the moral hand and veganism

[username18333]

For me, it comes down to mind over matter:  If you don't mind, it don't matter.  But this idea of mind over matter is hugely important.  It's been repeatedly proven in case study after case study that the "sugar pill" yields actual physical affects that the user expected it would for no other reason than it would.  If this is true than veganism (not even a word yet.. give it time) could be a way towards which we evolve.  Of course that depends on all sorts of things as far as the timing... but maybe it is just a matter of time.

Organic cold fusion “could be” yet another “way.”

[1714182344]

1714182344

[1714182344]

1714182344

[1714182344]

1714182344

[1714182344]

1714182344

[1714182344]

1714182344

[BADecker]

All evolution coherence is based on "if." What I mean is, when you get down to the basis of it all, the science says "if" this and that are true, then evolution happened. There is no foundation under evolution. Indeed, there are lots of void gaps between the various steps in evolutionary process.

of course there will always remain void gaps, because not all fossils of all our dead ancestors remained conserved. But evolution can predict something: that new fossil discoveries make the gaps smaller. And indeed that is what we see happening again and again. And we see the fossils in different layers in the ground corresponding with different eras in the past. And that all makes sense. The genesis flood will predict another patern of fossil deposits, and we don't see that pattern.
So yes: if (yes, of course "if") evolution is true, we expect to see X, Y and Z. If genesis is true, we expect to see A, B and C. Now, we see none of A, B nor C, but we already see X and Z. Then it is irrational to believe in genesis and not in evolution by claiming that there is a gap, that we didn't see Y yet.

The thing is, nobody knows if those are intermediate species. Which ones are the intermediate ones? Are they all intermediate ones? Perhaps they were all created as individual kind-begets-kind species, and the thing we see today is entropy increasing. More and more of our current species of life are dying out without anything coming in to take their place.

we can deduce that those fossils are intermediate species (or relatives of intermediates), by first dating how old those fossils are. Then we put all the fossils next to each other, the oldest ones left, the newest ones right. Then we look at structural differences between the fossils, the shapes of the bones. And then we see some changes when we move from left to right. And those changes make sense from the point of evolution. For example we see an old fossil of an animal with arms, a newer fossil of an animal with featherlike things at his arms, a newer fossil of an animal with winglike arms, and still a newer fossil of an animal with full blown wings. And of course now there are three gaps in the fossil record. And then we find another fossil of an animal that lived between the second and third and looked a bit like the second and a bit like the third in the row. So it is an intermediate, but now there are four gaps. But the gaps are getting smaller.

Good questions. God is God. How do we know that He needed creating? We aren't far enough along in our investigations to even begin to view what He is personally like.

here we can see a clear distinction between current science and religion. Like evolution, god is a hypothesis. But it in contrast to evolution, god is not a fruitful hypothesis. After all those millenia, christians still don't know anything about how god did it, what he is like. Whereas evolutionary biologists are moving ahead at fast speed, gaining new insights every time. I have the impression that christians are not even investigating their god hypothesis. The god hypothesis is not fruitful.

2. There is no pure randomness. Everything that we call random or probability is based on our inability to see the causes for some effects. The whole universe operates on cause and effect and always has. Even the quantum math that has been developed, which might suggest that there is pure random out there somewhere, has been designed using cause and effect thinking.

some models about the origing of the universe did not have a beginning and hence were not caused (e.g. Hawking Hartle no-boundary state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state)

Again models... filled with holes and gaps... simply because we don't know enough to determine if they are even plausible or not.

well, we have mathematics to determine whether they are plausible, in the sense of whether they are consistent and whether they predict things that corresponds with empirical data. You see scientists thinking about how the universe began, constructing and testing models. Why are christians so incapable of doing that? Why don't they construct a clear model of god and then test it against empirical data?

The fact that we humans think the way we do - about everything including science and art - has its base in cause and effect, because something caused us to think the way we do. What is the Great First Cause that caused the chain of effects?

and what is the cause of that? What caused god? What caused god to make a causal universe?

Again. We are barely getting an understanding of the way the universe works.

well, scientists (physicists) are moving ahead at great speed and understand more and more about the big bang. Whereas christians remain stuck with those basic questions.

And we are scratching the surface of this understanding. How can we understand God Who is eternal and never changes, and lives in light that is unapproachable, and with Whom there is no shadow of turning?

how do you even know that an entity like that even exists?
Scientists are able to discover things (particles, dark matter,...) that are not visible...

Perhaps I said it not so clear. I meant two things:
1. The Bible can't exist, yet it does. The history of the Bible shows this. Yet, Bibles abound around the world.
2. Non of the other religions approaches this impossibility of existing.

why can't the bible exist?
If the bible can't exist, then neither can the bhagavat gita.

You missed it. God doesn't even think mistakes. God doesn't plan for failures. The failures and mistakes are automatically corrected. The corrections are built in.

I guess no-one who makes something thinks about the mistakes and pplans for the failures. But the failure and mistake of eve eating from the forbidden fruit is not automatically corrected. All this suffering after the fall is not a good correction for a single person eating from a fruit. A correction would be to induce vomitting in Eve.

The question for each of us is, Will I accept the correction, or will I push myself out of existence by not accepting the correction?

very strange question...

God made man in the image of God so that man could recognize how good and great God is.

being extremely narcissistic is not my idea of being good...
It sounds silly: "oh, let's make toys that can adore me and see how great I am"

Except that, when you are as good as God, it is the only way to operate.

oh, sure :-)
God is sooo good, that he is allowed to be sooo narcissistic...

In the perfect world that God made, there wasn't any suffering. Such a thing as "unnecessary suffering" does not fit that world.

Cannibalism was never condoned.

Animals are not related to people in such a sense that cannibalism would apply.

and then someone ate from a fruit, and god turned 180° and decided to make the world far worse than perfect. And with far worse I mean: far worse. Why would he change his mind like that? Why would he suddenly allow so much unnecessary suffering?

Part of God's plan always was blessings for man. Among the blessings was freedom of choice.

then why didn't he create a free world in the first place? A world where everyone is free to kill and eat someone else?

The idea was to give man the opportunity to be the best that he could be, not to give him the opportunity to fail.

this doesn't make any sense to me. Giving someone an opportunity for A without giving him at the same time the opportunity for non-A? You are free to choose A but not free to choose anything else but A?

God doesn't want anyone to be destroyed.

well he clearly did, with his floods and plagues and genocides and infanticides...

 

But, that's how great God is. If people won't do the thing that they were made for, what good are they?

I think god has to know what he wants. He can't have the cake and eat it too. Either he wants to be sure that he will be worshipped by his creatures, or he wants his creatures to be free.
But are people made for worshipping god? How egocentric and narcissistic is this god? If I would be a creator and I want to be worshipped, I can create people who worship me. But why would I make these people sentient, with their own preferences, likes and dislikes, if all I'm going to do is destroy these people (against their preferences) once they no longer worship me? Why didn't god make insentient robots that worshipped him?

Yet, God in His mercy gives them many second chances. And still they won't turn and accept God.

and that innocent child that died from a horrible disease did not even get one chance...

Realize that it is not God that is crazy.

well, according to your descriptions and to what I read in the bible...

View the Youtube videos that show how marvelously a living cell works to see about crazy.

ok, on the engineering part, god can be clever, but reading the bible, on the psychological-moral part he is really crazy. He is jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (quote from Dawkins)

It IS important to Him. He doesn't allow failure in any way, even once. That's why His Son Jesus had to come as man, with the strength of God, to take the punishment for man, so that man can live. Jesus virtually nullified the effects of breaking the law, without nullifying the law itself. Look to Jesus and live.

well I can't understand the jesus part either. God sends himself as his son to earth to be tortured for the things that someone else did wrong in order to forgive some other people? It doesn't make any sense... Perhaps god watched too many episodes of Monty Python's flying circus: "and now for something completely different"

It is true that a lot of believers get what the unbelievers should be getting in this life, and vice versa. There will come a time when Jesus will return to raise all the dead to life, and to judge everyone with regard to how much right and wrong he did while living.

but jesus is still not helping all those innocent victims now. Where is he waiting for? He does not even want to say when he will come to help. He still does not give us any evidence that he will come and compensate for all the unnecessary suffering. That's not good. Look at how a medic does it in the hospital. Suppose we have a patient, and a doctor can heal him instantly. But the doctor does not heal him. Instead, he goes away, does not even tell when he will be back, that he will heal the patient. And he remains absent for a long long time without giving the patient any sign of hope... That's not a good doctor.

 

Those who believed in Jesus for salvation will receive eternal life in the New Heavens and the New Earth that God will create (is creating?).

but why all the unnecessary suffering? It is like a thief. Suppose we have a thief who already has enough money. Still he steals money from you. So you are stolen and poor. You won't hear anything from the thief, but then, some 50 years later, the thief comes back and gives you back your money and much much more. Ok, what the thief did in the end, giving that fortune, was very good. But that still doesn't justify him stealing your money. The thief did not need your money. Compare this thief with a second person: someone who did not steal from you, but still gave you the fortune. I think this second person did something better.

I accept. You certainly are welcome to resist God. Your choice. However, if you have cause to change your mind in the future, God welcomes you.

Thanks for the chat.

[BADecker]

After seeing multiple pro/anti vegan threads on this board, I'm going to draw the conclusion that there are not many threads on the internet that will go full Godwin faster than a thread about veganism.

It is the banking system that is ruining the world. The bankers are raping the people more successfully than anyone else ever. They are "farming" the people rather than simply killing them and taking their property.

Hitler was bad. The bad parts of Nazism are extremely bad. Neither Hitler nor the Nazis are nearly as bad as the banking system.

Hitler and the Nazis never stood a chance. Their end was inevitable from the start, though they fought a ferocious fight. The one good thing that they almost did was, they almost destroyed the banking system. They set it back a few decades. But it is back, stronger than ever.

Will Bitcoin stand a chance against the banking system?

Well then the bigger question is whether 'the bankers' have some vice that you or any others lack. If the bankers are gone will the problem be solved?

Altcoins generally, bitcoin etc, have already won. All that is left is for things to play out. But it is unlikely much will change in the long run. Human nature needs more than a new improved currency before it renounces tyranny. Until there is some vast new territory to conquer we will continue fighting among us.

At this point in time, altcoins have only won in an overall principle sense. At the rate that Bitcoin is growing, if the fiats don't crash themselves, it will be generations before the principle of altcoins becomes an effective reality.

One of the things that is slowing altcoins down is that there are too many varieties. What we need is a method to trade all altcoins among themselves conveniently. Ripple tried, maybe is still trying.

[username18333]

An arrogant person considers himself perfect. This is the chief harm of arrogance. It interferes with a person’s main task in life—becoming a better person.

Indeed, one is welcome to deny virtue: this is one's choice; however, if one should have cause to change his or her mind in the near future, that is welcomed.




P.s., I appreciate any and all engagement I have suffered here.

[Stijn]

Stijn, you are so completely lacking in logic that I feel like trying to debate you point by point might actually damage my ability for critical reasoning by being exposed to such an extreme density of ignorance. Also you are too lazy to set up your quotes correctly, and I don't think I could live with myself if someone mistook your words for my own by mistake. I want you to answer this.

sorry for the quotes; I hope this is better...
(and I hope you can give counterarguments point by point insetad of merely saying that I'm lacking logic.

If it is so horrible to eat animals, why is it ok for animals to eat other animals? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

That is the ring finger of the moral hand. Briefly put: you and I and all primates don't need meat in order to survive. So if all beings who do not need meat stop eating meat, those populations would no go extinct and biodiversity would not decrease. But a lion needs meat. So if a lion is not allowed to hunt and eat, then no animal is (apply the thumb principle of rule universalism to the ring finger principle), and then all obligate carnivores would die from starvation and then biodiversity decreases a lot. Now we can democratically decide how much moral value biodiversity should have. I want to give it a lot of value, and therefore my ethic says that predation by obligate carnivores is permissible. 

[username18333]

. . .

If it is so horrible to eat animals, why is it ok for animals to eat other animals? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

That is the ring finger of the moral hand. Briefly put: you and I and all primates don't need meat in order to survive. So if all beings who do not need meat stop eating meat, those populations would no go extinct and biodiversity would not decrease. But a lion needs meat. So if a lion is not allowed to hunt and eat, then no animal is (apply the thumb principle of rule universalism to the ring finger principle), and then all obligate carnivores would die from starvation and then biodiversity decreases a lot. Now we can democratically decide how much moral value biodiversity should have. I want to give it a lot of value, and therefore my ethic says that predation by obligate carnivores is permissible.  

Biodiversity (How is this existentially significant?) could still be reduced by economic activities (e.g., the destruction of habitats for the exploitation of their resources).

[TECSHARE]

Stijn, you are so completely lacking in logic that I feel like trying to debate you point by point might actually damage my ability for critical reasoning by being exposed to such an extreme density of ignorance. Also you are too lazy to set up your quotes correctly, and I don't think I could live with myself if someone mistook your words for my own by mistake. I want you to answer this.

sorry for the quotes; I hope this is better...
(and I hope you can give counterarguments point by point insetad of merely saying that I'm lacking logic.

If it is so horrible to eat animals, why is it ok for animals to eat other animals? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

That is the ring finger of the moral hand. Briefly put: you and I and all primates don't need meat in order to survive. So if all beings who do not need meat stop eating meat, those populations would no go extinct and biodiversity would not decrease. But a lion needs meat. So if a lion is not allowed to hunt and eat, then no animal is (apply the thumb principle of rule universalism to the ring finger principle), and then all obligate carnivores would die from starvation and then biodiversity decreases a lot. Now we can democratically decide how much moral value biodiversity should have. I want to give it a lot of value, and therefore my ethic says that predation by obligate carnivores is permissible.  

You didn't answer my question, you simply replied with a single example that fit your ideology. Lets try this with a more specific question.

Why is it ok for say chimpanzees (omnivores) for example to eat meat, but not humans? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

[username18333]

The only absolute knowledge attainable by man is that life is meaningless.

“Morality,” as an adaptive mechanism, is, by extension, begotten of the arbitrary circumstances that beget its originators; therefore, it is “meaningless.”

Absolute knowledge is, by definition, outside the context of life[, s]o both of those statements are meaningless.

How do you know that?

Oh shit. My ass handed to me. ~time to run and hide~

You are right but it simply shows the silliness of the concept of absolute knowledge.

It is like the proof some baboon in the middle ages constructed to prove 'god' exists.

1) Think of the biggest thing you can think of.
2) 'god is bigger than that, or some shit.
more intermediate steps.
x) Q.E.D.

Mystics from all traditions, every culture, every time, say that 'god' does not fit in the mind. So when someone argues rationally about god or any similar subject, like absolute knowledge, the argument is necessarily flawed. A person can debate a lesser god. He is this tall, his beard is white etc. But no serious person will argue about higher things that do not fit into debates.

Knowledge is a duplication of information extrinsic to the mind: the mind, proving a subset of that information, cannot contain that superset of itself without, in some way, becoming it.

[Stijn]

Stijn, you are so completely lacking in logic that I feel like trying to debate you point by point might actually damage my ability for critical reasoning by being exposed to such an extreme density of ignorance. Also you are too lazy to set up your quotes correctly, and I don't think I could live with myself if someone mistook your words for my own by mistake. I want you to answer this.

sorry for the quotes; I hope this is better...
(and I hope you can give counterarguments point by point insetad of merely saying that I'm lacking logic.

If it is so horrible to eat animals, why is it ok for animals to eat other animals? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

That is the ring finger of the moral hand. Briefly put: you and I and all primates don't need meat in order to survive. So if all beings who do not need meat stop eating meat, those populations would no go extinct and biodiversity would not decrease. But a lion needs meat. So if a lion is not allowed to hunt and eat, then no animal is (apply the thumb principle of rule universalism to the ring finger principle), and then all obligate carnivores would die from starvation and then biodiversity decreases a lot. Now we can democratically decide how much moral value biodiversity should have. I want to give it a lot of value, and therefore my ethic says that predation by obligate carnivores is permissible.  

You didn't answer my question, you simply replied with a single example that fit your ideology. Lets try this with a more specific question.

Why is it ok for say chimpanzees (omnivores) for example to eat meat, but not humans? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

my ethical system says that it is not permissible for chimpanzees to eat meat, because they can survive without meat.

[TECSHARE]

Stijn, you are so completely lacking in logic that I feel like trying to debate you point by point might actually damage my ability for critical reasoning by being exposed to such an extreme density of ignorance. Also you are too lazy to set up your quotes correctly, and I don't think I could live with myself if someone mistook your words for my own by mistake. I want you to answer this.

sorry for the quotes; I hope this is better...
(and I hope you can give counterarguments point by point insetad of merely saying that I'm lacking logic.

If it is so horrible to eat animals, why is it ok for animals to eat other animals? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

That is the ring finger of the moral hand. Briefly put: you and I and all primates don't need meat in order to survive. So if all beings who do not need meat stop eating meat, those populations would no go extinct and biodiversity would not decrease. But a lion needs meat. So if a lion is not allowed to hunt and eat, then no animal is (apply the thumb principle of rule universalism to the ring finger principle), and then all obligate carnivores would die from starvation and then biodiversity decreases a lot. Now we can democratically decide how much moral value biodiversity should have. I want to give it a lot of value, and therefore my ethic says that predation by obligate carnivores is permissible.  

You didn't answer my question, you simply replied with a single example that fit your ideology. Lets try this with a more specific question.

Why is it ok for say chimpanzees (omnivores) for example to eat meat, but not humans? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

my ethical system says that it is not permissible for chimpanzees to eat meat, because they can survive without meat.

So your ethical system says that you are some how above nature and have some kind of authority to make this distinction in contradiction to nature. Your own "ethical system" contradicts itself. If humans are equal to animals, what gives you the right to stop a chimpanzee from eating meat in contradiction to its natural state? Furthermore, you didn't answer my whole question, what makes them different making this allowable?

[Stijn]

Stijn, you are so completely lacking in logic that I feel like trying to debate you point by point might actually damage my ability for critical reasoning by being exposed to such an extreme density of ignorance. Also you are too lazy to set up your quotes correctly, and I don't think I could live with myself if someone mistook your words for my own by mistake. I want you to answer this.

sorry for the quotes; I hope this is better...
(and I hope you can give counterarguments point by point insetad of merely saying that I'm lacking logic.

If it is so horrible to eat animals, why is it ok for animals to eat other animals? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

That is the ring finger of the moral hand. Briefly put: you and I and all primates don't need meat in order to survive. So if all beings who do not need meat stop eating meat, those populations would no go extinct and biodiversity would not decrease. But a lion needs meat. So if a lion is not allowed to hunt and eat, then no animal is (apply the thumb principle of rule universalism to the ring finger principle), and then all obligate carnivores would die from starvation and then biodiversity decreases a lot. Now we can democratically decide how much moral value biodiversity should have. I want to give it a lot of value, and therefore my ethic says that predation by obligate carnivores is permissible.  

You didn't answer my question, you simply replied with a single example that fit your ideology. Lets try this with a more specific question.

Why is it ok for say chimpanzees (omnivores) for example to eat meat, but not humans? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

my ethical system says that it is not permissible for chimpanzees to eat meat, because they can survive without meat.

So your ethical system says that you are some how above nature and have some kind of authority to make this distinction in contradiction to nature. Your own "ethical system" contradicts itself. If humans are equal to animals, what gives you the right to stop a chimpanzee from eating meat in contradiction to its natural state? Furthermore, you didn't answer my whole question, what makes them different making this allowable?

what do you mean with being above nature? That you interfere in nature? But the chimpanzee also intervened in nature by eating some food, so in that sense the chimpanzee was above nature as well. The chimpanzee wanted to stop someone else from living, I wanted to stop the chimpanzee from killing.
You know that we should be above nature when it comes to ethics, because in nature some ugly unethical things happen. So we should not listen to nature and not condone the ugly things. Being above nature in the ethical sense is good. But first of all you should clarify what you really mean with being above nature.
Yes, humans and animals are equal, and yes humans have the right to stop chimpanzees from eating meat. Where is the contradiction? Chimpanzees also have the right to stop humans from eating meat, so there is our equality.
What do you mean with that natural state and being in contradiction to a natural state?
I don't understand your whole question. What makes whom different making what allowable?

[username18333]

. . .

what do you mean with being above nature? That you interfere in nature? But the chimpanzee also intervened in nature by eating some food, so in that sense the chimpanzee was above nature as well. The chimpanzee wanted to stop someone else from living, I wanted to stop the chimpanzee from killing.
You know that we should be above nature when it comes to ethics, because in nature some ugly unethical things happen. So we should not listen to nature and not condone the ugly things. Being above nature in the ethical sense is good. But first of all you should clarify what you really mean with being above nature.
Yes, humans and animals are equal, and yes humans have the right to stop chimpanzees from eating meat. Where is the contradiction? Chimpanzees also have the right to stop humans from eating meat, so there is our equality.
What do you mean with that natural state and being in contradiction to a natural state?
I don't understand your whole question. What makes whom different making what allowable?

“Want,” as you used the word, implies conscious intention. Did you intend to claim that chimpanzees act with conscious intention when acquiring meals (instead of, for instance, biological instincts)?

[Stijn]

. . .

what do you mean with being above nature? That you interfere in nature? But the chimpanzee also intervened in nature by eating some food, so in that sense the chimpanzee was above nature as well. The chimpanzee wanted to stop someone else from living, I wanted to stop the chimpanzee from killing.
You know that we should be above nature when it comes to ethics, because in nature some ugly unethical things happen. So we should not listen to nature and not condone the ugly things. Being above nature in the ethical sense is good. But first of all you should clarify what you really mean with being above nature.
Yes, humans and animals are equal, and yes humans have the right to stop chimpanzees from eating meat. Where is the contradiction? Chimpanzees also have the right to stop humans from eating meat, so there is our equality.
What do you mean with that natural state and being in contradiction to a natural state?
I don't understand your whole question. What makes whom different making what allowable?

“Want,” as you used the word, implies conscious intention. Did you intend to claim that chimpanzees act with conscious intention when acquiring meals (instead of, for instance, instinct)?

yes, they act with conscious intention. No instinct. (although they don't ethically reflect on their actions, whereas I do)
But with or without conscious intention is not relevant here, unless it is related to "being above nature", but I don't see how.

[username18333]

. . .

yes, they act with conscious intention. No instinct. (although they don't ethically reflect on their actions, whereas I do)
But with or without conscious intention is not relevant here, unless it is related to "being above nature", but I don't see how.

Are black holes ethical?

[Spendulus]

The only difficulty in our societies is the group pressure from non-vegans. That is the main reason why vegans experience difficulties.

Really? I can't remember a single incident of meat eaters giving a vegetarian flack for choosing to not eat meat. I can however remember endless incidents of vegans trying to push their lifestyle onto meat eaters, and then act as if they were minding their own business when they are told to fuck off and mind their own affairs as they wag their finger at omnivores as if they occupy some kind of moral high ground. Veganism is more of a cult than a dietary choice.


I thought I was going to find at least one logical argument against eating meat in here like for example how much grain and water has to be used for every pound of meat you eat, therefore reducing the available food supply by that much more, but no. All I read was a bunch of ideological drivel. Your diet is not a question of morality, and just because you eat plants and twigs doesn't make you any better than anyone else. Hitler was an environmentalist and a vegan too. IMO this type of ideology is often just anti-humanism disguised as some new agey spiritualist bullshit. Now take your malnourished ass back out the door you came in from and find some more cult members so you can reassure each other of your moral superiority.

Odd I found this thread, just this afternoon was thinking...


***********
Dahan.

He had the conch shell and the big knife toss on the passenger seat.   A hard left for the SUV, then stomp on the gas.  He was late.

The fifty kilo pig in the trunk was fresh from the butcher shop.  It should have been on the fire an hour ago, or the party wouldn't be right.  That pig needed to be coming out, golden red, precisely at seven o'clock.  It'd be midnight, now.    They wanted it authentic, so he had to do the job.

Maybe it hadn't been too smart to take the shortcut through the Vegan Heaven subdivision.  After all, it had recently incorporated as a municipality with it's own ordinances, codes, police department, even a old house converted to a city hall.

Because when he saw the flashing lights behind him, he didn't even think to hide the knife.  And when he pulled over, he wasn't thinking about the laws in Vegan Heaven.  Then when the officer asked him to open the trunk, he didn't even think about protesting.

A couple of hours later, behind bars in their three room jail, he was thinking about the charges.

Misdemeanor Murder.
Speeding.
Felony possession of a deadly weapon.

Could he show true remorse in front of the judge, and expect leniency?  Hell, one thing at a time.  First he had to get out of the rathole.  It'd be four days before the judge showed back up to arraign him, so he could post bail.

Four days of eating some kind of stuff made from spoiled bean curd called vegan turkey.

[Stijn]

. . .

yes, they act with conscious intention. No instinct. (although they don't ethically reflect on their actions, whereas I do)
But with or without conscious intention is not relevant here, unless it is related to "being above nature", but I don't see how.

Are black holes ethical?

they are amoral

[username18333]

. . .

yes, they act with conscious intention. No instinct. (although they don't ethically reflect on their actions, whereas I do)
But with or without conscious intention is not relevant here, unless it is related to "being above nature", but I don't see how.

Are black holes ethical?

[T]hey are amoral[.]

Yet, they are merely an expression of some of the most fundamental elements of this universe (e.g., mass, momentum, gravitation, and magnetism).

[username18333]

. . .

yes, they act with conscious intention. No instinct. (although they don't ethically reflect on their actions, whereas I do)
But with or without conscious intention is not relevant here, unless it is related to "being above nature", but I don't see how.

Are black holes ethical?

[T]hey are amoral[.]

Yet, they are merely an expression of some of the most fundamental elements of this universe (e.g., mass, momentum, gravitation, and magnetism).

Username you are probably the most intellectually capable among us in this crowd but your silliness minimizing the awareness of a chimp cost you a shitload of IQ points. You have been reduced from " shit, he's quick" to "a mile wide, an inch deep". Come back when you are older.

(Red colorization mine.)

I debate upon the goban. In light of that, was this post a gote one?

[Stijn]

my ethical system says that it is not permissible for chimpanzees to eat meat, because they can survive without meat.

So the next step is to enforce your values on chimps? Give them the gift of your morality? Maybe first send Torquemada to find out why they have evil intent so you can purge it better?

well, why should the chimp be allowed to enforce his values on others, on his victims, his prey? By killing a colobus monkey, a chimpanzee enforces his values in a very brutal, lethal way. Why should that be permissible? Why should the interests of the chimp count more than the interests of the monkey? When I protect the monkey by preventing that chimpanzee from hunting, I do not kill the chimp, so my enforcement is much less violent than what the chimp intended to do. What would you prefer: being enforced not to kill someone else, or being enforced to sacrifice yourself?

[Wilikon]

The moral hand is a metaphor of five basic ethical principles, one for each finger, summarizing a complete, coherent ethic. It is the result of my PhD-research on animal equality (http://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/born-free-and-equal-on-the-ethical-consistency-of-animal-equality/), so I will apply the moral hand to the problem of the consumption of animal products. First, the five principles.

-The thumb: rule universalism. You must follow the rules that everyone (who is capable, rational and informed) must follow in all morally similar situations. You may follow only the rules that everyone (who is capable, rational and informed) may follow in all morally similar situations. Prejudicial discrimination is immoral. We should give the good example, even if others don’t. Just like we have to place the thumb against the other fingers in order to grasp an object, we have to apply the principle of universalism to the other four basic principles.

-The forefinger: justice and the value of lifetime well-being. Increase the well-being (over a complete life) of all sentient beings alive in the present and the future, whereby improvements of the worst-off positions (the worst sufferers, the beings who have the worst lives) have a strong priority. Lifetime well-being is the value you would ascribe when you would live the complete life of a sentient being, and is a function of all positive (and negative) feelings that are the result of (dis)satisfaction of preferences: of everything (not) wanted by the being.

-The middle finger: the mere means principle and the basic right to bodily autonomy. Never use the body of a sentient being as merely a means to someone else’s ends, because that violates the right to bodily autonomy. The two words “mere means” refer to two conditions, respectively: 1) if you force a sentient being to do or undergo something that the being does not want in order to reach an end that the sentient being does not share, and 2) if the body of that sentient being is necessary as a means for that end, then you violate the basic right. A sentient being is a being who has developed the capacity to want something by having positive and negative feelings, and who has not yet permanently lost this capacity. The middle finger is a bit longer than the forefinger, and so the basic right is a bit stronger than the lifetime well-being (e.g. the right to live). The basic right can only be violated when the forefinger principle of well-being is seriously threatened.

-The ring finger: naturalness and the value of biodiversity. If a behavior violates the forefinger or middle finger principles, the behavior is still allowed (but not obligatory) only if that behavior is both natural (a direct consequence of spontaneous evolution), normal (frequent) and necessary (important for the survival of sentient beings). As a consequence predators (animals who need meat in order to survive) are allowed to hunt. Just as lifetime well-being is the value of a sentient being, biodiversity is the value of an ecosystem and is a function of the variation of life forms and processes that are a direct consequence of natural evolution. The valuable biodiversity would drastically decrease if a behavior that is natural, normal and necessary would be universally prohibited (universally, because you have to put the thumb against the ring finger).

-The little finger: tolerated partiality and the value of personal relationships. Just as the little finger can deviate a little bit from the other fingers, a small level of partiality is allowed. When helping others, you are allowed to be a bit partial in favor of your loved ones, as long as you are prepared to tolerate similar levels of partiality of everyone else (everyone, because you have to put the thumb against the little finger).

The forefinger, middle finger, ring finger and little finger correspond with resp. a welfare ethic, a rights ethic, an environmental ethic and an ethic of care.

These five fingers produce five principles of equality.

-The thumb: the formal principle of impartiality and antidiscrimination. We should treat all equals equally in all equal situations. We should not look at arbitrary characteristics linked to individuals. This is a formal principle, because it does not say how we should treat someone. The other four principles are material principles of equality. They have specific content and are generated when the thumb is applied to the four fingers.

-The forefinger: prioritarian equality of lifetime well-being (the principle of priority for the worst-off). As a result of this priority, we have an egalitarian principle: if total lifetime well-being is constant between different situations, then the situation which has the most equal distribution of well-being is the best.

-The middle finger: basic right equality. All sentient beings (with equal levels of morally relevant mental capacities) get an equal claim to the basic right not to be used as merely a means to someone else’s ends.

-The ring finger: naturalistic behavioral fairness. All natural beings (who contribute equally to biodiversity) have an equal right to a behavior that is both natural, normal and necessary (i.e. a behavior that contributes to biodiversity). Natural beings are beings evolved by evolution. E.g. if a prey is allowed to eat in order to survive, a predator is allowed to do so as well (even if it means eating the prey).

-The little finger: tolerated choice equality. Everyone is allowed to be partial to an equal degree that we can tolerate. If you choose to help individual X instead of individual Y, and if you tolerate that someone else would choose to help Y instead of X, then X and Y have a tolerated choice equality (even if X is emotionally more important for you than Y).

The five moral fingers can be applied to the production and consumption of animal products (meat, fish, eggs, dairy, leather, fur,…):

-The forefinger: compared to humans, livestock animals are in the worst-off position due to suffering and early death. The loss of lifetime well-being of the livestock animals is worse than the loss of well-being that humans would experience when they are no longer allowed to consume animal products. Livestock and fisheries violate the forefinger principle of well-being.

-The middle finger: the consumption of animal products almost always involves the use of animals as merely means, hence violating the mere means principle of the middle finger.

-The ring finger: animal products are not necessary for humans, because well-planned vegan diets are not unhealthy (according to the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics). Biodiversity will not decrease when we would stop consuming animal products (on the contrary, according to UN FAO the livestock sector is likely the most important cause of biodiversity loss). Hence, the value of biodiversity cannot be invoked to justify the consumption of animal products.

-The little finger: we would never tolerate the degree of partiality that is required to justify livestock farming and fishing. Hence, tolerated partiality cannot be invoked to justify the consumption of animal products.

It follows that veganism is ethically consistent, and the production and consumption of animal products are ethically inconsistent.

-The thumb: give the good example, even when other people continue consuming animal products. From this principle, it follows that veganism is a moral duty.

3 questions for you:


- Can I still use my animals as working beasts to grow my tasty veggies?





- Are veganism and feminism inseparable concepts?

http://veganfeminist.blogspot.com/2012/07/applying-feminism-to-veganism-why.html




- Vitamix or Blentec?