from "pure" happenstance, whatever that means (definitely NOT purely random, in the mathematical sense, though!). A Christian would say that evolution is the tool God used to biologically bring about everything, including humanity (though Christians believe that to be human involves more than just physical "biology" -- the spirit absolutely and directly involved God).

I am the one sticking to science, by saying that nothing about evolution requires an explanation regarding a higher power. (Note that I didn't say that the very fact that evolution occurred means that there is no God; if you think that's what I said, read the fucking post carefully next time.) You're the one injecting religion into science; kindly refrain in the future.

[jimboston]

I am the one sticking to science, by saying that nothing about evolution requires an explanation regarding a higher power. (Note that I didn't say that the very fact that evolution occurred means that there is no God; if you think that's what I said, read the fucking post carefully next time.) You're the one injecting religion into science; kindly refrain in the future.

Religion is science and nothing means everything.

... or not.

[tzor]

Religion is science and nothing means everything.

Precisely!

Of course I'm not going there. The two notions require whole books to explain. I particularly love the argument that 0 = ∞

[tzor]

I am the one sticking to science, by saying that nothing about evolution requires an explanation regarding a higher power.

That is because "evolution" is so crafted (and so limited to the actual problem of life as we know it) as to be somewhat intuitive to the casual observer.

Unfortunately, the real problem is before evolution, specifically biogenesis.

It's pretty much saying that gravity is a no brainer, until you get down to the quantum level and you need to expand the standard model to actually account for it. And then the FUN begins.

[Metsfanmax]

I am the one sticking to science, by saying that nothing about evolution requires an explanation regarding a higher power.

That is because "evolution" is so crafted (and so limited to the actual problem of life as we know it) as to be somewhat intuitive to the casual observer.

Unfortunately, the real problem is before evolution, specifically biogenesis.

It's pretty much saying that gravity is a no brainer, until you get down to the quantum level and you need to expand the standard model to actually account for it. And then the FUN begins.

Yes, there is some fun there. Unfortunately, when it comes to biogenesis, the religious people decided to pass on all the fun and just declare the game over before it began.

[tzor]

Yes, there is some fun there. Unfortunately, when it comes to biogenesis, the religious people decided to pass on all the fun and just declare the game over before it began.

Well let's be clear, not "religious" people but fundamentalists who insist on a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. Ignoring for the moment that the story is not linear but hierarchical, the actual beginning of the beginning describes a world that is already in existence, already with a primitive ocean and no land masses.

[Symmetry]

I am the one sticking to science, by saying that nothing about evolution requires an explanation regarding a higher power.

That is because "evolution" is so crafted (and so limited to the actual problem of life as we know it) as to be somewhat intuitive to the casual observer.

Unfortunately, the real problem is before evolution, specifically biogenesis.

It's pretty much saying that gravity is a no brainer, until you get down to the quantum level and you need to expand the standard model to actually account for it. And then the FUN begins.

Out of interest, have you read many books on evolutionary theory? I just tend to find that opponents of evolution tend not to have read the things they oppose.

[Symmetry]

I am the one sticking to science, by saying that nothing about evolution requires an explanation regarding a higher power.

That is because "evolution" is so crafted (and so limited to the actual problem of life as we know it) as to be somewhat intuitive to the casual observer.

Unfortunately, the real problem is before evolution, specifically biogenesis.

It's pretty much saying that gravity is a no brainer, until you get down to the quantum level and you need to expand the standard model to actually account for it. And then the FUN begins.

Yes, there is some fun there. Unfortunately, when it comes to biogenesis, the religious people decided to pass on all the fun and just declare the game over before it began.

God of the gaps folk are tiresome. You can't win.